[02:48:24] <wm-bb>	 <David> Agreed. If I understand you here, something like that feature will be provided by T382921, when we get to it. Currently the team is placing a higher priority on developing more fundamental performance improvements, so users generally don't have to worry about specifying which portions of an item they need to retrieve, and we can all stop suffering from too many
[02:48:24] <wm-bb>	 timeouts. (re @u <clipped message>
[02:48:25] <wm-bb>	 <David> 99of9: One feature that would speed this up enormously would be a function calling for just the claims with a particular predicate, rat...)
[03:55:57] <wm-bb>	 <u99of9> Excellent. I've subscribed. (re @David: Agreed.  If I understand you here, something like that feature will be provided by T382921, when we get to it.  Currently the te...)
[09:56:16] <wm-bb>	 <Al> I started this in good time but concluded that the inclusion of ZReferences isn’t necessarily a problem. I think it’s just consistency of representations that we need. I probably won’t get a chance to file the ticket(s) until tomorrow. David, would you prefer one ticket for inconsistent representations or a separate ticket for each instance? We already have a separate one
[09:56:16] <wm-bb>	 f <clipped message>
[09:56:17] <wm-bb>	 <Al> or Z11, but this issue relates to Z6040. (re @u99of9: Can you figure out how to ask for a Wikidata list return that is more consistent with what we already had? This sounds different...)
[10:13:21] <wm-bb>	 <Nicolas> For a default function, you can't input a language (otherwise it wouldn't be a default) and not sure why you would need it anyway... Just look at the grammatical features (re @Feeglgeef: Not sure how to make them agree if we don't know the language but feel free to give that a go)
[10:16:46] <wm-bb>	 <Al> True, but it would need to know which features to look for and tolerate the absence of such features for languages that do not have the default kind of agreement. (re @Nicolas: For a default function, you can't input a language (otherwise it wouldn't be a default) and not sure why you would need it anywa...)
[10:19:58] <wm-bb>	 <Nicolas> Indeed.
[10:19:59] <wm-bb>	 <Nicolas> A first iteration could just look for gender (re @Al: True, but it would need to know which features to look for and tolerate the absence of such features for languages that do not h...)
[10:21:09] <wm-bb>	 <Nicolas> And it would be a default, so approximation is expected 
[10:21:10] <wm-bb>	 <Nicolas> For complex languages (eg. Breton) you need a very specific function anyway
[10:24:28] <wm-bb>	 <Al> Indeed. That’s why I’m inclined towards defaulting to the lemmas. (re @Nicolas: And it would be a default, so approximation is expected 
[10:24:29] <wm-bb>	 <Al> For complex languages (eg. Breton) you need a very specific function an...)
[11:33:32] <wm-bb>	 <u99of9> Yes, keep the default extremely simplistic. That will prompt people to localise properly for their language. (re @Al: Indeed. That’s why I’m inclined towards defaulting to the lemmas.)
[13:03:22] <wm-bb>	 <Nicolas> Lemmata is a bit crude but why not (re @Al: Indeed. That’s why I’m inclined towards defaulting to the lemmas.)
[13:04:01] <wm-bb>	 <Nicolas> Maybe it could be "forms if they exist, lemmata otherwise"
[13:04:41] <wm-bb>	 <Nicolas> And thinking about actual languages, a lot of them don't need more
[14:09:11] <wm-bb>	 <Feeglgeef> Something that might be nice for WP integration is allowing users to select a renderer from a list of options. For rationals it could look something like this:
[14:09:13] <wm-bb>	 <Feeglgeef> (im)proper fraction
[14:09:14] <wm-bb>	 <Feeglgeef> mixed fraction
[14:09:16] <wm-bb>	 <Feeglgeef> decimal
[14:09:17] <wm-bb>	 <Feeglgeef> percent
[14:09:19] <wm-bb>	 <Feeglgeef> percent increase
[14:09:20] <wm-bb>	 <Feeglgeef> scientific notation
[14:09:22] <wm-bb>	 <Feeglgeef> etc
[14:10:44] <wm-bb>	 <Feeglgeef> For integers:
[14:10:46] <wm-bb>	 <Feeglgeef> decimal
[14:10:47] <wm-bb>	 <Feeglgeef> add .0
[14:10:49] <wm-bb>	 <Feeglgeef> scientific notation
[14:11:38] <wm-bb>	 <Feeglgeef> This could be selected from a list in the visual/2017 wikitext editors that would insert a function call wrapper to execute the desired function
[14:12:07] <wm-bb>	 <Feeglgeef> @internetam1n would this work?
[14:13:52] <wm-bb>	 <dvd_ccc27919> An advice to make the default function slightly less crude: check if the language is Q74835210 or Q74834637 (re @Nicolas: And thinking about actual languages, a lot of them don't need more)
[14:20:16] <wm-bb>	 <Feeglgeef> We can't do that easily yet (re @dvd_ccc27919: An advice to make the default function slightly less crude: check if the language is Q74835210 or Q74834637)
[14:28:34] <wm-bb>	 <Al> Yes, this is pretty much blocked until we get a solution for *T344170.* (re @dvd_ccc27919: An advice to make the default function slightly less crude: check if the language is Q74835210 or Q74834637)
[16:07:48] <wm-bb>	 <Dvn> 3742
[17:41:12] <wm-bb>	 <David> I'm thinking separate tickets are better in this case (but always good of course if the new tickets mention related previous tickets to provide cross references). (re @Al: I started this in good time but concluded that the inclusion of ZReferences isn’t necessarily a problem. I think it’s just consi...)