[03:38:57] What should Z26955 (SPO sentence, S without and O with article) do? It is now used in many articles created by Abstract Wikipedia Editor, but there isn't an actual implementation of it (apart from my bandaid). The description and tests only use the same format as Z26039, but with an extra input. Abstract Wikipedia Editor isn't consistent either, as it seems to use SPO sentence for anything from "Toyota originates from Japan." to "An [03:38:57] arm is part of a human body." to "The shrine rank of Ise Grand Shrine is Jingu." [07:24:51] First, it can change its name, because I think we are agreed now that article selection or omission is not decidable in a language-neutral context. It is also confusing that P is a Wikidata item rather than a Wikidata property type, which is the more obvious form of R(x,y) “triple” that we might want to provide a default expression for. (re @wmtelegram_bot: [07:24:51] What sh [07:24:52] ould Z26955 (SPO sentence, S without and O with article) do? It is now used in many articles created by Abstra...) [07:28:10] I think that the function Z26955 is ill-defined, since it is described in a very English-centric way (see the talk page). Together with the article issue, I think that all these broblems should be resolved with proposals like [[Wikifunctions:Type proposals/Syntactic unit]], which should instead define meaning in a more language-independent way (re @wmtelegram [07:28:10] bot: What [07:28:11] should Z26955 (SPO sentence, S without and O with article) do? It is now used in many articles created by Abstra...) [07:52:16] More generally, a function without implementations should be clearly marked both before and after selection in Abstract Wikipedia. (re @wmtelegram_bot: What should Z26955 (SPO sentence, S without and O with article) do? It is now used in many articles created by Abstra...) [08:23:15] Do we have a ticket for that? (re @Al: More generally, a function without implementations should be clearly marked both before and after selection in Abstract Wikipedi...) [08:23:40] Maybe we should exclude them from the UI entirely to avoid confusing users? [08:43:05] That’s what happens with embedded functions, but I wouldn’t go that far. Thinking about it, perhaps it should have a broader focus, just marking a function as “unsuitable” for whatever reason, as we have done using labels in the past. The problem with using labels themselves is that they may exist in more than one language. Maybe it’s more of a “badge”: “preferred [08:43:05] [08:43:05] ”, “language neutral”, “limited support”, “language-specific”,“unavailable”, “deprecated”? (re @Npriskorn: Maybe we should exclude them from the UI entirely to avoid confusing users?) [10:39:00] Perhaps not showing them in the search list, but if someone enter the ZID they supposedly know what they are doing? And still show it clearly in the UI that it lacks implementation?