To me, it looks more like the first “calls to” would be the preferable omission.

What about “Pages with errors in function evaluations” and “Pages where system availability issues caused function evaluations to fail”?

Change #1189230 had a related patch set uploaded (by Jforrester; author: Jforrester):

[mediawiki/extensions/WikiLambda@master] i18n: Fix two messages with 'calls to Wikifunctions calls' repeat-os

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1189230

In T404671#11185458, @GrounderUK wrote:

To me, it looks more like the first “calls to” would be the preferable omission.

Yes — we changed the wording during development and clearly failed to remove the old bit!

What about “Pages with errors in function evaluations” and “Pages where system availability issues caused function evaluations to fail”?

For consistency, we're using Wikifunctions calls as much as possible, as most users won't know what a "function evaluation" is, but they might recognise "Wikifunctions" and go to the project chat for help/complaints.

In T404671#11190148, @Jdforrester-WMF wrote:

In T404671#11185458, @GrounderUK wrote:

To me, it looks more like the first “calls to” would be the preferable omission.

Yes — we changed the wording during development and clearly failed to remove the old bit!

What about “Pages with errors in function evaluations” and “Pages where system availability issues caused function evaluations to fail”?

For consistency, we're using Wikifunctions calls as much as possible, as most users won't know what a "function evaluation" is, but they might recognise "Wikifunctions" and go to the project chat for help/complaints.

There are 13 more messages that say "calls to Wikifunctions", so perhaps they should be fixed, too.

(And "Pages with attempted calls to Wikifunctions with a invalid Object", should probably say "an invalid".)

[snip] …they might recognise "Wikifunctions" and go to the project chat for help/complaints.

I agree. They might. But the embedded functions user experience apparently aims to avoid any mention of Wikifunctions, so there appears to be some inconsistency here. That, at least, is what led me to omit any reference to Wikifunctions.

Change #1189230 merged by jenkins-bot:

[mediawiki/extensions/WikiLambda@master] i18n: Fix two messages with 'calls to Wikifunctions calls' repeat-os

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1189230

In T404671#11190183, @Amire80 wrote:

In T404671#11190148, @Jdforrester-WMF wrote:

In T404671#11185458, @GrounderUK wrote:

To me, it looks more like the first “calls to” would be the preferable omission.

Yes — we changed the wording during development and clearly failed to remove the old bit!

What about “Pages with errors in function evaluations” and “Pages where system availability issues caused function evaluations to fail”?

For consistency, we're using Wikifunctions calls as much as possible, as most users won't know what a "function evaluation" is, but they might recognise "Wikifunctions" and go to the project chat for help/complaints.

There are 13 more messages that say "calls to Wikifunctions", so perhaps they should be fixed, too.

Aha, thanks; will fix those.

(And "Pages with attempted calls to Wikifunctions with a invalid Object", should probably say "an invalid".)

Oh, indeed, and that!

In T404671#11190934, @GrounderUK wrote:

[snip] …they might recognise "Wikifunctions" and go to the project chat for help/complaints.

I agree. They might. But the embedded functions user experience apparently aims to avoid any mention of Wikifunctions, so there appears to be some inconsistency here. That, at least, is what led me to omit any reference to Wikifunctions.

I'm not sure I follow. The user-facing editing interface has the Wikifunctions logo and link to the specific function in it. Where do you expect there to be more/different mentions of Wikifunctions? (This is a bit out-of-scope of this task; maybe we should create a new one about making the WF visibility higher?)

Change #1193144 had a related patch set uploaded (by Jforrester; author: Jforrester):

[mediawiki/extensions/WikiLambda@master] i18n: More consistently use 'Wikifunctions calls' not 'calls to Wikifunctions' in category descriptions

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1193144

I don’t know whether it warrants a different task, but I don’t see it as a
question of Wikifunctions visibility. The term used when adding or editing
an embedded function call is simply “Function” and the link to
Wikifunctions is labelled “Function from Wikifunctions”. I do not see the
expressions “Wikifunctions calls” or “calls to Wikifunctions” as being
anchored in that user experience. I suppose “Function is being called…”
gives some exposure to the “call” word (at least in English), but “Content
error” does not (and neither mentions Wikifunctions, of course).

So, on second thoughts, yes… a separate ticket for reviewing all
manifestations of Wikifunctions in sister projects seems appropriate.

Change #1193144 merged by jenkins-bot:

[mediawiki/extensions/WikiLambda@master] i18n: More consistently use 'Wikifunctions calls' not 'calls to Wikifunctions' in category descriptions

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1193144

In T404671#11243488, @GrounderUK wrote:

I don’t know whether it warrants a different task, but I don’t see it as a
question of Wikifunctions visibility. The term used when adding or editing
an embedded function call is simply “Function” and the link to
Wikifunctions is labelled “Function from Wikifunctions”. I do not see the
expressions “Wikifunctions calls” or “calls to Wikifunctions” as being
anchored in that user experience. I suppose “Function is being called…”
gives some exposure to the “call” word (at least in English), but “Content
error” does not (and neither mentions Wikifunctions, of course).

So, on second thoughts, yes… a separate ticket for reviewing all
manifestations of Wikifunctions in sister projects seems appropriate.

Understood. Will file as a separate task.