Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/EnvlhBot 4
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Approved--Ymblanter (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
EnvlhBot (talk • contribs • new items • new lexemes • SUL • Block log • User rights log • User rights • xtools)
Operator: Envlh (talk • contribs • logs)
Task/s: import forms for French verbs on lexemes.
Code: elise
Function details: The goal is to be able to:
- check existing forms (so a human can fix issues when detected),
- import missing forms, generating them from existing grammar rules (I, II, III).
The process would be incremental (so there will be several batches), starting with verbs of the first group. It is not intended to cover everything (too many exceptions), so not all French verbs will be imported (to sum up, quality over quantity). — Envlh (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Please show where the test edits were made. Ymblanter (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The community has been notified on several places:
- Wikidata talk:Lexicographical data/Documentation/Languages/fr#Verbes,
- Weekly summary,
- Telegram group about lexicographical data on Wikidata,
- French Wikimedia community Discord.
So far, except for several direct discussions with VIGNERON, the only comment was from Mahir256 asking me to use his framework for this bot (this will not be the case because of several missing features at the moment). More than 50 edits have been made (search for Forms of French verbs), covering several cases, for instance: chanter (L11906) (general case), lancer (L28927) (-cer), déranger (L27409) (-ger), balayer (L689016) (-ayer, several forms for the same grammatical features set), louvoyer (L689015) (-oyer), appuyer (L12320) (-uyer). Cheers, — Envlh (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Envlh: Any reason you're using imperfect (Q108524486) and not past imperfect (Q12547192) on the appropriate verb forms? (Not that this is a blocker for anything, but I am curious.) Mahir256 (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mahir256: The idea is to use atomic values for grammatical features. So imperfect (Q108524486) and indicative (Q682111) are used instead of past imperfect (Q12547192). It is discussed more thoroughly here (in French). I still need to discuss this with VIGNERON for simple future (Q1475560), preterite (Q442485), present participle (Q10345583), past participle (Q12717679). Note that the bot can easily switch from one model to another. Cheers, — Envlh (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mahir256: this is a very good question and I'm not sure about the answer, thanks for raising it. For person and number, it is (more or less widely) known and agreed that it should be atomic but for other grammatical features, indeed there seems to be no clear consensus. For consistency, I would also prefer atomic values (except maybe for present participle (Q10345583) and past participle (Q12717679) which are particular cases, it's not clear if they truly are grammatical tense (Q177691) and they're clearly not usual tenses) but I'm open to ideas. PS: I need to fix the mess of imperfect (Q108524486)/past imperfect (Q12547192) (at least move the interwiki links to the right item). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mahir256: The idea is to use atomic values for grammatical features. So imperfect (Q108524486) and indicative (Q682111) are used instead of past imperfect (Q12547192). It is discussed more thoroughly here (in French). I still need to discuss this with VIGNERON for simple future (Q1475560), preterite (Q442485), present participle (Q10345583), past participle (Q12717679). Note that the bot can easily switch from one model to another. Cheers, — Envlh (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Beside the comment above about the minor issue of best grammatical features to use, I've reviewed both the code and the test edits, I support this request. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I will approve the bot in a couple of days provided no objections have been raised.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]