Open main menu

Wikidata:Property proposal/homograph lexeme

homograph lexemeEdit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Lexemes

Descriptionlexeme in the same or a different language with the same spelling as this one
Representshomograph (Q223981)
Data typeLexeme
Domainlexeme
Examplefire@English noun → fire@English verb (see: wikt:en:fire)

Motivation

Needed since this feature won't be supported by the software (see T193607).--Micru (talk) 13:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

  •   Comment do we need this on lexemes if we have it on forms? ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • To be honest I have no clue. We could begin with "homograph form" and see later on if this one is required.--Micru (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @VIGNERON: We give lexemes a label, so in a way they are written. It could be useful to identify lexemes with the same label. If "homograph lexeme" is not a good name for this property, then a possible alternative name is "lexeme with the same label" (if it is useful at all, we'll see).--Micru (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Micru sometimes (and maybe more and more often?) we give lexemes several lemmata as label (see Lexeme:L1). So If you really want to put at the lexemes level, then it should be something like "lexeme with one form in common" ; "homograph form" has almost the same role (but at the form level) and would be easier and clearer to use, don't you agree? Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 09:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • VIGNERON, yes I agree, it is easier and clearer to use homographs in forms.--Micru (talk) 10:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support if in same language.
    --- Jura 12:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
    • updated it.
      --- Jura 07:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Done
    --- Jura 05:36, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Jura1: The change that you did to the proposal was not supported from anyone else other than yourself, and you created the property with your change without pinging anyone first. Therefore I consider that the change is not valid and I will leave it as it was originally.--Micru (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I think you had ample time to comment. Contrary your way of doing things, people had time to comment on the improvement.
      --- Jura 15:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
      • You didn't ping anyone, and you created a property without enough support for those changes, only your own, which ammounts to create your own property. That goes against the guidelines: "Property creators should not create new properties unless consensus exists and must not create properties they have suggested themselves."--Micru (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
        • I think you forgot that you proposed this property.
          --- Jura 17:26, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
          • Exactly, I proposed the property with a certain wording. When you changed it, it became a different property and you didn't offer any justification for the change.--Micru (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
            • If you lost interest in the discussion, I can't really help you. The property was created in line with its current wording.
              --- Jura 17:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
              • The property was created with an unjustified and unnotified change, and with lack of support (only yours, the one who created it).--Micru (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
                • It was slightly improved. If you disagree with the creation, feel free to list it for deletion. However, it's inappropriate to change the description to one that hasn't been agreed on.
                  --- Jura 17:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
                  • My description was ok for the people who originally participated in the discussion. I find inappropriate that you change the description to one that only you find appropriate.--Micru (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Pro forma:   Support your version, if you really think it's needed that much.
    --- Jura 18:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Personally I would prefer this to be implemented in the software itself (see T195411), but since you seem to want this property now, I'm ok allowing it as I don't see any harm. Btw, why did you want to link only one language? Wiktionaries link all languages with the same spelling. What is the advantadge of linking just one language?--Micru (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)