Lexeme talk:L3230

Wrong references

@99of9: The reference given to each of the three has semantic argument (P9971) statements on give (L3230-S1) doesn't belong there, right? If anywhere, it should probably be on has semantic argument (P9971) itself (as part of the property documentation). I'm leaving the three of them here in case I misunderstand their purpose, but I suggest simply removing them (I'm right now just looking around simply to find out how to use has semantic argument (P9971) and other properties related to senses). --SM5POR (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@SM5POR: I think this is a fairly standard use of references when the statements are made as part of creating a property. If you can provide better references, please don't hesitate to replace them. But if not, I'd rather you didn't just remove them, because they at least indicate the source of my edit. --99of9 (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that these reference claims are not placed on the property has semantic argument (P9971) as a source for how the property is designed, but on each of the lexeme senses of give (L3230) where you would expect pointers to linguistic sources relevant to the grammatical features of ditransitive verbs in general, or the verb give in particular. I won't remove anything; I'm just pointing out what I believe is a mistake.

Also, the constraint checker seems unhappy with the URL not matching the syntax expected, which I suppose is because it refers to a fixed point in the edit history rather than the most recent edit of the target page. I understand this is for good reason, but if it's standard practice for property documentation (where this reference belongs), then either the URL syntax regular expression or the procedure for archiving property proposal discussions should be adjusted accordingly. I'm not expecting you to initiate that, but that kind of reference strikes me as a little weird regardless of where it appears... SM5POR (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)