Wikidata:Property proposal/Braille transcription
Braille transcription
[edit]Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic
| Description | transcription in Braille |
|---|---|
| Represents | Braille script (Q79894) |
| Data type | String |
| Domain | grapheme (Q2545446) |
| Allowed values | Any of the Braille cells in Braille Patterns (Q2493839) |
| Example 1 | A/a (Q9659)→⠁ |
| Example 2 | 橫 (Q109750856)→⠨⠃⠱ |
| Example 3 | 7 (Q23350)→⠻ |
| Example 4 | apostrophe (Q436048)→⠄ |
| Example 5 | わ (Q40809)→⠄ |
| Planned use | Adding Braille to the corresponding grapheme. |
| Expected completeness | always incomplete (Q21873886) |
| See also | IPA transcription (P898), Wikidata:Property proposal/Braille represents |
Motivation
[edit]I believe it would be valuable for graphemes to have their corresponding Braille cell(s). Since Braille differs across languages, the writing system (P282) should be a mandatory qualifier. This would improve accessibility and provide a structured way to link written characters with their tactile representations. JhowieNitnek (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]
Support This seems a very good idea. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2026 (UTC)- Support Trivialist (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
Strong support --Wyslijp16 (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
Comment I recently discovered IPA Braille (P4225). Rather than continuing with my initial proposal, perhaps we could consider expanding the scope of this property? JhowieNitnek (talk) 08:12, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
- @JhowieNitnek: maybe, can you be a little more concrete how you would expand P4225? The existing property is for a very specific representation, whereas you are proposing using a qualifier to allow for all possible representations. So this is a more general property; additionally it targets graphemes rather than phonemes, so I think they are fundamentally different in that sense. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
- @ArthurPSmith I think you are right. We should not expand IPA Braille (P4225) and keep my original proposal! JhowieNitnek (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
- @JhowieNitnek: maybe, can you be a little more concrete how you would expand P4225? The existing property is for a very specific representation, whereas you are proposing using a qualifier to allow for all possible representations. So this is a more general property; additionally it targets graphemes rather than phonemes, so I think they are fundamentally different in that sense. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
- @JhowieNitnek, Trivialist, Wyslijp16:
Done ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2026 (UTC)