Wikidata:Property proposal/ISO 15919 transliteration
ISO 15919 transliteration edit
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic
| Description | representation according to the named ISO standard for transliterating Brahmic scripts |
|---|---|
| Represents | ISO 15919 (Q930439) |
| Data type | String |
| Template parameter | (well, not really) third parameter of en:Template:Transl, given appropriate language code as first parameter and "ISO" as second parameter |
| Domain | lexemes and forms (though conceivably items as well per the current uses of transliteration properties) |
| Allowed values | (regex is possible, but I will get back to this later) |
| Example 1 | দেখা (L3035) → dekhā ("দেখছি" → dekhachi, "দেখবো" → dekhabo, "দেখলাম" → dekhalāma) |
| Example 2 | মা (L1472) → mā |
| Example 3 | জানুয়ারি (L8672) → jānuẏāri |
| Example 4 | পানি (L8248) → pāni |
| Planned use | add to each lexeme/form in at least some Indian-language lexemes |
| Robot and gadget jobs | none at the moment, though I can see one being set up to add these |
| See also | ISO 9:1995 (P2183), pinyin transliteration (P1721), Revised Hepburn romanization (P2125), revised romanization (P2001) |
Motivation edit
The presence of this property is motivated by similar identifiers for Cyrillic (ISO 9:1995 (P2183)), Mandarin (pinyin transliteration (P1721)), Japanese (Revised Hepburn romanization (P2125)), and Korean (revised romanization (P2001)) text. Mahir256 (talk) 13:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
(I am open to narrowing the scope of this property to specifically IAST or specifically NLK transliterations, but I would then question whether this will limit this property's usability for languages not written in the Devanagari script.)
Discussion edit
Comment Shouldn't the datatype be monolingual text. Check Help:Monolingual text languages. John Samuel 17:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Jsamwrites: There are no transliteration properties that use the monolingual text datatype. If you'd like to propose that the other properties I mentioned use monolingual text you can—and I'd be happy to support it in the event you make such a proposal—but in the meantime I'm inclined to keep this proposal using the string datatype. Mahir256 (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Support This seems fine to me - String datatype is perfectly appropriate, it is not text in a specific language, it's just a representation form. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Comment This is important, but I think it can be computer generated see here. The only isssue is the ending "a" (तुम should be 'tum' and not 'tuma') Germartin1 (talk) 13:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Germartin1: The romanizations for Korean and Cyrillic (as well as for Belarusian, Georgian, Manchu, and Tibetan) can also be computer-generated. If you'd like to propose the deletion of those properties on that same basis, I'd be happy to support it, but in the meantime I'm inclined to keep this proposal up. Mahir256 (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Mahir256: Fair point, you have Support for now Germartin1 (talk) 08:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support Useful. Ijon (talk) 08:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
@Ijon, ArthurPSmith, Germartin1, Mahir256: 
Done: ISO 15919 transliteration (P5825). − Pintoch (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)