Wikidata:Property proposal/homograph form

homograph form

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Lexemes

   Not done

Description	form in a different or the same language with the same spelling as this one
Represents	homograph (Q223981)
Data type	Form
Domain	form
Example	fire@English → fire@Italian (see: wikt:en:fire)

Motivation

Needed since this feature won't be supported by the software (see T193607).--Micru (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Support seems like it should be automatic, but I guess there are reasons why not... ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• I'm leaning toward support but for now I'm still on  Comment: do we really need a property for that? Wouldn't it be possible to do a SPARQL query? (in some months but we can wait ; or to do a query on the API right now for the more rushed people). @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): is it realistic to expect doable SPARQL query on all lexemes? (the too big size making the request to fail is a big reason I see where a property is needed). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I am not sure to be honest. I fear we'll have to try and see. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Ok, so  Support and we'll if this property is needed or not. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 10:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose This seems like a bad idea to me, because the number of statements needed gets large very quickly, especially for short words. I counted at least 63 lexemes on wikt:en:do (forms would be even higher), which would need 3276 statements to link them all together. Since this is something which should be simple to determine programmatically, I think manually linking them via statements should be a last resort. We haven't even tried to convince Lydia to change her mind yet, let alone considered other options. - Nikki (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Nikki. Deryck Chan (talk) 14:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose this is at least premature - see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T195411 ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Support I rather disagree with Nikki: any sensible lexicographical data usually only treats homographs as such within a single language. Unless you have to deal with the character merges of Chinese or the relatively limited syllable stock of Vietnamese/hiragana Japanese, you shouldn't have that many homographs (and in languages that have many, having a way to record them is useful). Circeus (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done No consensus.--Micru (talk) 09:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)