In T366192#9842983, @matmarex wrote:

Since you looked at T265291 before, you probably already know that DiscussionTools inserts invisible markers at the start and end of comments (<span data-mw-comment-start="…"></span> and <span data-mw-comment-end="…"></span>). Finnish Wikipedia styles them to add a bit more space between comments (see their MediaWiki:Common.css). But you could also style them to make them visible, if you wanted, for example:

Just for information : I opened a new ticket in a topic that seem related, how to visually and semantically separate comments that are a reply to the same comment : T366192

The IETF code seems to be (see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18795#P305 ) "ko-KR", with capital KR.

It would actually make sense to add prefix like "commons:" into the default prefix.

The ambiguity could be solved by using the standard wikimedia prefixes "w:en:Victor Hugo", this works as a wikilink. A bit obscure for a lot of course, but … An icon as for commons could help, a tooltip too.

It’s sometimes useful to have a little redundancy when coding, from experience. These changes might break some code when the coder only has access to the object sitelinks. When this is the case for a reason on another, you’re pretty happy to have the « key » of the mapping available in the object.

Comment by Infrastruktur ( https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Infrastruktur ): https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Request_a_query&diff=1668084082&oldid=1668050412&diffmode=source

A solution could be to break stuff and add senses and forms proper stable ids for themselves. The current IDs

In fact the unit corresponds to the « mean gregorian year », and I created a fresh item for this, to be sure there is no pollution from inconsistent datas on Wikipedia articles.

Indeed. I don’t know if a unit has previously be added to the translation table after the first initialization, but the problem seem to be that creating a ticket and pinging everyone for such simple task seems like an overkill procedure. I don’t know if someone less community involved or a newbie would even try to do something like this.

In T247027#5947353, @Lea_Lacroix_WMDE wrote:

@Ladsgroup Do you know where the Wikidata conversion table is stored and how to add new entries?

In T244924#5874472, @Dipsacus_fullonum wrote:

Not a bug. Use of the Label service in automatic mode for unbound variables in "GROUP BY" isn't mentioned as supported in the user manual (https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikidata_Query_Service/User_Manual#Label_service) so cannot be expected to work.

In T49799#5513485, @jeblad wrote:

I would definitely vote for implementing coroutines, in particular to be able to use Yonaba/Moses.

Another option : specify a class of exceptions. A property « exception class »

Psychoslave added a comment.

In T193728#4231659 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728#4231659,
@TomT0m https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/p/TomT0m/ wrote:

That mean that you could potentially indeed rebuild the very same set of
books with a prose automaton, but also (and most likely) many other prose
variations. And if you would include predicates extracted from fanfictions
from different sources and unsourced predicates around Harry Potter
universe including potentially completely novel ones, that would probably
be a even more closely corresponding analogy with the current state of
Wikidata.

*This is rather unrealistic at this point and unrelated to my point. The

question raised is rather : Wikipedia has an infobox. Wikidata has the same
informations compared to that infobox, but it was not imported but rebuilt
from scratch by a user. *

Well, entries that were not created thanks to massive import from

Wikipedia obviously don't raise any concern of infringement of Wikipedia
community copyright. It doesn't say more about those that were indeed
imported in such a way, do it?
As far as I understand copyright, if by a pure random event I happen to
write exactly one page of Harry Potter, I can’t publish this as easily as I
would want. The stuff is protected whatever the way it was created. So it
does not matter if we actually imported datas or it happens we
substancially have the same result by over means.

Well, you just said that that there might be cases "where copyright law

permits the extraction of information from copyrighted texts", so I believe
that an explicit indication about those cases in the CC-BY-SA license could
be helpful for other people to avoid repeating this conversation in other
places.

In such cases there is a simple rule which says that you should choose the safest way in order to comply with the law, as any doubt remaining would be baneful.

Just to check if there is an actual problem here: let’s imagine a theorical usecase.

I think the simpler the writing of the query is, the better for the user. As a user, I’d prefer not having to care about wikibase:label at all, having a label for a human is such an important and basic thing … Most of the time it’s just annoying to have to add this to a query.

For the iterator usecase, I wrote a library of base iterators : that allows to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Module:Iterators that can be composed to make powerful stuffs.

In T107595#2791111, @daniel wrote:

@TomT0m No, Multi-Content-Revisions does not help with consistent display of old template revisions. Well, it does in cases where the use of templates is replaced by the use of slots - if e.g. template documentation was stored in a slot instead of a subpage, you would always see the correct version of the documentation for old versions of the template. But that would be because it would no longer use the template mechanism.

Question : History of old articles

In T107595#2664347, @Alsee wrote:

A page is simply a text file.

Hi, maybe I come after the battle, but if you're not aware of this, Wikidata has now a "conversion to SI unit" that could come valuable for this as it stores the value of the configuration file.

Additional links (button "display page", what links here, see diff) are working.

@kaldari : the proposed solutions with arbitrary access are here : https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Cross_Items_Interwikis

You are working on automatic mapping ? Does seem a little hard indeed. I
was thinking on optional manual mapping in the UI of the formula datatype
as a first step. Maybe we could suggest a few predefined operator mappings
for common case later ...

It's not a question of appearance, but of meaning. In a boolean algebra,
the inputs and result of the operation are sets, whereas in logics we
manipulate truth values of different kind.

Otherwise it would be like a Wikipedia article where every word is a link.

I don't think it's a question of generating a link, but a way to have a generic math formula semantics precisions.

In T67258#1923048, @Anomie wrote:

Parsoid requires that each call to #invoke does not depend on anything else on the page, so it can parse the wikitext piecemeal.

Hi, this is bugs, I'd like that this was a feature ...

The variables are mapped, but what about the operators ?