Talk:Wikifunctions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikifunctions article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 July 2020. The result of the discussion was keep.

Databases (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Databases, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DatabasesWikipedia:WikiProject DatabasesTemplate:WikiProject DatabasesDatabases articles

Translation studies Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Translation Studies, a collaborative effort to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Translation Studies. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.Translation studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Translation studiesTemplate:WikiProject Translation studiesTranslation studies articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Websites: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Wikidata

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikidata, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's integration with Wikidata.
If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.WikidataWikipedia:WikiProject WikidataTemplate:WikiProject WikidataWikidata articles

Wikipedia Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Confusion between Wikifunctions and Abstract Wikipedia

Wikifunctions and Abstract Wikipedia are two distinct projects. Wikifunctions is a brand new wiki project to catalog different functions. Abstract Wikipedia will be a extension to Wikidata that uses code uploaded on Wikifunctions to render the language-independent Wikipedia. The first is a new wiki, the second is an extension to a existing wiki (Wikidata). Luk3 (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luk3, thanks for the clarification. Please feel free to update the page to correct it, as it looks like we have it wrong currently. The Wikidata items should also be adjusted, as they are making the same confusion. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sdkb should both be under the Wikifunctions article? I was thinking of splitting, but both articles would be too small to stand on their own... Luk3 (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two Wikidata items would be appropriate, but yeah, I would keep everything together on Wikipedia. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I don't think they should have been merged (or at least, not in this one). --Deansfa (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree. We do need separate articles for Abstract Wikipedia and Wikifunctions, even if they will be rather thin to start with — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 17:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-language links

Discussion moved: meta:Talk:Abstract_Wikipedia#Inter-language_links. fgnievinski (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Date of foundation (before date of launch)

The article currently says: "After three years of development, Wikifunctions officially launched in July 2023." So, maybe the infobox could give as date of foundation 2020 instead of 2023? fgnievinski (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC) Indeed, Wikidata gives as date of inception various months in 2020: [1]. fgnievinski (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the meta wiki site here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Abstract_Wikipedia/Updates/2023-07-26

The updates says “The current plan is to open the wiki for editing on Tuesday, August 1st 2023, and we’ll update you if that changes” and to my knowledge there hasn't been any other updates. Consider that timezones might do something. CoderThomasB (talk) 23:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the date of launch, not the date of foundation. fgnievinski (talk) 04:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry!, My eyes jumped over the title and skipped to the comment. In that case, I think the Wikidata date of 2020 is probably accurate. CoderThomasB (talk) 06:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks! fgnievinski (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ok to use primary sources?

@Pppery: I noticed that you removed most of the content in my edit stating all of this is un- or primary-sourced; we should only include this much detail on the development process if secondary sources report on it. So, to justify why I added this content in the first place: I had noticed a lot of interesting facts about wikifunctions and abstract wikipedia scattered somewhat haphazardly around metawiki, and wanted to destub our article as well because content is good. I had known that all the sources I was citing were primary, but I'd hoped that the few secondary sources already present in the article beforehand were enough justification to keep the entire article around.

By the way, I also destubbed Abstract Wikipedia using a similar set of sources. You might want to remove that too, but discuss it here first. Duckmather (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content without proper secondary citations is IMO by definition not good and interestingness is not really a justification to add content to mainspace. In any case, on top of the lack of sourcing, what you wrote is effectively a WP:NOTCHANGELOG violation, and the use of secondary sources would establish what details are important from a neutral perspective. Remember that we should aim to adhere to the same standards here as we would when writing about things unrelated to Wikimedia projects in mainspace. The content you added might well belong at m:Wikifunctions, but I maintain it doesn't belong here.

I did see the destub of Abstract Wikipedia, but tagged the article rather than reverting it, largely because other people had edited since your addition so it was more than a simple revert. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: Thank you for your reply! I plan on checking back on these two projects to see if any secondary sources have reported on them in a year or so. (By the way, I was planning on writing even more about Wikifunctions in our article on it before your revert, such as the bespoke ZObject JSON syntax, or the wiki's unique usergroup hierarchy.) Duckmather (talk) 02:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]