[19:54:37] Hello, it is time now to choose the final name for Abstract Wikipedia. [19:55:57] Seeing that the proposal page has not been updated for a while. [19:56:06] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Abstract_Wikipedia/Plan#Name [19:56:26] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abstract_Wikipedia/Name [19:56:45] Was there a start date given for voting on name proposals? [19:57:32] No [19:57:56] Then where, pray tell, is this coming from? (re @Csisc1994: Hello, it is time now to choose the final name for Abstract Wikipedia.) [19:59:05] This comes from the fact that no new name proposal for Abstract Wikipedia has been received since 12 August 2020. [20:00:36] I think Denny has a plan for how to do this. Please coordinate this with him. [20:00:54] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Abstract_Wikipedia/Tasks (re @Nightrose: I think Denny has a plan for how to do this. Please coordinate this with him.) [20:01:09] Of course. [20:01:26] Yes, we'll start the process soon. Thanks for your excitement :) [20:02:02] Thank you [20:04:28] I have found that P1480 and P5102 are used as qualifiers to Wikidata statement to state the status (e.g. official, hypothesis and de facto) and the occurrence probability (e.g. rarely, possibly and often) of the given statement. [20:05:09] I have included that in a new research paper I am writing. This can be interesting for Abstract Wikipedia project. [20:06:09] This can solve the matter of stating that Marie Curie is the unique female scientist receiving the Nobel Prize twice. [20:07:01] I have found that P1480 and P5102 are used as qualifiers to Wikidata statements to state the status (e.g. official, hypothesis and de facto) and the occurrence probability (e.g. rarely, possibly and often) of the given statement. [20:07:12] I have found that P1480 and P5102 are used as qualifiers to Wikidata statements to state the status (e.g. official, hypothesis and de facto) and the occurrence probability (e.g. rarely, possibly and often) of the given statement [20:13:03] But those are only name proposals for the function repository, right? And there'll be another name for the generated stubs augmenting the editorial Wikipedia for those not caring about abstraction levels, graphs and functions? The proposed names don't seem to reflect that, that I think to be reading in the first paragraph there. 🤨 It's confusing- (re @Csisc1994: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abstract_Wikiped [20:13:04] But those are only name proposals for the function repository, right? And there'll be another name for the generated stubs augmenting the editorial Wikipedia for those not caring about abstraction levels, graphs and functions? The proposed names don't seem to reflect that, that I think to be reading in the first paragraph there. 🤨 It's confusing. (re @Csisc1994: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abstract_Wikiped [20:14:13] I had the same idea at the beginnings. However, what I found is that there are two projects. (re @markus_goellnitz: But those are only name proposals for the function repository, right? And there'll be another name for the generated stubs augmenting the editorial Wikipedia for those not caring about abstraction levels, graphs and functions? The proposed names don't seem to reflect that, that I think to be reading in the firs [20:14:28] 1: Wiki of Functions --> Wikilambda [20:14:44] 2: Abstract Wikipedia --> Seeking a name [20:15:05] 1 is the infrastructure for 2 [20:16:22] No it says clearly "When the project is done, Abstract Wikipedia will be just a part of Wikidata. [...] and therefore naming is not that crucial. Wikilambda [...] would be a new Wikimedia project, and thus the name will have rather high visibility. It would be good to come up with a good name for that." [20:16:50] Those should be proposals for the function repository currently known as Wikilambda. [20:17:50] All names - Abstract Wikipedia and Wikilambda - are preliminary and meant mostly for writing this proposal and discussing it. [20:17:51] The current names are based on the following idea: [20:17:52] Abstract Wikipedia: the content in Abstract Wikipedia abstracted away from a concrete language [20:17:54] Wikilambda: this is based on the notion that all functions can be grounded in en:lambda calculus. Also, Wλ looks kinda geeky. [20:17:55] Note that the name "Abstract Wikipedia" will not, in fact, stick around. When the project is done, Abstract Wikipedia will be just a part of Wikidata. This is just a name for the development work, and therefore naming is not that crucial. Wikilambda on the other hand would be a new Wikimedia project, and thus the name will have rather high visibility. It would be good to come up with a good name for that. [20:18:10] This means that we need names for both projects [20:18:42] I'm not sure what name I think would be best because I don't have a good idea of what it'll look like (... it's still too abstract for me 😆) [20:18:55] But then I would expect two distinct lists for two distinct names for two distinct things. (re @Csisc1994: All names - Abstract Wikipedia and Wikilambda - are preliminary and meant mostly for writing this proposal and discussing it. [20:18:56] The current names are based on the following idea: [20:18:57] Abstract Wikipedia: the content in Abstract Wikipedia abstracted away from a concrete language [20:18:59] Wikilambda: this is based on the notion that all functions can be grounded in en:lambda calculus. Also, Wλ looks kinda geeky. [20:19:00] Note that the name "Abstract Wikipedia" will not, in fact, stick around. When the project is done, Abstract Wikipedia will be just a part of Wikidata. This is just a name for the development work, and therefore naming is not that crucial. Wikilambda on the other hand would be a new Wikimedia project, and thus the name will have rather high visibility. It would be good to come up with a good name for that.) [20:19:26] Absolutely evident. However, this did not unfortunately happen (re @markus_goellnitz: But then I would expect two distinct lists for two distinct names for two distinct things.) [20:20:22] We need to pre-process the list to differentiate between names for Wikilambda and proposed names for Abstract Wikipedia [20:21:42] Actually, after reading the list, it should be WΛ, AW and WTF. [20:22:31] That is why pre-processing is needed (re @markus_goellnitz: Actually, after reading the list, it should be WΛ, AW and WTF.) [20:22:33] I like the idea of the logo having some resemblance to a lambda even if the name does not contain jt (re @markus_goellnitz: Actually, after reading the list, it should be WΛ, AW and WTF.) [20:22:47] same [20:24:27] +1 (re @Nikki: same) [20:25:12] much as Wikisource's logo is a nod to the original name of Project Sourceberg (re @mahir256: I like the idea of the logo having some resemblance to a lambda even if the name does not contain jt) [20:25:55] ohh I didn't know that [20:27:22] Actually I like the name WΛ, just AW does not convey what it is to those wanting to read an article not yet written. (re @mahir256: I like the idea of the logo having some resemblance to a lambda even if the name does not contain jt) [20:27:39] Actually I like the name WΛ. I would miss it. Just AW does not convey what it is to those wanting to read an article not yet written. (re @mahir256: I like the idea of the logo having some resemblance to a lambda even if the name does not contain jt) [23:00:33] We'll be looking for a name for the wiki of functions first [23:01:15] It is unclear if Abstract Wikipedia will even need a name, as it might not be an independent thing at all [23:02:21] So for now it's really for the wiki of functions. It's also the first thing to launch [23:03:33] There's no need to preprocess the list. Any name that didn't make it to the top can remain a contender for other modules or parts. [23:58:55] Why don't we just host Z-items in Wikidata. (re @vrandecic: So for now it's really for the wiki of functions. It's also the first thing to launch)