Wiktionary:Votes/2008-03/Keenebot2 to auto-add foreign-language verb forms

• Voting on: User:Keenebot2 to generate conjugated forms of verbs in foreign languages other than French. Hopefully I've proved myself capable of running a bot - around 40000 entries created in the last few weeks. I'd like to branch out into other languages now, which have logical conjugations. Examples of Keenebot2's non-French FL entries are for inflections of dificultar (Catalan), precisar (Catalan), analiza (Romanian) and lyste (Norwegian).

• Vote ends: 19 April 2008 23:59 UTC
• Vote started: 5 April 2008 23:59 UTC

• Vote created: Keene2 14:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Discussion:

  WT:BP#Keenebot2_to_branch_out.3F

  User talk:Opiaterein

Canceled Keene is user "Wonderfool", has deleted main page, de-sysopped and blocked permanently Robert Ullmann 16:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Support —Ruakh_TALK 16:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Support DaveRoss 16:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Support Conrad.Irwin 07:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC) I trust Keene to behave correctly, I assume this is just to speed the process up when a native speaker is found. Conrad.Irwin 07:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

   In a way it is, yes. I've got dozens of offline non-French templates ready and waiting to put through the Python script, but most of those (especially Portuguese and Catalan which are looking pretty complete offline) I can't check before running. Maybe I could ask people on the pt: and ca: Wiktionaries or even Wikipedia about these. Keene2 07:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

   If it's possible to generate a list of verbs (lemma forms) to be conjugated, and have that list sorted by conjugation pattern, it would make it easier for someone experienced in the language to spot problems. A person can scan the list over and note verbs that look out of place. Then a test can be run for one or two in each pattern to spot problems, then the rest of the batch run. This would put a little more effort up front, but could save lots of cleanup time afterwards. --EncycloPetey 15:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

   It is very possible to do this. In fact, I've been doing it since KB2 started. My list of verbs (lemma forms) use Category:Romanian conjugation templates as a base. Then to find a list of all verbs with the same conjugation pattern are found by clicking the Whatlinkshere button in each of the templates. It has worked incredibly well and efficiently for me so far, and I was able to check the conjugation was correct by referring to another reference (LeConjugueur especially for French, which also sorts verbs with the same conjugation pattern). Also Verbix is an excellent base for other-language verbs, including Romanian. I hope that answers your query. Keene 19:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

   But are these lists available someone so that others can see and comment. That's really the thrust of my comment. Having them as personal working lists is one thing, but making them visible for checking is far more useful. --EncycloPetey 21:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

   Sure, the lists are available at e.g. here and here. Commenting at Template talk:ro-conj-a and Template talk:fr-conj-re. Keene

1. Oppose EncycloPetey 17:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC) I can't support a blanket license to create entries. Given a specific list, I think I might approve, but there are some languages just not ready to have verb forms added by bot. Nor is there any indication that Keene would ask native spekers to check things out. I say this because in the past few weeks of cleaning up Latin verbs, I have spotted and corrected countless errors and there is still a long way to go on cleaning things up before I'd trust a bot to be able to generate forms. The same could very well be true of other languages. Also, please note that the inflections of Romanian verbs will not be counted towards our page totals in the statistics, since they include no wikilinks (a problem that exists with the current Latin formatting as well). This problem should be addressed and solved before bot creation of conjugated forms. --EncycloPetey 17:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

   I hadn't noticed that about those entries. Good catch. Yes, the bot-additions, being so controversial to begin with, should be perfected before full-scale approval. --Connel MacKenzie 20:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC) Agree with EP. I think that Keenebot adding inflected forms to different languages is a fantastic thing and want to see it happen for a lot of languages. However, I would much prefer having to vote for each language, as each language has nuanced differences that need to be ironed out beforehand, and a vote for each language would allow us the requisite time to make sure that has happened. I mean, what if some idiot wrote a bot to do Spanish inflected forms that weren't quite right......we'd have one hell of a mess to clean up.......:-)
3. Oppose broad permission, per other opposers (except for that bit about stats, which is not crucial).—msh210℠ 05:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose \Mike 18:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC) I agree with the per-language votes. (Or at least a vote which specifies a set of languages.) E.g. for Swedish I fear that there needs to be done some serious consideration first (which I'm unable to perform; I don't have sufficient background knowledge in grammar/linguistics) about what to call various forms as I hear various conflicting naming going on (is it active/mediopassive/passive voices, or is it active/passive/reciprocal/absolute voices, or is it active form/s-form? Just to mention three different schematas I've seen over the last two-three years when it comes to the voices... The present templates only shows the active voice, fwiw). Personally I'd also like en:wikt to have the nowadays obsolete personal inflections (the last remnants of them vanished from formal writing no more than maybe 60 years ago). So a bot which run on Swedish verbs would presumably have to run again when such things have been settled upon...
5. Oppose Connel MacKenzie 20:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Each language has different concerns that must be fully discussed individually. --Connel MacKenzie 20:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose Nadando 05:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC) If you got individual permission for each language I would support this. As it is there is no way mass creating articles in languages you are not familiar with is a reasonable idea. Nadando 05:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Canceled, blocked, see above. Robert Ullmann 16:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)