This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Hi, just saw the comment you put on Lifelike's page. I do understand where you are coming from Lfh, I do, I do. However, here is yet another example of the Wikipedia telling people how to pronounce their home towns - and getting it wrong. I'm sure you grasped several days ago it's no you whom I'm criticizing, it's the collective philosophy of the the whole bunch of Wikipedia IPA experts who are following their own herd instinct. Lemmings? -- Kudpung ( talk) 13:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's just a question of whether you write /dəl/ or /dl/ or /dl̩/. WP:IPAEN happens to use the first. You could take the /ə/ out, it just wouldn't quite match the key anymore. "Oundle" has the same final syllable as "kindle", right? Lfh ( talk) 13:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Depends on how you pronounce Oundle and kindle. We all pronounce it (and other English words like it) like the German Dirndl which the Collins dictionary writes as [ˈdɪrndl]. Pronouncing it exactly according to the IPA /dəl/ would slightly lengthen the 'uh' phoneme and make the pronunciation unnatural.-- Kudpung ( talk) 14:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC) BTW: I've already proven Kwami totally and irrevocably wrong on his insistences on the interpretation of IPA British pronunciation but he keeps coming back with an off-topic riposte.
A far as 'matching the key' is concerned, I don't follow your reasoning - the WP:IPAEN is a table of phonemes, not a list of sounds in context.

That's what the examples are for, to provide context. "Bottle" is given as an example for /əl/, even though the page on syllabic consonants gives a more precise phonetic transcription of the very same word as [bɒtl̩ˠ]. /əl/ just means "the sound at the end of bottle or kindle". There isn't a longer version of the same sound corresponding to a different phoneme, so there's no need to define /dəl/ as something different from /dl/. They're just different ways of writing the same thing.

You could argue that we should use /dl/ instead, or as an equal alternative (like the way /ɚ/ can be used for /ər/). I personally wouldn't mind; it just isn't how the key is set up at the moment. Lfh ( talk) 14:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to be the Devil's advocate here, I'm going to throw in a couple more examples taken from a world famous dictionary that I happen to know rather exceptionally well. A couple are about that terrible argument about the non existent post vocalic r, the others re about words that end in L like we have been discussing above.

• spiral [ˈspaɪərəl]
• Wandel [ˈvandl]
• spire [spaɪə*]
• splinter [ˈsplɪntə*]

You've proaly noticed that there is something special in the sound when an l follows a d. My main contention is that the authors of the IPA article are getting thnings wrong, even Kwami who almost owns it from his massive edit count on it, is sometimes quite wrong, and even contradicts himself. One who joined in the row but in fact never contributed to the article says of himself: I'm an American who made significant contributions to the coverage of phonetics at this article so it could just be that I have my head up too far up my ass to know what makes sense to readers. So where do we go from here for the quality of our encyclopedia? -- Kudpung ( talk) 16:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC) BNTW, we tried the talk page solution already, didn't we. And that's why the conversation is now taking place more intelligently on a few user talk pages ;)

If you think we need to treat final "dle" differently from e.g. "tle" ("bottle") or "ple" ("couple"), you should bring it up at one of the relevant pronunciation talk pages. WP is an ongoing project and improvements are always being sought. As for me, I'll remove the /ə/ from Oundle - as I said, some academics would have written it without one in the first place, and it might make it more intuitive to the reader.

"Spire" and "splinter" have nothing to do with Oundle. They are pronounced with final /r/ by rhotic speakers, and by non-rhotic speakers with linking R when followed by a vowel.

