[07:55:25] <wm-bb>	 <ADssx> Hi,
[07:55:25] <wm-bb>	 <ADssx> I recently discovered the project and I find it amazing. In the Jupiter example no references are displayed. Will references be displayed in the text on the Abstract Wikipedia? If yes, how?(sorry if my question is stupid 😬)
[15:15:14] <wm-bb>	 <vrandecic> Hi Antoine! Thanks for your question. Yes, I expect references to be an integral part of Abstract Wikipedia. We already see in the integration of Wikidata into Wikipedia today examples of how references are being displayed in Wikipedias and maintained in Wikidata, e.g. if you go to the Romanian article on Marie Curie you will find quite a few facts in the Infobox coming from Wikidata and using sources from Wikidata and displ
[15:23:34] <wm-bb>	 <ADssx> Hi Denny. Thanks for your answer. I'm on Marie Curie's article and I can't see the Wikidata references you're talking about. When I edit the article it seems to me the fields values and references are "hard written" in the article and not fetched from Wikidata. (re @vrandecic: Hi Antoine! Thanks for your question. Yes, I expect references to be an integral part of Abstract Wikipedia. We already see in the integration of Wikidata
[15:26:46] <wm-bb>	 <mahir256> The template {{Infocaseta Om de știință}} on the first line of [[ro:Marie Curie]] pulls in statements and their references from Wikidata and displays them in the infobox.
[15:28:40] <wm-bb>	 <mahir256> (the first 19 references on that article are drawn from Wikidata)
[15:30:19] <wm-bb>	 <ADssx> Ah sorry I read to fast and didn't see "Romanian" in Denny's message...
[15:30:30] <wm-bb>	 <ADssx> Ah sorry I read too quickly and didn't see "Romanian" in Denny's message...
[15:33:59] <wm-bb>	 <ADssx> That's quite impressive! So basically in the Abstract Wikipedia each sentence would have its reference(s)? And in terms of UX references would then be displayed depending on the local language rules? (for instance in English: reference after punctuation whereas in French: before and multiple references separated by comma)
[15:54:24] <wm-bb>	 <vrandecic> Yes on the last question: each language could decide on the formatting of references in their language (and on the selection of references, eg favoring sources in their own language)
[15:55:36] <wm-bb>	 <vrandecic> On the first question: every sentence could (not would) have references. Even every clause. But I don't expect that to become the case. We'll see.
[15:59:57] <wm-bb>	 <vrandecic> Today, most sentences even on the highest rated Wikipedia articles have no reference. I don't expect that to change, but who knows? Maybe the ability to easier snacks what is referenced and what is not, and the ability to store but not necessarily display all references will lead to more references? Maybe it won't. Ask again on two or three years.
[16:00:47] <wm-bb>	 <Nikki> snacks?
[16:06:21] <wm-bb>	 <vrandecic> Analyze
[16:06:27] <wm-bb>	 <Nikki> ahh
[16:07:07] <wm-bb>	 <vrandecic> I have no idea how my autocorrect / swipe keyboard turned analyze into snack, but maybe I'm just hungry. :D
[16:07:51] <wm-bb>	 <Nikki> yeah I figured it was a swipe keyboard, mine likes to propose all sorts of nonsense :D
[16:08:25] <wm-bb>	 <vrandecic> There should be a word for that, typo doesn't really fit
[16:08:30] <wm-bb>	 <vrandecic> Swypo?
[16:08:34] <wm-bb>	 <jhsoby> Swypo
[16:08:38] <wm-bb>	 <jhsoby> Jinx
[16:08:39] <wm-bb>	 <Nikki> I was just thinking swipo
[16:09:23] <wm-bb>	 <vrandecic> Ok, that's a good word it seems then that will be easily understood, I'm using it from now on
[16:10:02] <wm-bb>	 <Nikki> yeah, I like it too! the question is though... can you convince the swipe keyboard to use it?
[16:10:59] <wm-bb>	 <vrandecic> Yep. Just tried, already stored and suggested: swypo
[16:11:03] <wm-bb>	 <jhsoby> Seems it is "taken": https://whole30.com/sex-pants/
[16:11:04] <wm-bb>	 <Nikki> \o/
[16:12:12] <wm-bb>	 <lucaswerkmeister> wat (re @jhsoby: Seems it is "taken": https://whole30.com/sex-pants/)
[16:13:05] <wm-bb>	 <vrandecic> I... I am ok with introducing ambiguities. The chances of mixing those two meanings up seem... low?
[16:13:15] <wm-bb>	 <vrandecic> I guess. I mean. Who knows. I don't.
[16:13:45] <wm-bb>	 <jhsoby> From what i skimmed, it's a product? concept? that replacing non-vegan ingredients with vegan ingredients is like sex with your pants on (i.e. SWYPO) (re @lucaswerkmeister: wat)
[16:14:26] <wm-bb>	 <jhsoby> But urban dictionary is with us https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Swypo
[16:15:37] <wm-bb>	 <Nikki> that page 🤨
[16:15:44] <wm-bb>	 <Nikki> (the first one, urban dictionary is fine)
[16:17:43] <wm-bb>	 <jhsoby> So edgy (re @Nikki: that page 🤨)
[16:18:39] <wm-bb>	 <lucaswerkmeister> “urban dictionary is fine” : https://tools-static.wmflabs.org/bridgebot/9d326f22/file_4544.jpg
[16:18:51] <wm-bb>	 <lucaswerkmeister> but I think this is getting a bit off-topic ^^
[16:19:30] <wm-bb>	 <jhsoby> Wouldn't this be handled the normal MediaWiki way, @vrandecic ? I.e. the functions output wikitext that MediaWiki parses. Or an i thinking too narrowly? (re @ADssx: That's quite impressive! So basically in the Abstract Wikipedia each sentence would have its reference(s)? And in terms of UX references would then be displayed depending on the local language rules? (for instance in English: reference after punctuation whereas in F
[16:19:55] <wm-bb>	 <jhsoby> Wouldn't this be handled the normal MediaWiki way, @vrandecic ? I.e. the functions output wikitext that MediaWiki parses. Or am i thinking too narrowly? (re @ADssx: That's quite impressive! So basically in the Abstract Wikipedia each sentence would have its reference(s)? And in terms of UX references would then be displayed depending on the local language rules? (for instance in English: reference after punctuation whereas in F
[16:23:03] <wm-bb>	 <Nikki> for some definitions of fine :P (re @lucaswerkmeister: )
[17:12:00] <wm-bb>	 <mahir256> L4074-S1? (re @Nikki: for some definitions of fine :P)
[20:46:05] <wm-bb>	 <Sannita> https://tools-static.wmflabs.org/bridgebot/2641998e/mp4.mp4