[08:26:41] <wm-bb>	 <Nicolas> does anyone remember why Z80 and Z86 are still in "do not use" (after ~2 years)
[08:26:42] <wm-bb>	 <Nicolas> (I think I remember that  the reason was given somewhere but I can't find it...)
[08:29:57] <wm-bb>	 <Ameisenigel> [[Wikifunctions:Type proposals/Unicode codepoint]]
[08:29:58] <wm-bb>	 <Ameisenigel> [[Wikifunctions:Type proposals/Byte]]
[08:30:30] <wm-bb>	 <Ameisenigel> These pages are providing some information.
[09:47:52] <wm-bb>	 <u99of9> Yes, Denny has recently been working to normalise them. Please join the conversation there.
[09:51:53] <wm-bb>	 <Nicolas> as yes, the obvious place (I should have checked that) (re @Ameisenigel: [[Wikifunctions:Type proposals/Unicode codepoint]]
[09:51:54] <wm-bb>	 <Nicolas> [[Wikifunctions:Type proposals/Byte]])
[09:55:30] <wm-bb>	 <Nicolas> and thanks to that, I see new proposals for dealing with grammatical gender, yeah !
[09:55:31] <wm-bb>	 <Nicolas> I wonder how it would work for more strange cases (like Polish with masculine animate and masculine inanimate or with african languages with 5+ genders ; there is also the question of grammatical and natural gender) but I'm glad to see it moving forward!
[09:55:50] <wm-bb>	 <Nicolas> see [[Wikifunctions:Type_proposals/Grammatical_gender_(m/f)]] and linked pages
[10:02:48] <wm-bb>	 <u99of9> Haha: : https://tools-static.wmflabs.org/bridgebot/d1256ca8/file_68517.jpg
[10:14:11] <wm-bb>	 <Nicolas> I've been bold and changed it to "two" ;) (re @u99of9: Haha:)
[10:44:54] <wm-bb>	 <u99of9> Has anyone got a function they want to write up for FOTW?
[11:50:03] <wm-bb>	 <u99of9> @staff do we have any statistics on the language settings our users use? I'm trying to localise some numerical readers and displays. There are quite a few numeral systems! Some statistics might give us incentive to help out particular languages.
[11:52:13] <wm-bb>	 <Nicolas> I was going to say, look at the babel category but apparently we don't have them on WF?? (re @u99of9: @staff do we have any statistics on the language settings our users use? I'm trying to localise some numerical readers and displ...)
[11:54:34] <wm-bb>	 <Nicolas> also, is it just me or is the interface buggy right now?
[11:54:34] <wm-bb>	 <Nicolas> I'm trying to create an implementation but when I type the name of a function, it search indefinitely without finding it :/
[11:54:36] <wm-bb>	 <Nicolas> (obviously I tried and waited a bit but still idling...)
[12:14:00] <wm-bb>	 <u99of9> Yes, I think I saw that once in the last day. (re @Nicolas: also, is it just me or is the interface buggy right now?
[12:14:01] <wm-bb>	 <u99of9> I'm trying to create an implementation but when I type the name of a fu...)
[15:41:39] <wm-bb>	 <Feeglgeef> I've got one there but it's quite short and I don't care to improve it right now. (re @u99of9: Has anyone got a function they want to write up for FOTW?)
[15:44:07] <wm-bb>	 <Feeglgeef> @vrandecic mentioned stats in a status update, perhaps he has more info here? (re @u99of9: @staff do we have any statistics on the language settings our users use? I'm trying to localise some numerical readers and displ...)
[15:53:23] <wm-bb>	 <Nicolas> hmm, there was a few mention of languages of the functions but I remember none of the users (re @Feeglgeef: @vrandecic mentioned stats in a status update, perhaps he has more info here?)
[17:38:01] <wm-bb>	 <Feeglgeef> Also @vrandecic your 5 type proposals should have been one
[17:38:19] <wm-bb>	 <Feeglgeef> I'll boldly merge them if nobody objects
[17:39:03] <wm-bb>	 <Sannita> I would open a discussion at the Village Pump about it and wait for people to comment
[17:39:34] <wm-bb>	 <Nicolas> I prefer one proposal for each type (re @Feeglgeef: I'll boldly merge them if nobody objects)
[17:39:48] <wm-bb>	 <Feeglgeef> Why? (re @Nicolas: I prefer one proposal for each type)
[17:41:27] <wm-bb>	 <Nicolas> because they are different and people may have different opinions (animacy in particular is technically not gender, it's a different grammar asepct) (re @Feeglgeef: Why?)
[17:41:45] <wm-bb>	 <Nicolas> and it's clearer to have one page, one type
[17:41:59] <wm-bb>	 <Feeglgeef> Right, but we've had multiple types per proposal before (re @Nicolas: and it's clearer to have one page, one type)
[17:42:11] <wm-bb>	 <Feeglgeef> The average is at least 1.5
[17:43:24] <wm-bb>	 <Nicolas> just because something existed doesn't means it is good (re @Feeglgeef: Right, but we've had multiple types per proposal before)
[17:43:56] <wm-bb>	 <Feeglgeef> So should all the existing ones be destructured? (re @Nicolas: just because something existed doesn't means it is good)
[17:43:57] <wm-bb>	 <Nicolas> since you're the once wanting to do the merge, what would be the advantages?
[17:44:31] <wm-bb>	 <Feeglgeef> Because people are supporting each one in a comment individually which is a lot of effort (re @Nicolas: since you're the once wanting to do the merge, what would be the advantages?)
[17:44:45] <wm-bb>	 <Feeglgeef> Almost all edits have been applied to each of them
[17:47:27] <wm-bb>	 <Nicolas> it's not *a lot* of efforts, it's just 4 pages
[17:48:08] <wm-bb>	 <Feeglgeef> But that would one if they are merged (re @Nicolas: it's not *a lot* of efforts, it's just 4 pages)
[17:48:45] <wm-bb>	 <Feeglgeef> So they can point that out in their comment (re @Nicolas: because they are different and people may have different opinions (animacy in particular is technically not gender, it's a diffe...)
[17:48:53] <wm-bb>	 <Sannita> . (re @Sannita: I would open a discussion at the Village Pump about it and wait for people to comment)
[17:49:25] <wm-bb>	 <Sannita> please don't take decisions here on Telegram, do it on wiki, where everything is public
[22:26:30] <wm-bb>	 <u99of9> Yes, thanks, I saw that. Since it doesn't yet contain all the standard info, I don't think it's ready for prime time yet, but I don't want to pressure you. I'm hoping we get a few proposals going at any one time so that we have time to draft them carefully. (re @Feeglgeef: I've got one there but it's quite short and I don't care to improve it right now.)
[22:49:25] <wm-bb>	 <Feeglgeef> Can someone with the rights update the "Functions to try out" on the main page?
[22:50:45] <wm-bb>	 <Feeglgeef> Should be done every time a new FOTW is published (at least that was my intention when requesting the change)
[23:15:37] <wm-bb>	 <u99of9> IMO the ones on the main page should be more targeted to piquing the interest of newcomers. FOTW is often more of an explainer of new types/concepts for regulars.
[23:16:40] <wm-bb>	 <Feeglgeef> Right, but it's still a good way of measuring what newcomers should try out (re @u99of9: IMO the ones on the main page should be more targeted to piquing the interest of newcomers. FOTW is often more of an explainer o...)