User talk:193.204.59.24

Hello
Why are you doing this? --Vahag (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi thanks for asking your question! The thing is that often in Wiktionary qualifiers are used without being recognized as such. zero-grade should be distinguished from other words, in the same way as other qualifiers (or key words) are, e.g. borrowing, back form, clipping, etc, (for which we have a templates). These kinds of key words create problems when extracting data automatically from Wiktionary as they are not recognized as such. In particular I am using java to extract etymological relationships from the English wiktionary (see my project: http://tools.wmflabs.org/etytree ). I though using a qualifier would not husrt much. Hope you agree. Otherwise maybe you could give me a suggestion that is more efficient.We could have a chat if what I am writing is not clear. Epantaleo (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * is meant to be used with list items. Please read its documentation and do not use it in etymologies. You will not be able to automatize the analysis of the etymology sections. They are meant to be written and read by humans. They will always have unstructured text. --Vahag (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, I will fix this soon. Sorry if this caused problems. Please check my project at http://tools.wmflabs.org/etytree/etymology/resources/html/index.html . It actually works, mostly. The English Wiktionary is actually written in a very standardized way.  Some things are missing and one of them is a template for qualifiers in etymology sections. Maybe we could extend this conversation to other people that are interested in etymologies and maybe have some ideas on how to do this. Or if you have other ideas, they are very welcome Epantaleo (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * , you can bring up the question of parsability at WT:GP. --Vahag (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)