Anything that you disagree with Kwami about, you need to bring up on his page. I'm not acquainted with either of you, but you both seem like very amiable and intelligent people and I'm sure you can iron out your disagreements directly. You are passionate about language and about our coverage of places in the English Midlands - nothing wrong with that. Lfh ( talk) 17:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course "Spire" and "splinter" have got nothing to do with the Oundle article, but they are the very essence of the discussion you started, and which got me involved in matters concerning the Wikipedia's attempt to be the ultimate IPA handbook ( WP:NOT). I'm sure that a look at what the Encyclopedia Britannica says about the IPA will clarify the point I have constantly been making throughout these discussions :) -- Kudpung ( talk) 02:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you can't be saying that "splinter" doesn't have /r/ in any accent - try watching the Turtles! I'm not quite sure what you are saying (perhaps that dictionary words should be by default non-rhotic?), but I'll have a look in the EB and see if that throws any light on it. Lfh ( talk) 08:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you think there are any mistakes in the IPA articles (e.g. International Phonetic Alphabet, Phonetic transcription, Phoneme) why not be bold and make some changes? The worst that could happen is somebody might revert them, but even then, that would be an opportunity to discuss it - and on a talk page with a wider readership than this one! Nobody owns any article. Lfh ( talk) 09:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I know nobody owns the WP, but some of the authors who are the major contributors or creators of some articles defend their POV like a woman scorned. I have no intention of becoming part of any WP language project, like I said before, when i come home from work, I prefer to do something else for my relaxation, and take part inprjects where there is no silly bickering going on. On the IPA page , silly bickering is on-going ;)<bfr> Get back to me when you've looked at the EB, and we'll have a fireside chat about it.-- Kudpung ( talk) 10:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, could you just tell me what it is the EB says that relates to "splinter"? I don't have access to it where I am, unfortunately. And I'm afraid you're going to have to be more clear about what you're arguing for re. rhoticity. You have brought up a pair of words ending in R, but not actually explained what point you're trying to make, or how those examples support it, except to imply that their post-vocalic /r/ is "non-existent". How do you think Wikipedia should transcribe words that end in R and are pronounced with /r/ by rhotic speakers? If we gave a pronunciation on the splinter article, how would you wish to transcribe it? I note that that page links to the Wiktionary def, which gives separate UK and US versions - is that what you think we should do?

As for Oundle, kindle, dirndl etc., as I have said, many (most?) sources would transcribe them in the way you suggest, and not in the way prescribed by WP:IPAEN. I changed [and then reverted myself] Oundle just to make it consistent with that key, which transcribes the sequence of /d/ followed by /l/ in a different way from your source, among others (simply as a matter of convention). You could probably make a very strong case for changing the key, but that's not something that could be agreed on this page. You don't have to join any projects, but you do need to say what it is you think we should do differently. Lfh ( talk) 11:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be a really good idea if you were to check out the Encyclopedia Britannica. As I've said before, I've no real interest in getting involved in linguistics here. My issue is in defending the claims of several authors that the IPA in their articles is being changed and misspelt by other authors who either don't actually know how the place names are pronounced, or who have unwittingly misinterpreted any Wikipedia policy on the subject, or who have implemented a policy that may itself be flawed. It's up to the Wikipedia IPA task force to address the problem now that it has been brought up.

Fair enough. I would put myself in the third of your categories - I think I've been applying Wikipedia's IPA standards consistently, but if those standards turn out to be confusing or irritating for a large number of readers, then this needs to be sorted out, exactly as you say.

Myself, I'm from Buckinghamshire - not that far from Oundle or Warwickshire, and close enough to the Midlands to know that the River Nene is "Nenn"! (And that Towcester is used for heating bread.)

Good luck with your Wikipedia projects and all the rest. Lfh ( talk) 15:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right about that third category. I now just have to convince the others. However I'm not part of the IPA task force and I don't intend to be! Keep up the good work, and don't forget to join any project that you feel passionately enough about :) -- Kudpung ( talk) 15:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Kudpung ( talk) 23:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall that it's Nye, but I'm not sure. We could look around on YouTube to see if we can find a pronunciation, or write to his agent. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 16:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would say so. Good find. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 17:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone recently added a pronunciation to Neligh, Nebraska, derived from the AP Nebraska Pronunciation Guide. Could you convert it to a proper respelling and maybe add an IPA pronunciation as well? Nyttend ( talk) 16:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. It was actually in line with Wikipedia:Pronunciation respelling key already, just without the template. Lfh ( talk) 17:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologize. By the way, do you know how the IPA transcriptions on Wikipedia could be quickly updated? Kostja ( talk) 16:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I mean changing the IPA transcriptions of Bulgarian and Macedonian names to link to the IPA page for Bulgarian and Macedonian and not to the general template. Kostja ( talk) 17:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that Kwami has relaunched his attack on the British pronunciation of British place names, by British Wikipedeia authors and British citizens. I think this campaign is deceitful and goes against an admin's remit. I might not be so prepared to let things rest this time round, especially as Kwami is oblivious of the sensitivities he may be affronting, and even though I am one editor who abhors opening cans of worms.-- Kudpung ( talk) 11:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please count me out of any drama you plan to foment. The pan-dialectal transcription has already been explained to you. There is no "attack" or "campaign", and an appeal to authority by British citizenship is not likely to work. I don't like cans of worms either, and at present I'm simply leaving post-vocalic /r/'s alone (whether present or absent), at least until feelings settle down. Lfh ( talk) 11:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't plan to foment any drama. I plan on trying to clean up one or two issues where a clan of rogue American editors are making claims to the English language that is used in British articles in this encyclopedia. The pan-dialectal transcription is not something that should even be entertained in something as global as this encyclopedia. Feelings will only die down when people have asserted that the Brits have the right not to have American pronunciation thrust upon them. The entire IPA article, even if enormous work has been put into it in good faith, is a major contradiction of Wiki policy, and Kwami continues to implement his private agenda with impunity, in the knowledge that his 'authority' as a sysop and quasi owner of the IPA article, will inevitably win for him against any justifiable complaints about his disruptive editing. Nothing will be gained by simply side stepping the problems and pretending they will go away, or by producing smoke screens.-- Kudpung ( talk) 15:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

We work by consensus. We used to have separate transcriptions for each dialect, but where do you stop? Do we add Aussie? NZ? How long before the entire lead is taken up by multiple dialectical transcriptions, so that no-one feels left out? It was a mess. So by consensus we decided on using a single transcription, which BTW is based on RP, not GA, as you very well know. There were Brits and Aussies as well as Yanks in the discussion, and it was due to the influence of British editors in that discussion that the transcription is based on RP. Consensus may change, and if it does, so be it. But you need to work on consensus, not simply object that because you don't like something, the rest of us need to change to please you. kwami ( talk) 21:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand all this Kwami, and have the greatest respect for your knowledge of the IPA and the huge effort you have put into the Wiki article, but for starters, the entire IPA article is, IMHO, in breach of WP:NOT. Secondly, phonetics/phonemics are only one of the many departments of linguistics and sociolinguistics, and nobody can know it all. I was drawn into this by others who questioned your project's implementation, and who looked to me for comment and support simply because the IPA does not represent the way these names are most often and usually pronounced outside the USA. I'm not being obstreperous, but applying your consensus without some flexibility for common sense (Wiki is not written in stone) is fanning a fire i don't even really want to be involved in. Please do not suggest for example, ever again, that I do not bother - in fact I just happen to be one of the rare non-admin editors who always checks back on talk pages, discussions, and user pages before putting my oar in.
At the root of the problem is that Wikipedia's decision-making mechanism is thoroughly broken. ...any clique of ten editors can write a rule or standard, vote it among themselves, and declare it "consensus". Almost every guideline in Wikipedia was decided in this way. No country could survive more than a few years with such a "randomcratic" government; and it seems that Wikipedia cannot either. User:Jorge Stolfi
-- Kudpung ( talk) 04:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Kudpung, for what it's worth, I don't relish the idea of being drawn into a big dispute any more than you do. But I'm not the one pushing for change. Since you understand the concept behind the pan-dialectal transcription, then you know that no one is "forcing" anything on anybody. Phonemes which have different realisations (or mergers) in different dialects are written in a way that lets the reader apply her own dialect when pronouncing the word. When a word actually takes different phonemes in different countries (eg "basil"), both versions are given. Nobody is telling anyone that they have to change the way they pronounce their own hometowns. You understand this, so please stop describing the issue in terms of coercion, as though there were some sort of war going on. (And as you also know, there are plenty of rhotic speakers outside the USA.)

You've expressed your feelings, but now I think you should explain what you think Wikipedia should actually do with the IPA. Do you think we should have (a) a different standard, (b) multiple standards, or (c) no self-created standard at all? If (a) or (b), the place to make your case is the WP:IPAEN talk. If (c), then probably the MoS, since you'd effectively be arguing to ditch WP:IPAEN anyway. Have I missed an option? I can envisage a compromise between (a) and (b) in which we add a note saying that (inter alia) post-vocalic /r/ is not included for British etc placenames, and /ɒ/ is replaced by /ɑː/ in American names. Then the articles could be changed accordingly. But whatever you argue for, you need to be clear what you want.

