> You are right, I mixed them up (that comes from not checking). > > The usecase for monolingual text are a bit rare, and I am thinking of > things like official motto (which is usually not translated),
I think if it is only "usually not", but sometimes indeed translated, using multilingual for the property would be a better choice. If only one language is available, the language fallback would always end with this. > etymological annotations, or the official name of a company (also, > usually not translated), "usually". Companies sometimes do run under local names (or variations): de: Sanyo Denki K.K. ja: San’yō Denki Kabushiki-gaisha, en: SANYO Electric Co. Ltd. > carefully about how delineate them from each other in the entry forms, > or otherwise it might end up a bit messy. I think when adding the option for non-linguistic content (= ISO zxx) for language-neutral entities (e.g. for scientific species names, post codes), this type is the least needed. (If anything, it may be more valuable to add a default flag to indicate a primary name that should be used prior to the first in a language fallback. This would be valuable in "mixed" cases, where a string is translated in a few cases, but not in the majority of languages (the "usually not case"). Else in a rare border case, where a German company that provides translations to Japanese and Chinese, but not to english, a language fallback chain that does contain German may accidentally end up with Chinese. This solves a border case within the multilingual type which I believe cannot be solved with monolingual text.) Gregor (Often wrong but never in doubt :-) ) _______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
