Module talk:accel

Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Module talk:accel. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Module talk:accel, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Module talk:accel in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Module talk:accel you have here. The definition of the word Module talk:accel will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofModule talk:accel, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.

Comparative and superlative adjectives

Since the script currently (as far as I am aware) uses the headings to find the part-of-speech for deciding the part-of-speech of accelerated entries, it doesn't work for the new format of comparative or superlative adjectives, since they still have "Adjective" as the heading. Would it be possible to instead possibly check the head template or similar of the existing entry for finding the part-of-speech? I could look at it myself as well. — surjection?15:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

My solution for Ancient Greek was adding a parameter to {{grc-adecl}} to specify that an adjective was a comparative or superlative and then adding |comparative or |superlative to the form-of acceleration parameter.
The JavaScript compiles the acceleration parameters, and it can only look at stuff in the HTML and JavaScript. I think there is nothing in the HTML of the headword template to indicate that the word is a comparative. There is the wgCategories variable available in the mw.config object and it would be possible to determine that the page is in a category containing the name of the current language and "comparative adjectives" or "superlative adjectives", but there is no way to determine which links actually belong to the comparative or superlative and which might belong to another part of speech. Even if the closest part-of-speech header to a link is "Adjective", there could be a page with both a positive adjective and a comparative adjective.
You could try my solution. The only way I could see the headword line being helpful is if something were added to the HTML to indicate what POS categories were added. But it is somewhat clearer to have the "comparative" or "superlative" information in the HTML around individual links. — Eru·tuon 22:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Right, that will require something language-by-language which needs to be handled separately. I'll try to come up with something for Finnish at least. — surjection?22:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
But wait, if that is the case, how does the script/module get the PoS heading, or does it not try to at all and am I just mistaken? — surjection?22:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Surjection: I don't quite understand. The script does get the part of speech from the header, as you said. — Eru·tuon 23:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
It gets the header, so why couldn't it just read the line below that? It might have some other template than {{head}} sure, but that's language-specific and should be handled in the language-specific modules. — surjection?08:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
Like I said, there's nothing about "comparative" or "superlative" in the actual HTML of the headword that the JavaScript has access to. — Eru·tuon 09:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Merging headwords

@Erutuon In the case of Slovene mešati, most forms of the imperative have more than one form, but the difference is only in the accentuation, which is not a part of normal Slovene orthography. If these forms were created with acceleration, you'd end up with two ===Verb=== headers on the page mešajte, one with the headword mẹ́šajte and another with mešȃjte. In the case of hvaliti, there is a present-tense form that matches one of the imperatives, so it would be grouped under the hválite heading, leaving the second imperative hvalȋte by itself.

In the case of mešajte, it would be useful if both imperative forms were grouped under a single heading, with head=mẹ́šajte|head2=mešȃjte. This could be done relatively simply by making another merging function that handles cases where all but the headwords are the same. But I'm not sure how this should interact with the existing definition-merging code. There is a choice to be made: group the first imperative hválite with the present-tense form (thus merging the definitions), or with the second imperative hvalȋte (thus merging the headwords)? Which should take precedence? I'm leaning towards merging the headwords in this case. But one could imagine more complicated cases where both the headword and the definition can be merged, and I don't think this would work out of the box. —Rua (mew) 08:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm partial to merging headwords so that definitions aren't duplicated. It seems closer to what we do when it's a lemma. — Eru·tuon 17:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps origin and origin-transliteration could be conceptually arrays, so that multiple headwords can be specified in the acceleration data and the acceleration script doesn't have to figure out how to merge the entries. Not sure if that makes sense though. — Eru·tuon 18:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
It would be easier if the template/module writer doesn't have to think of that, and can just trust that the gadget will do the right thing. —Rua (mew) 18:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, you're right. The acceleration for one spelling should not have to contain the other spelling. It would be annoying and bad design. — Eru·tuon 04:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Duplicate person numbers

@Rua @Benwing2

I found a problem with the creation of German verb forms. When you go to abmurksen and click on the past tense form (second green link of the headword line), it generates the following inflection template:

# {{infl of|de|abmurksen||1//3//1//3|s|pret|;|1//3|s|sub|II}}

As you can see, the first and third person are listed twice for the preterite. So, why does that happen? When you look at the URL parameters of the creation page, you get this:

&accel_lang=de
&accel_lemma=abmurksen
&accel1=pos-verb 1//3|s|pret-form-of
&accel2=pos-verb 1|s|pret-form-of origin-abmurksen
&accel3=pos-verb 1|s|sub|II-form-of origin-abmurksen
&accel4=pos-verb 3|s|pret-form-of origin-abmurksen
&accel5=pos-verb 3|s|sub|II-form-of origin-abmurksen

accel1 comes from the headword line, while accel2 and accel4 come from the conjugation table. This module doesn't seem to deduplicate these three parameters, so that's why we get the result we get. Is there an easy way to fix that?

By the way, when you click on the first green link of the headword line, it will generate an inflection template where the third person is listed before the second one:

# {{infl of|de|abmurksen||3//2|s|pres|;|2|p|pres|;|p|imp}}

Can we also sort the person numbers in increasing order?

Tc14Hd (aka Marc) (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Tc14Hd Getting acceleration params to work correctly for headword lines is a big pain in the ass. I may just disable this entirely; it works fine if you click on the corresponding form in the conjugation table. Benwing2 (talk) 00:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 Well, right now the problem also occurs for the forms in the conjugation table since all green links of the same word have the same URL. Tc14Hd (aka Marc) (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Tc14Hd If I disable the acceleration in the headword, at least the problem of duplication should go away, and the mis-sorting might also go away because Module:accel maintains the order of whatever is passed in. Benwing2 (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Tc14Hd I disabled headword acceleration and both problems seem to have resolved themselves. Benwing2 (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 Okay. Would it be possible to add headwork links that do the same thing as the conjugation links but don't contribute anything to the &accelX parameters? Of course, these links wouldn't work if there is no conjugation table present on that page. Tc14Hd (aka Marc) (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Tc14Hd Not sure I understand. Benwing2 (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Benwing2 Sorry for responding so late. I don't know if you even remember this, and it probably doesn't even matter since the thing want to change is probably not possible anyway, but here we go:
Before you disabled the green headword links, the problem was that the headword links added a URL parameter to the creation page URL (&accel1=pos-verb 1//3|s|pret-form-of in our case) and that parameter caused the duplication. Since the JavaScript aggregates these parameters for all occurrence of the same verb form (murkste ab in our case), the links in the conjugation table also received this parameter. My idea now is to make the headwords links clickable (e.g. green) without them adding their own parameters. But even though they don't add their own parameters, they will still work correctly since the links in the conjugation table provide the correct parameters. (This would also mean that the headword links won't work on pages without a conjugation table.)
I hope this was understandable (probably not). Please don't waste too much time on this.
Tc14Hd (aka Marc) (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Tc14Hd That's an interesting idea. I think it would require some changes to the JavaScript gadget to have an additional flag telling it to use a null accel form or something. Maybe there's a way to hack it, either by leaving out the form or passing in some garbage value. Benwing2 (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)Reply