Jump to content

Wikifunctions talk:Catalogue

From Wikifunctions
Latest comment: 1 month ago by Theklan in topic Dividing the catalogue

Uncatalogued functions

A list of available functions that are not in the Catalogue (probably with good reason).


Please do not edit this list unless the function has been added to the Catalogue.


I aim to refresh this list periodically. Edits may be over-written, inadvertently or otherwise. Please let me know of any functions that should not (for whatever reason) be listed in future updates of this list of uncatalogued functions. GrounderUK (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Surely, most of them should not be listed? The first line is

This is a guided list of example functions provided.

… so it by definition should never have all, or even most, functions, but instead an overview and possibly a link to a more detailed page? Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree. What I meant to say is that I can exclude any functions that should not be included in this list of uncatalogued functions (for whatever reason). I’ll tweak the wording a little. Thank you for highlighting the risk of confusion. GrounderUK (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Updated February 19th, 2024 (2024-19-02)

Built-in functions

Validator functions

(Other validator functions are currently included within Community functions.)

Community functions

(Currently includes some validator functions.)

GrounderUK (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Future updates of the Uncatalogued functions list

I expect to create a new version of this list in descending order based on the numeric component of each object’s key (its ZID). This will naturally result in the “Community functions” coming to the start of the list, with the most recent first. The “Validator functions” would all be grouped together at the bottom and the “Built-in functions after the Community functions and before the validators. Alternatives to this will be considered. GrounderUK (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also, should I put it here, in a sub-page or as a separate Wikifunctions page? (I’m not working on it at the moment but I’ll probably put it here again if no alternative is agreed by the time it’s ready.) --GrounderUK (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Dividing the catalogue

@Theklan: These are too small to be their own subpages. Please move them back. Feeglgeef (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The catalogue is supposed to be a monolithic and at-a-glance directory. Subpages are counterproductive and unhelpful. Feeglgeef (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well, not if we are going to have functions for all languages. Making it pretty and organized helps navigating. Theklan (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm ok with natural language operations being their own page. What I'm not ok with are these pages with only a few items. They add more unnecessary clicks. I'm ok with you keeping the new pages you created, but please revert your edits on the main catalogue page. Feeglgeef (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Also, I'm planning to edit the catalogue page to make it more visual, with a gallery and so on. Trust me, it will be nice! Theklan (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Alright. Feeglgeef (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
However, I understand your point for some being too small. Especially, "Programming" and the two about objects seem really short. Theklan (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have added a SVG translatable logo. It can be translated using SVG Translate. Let me know if this is a better solution than the growing list. Theklan (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
The icons are nice, but unreadable in dark-mode. Could the circles be outlined or backgrounded in a light colour, along the lines of commons:GNOME High contrast icons? Arlo Barnes (talk) 02:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm not such a fan of the icons in the first place. If they were all different to one another, that would give a visual cue as to which one to click, but at the moment they're all the same, just with the text repeated in an image. 99of9 (talk) 03:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Theklan: can you please do this? Feeglgeef (talk) 04:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Specifically I'd prefer if we used colored icons. Feeglgeef (talk) 04:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
We could imagine symbols and colors for some of them, but the amount of colors needed could make it a little bit baroque. Theklan (talk) 06:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I disagree. 16 is completely reasonable. Here is one I made:
Deep Blue: #001F3F
Sky Blue: #39CCCC
Muted Green: #77B300
Bright Green: #01FF70
Golden Yellow: #FFDC00
Muted Orange: #FF851B
Deep Red: #B03060
Light Pink: #F012BE
Purple: #8E44AD
Lavender: #B10DC9
Brown: #A0522D
Beige: #FFFAF0
Light Gray: #D3D3D3
Medium Gray: #858585
Charcoal Gray: #333333
Off-White: #F8F8FF
Feel free to use it or something like this :) Feeglgeef (talk) 06:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
The problem with that is that there's a color guide: Codex Color Guide -Theklan (talk) 07:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
So? Ignore it. Feeglgeef (talk) 07:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
The color guide isn't really relevant here. I think you are misinterpreting it. How I'm perceiving the color guide is a way to standardize color messaging. This is not needed here, as these are just colors for the sake of coloring, not to get messages across. Feeglgeef (talk) 07:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
There are some color rules for Wikimedia projects, as you can see in the colored logo of Wikifunctions. Theklan (talk) 07:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
The color guide doesn't say these are rules? Feeglgeef (talk) 07:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
"To maintain a scalable and consistent visual system for user-interface (UI) development in a single source of truth instead of hard-coded style values or single-use variables" These do not appear to be rules, rather strong recommendations. I say we throw these out. Our idea is inherently single use. Using the colors would be very counterproductive, given standard meaning across Wikimedia projects. Feeglgeef (talk) 07:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have added a symbol for the logic operators and a color. Before continuing and changing everything, I would like to know if this makes more sense. Theklan (talk) 07:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
The symbol is a Boolean algebra symbol? Why is it under logic operations??? Feeglgeef (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
What would a good symbol representing "logic operations" be? Remember that we must find something that feels universal. Theklan (talk) 07:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
A diamond or an arrow? Feeglgeef (talk) 07:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, this is a big improvement, thanks. That one would go particularly well with "Boolean operations". The category currently called "logic operations" could also be called "control statements". I'd suggest some kind of branching structure. 99of9 (talk) 07:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'd go with an arrow (flow, control) or diamond (flow charts) Feeglgeef (talk) 07:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
That kind of divisions is out of my knowledge. I can help with the logos and overall image. Theklan (talk) 07:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have added the first three changes. It will take a while till I can make everyting, as making a different logo is more demanding. The code needs to be cleaned every time... well, not as easy as just changing the text. I can't see the three first logos with their color in the main page, there may be a cache issue with that. Theklan (talk) 09:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have made some changes with stroke for dark mode. I would prefer if css variants could be added to the svg itself, but I haven't been able to do that. So let be a stroke. Theklan (talk) 08:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have undone the stroke thing, because it seems that stroking makes impossible to translate the texts using SVGtranslate. Theklan (talk) 08:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm ok with you changing it, just don't make it too difficult to navigate. Feeglgeef (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
The problem I see is that now is very difficult to navigate, as you have to go down a growingly long list. I'm planning to add a large table (like the Breton one) for Basque, and this is very distracting for people not interested on that. The actual byte lenght is small, but the vertical scrolling size of the page makes it complex to load. I also have some doubts on the template expansion limit. Theklan (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'd recommend you follow the ideas of wf:broad. Feeglgeef (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
The problem is that every language is different, and making broad things is not always the most convenient solution. Theklan (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree that every language is different. What I am very much apposed to is you having tens of functions to just add something to a string. This should not happen. Instead, group some of them together to easily differentiate. Feeglgeef (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The catalogue is supposed to be a monolithic and at-a-glance directory

No, it's not, it's meant to be a "best of" highlights page to help people be inspired and find a first function. A bunch of sub-pages doesn't meet that, but neither does a complete index. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I was misinterpreting what he was trying to do, please ignore. Feeglgeef (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply