Wikidata:Requests for comment/audio transcription (P9533)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- There is no consensus to use the RFC procedure for exploring the use of a property as the first step, and discussion has instead been started on the property talk page. Ainali (talk) 06:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
| An editor has requested the community to provide input on "audio transcription (P9533)" via the Requests for comment (RFC) process. This is the discussion page regarding the issue.
If you have an opinion regarding this issue, feel free to comment below. Thank you! |
THIS RFC IS CLOSED. Please do NOT vote nor add comments.
Hello allo,
I'm a bit troubled by the current property audio transcription (P9533) described as « transcription of the word/text being spoken in this file ». My issue is with being spoken which exclude other communications modalities :
- Signed languages (video)
- Whistled languages (audio but not spoken)
- Morse (audio or image)
- Flags signals (video or images)
- other codes
- Alternative ?
I did not find any more generalist property for :
- Label:
written transcription - Description: « transcription of communication utterance into written word/text »
What is the way forward ? Should we redefine this property to enlarge its scope or make a request for a new property ? Yug (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's better for discussion about a specific property to happen on that property's talk page, so I've responded there. - Nikki (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Nikki. The venue to have the discussion is on the talk page of the property, ideally with tagging the people who participated in the property discussion and who are responsible for the current wording. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 23:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]