Support. (I'm not a fan of the form-of links, as they should go to a French-specific appendix; but seeing as the appendices don't exist yet, I guess that's too much to ask. And, what Conrad.Irwin said.) —RuakhTALK15:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeEncycloPetey 18:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC) - There are still bugs to work out. This edit [1] put the French entry after the entire page, which created cleanup for other bots. Why can't Keenebot2 put the text in the correct location? I also don't see any evidence of how the bot will function if there is already a French section on the page. I am further confused by information given on the Keenebot2 user page. For 9 Feb 2008, it says "Test 6: mater (added feminine and plural past participles, included {{fr-verb-form}})", but I see no evidence that this test ever happened. There is nothing in the edit history for any of the affected pages for that day or by Keenebot2 at all. If these issues can be resolved, I'd be willing to change my vote. --EncycloPetey18:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SemperBlottoBot has been using the same AF-cleanup method for a long time and it works just fine. AF sometimes takes only a few minutes, and sometimes a few hours to rearrange the L2 section names. --Ivan Štambuk20:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the points- I'll address each separately.
firstly, with putting the French section at the end. The reason it's not in alphabetic order is that I don't know how to put it in alphabetic order. I don't know how much of a problem it is that AutoFormat auto-formats it after it is added, but I don't expect it's that big of a problem.
Secondly, "I also don't see any evidence of how the bot will function if there is already a French section on the page". This is because it doesn't do anything if a French section is already there! In Python a message comes up "Page [conjugated form] already exists with French section, nor adding!"
So why aren't those forms listed in the conjugation of mater? If an entry is going to be labeled "form of verb x," shouldn't that form appear on the lemma page somewhere? Right now, maté is listed as the past participle on the mater page. There is no indication on either page that other forms of the participle even exist. --EncycloPetey22:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose yes, this is after the end date; our network has been down for most of two days :-( issues that need to be resolved:
like the other entries generated by this code, the entries are not even minimal stubs; they contain no English definition (translation) whatsoever. Since the English word is known, and a bot is generating the entries, it would be simply to put the inflection on the inflection line and the English definition on the definition line, in the correct form (e.g. to jump, I jump, you jump, he/she jumps, they have jumped, he will have jumped, etc, etc.) Why be so lazy? It just means another bot or a human will have to expand the entries into something useful later.
bot operator is not a native speaker of French, so oddities may go un-noticed; no native speaker of French is involved. (SemperBlotto involved Barmar, who is a native speaker of Italian, and caught quite a few things.) In particular, the existing conjugation table in the entry may be wrong, and go uncorrected, cleanup may never happen.
would be very good to add the conjugation table to each entry (two lines of wikitext), but I don't know if they are set up that way, some languages are, some tables assume PAGENAME=(infinitive).
(added) the {see} template is not sorted automatically by AF, has to be added/merged at the top or fixed manually.
A few replies - For the first point about having the English definition on the line - I think I've mentioned that before. Some French verbs have many definitions, and it would be a tedious task to add them to the code, when the reader could just click on the link to the verb and get the definitions (this is how SemperBlottBot and TheDaveBot do it for Italian and Spanish respectively)
And they should be doing it better too; I objected very strongly to TheDaveBot creating entries in this form. (and see below) If it is too hard/tedious whatever, someone else should be doing this. The Spanish and Italian entries are awful, and lowering the bar on entries to that level is disgusting. It reduces what you are doing to a waste of time, as a better 'bot will have to do it all over again! (and yes, all the DaveBot entries have already been done over once) Robert Ullmann12:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think "disgusting" is a bit harsh. They're not awful at all - picking a random Italian and Spanish bot entries - zanjad and lesionareis were the first Spanish ones from Randompage, risovvenisse and svilupperete the first Italians. How are they ugly? They have a definition in English, with third-person etc. linked and imperfect subjunctive etc. linked. They're just fine for me. How would you make them less awful? --Keene12:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not a native speaker, but User:Circeus is, and he's helped me correct a few initial errors. Also, whoever writes le conjuguer (which I use as a primary reference point) is a native speaker, as are the people on Wiktionnaire, where the conjugation tables were first created.
As for adding the conjugation table to each conjugated entry, this is a nice idea that hasn't been mentioned before. I'd love to see it in each entry, and maybe in the future a bot (probably mine) can add that code into all the pages.
I've added the conjugation template, e.g. at computons. Sticking it at the bottom doesn't look ideal, but it looks better than anywhere else on the page. I suppose the table header could be "conjugation of computer" instead of just "conjugation" too -I'll add that to Template:fr-conj to see how it looks. Keep the suggestions coming!--Keene12:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only for French, you say? No problem, I'll do the French stuff first, and hereby promise hereafter to not use the bot for any other language except French, until a new vote has been started for the relevant language. --Keene11:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AbstainCirceus17:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC) While I'm thrilled at this development, I'm really not a fan of the current format for verb forms (and I'd like to at least resolve the differences between it and my substitution template first).[reply]
AbstainCirceusoopsBequw I do think that the non-infinitive forms should be generated by bots. Could the entries be a bit more informative, at least giving a clue as to what they might mean in English? Maybe using {{term}} to mention the infinitive verb with its most common English gloss? --Bequw → ¢ • τ19:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Bequw meant “Like Circeus, I do think […]”; rather, I think (s)he meant to copy-and-paste only up through the word “Abstain”. I've now added support to {{abstain}} for sig=, so this sort of problem should never happen again. :-) —RuakhTALK20:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "Could the entries be a bit more informative...giving a clue a clue as to what they mean in English" I assume you mean something like having in the defintiion e.g. first-person singular imperfect indicative form of injecter (we were injecting)"? If that's the case, then I don't plan to do that. There are a few different ways to translate these various inflected forms, e.g. the present indicative in French can be translated as either "I do" (simple present), "I am doing" (present continuous) or even "I have been doing" (present perfect continuous) depending on the context. --Keene21:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't even thinking that complicated. Just a clue as to what the infinitive means, not trying to figure out how to do all the inflected forms. So it'd be first-person singular imperfect indicative form of (deprecated template usage)injecter. --Bequw → ¢ • τ13:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I don't think I can be bothered with that - the link to the infinitive is already emboldened and wikilinked anyway. Plus, some verb have many meanings, and giving those extra meanings at the end could be confusing and messy. --Keene14:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find the "don't think I can be bothered with that" attitude disturbing. If you can't be "bothered", how about leaving the project to someone who is willing to do a better job? Robert Ullmann11:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be counter-productive to add all the translations, partly because if a new translation is added to the French infinitive page, then all the conjugated pages will have to be changed too (maybe a bot could do auto-add them too, but that's beside the point). I'm working here on the basis that users reading these bot entries have at least a basic knowledge of French. Is this a bad assumption to make? Maybe. As for leaving this bot project to someone else, maybe someone with more knowledge of French or more of an understanding how to program code, then find me someone who's willing to take it on, it would save me a lot of time ;p! On a final note, I'd like to remind you that it's just the same thing as SemperBlotto's bot, but in French. --Keene11:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Conrad.Irwin 14:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC) Keene responds well to criticism and is very eager to get this working. Conrad.Irwin 14:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose EncycloPetey 18:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC) - There are still bugs to work out. This edit [1] put the French entry after the entire page, which created cleanup for other bots. Why can't Keenebot2 put the text in the correct location? I also don't see any evidence of how the bot will function if there is already a French section on the page. I am further confused by information given on the Keenebot2 user page. For 9 Feb 2008, it says "Test 6: mater (added feminine and plural past participles, included 
Abstain Circeus 17:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC) While I'm thrilled at this development, I'm really not a fan of the current format for verb forms (and I'd like to at least resolve the differences between it and my substitution template first).