[00:04:26] I have to admit I'm really surprised how tight the vote is [00:35:32] Would you or @quidditywiki be interested in holding some sort of runoff? (re @vrandecic: I have to admit I'm really surprised how tight the vote is) [01:23:26] What would be the arguments for doing so? [06:00:36] huh I'm surprised how many people voted for 17, that one screams public transport to me [06:01:58] the main argument imo would be that it would be really hard to change the logo after it's selected, so it's better to have a clear winner [11:50:10] Shouldn't https://notwikilambda.toolforge.org be renamed to 'Not Wikifunctions'? [11:50:21] (I mean the wiki name not URL) [12:20:53] probably not worth the effort, I’d say? [12:21:10] (the name isn’t wrong – the wiki is not Wikifunctions but it’s not Wikilambda either 😜 ) [13:21:33] fair point [13:44:14] haha, that was exactly what I thought (re @lucaswerkmeister: (the name isn’t wrong – the wiki is not Wikifunctions but it’s not Wikilambda either 😜 )) [14:09:49] @vrandecic I've been working through the "Missing" page for English and noticed a few things that maybe could be looked into in your matching: [14:11:34] (1) There are a number highlighted that are the en-gb spellings - for example Lexeme:L1473 (centre vs center). Those forms are listed under the English language lexemes, maybe your matching could be a little more flexible in noticing them? [14:14:11] (2) there are some words (particularly proper nouns) that never appear on their own, but only as part of something else - for example Lexeme:L24367 (Hong Kong) - "Hong" on its own would never (?) appear in English so shouldn't have a separate lexeme. But "hong" and "kong" are in your list. [14:16:12] for 2, there's not much we can do to stop it getting split but you could add them to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Lexicographical_coverage/Filter/en to filter them out [14:16:53] (3) Punctuation like ';', '"', '-' and number phrases like 19th, 1970s, etc. I don't think we want lexemes for these? [14:17:16] Ah, I didn't know about the filter page, will add to that... [14:21:46] for 1, I've noticed it prints errors when the language code doesn't match, but it shouldn't be that hard to fix... hmm [14:27:40] Thanks Arthur! Re 1, yes, the matching code should be improved, agreed. Re 2, what Nikki said. Re 3, yes. Either also in the filter, or should be in the code to filter those out. Happy for pull requests, as I can't make a promise to when I'll get to it. [14:30:09] where do we send pull requests to? [14:36:42] Ah, gnrl. I jumped ahead. I probably should upload the PAWS script to GitHub first. OK, that's a task for me I should do sooner than later. [14:40:19] ah but now I feel less bad about not uploading my edited version yet, I can claim I'm just waiting until I can fork the original properly ;) [14:40:38] :D [15:05:25] I'm wondering about the number phrases - maybe 19th should be an alternate form for "nineteenth"? [15:06:10] I'll raise that on the lexico telegram chat 🙂 [18:43:31] @vrandecic agree with this point; unless it turns out that those who voted for the first place result constitute a majority of the voters, a result to that effect should be assured (re @Nikki: the main argument imo would be that it would be really hard to change the logo after it's selected, so it's better to have a clear winner) [18:45:16] Quick vote update: [18:45:16] Proposal 11 (lambda in Wikimedia circle): 93 [18:45:18] Proposal 5 (f(W)): 88 [18:45:19] Proposal 13 (semicolon between braces): 82 [18:45:21] Proposal 9 (lambda and horns): 76 [18:45:22] Proposal 25 ([/]): 61 [19:08:11] But given that anyone can vote for as many proposals as they want that shouldn't make a difference [19:08:38] Hmm, I'll take it to the team meeting [19:31:03] though it feels a bit like the page wants to discourage voting for multiple proposals, tbh [19:31:23] with how it redirects me away from the list after voting, and when I come back, all the entries will have been reshuffled :/ [23:16:57] We'd like not to change the voting mechanism at this point of the contest. I understand that it would be good to have a clear preference statement by the community for a single proposal, but in fact we already have more votes for the top proposal than the Wikidada logo contest winner had in the contest back then. There are a few more arguments against adding an additional round, but I'll stop here for now.