Wikidata talk:Lexicographical data/Archive/2024/01
Latest comment: 6 months ago by TomT0m in topic Roman numeral and Arabic numeral lexemes
|
This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion. |
Roman numeral and Arabic numeral lexemes
We have some lexemes for the "languages" Arabic numeral system (Q176471) and Roman numerals (Q38918), added by Jura a long time ago. A couple of years ago I proposed these for deletion (Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2022/02/27#Bulk_deletion_request:_Roman_numeral_lexemes), which was opposed by Jura (of course), so they weren't deleted.
As I wrote in the deletion requests, Arabic numeral system (Q176471) and Roman numerals (Q38918) are not languages, items are more appropriate for language-independent concepts, and we already have items for these concepts.
Does anyone see a good reason why we should keep them?
- Nikki (talk) 05:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Support These should be deleted. عُثمان (talk) 22:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Oppose But we can have multilanguage ("mul") data in Lexemes, can't we? Punctuation? Taxon names? Chemical notation? Beyound item content these can have etymology, morphology, pronunciation (thought the latter seems to be language-dependent). --Infovarius (talk) 10:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Infovarius Taxon names can be added as New Latin with information about grammatical gender and etymology. The other things can be modeled as items, they do not need lexemes. عُثمان (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Weak support I don't see the benefit of these lexemes (compared to the equivalent items) and - as it was usual with Jura - there is no source or reference. If (and it's a big if) we keep them, we should totally empty them and rebuild on sane basis (beginning by a basic proof that they are indeed lexemes). A galon, VIGNERON (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Comment They are languages in the computer science sense, formal language (Q192161) 
, an alphabet, some rules to define which strings made of these "letters" are correct. author TomT0m / talk page 21:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
