Wikidata Talk:Lexicographical Data

• Overview
• Documentation
• Development
• Tools
• Support for Wiktionary
• How to help
• Statistics
• Lexemes
• Discussion

Wikidata:Lexicographical data

Lexicographical dataPlace used to discuss any and all aspects of lexicographical data: the project itself, policy and proposals, individual lexicographical items, technical issues, etc.

Translate this header box!Start a new discussion

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 2026/03.

Project chat Translators' noticeboard Bot requests Lexicographical data Request a query Requests for permissions Interwiki conflicts Administrators' noticeboard Requests for deletions Property proposal Bureaucrats' noticeboard Report a technical problem Requests for comment Properties for deletion Requests for checkuser

Ordia Games

[edit]Latest comment: 2 months ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Hi,

I'm don't think it has been announced here, Ordia now has games which reuse lexemes ! Thanks a lot Fnielsen !

It's great and fun, you should give it a try. It's good both way: for people outside lexemes to discover and use them but also for people working on lexems to find things to improve or correct.

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

yay! a bit sad though that it doesn't support mis languages. Would have loved to play some games with Lorrain (Q671198) Poslovitch (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2025 (UTC)Reply Tried the "gender" game with french, I had wrong with diacre (L1373847), the expected answer was "feminine", I entered "masculine". The lexeme have both. Not sure how to best handle that case, both in the lexeme and the game ? author TomT0m / talk page 11:46, 14 December 2025 (UTC)Reply @TomT0m I have made a fix so double-gendered words no longer appear in the game. Let me hear if you still experience problems. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2025 (UTC)Reply Yes, I have noted the problem here: https://github.com/fnielsen/ordia/issues/291 It may take a while before I fix it. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2025 (UTC)Reply @Poslovitch I managed to implement it. Lorrain is available on https://ordia.toolforge.org/guess-the-gender/ - at the buttom. Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2025 (UTC)Reply @Fnielsen I can't express how grateful I am. Thank you so so much! Poslovitch (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Attach Lexicographical data chat to WikiProject Languages ?

[edit]Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

It seems the topic is very close to WikiProject Language, language and their words data.

Should we attach the discussion on this talk page to this project ?

I'm trying to work on Wikidata:WikiProject Languages/Writing systems and writing characters right now, I noticed there is not very many participants to this project, so we might share the discussions to benefit from each other ? author TomT0m / talk page 12:40, 17 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's close (lexicography obviously rely on languages) but different (for instance, the project may see different languages where lexeme editors decided to group them together). Depends on what you mean by "attach". I guess the link to WD:LD at the bottom is enough, no? Arlo Barnes (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Pamputt Germartin1 (talk) 11:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC) Prefuture (talk) عُثمان (talk) 15:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC) Arcstur (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC) Marsupium (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply Notified participants of WikiProject Languages to have more point of view. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 13:12, 31 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Request for comment on Notability policy reform

[edit]Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi,

For the record, there is a currently a request for comment: Wikidata:Requests for comment/Notability policy reform. One question is about adding explicitly Wikidata:Lexicographical data/Notability on Wikidata:Notability.

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 13:22, 31 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Wiktionary as a reference

[edit]Latest comment: 3 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Howdy all! Mahir256 has brought to my attention that Wikidata discourages the use of Wikimedia sites as references, according to this help page. However while Wikipedia is a tertiary source, Wiktionary is a secondary source where it draws its own conclusions based on primary sources (quotations, linguistic rules/patterns, etc.). Wiktionary does use references in some cases to add verifiability, but the community can easily dispute/disregard them through internal discussion. To sell the point, Wiktionary records words that no dictionary (or reference) accounts for with evidence. You can read more about it here. Using Wiktionary as a reference is useful especially when its information either provides unrecorded information or concludes differently from other sources. Is it acceptable to use Wiktionary as a reference and if not, what other reasons are not accounted for? TranqyPoo (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

@TranqyPoo: I'm not sure. In any case, it should be limited to cases where there is no other source. An other way would be to do on lexemes like it's done on Wiktionaries and use primary sources directly. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2026 (UTC)Reply Seems to me that we can already use Wikimedia import URL (P4656) on references, just like in a Q item. The property has an important constraint that requires a permanent link to a revision, in case the page is edited after the fact. The only difference with a Wiktionary citation would be that readers and data consumers might be encouraged to perhaps trust the reference as more than mere data exhaust. Minh Nguyễn 💬 21:57, 9 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

reconstructive linguistics

[edit]Latest comment: 1 day ago3 comments2 people in discussion

For use in derived from lexeme (P5191), is it appropriate to link to a proto-language lexeme (one starting with * to indicate the form is unattested)? — Arlo Barnes (talk) 08:25, 11 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't see why not, but with the caveat that a reference is strongly recommended (there is a constraint by default asking for reference on derived from lexeme (P5191) for all values but in this case, it's even more important). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 10:29, 11 March 2026 (UTC)Reply Well, just that they are somewhat slippery since the sound is described statistically rather than from an artifact such as an inscription or recording. *meyth₂- (L1558583) is the lexeme I had in mind when asking the question. The Indo-European Lexicon (Q130709909) at UTexas doesn't seem to have an entry for it. — Arlo Barnes (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2026 (UTC)Reply