Lea_Lacroix_WMDE added a comment.
No decision have been made so far, so the ticket is not ready to be closed yet.TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T195740EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/To: Lea_Lacroix_WMDECc: Ltrlg, Petar.petkovic, Arth
Micru added a comment.
I consider that this Ticket has been addressed here: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:Lexicographical_data#Outcome_of_the_conversation
So I would be happy to have a confirmation that it can be marked as "Resolved". If there are things left to say, well, speak up.T
Pamputt added a comment.
In T195740#4248752, @VIGNERON wrote:
Indeed, property is a good idea but how would you deal with Alptraum / Albtraum?
I would say Alptraum and Albtraum should be two Lexemes, not only one. And Form in Alptraum could be "Alptraums", "Alpträume", "Alpträumen" and so on. An
ArthurPSmith added a comment.
I am in general favorable to Micru's proposal, and perhaps Pamputt's elaboration of it above: using wikidata items directly allows representation of the lemma language naturally in the user's own script/language for one, and other automatic bonuses of using items given
VIGNERON added a comment.
In T195740#4248545, @Micru wrote:
@Lea_Lacroix_WMDE Why do we need to use a a list of language codes at all? Why not to do like with units and let the user select any item, and then have it checked with the constraints?
The unit seems to me the worst possible example: t
VIGNERON added a comment.
As explained in my prevuious message, I agree we need to specify at least language and script. For the rest (country, orthography reform, ...), I think the best way to store this kind of information is to use property in the lexeme itself. The advantages of the property
Pamputt added a comment.
In T195740#4237172, @VIGNERON wrote:
Tough questions.
Caveat: I'm not an expert (feel free to correct me), but I cam across several languages issues in my decade and half as Wikimedian.
My point of view is that the current system for the monolingual text is good but not
Pamputt added a comment.
I strongly support the Micru's proposal. Using item to identify language, dialect or whatever is plenty of advantages:
it is really flexible. It is possible to use dialect, sub-dialect, language, proto-language, and so on
it is clearly identified. One item identify unique
Micru added a comment.
@Lea_Lacroix_WMDE Why do we need to use a a list of language codes at all? Why not to do like with units and let the user select any item, and then have it checked with the constraints?TASK DETAILhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T195740EMAIL PREFERENCEShttps://phabricator.wi
