Wikifunctions talk:Type proposals

Improvements to type proposals

• We could link to actual pre-existing functions in a few of the sections. For example in Wikifunctions:Type_proposals/Natural_number#Identity we could link to Z866. The best-prepared proposals could already have working functions for the validator (e.g. here it would be Z13489) and other sections.
• Put an open comments section at the bottom for community-feedback?

99of9 (talk) 00:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

• Linking to existing functions sounds great! Good idea.
• Adding an Comments section sounds good too! Added. --DVrandecic (WMF) (talk) 01:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Should there be specifications for what requirements type proposals need to be accepted?

e.g. "you need 5 support votes and the proposal discussion must have been open for a week"

I don't think there are any right now [if there are I can't find them], and preferably this would be sorted out before type proposals can be handled by the community. infernostars (talk) (contribs) 20:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata's policy on property creation requires a week of discussion, has received consensus on its creation, and all opposing points have been discussed (Wikidata:Property creation). It might be a good idea to copy that. I think we should also explicitly say what all type proposals should have (structure, validators, converters, etc.) -- ScienceD90 (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

That seems good to me.

as for type proposal formatting, is that not the point of the template though? infernostars (talk) (contribs) 00:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I guess that is the point of the template. Another thing, we might want to consider that someone might support the creation of a type, but disagree on some detail in the proposal. The point they present should probably be discussed before the creation of the type. -- ScienceD90 (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)