Wikidata talk:Lexicographical data

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search









Support for Wiktionary


How to help






Wikidata:Lexicographical data

Lexicographical data
Place used to discuss any and all aspects of lexicographical data: the project itself, policy and proposals, individual lexicographical items, technical issues, etc.
On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2021/05.

Milestone - 200k lexemes[edit]

My bot just created spiritualistically (L200000), the 200000th lexeme, while import Wiktionary adverbs! It means "in a way relating to being spiritual".  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by SixTwoEight (talk • contribs) at 22:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC).

Focus languages for improvements to the lexicographic extension of Wikidata and Abstract Wikipedia[edit]

Hi. We would like to find two or three language communities who would be good matches to help to start and guide some long-term improvements to the lexicographic data part of Wikidata, and the closely related work in the Wikifunctions wiki and the Abstract Wikipedia project, over the next few years. Participating communities will hopefully find that this project will lead to long-term growth in content in Wikipedia and Wiktionary in and about their language. See Wikidata:Lexicographical data/Focus languages for more information. Please help us identify potential good matches. More details are on that page. Thank you! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Demonyms created as items, instead of lexemes[edit]

Haligonians (Q104720536) is listed for deletion at Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions#Q104720536. It's currently an instance of demonym (Q217438). --- Jura 21:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

30 Lexic-o-days, events and challenges about lexicographical data[edit]

Hello all,

I'm glad to announce that 30 Lexic-o-days, a series of events, projects and challenges around lexicographical data, will start on March 15th. There will be discussions, presentations, but also activities like improving the documentation of Lexemes or editing challenges. The goals of this event is to gather people editing Lexemes to have discussions around the content and work together. You can find the schedule and all relevant links on this page.

This format is a first experiment and its content is powered by the community: if you have ideas or wishes for the discussions, you're very welcome to set up an appointment or to create a task on the related Phabricator board! We're also keeping an open list of ideas here. Discussions about Lexemes, or summaries of future discussions that will take place during the event, should be documented on the project page or its talk page.

If you have questions or need help to participate, feel free to contact me. I'm looking forward to your participation! Cheers, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Lexicographic coverage of Wikipedia[edit]

lang Forms in Wikidata Forms in Wikipedia Tokens Covered forms (%) Missing forms Covered tokens (%) Missing tokens Notes
en 64494 963849 1529657229 41654 4.3 922195 1345425070 88 184232159
et 1606320 131017 16958786 72103 55 58914 13378652 78.9 3580134
da 31671 112469 31303226 17096 15.2 95373 24553257 78.4 6749969
sv 145092 224857 72905148 39899 17.7 184958 55812149 76.6 17092999
fr 17572 554837 480077448 25562 4.6 529275 356747841 74.3 123329607
de 21654 1035287 609589775 15705 1.5 1019582 381764040 62.6 227825735
sk 65104 119565 18106551 35858 30 83707 10763899 59.4 7342652
ru 909795 795720 292922734 158112 19.9 637608 136397968 46.6 156524766
he 324189 250049 77382629 53709 21.5 196340 35040268 45.3 42342361
cs 106648 273215 73639616 26526 9.7 246689 32663946 44.4 40975670
es 4069 450682 410174431 5763 1.3 444919 169742085 41.4 240432346
it 547 399799 285251736 860 0.2 398939 93932894 32.9 191318842
pl 15161 386124 118098912 7071 1.8 379053 37465675 31.7 80633237
no 5090 158509 49548917 2499 1.6 156010 12431637 25.1 37117280 (w/ 10+ tokens)
fi 7067 294157 47543118 6404 2.2 287753 11613274 24.4 35929844
nl 183 277692 131747011 280 0.1 277412 25134658 19.1 106612353
bn 27490 649854 13474320 5478 0.8 644376 2109462 18.6 11364858 selection slightly different
pt 226 244299 159495159 347 0.1 243952 25751182 16.1 133743977
hi 151 54671 18940269 106 0.2 54565 2859937 15.1 16080332
ms 358 58423 16381541 521 0.9 57902 2446411 14.9 13935130
ca 116 182535 109381764 97 0.1 182438 11036460 10.1 98345304
hr 54 137158 28734051 52 0 137106 1311223 4.6 27422828
uk 735 421935 115177791 710 0.2 421225 4254846 3.7 110922945
lv 38 60997 8034762 36 0.1 60961 264719 3.3 7770043
bg 166 124069 33507484 152 0.1 123917 347412 1 33160072
ro 24 134905 41483262 38 0 134867 337091 0.8 41146171
ar 202 248809 69904516 35 0 248774 245740 0.4 69658776
id 13 113157 40564473 13 0 113144 111944 0.3 40452529
fa 45 107982 45328313 27 0 107955 111378 0.2 45216935
hu 131 290408 65863565 102 0 290306 133238 0.2 65730327
ko 24 292283 34022746 22 0 292261 74177 0.2 33948569
lt 34 101819 13119499 20 0 101799 16277 0.1 13103222
tr 21 165383 30066752 35 0 165348 39628 0.1 30027124
el 9 132176 40493491 9 0 132167 4024 0 40489467
sl 2 115894 19773777 3 0 115891 2133 0 19771644
sr 9 201413 42242364 2 0 201411 682 0 42241682
th 3 28208 2090490 2 0 28206 634 0 2089856
tl 1 22614 3604273 2 0 22612 1092 0 3603181
vi 5 71119 75800297 6 0 71113 6510 0 75793787

Wikidata:Lexicographical_coverage has some some interesting stats. Above a summary of these. There is some discussion about it at Wikidata_talk:Lexicographical_coverage. --- Jura 13:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Prospection around a « verb conjugation » gadget[edit]

Hi, I have a little project to create a gadget to show conjugation for verbs using Wikidata datas. So I tried stuff in SPARQL, like this query to find the forms of verbs in french in different tenses:

See a first attempt in french :

select ?verbe ?verbeLabel ?tempsLabel ?LabelArticle ?repre {
  values (?temps ?rangTemps ?tempsLabel) { 
    (wd:Q192613 1 "présent") 
    (wd:Q442485 2 "passé simple") # passé simple
    (wd:Q17081589 2 "passé simple(fr)")
    (wd:Q1475560 3 "futur simple")
    (wd:Q1336020 5 "passé composé")
  values (?article ?rangArticle ?LabelArticle) { 
    (wd:Q51929218 1 "je") 
    (wd:Q51929369 2 "tu")
    (wd:Q51929447 3 "il/elle")
    (wd:Q51929447 4 "il")
    (wd:Q52431970 5 "elle")
    (wd:Q51929290 6 "nous")
    (wd:Q51929403 7 "vous")
    (wd:Q51929517 8 "ils/elles")
    (wd:Q52432983 9 "ils")
    (wd:Q52433019 10 "elles")
  ?verbe ontolex:lexicalForm ?forme ; 
         dct:language wd:Q150 ;
         wikibase:lemma ?verbeLabel .
  ?forme wikibase:grammaticalFeature ?temps ;
         wikibase:grammaticalFeature ?article ;
         ontolex:representation ?repre
  # SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
} order by ?verbe ?rangTemps ?rangArticle

Try it!

(Either my query is bad or there is not much verbs forms in french right now.)

I wondered how to generalize this query to allow other languages in french, so I tried to build another query that finds the personal pronouns in all languages :

select ?trait_grammatical ?mot ?lang {
  ?lex wikibase:lemma ?mot ; dct:language ?lang .
  ?lex ontolex:sense/wdt:P5137 ?trait_grammatical .
  ?trait_grammatical wdt:P279* wd:Q690940 .

Try it!

Far from complete as well. Same question, is my query bad ? it queries item for this sense (P5137) View with SQID to link the lexeme senses to a grammatical person (Q690940)  View with Reasonator View with SQID. Is this a good approach ? author  TomT0m / talk page 15:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@TomT0m: thanks for this query, it allowed me to find and correct mistakes. first-person singular (Q51929218) should not be used as grammatical feature, it should be first person (Q21714344) + singular (Q110786) (like passé simple (Q17081589) should not be used). You can look at bouger (L10251) for a not-too-bad example (some details still need to be improved, see Talk:Q12547192 for instance). PS: third-person masculine plural (Q52432983) and third-person feminine plural (Q52433019) are indeed grammatical persons in French but they're not used for conjugation flexions. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: mmm I think I’d prefer to keep forms such as first-person singular (Q51929218), it would make the query easier (by putting them as subclass of the other non combined items you can achieve the same effect I guess) author  TomT0m / talk page 11:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@TomT0m: well, for obvious reasons (no new items to create, translate and manage) and since both method are equivalent, it has been decided to go wiht the easier one and no to use combined items, see Wikidata talk:Lexicographical data/Archive/2019/12#Use of combined grammatical features like “second-person plural” or Wikidata talk:Lexicographical data/Archive/2018/06#Missing items for grammatical features for instance. BTW, right now, we only have 47 persons, most of them don't have many data, not even labels in English nor French :( and some others are not even in subclasses (I may improve them a bit but I already have a lot to do and days only have 24 hours). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@TomT0m: actually I don't like approach with grammatical person (Q690940). you (L482) (and e.g. tu (L9096)) are not grammatical person (Q690940) (and thus would be a grammatical category (Q980357)) but a personal pronoun (Q468801), i.e. like thou (Q4466935). It just has some grammatical person (Q690940) like second-person singular (Q51929369). --Infovarius (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

30 Lexic-o-days starting today[edit]

Hello all,

As a reminder, the month dedicated to Lexicographical Data is starting today! On this page, you can find plenty of sessions and discussions taking place in the next few weeks. There will be for example live editing and querying sessions, a presentation of Lingua Libre, a Q&A about Abstract Wikipedia, and plenty of open discussions. There's also a Phabricator board where we will track tasks, for example on improving the documentation.

The opening session will take place today at 15:00 GMT/UTC on Jitsi (the first part will be recorded).

We're looking forward to your participation! Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 09:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Please remember next time to put an announcement on Wiktionaries as well, someone just mentioned this event on wikt:WT:BP and 14 days of sessions have already passed, many of them unrecorded. Thanks! – Jberkel (talk) 09:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Open up lexicographical data to Wiktionary[edit]

Given that the lexeme namespace in Wikidata (or lexemes as Wikibase entities) could benefit from more contributors, how could we do open it up to Wiktionary contributors? --- Jura 10:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

See Wikidata:Wiktionary and phab:T212843. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Esperanto verbs: imperative? volitive? something else?[edit]

Lepticed7 edited Wikidata:Wikidata Lexeme Forms/Esperanto (diff) to change the last form (dormu) from imperative mood (Q22716) to volitive modality (Q10716592). but before updating the tool accordingly, I’d like to ensure that this is correct. (For instance, wikt:Template:eo-conj still calls that form “imperative”.) Any opinions from other Esperanto speakers? Pinging the ones I know: Robin van der Vliet, Jens Ohlig, Nikki. Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I want to mention this discussion I had when I modified the label on the English Wiktionary. What is clear is that "imperative" is not good, because it is not only imperative, but also subjonctive. Some English grammars of Esperanto, foundable on the Internet, describe this mood as "jussive". But it is not the case for French grammars of Esperanto, for example. Finally, I think that it is relevant to use "volitive", because it is the way Esperanto grammars name this mood. If Wikidata Lexemes want to be international, I think the best way to describe a language is to use the materials available in this language, and not in other languages. Hence, we should use Esperanto vocabulary to describe Esperanto. Lepticed7 (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
As the person who created the template: en:Volitive modality says "The volitive in Esperanto is really a generic deontic mood" and en:Deontic modality says something similar. en:Jussive mood says "The jussive mood, called the volitive in Esperanto, is used for wishing and requesting, and serves as the imperative.". Based on those pages, it could be volitive modality (Q10716592), deontic modality (Q5260031), jussive mood (Q462367) or imperative mood (Q22716). English and Esperanto sources seem to use either "imperative"/"imperativo" or "volative"/"volativo" while German sources only seem to use "Imperativ". The only one of the items I listed which has a page on the Esperanto Wikipedia is imperative mood (Q22716), so I went with that. - Nikki (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Not exactly the same but grammatical features for verbs are often puzzling me a bit. What is the best way to go and know what item to use? It would be very useful to have some guidelines (and ideally a schema ;) ).
Some cases, I've seen recently :
  • for French, past imperfect (Q12547192) seems to me a mix-up of several concepts, see the talk page Talk:Q12547192
  • for Breton, the grammars can wildly vary in the name of times, for instance, for the same time, I found "conditional 2", "past conditional", "conditional irreal", "conditional irréalis", "irreal", and some comparison/link with "subjunctive imperfect" or "pluperfect" etc. (and most grammar are more or less mixing : time, aspect, and mood :/ )
As anyone good tip or ressources on how to deal with this? For instance, did linguists wrote about that?
Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
As an Esperanto speaker and someone with an interest in linguistics (totally non-professional, I should add), I'm almost certain "imperative" and "jussive" are too narrow to cover the various uses of -u in Esperanto. Imperative is usually the first use people learn (e.g. "venu ĉi tien" for "come here"), but it's also very commonly used in expressions like "mi volas, ke vi helpu min" (I want you to help me) or "mi iru dormi" (I should go to sleep). Going by the descriptions and examples at, "deontic" might actually be accurate. Among its three subcategories Esperanto -u is not used for commissive modality, but it does have uses that seem to fall under directive (e.g. deliberative, imperative, obligative) and volitive.
As for linguists that wrote about it:
  • In Plena Manlibro de Esperanta Gramatiko (currently the most thorough and authoritative Esperanto grammar handbook, aimed at non-linguists) written by linguist Bertilo Wennergren, the term "vola modo" (a literal translation of "volitive mood") is used, and its function is described like this: "The -U form indicates that the action or state is not real, but desired, wanted, ordered or aimed for." (source) Wennergren also used the term "volitivo" (volitive) in a summary of PMEG written for to be translated to other languages. (source with example sentences and translations in English).
  • The influential earlier work Plena Analiza Gramatiko (an Esperanto grammar aimed more at linguists than PMEG), by linguists Kalocsay and Waringhien, uses the term "volativo" for the -u ending, and writes on page 133 "the volitive in Esperanto corresponds in European languages simultaneously to the imperative and the subjunctive". (source) (If it's at all useful, I could translate how this book describes how the -u ending is used. It's on pages 158-159, counted as 152-153 in the pdf I linked.)
  • Plena Ilustrita Vortaro de Esperanto (the most authoritative Esperanto dictionary, written by a team that included linguists) defines the -u ending as "verbal ending indicating a desire or want", and gives "u-modo" (i.e. the mood of the -u ending) as a synonym of "volitivo". (source)
So regardless of what is technically more accurate, it seems pretty clear to me that "volitive" is commonly used among Esperanto-speaking linguists.
PS: it's worth noting wikt:Template:eo-conj and wikt:Template:eo-form of currently use "imperative", but the more common wikt:Template:eo-head uses "volitive", so Wiktionary is not consistent at the moment. Whatever is the final verdict here, it would be a good idea to use the same term in all of these (and any other Esperanto templates that use it). Rajzin (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

30 Lexic-o-days, next steps and outcomes[edit]

Hello all,

Thanks to everyone who participated in the first 3 weeks of 30 Lexic-o-days! We still have a few days ahead of us with plenty of exciting sessions, such as the Climate Lexeme Week, another Abstract Wikipedia Q&A, or a discussion about text corpora.

If you still have ideas of sessions or discussions, feel free to schedule them directly in the calendar! You can pick the day and time that work best for you, and feel free to contact me if you need any help with scheduling, preparing or running your session.

If you have been working on Lexeme-related things during the past few weeks, for example contributing to the content, improving documentation or tools, please add a quick summary on the outcomes page. This will help us a lot with evaluating the success of this event. You will also have the opportunity to present your work during the showcase on April 14th (more info coming soon).

Thanks a lot, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Involve Little Languages[edit]


I think about how it is possible to involve little languages and the people who speak this languages in creating Lexemes in their language. As far as I understand Lexemes are a thing what is needed for abstract Wikipedia and at the moment there are little languages without lexemes or with a little amount of them. What do you think how can be people introduced into Lexemes in Wikidata. --Hogü-456 (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hogü-456: I am editing lexemes for Slovak, which has 5M native speakers. IMO, editing lexemes directly in Wikidata is unproductive. Solid tools, likely utilizing machine learning, are needed for productive lexeme editing and later maintenance. Some tools exist, but the overall tooling is not there yet. I am making fairly fast progress only because I have developed one such tool myself. I took shortcuts by specializing it for Slovak language, so it's not yet useful for other languages. Another possible route is Wiktionary imports, but that also depends on tooling, mostly Wiktionary parsers. — Robert Važan (talk) 23:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
@Robert Važan: thank you for the answer. With Wikidata:Text corpora to lexicographical data there is a page what was created during the 30-lexico-days and there was a meeting about how words can be extracted out of texts. If you are interested you can participate at this project. Maybe there are possibilites to reuse some of the things you created so that it can help smaller languages. For the EU the laws are translated into the major languages of the member states. So especially for them it should be possible to create the lexemes. For other languages I dont know what for sources exist. --Hogü-456 (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Flagging trivial senses[edit]

Wiktionary defines sailing in three different ways:

  1. as a form of verb sail,
  2. as a noun and an adjective with trivial sense that mirrors meaning of verb sail, and
  3. as a noun in its own right with several non-trivial senses.

Dictionaries have different inclusion criteria and different formatting for the three definition types. The most common are 1+2+3 (Wiktionaries, at least enwikt), 1+3 or 2+3 (in languages with strong redundancy or even identity between 1 and 2, e.g. Slovak and Czech, @Lexicolover: comments?), and just 3 (paper and concise online dictionaries). I would like to allow downstream dictionaries to differentiate definition types 1-3, so that they can filter and/or format them according to local policy. Wikidata clearly differentiates forms (type 1) from lexeme senses, but is there a way to flag trivial senses (type 2) with a statement to differentiate them from non-trivial senses (type 3)?

There's derived from (P5191) and lexeme classes like verbal noun (Q1350145) (@Fnielsen: comments?), but those do not indicate which sense is the trivial one and they seem to be inappropriate on senses. Omitting all trivial senses from Wikidata would lose information, because trivial senses can have useful statements. There were some mentions of clarifying meaning beyond the crude item for this sense (P5137), but I have not found any examples of that. — Robert Važan (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Just to note this seems like a good idea and a good thing to raise here. I'd been generally avoiding adding trivial senses like this, but I can see how it might be useful. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Hmmm... In Danish, it is easier as the verbal noun (Q1350145) is different from the present participle (Q10345583) form. For instance, the verb sejle (L302330) (sail) is derived to the verbal noun (Q1350145) sejling (L481495), while sejle (L302330) also has the present participle (Q10345583) form "sejlende" L302330-F8. There might be semantic difference between the present participle (Q10345583) form and the derived adjective (Q34698), e.g., stråle (L253058) can mean "shine", while "strålende" can mean "shining" (in its rare verb form) and "glittering" (a glittering performance) as an adjective lexeme. Sometimes I would create the adjective lexeme. Particular if there is an antonym with u- corresponding to un- in English. For English and Danish, there is no unsailing or usejling. But, e.g., for excite there is exciting and unexciting. So I would say that "unexiciting" is derived from the adjective lexeme "exciting", and "exciting" is derived from "excite". Here there seems to be no "exciting" noun, perhaps because of "excitation" and "excitement", - I suppose? In some Danish dictionaries, it seems that in the rare cases where there is a semantic difference then the adjective lexeme is recorded as an individual lexeme, - otherwise not. But I suppose that shouldn't stop us from doing it. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I now see that the Danish verbal noun (Q1350145) is more like deverbal noun (Q1135151). — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I think "exciting" is a bit of a different case, it has a distinctive meaning as an adjective that's different from what the verb would imply (reverses subject and object), so that's not one of the "trivial" senses. That's presumably why we have "excitation" etc. for what would otherwise be the trivial meaning of "exciting". ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I checked existing senses on English lexemes and some do include trivial sense (jumping (L322886), drumming (L319827), scratching (L327289), coating (L30646), crawling (L318830), ...) without flagging it any way while some other English lexemes currently exclude the trivial sense even though Wiktionary includes it (building (L3870), winning (L52428)). A policy is needed to avoid repeated additions/deletions of trivial senses. I think the policy discussion can happen once there's a property proposal for trivial senses. I am not going to propose it myself, at least not right now, because I am not yet sure what value should the property take if any. Meantime, I am going to informally flag such senses with formulaic gloss. — Robert Važan (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, adding these "trivial" senses may be good so that exceptions may be noted by their absence, though perhaps there's a better way to do that too? ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

In Czech language there would be huge number of lexemes with what could be called trivial senses (verbal nouns, verbal adjectives, many adjectives derived from nouns, adverbs derived from adjectives). These are trivial in a sense those inherit senses from words these are derived from (and senses are modified to specific part of speech function). Printed dictionaries usually deal with these lexemes with some kind of short note (for example "kočičí (L245443): adjective to kočka (L1778)"). This works for single language dictionaries but not for multilanguage database for many reasons so I think we should add standard senses. But at this point it becomes somehow untrivial:

  1. The word kočka (L1778) has several meanings and each of them might or might not apply to derived adjective. Keeping the distinction is important for synonymy/antonymy and translations.
  2. The word kočičí (L245443) actually does not have one sense but several senses: 1) being part of cat (cat fur), 2) made for cats (cat food), 3) created/produced by cat (cat voice), 4) similar to cat (cat monster), 5) made out of cat (cat mount) etc. Some languages might have more than one lexeme to express these senses.

At this point we get to M×N number of senses instead od trivial "derived from", it is not trivial to source such senses and we can't expect any consistency if this would be made manualy. I have no idea what good solution would be but I believe that our current data model and used properties are somehow limiting of what we can do. --Lexicolover (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Lexicolover: This is quite enlightening. I suspected there can be multiple trivial senses, but I could not come up with an example. Blanket "trivial sense" statement will not work for all cases unless it links to a sufficiently descriptive item and/or includes qualifiers. In the end, it would essentially express sense definition as Wikidata statement(s) instead of plain text. Expressing definitions as statements means opening Pandora's box of specialized properties, but I think it is worth it for the simplest cases. — Robert Važan (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

wbeditentity now supports editing statements on Senses[edit]

Hello all,

This announcement is relevant for people using the APIs to edit Lexemes, for example building tools on top of Wikidata.

We’re happy to let you know that a feature that was missing for a long time, the ability to edit statements on Senses from wbeditentity, has now been added. This means that adding or editing statements on Senses given a Lexeme ID or a Sense ID is possible, as well as creating new Senses with statements.

You can now use the 'claims' property within Sense objects in the JSON data passed to wbeditentity when editing or adding Senses, just like you would use it for other Entity types.

We hope that this improvement will allow the creation of more editing tools for Lexemes, as well as the support of Lexemes in existing tools.

If you encounter any issue or have questions, feel free to contact me or to add a comment on the Phabricator task. Cheers, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)