By the way, when you criticise the "IPA article", can I check whether you mean IPA or Wikipedia:IPA for English (which is not an article)? Lfh ( talk) 06:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you do appear to be somehow on my side in this IPA saga after all, and thanks for being one editor to allow common sense to prevail. I really appreciate this, because as you will see from the next message after THIS , I'm now rather heavily involved in it. Two entries are what are needed to keep the American IPA article editors happy when there is a noticable difference in frequently used pronunciations, and all of us away from time-wasting conflicts. I think possibly the whole thing blew up inderectly because of the Worcester dab issue, but that's another story, and I didn't start either argument  ;) -- Kudpung ( talk) 04:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It's good to see that dual entries might be an acceptable solution. Personally, I've just been trying to apply WP's conventions as they seem to be and as I understand them, but of course they might be improved - I have no stake in their remaining unchanged. By the same principle, when I edit the German WP I actually add non-rhotic pronuns for British places, because the German Wiki doesn't have anything equivalent to WP:IPAEN (either for English or German) - horses for courses. Lfh ( talk) 13:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Dual entries may well turn out to be the best solution and is probably the one I would advocate, , but do you have any idea why the 'leading' IPA editor is unable to conduct any discussion in a civil manner and refrain from insults and personal attacks? Does he really believe that he can crush any suggestions for improvement by being nasty? Is he so obsessively possessive of his IPA articles and key that he cannot reason intelligently? God knows, I've tried - I even offered him a token of peace to show good faith, but even that was met with disdain.-- Kudpung ( talk) 01:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this new Template:IPAc-en template is great, we need a bot to go through and replace all Template:pron-en templates with that one. and also break the word up into phonemes. e.g. : /ˈsɜrf/ becomes /ˈsɜːrf/ The mouseover on individual phonemes is so awesome! -- Rajah ( talk) 04:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Phil Lynott's name is pronounced LYE-nott. Funny, but true, as are/were most things about him and his life, other than his tragic death. He is sorely missed amongst some in the musical community, not to mention his fans. -- Leahtwosaints ( talk) 23:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for confirming that. So Jape got it wrong, but these things happen! Lfh ( talk) 07:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't leave off improving our IPA conventions because of Kudpung. (You comment to that effect was reverted; I don't know if that was intentional or not.) If you find him that unpleasant, perhaps you could simply ignore him? I have likewise found dealing with him to be quite frustrating and unpleasant; I can't tell if he's intelligent and acting in bad faith, or acting in good faith but utterly incoherent. Either way, he's just one person, and doesn't hold any sway here. — kwami ( talk) 00:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Kwami, That's now the most unfair thing I have heard about my work on this encyclopedia. You genuinely have one of the most unpleasant attitudes I have come across on this encyclopedia project. Posting such nonsense after I have offered a token of peace, is inappropriate. You are most certainly the only person who does not understand what I post, and you obviously just pretend not to. Good faith appears not to be in your vocabulary and needs explaining to you. As an admin you should know better and I am honestly suggesting that your judgement is impaired. Just because there is serious interest in improving the Wikipedia visitors' experience, and just because some of your henchment have a more civil tongue in their heads, are not reason to resort yet again to personal attacks and incivility as you have done ever since I joined these IPA discussions. It has been noticed also that That the IPA squadron has a history of invcivility in general, and disruptive editing.-- Kudpung ( talk) 01:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This isn't enjoyable - I think we can all agree about that - and there's no point in working on a Wikiproject that you don't enjoy. Kudpung - I don't think you're acting in bad faith, but I am another person who doesn't always understand what you say. I'm not part of a squadron, secret garden, or practical joke, I just can't completely follow your arguments. I'm not trying to be disruptive or put anyone off Wikipedia. Let's hope your RfC or your ongoing discussion with Aeusoes1 will bring some clarity that I've been unable to. For now, I'm out. Lfh ( talk) 07:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pit_Bull

Evereadyo2 ( talk) 13:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I saw that you tweaked the IPA entry on the Tatws Pum Munud page and I'm writing to ask if you would mind adding an IPA entry to the Penysarn page as I only have a rudimentary understand of this feature. Many thanks, Obscurasky ( talk) 19:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the delay. I'll add the IPA to Penysarn, and get it checked at Wikipedia talk:IPA for Welsh. Lfh ( talk) 16:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. Obscurasky ( talk) 22:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually I have a question first, where is the stress - do you say "PEN-sarn" or "pen-SARN"? (The article says the y is silent.) Lfh ( talk) 08:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I would say the latter (in a Welsh accent at least), but there's not a huge difference in the inflection. Obscurasky ( talk) 10:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Like Penarth, then? I'll add IPA for both English and Welsh. Lfh ( talk) 12:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've brought KunstHausWien to WP:TDYK, - can you suggest a better hook? East of Borschov 19:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your recommendation. How about this: "... that the KunstHausWien, devoted to Friedensreich Hundertwasser, was once the workshop of Michael Thonet, inventor of the iconic Viennese chair along similar design principles?" Lfh ( talk) 21:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

On 28 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article KunstHausWien, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project ( nominate) 00:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello again Lfh. Would it be possible for you to give me the IPA in Welsh for 'Mwng Bach'? It's the title of the US bonus disc that came with Mwng (the pronunciation you previously added for 'Mwng' is ˈmʊŋ) Thanks! Cavie78 ( talk) 00:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It's [ˈmʊŋ ˈbɑːχ]. I've added it to Mwng. Lfh ( talk) 08:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ever so much! Cavie78 ( talk) 11:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

For writing Museum of Musical Instruments of the University of Leipzig. I noticed there were four articles I have worked on that needed it as a link. I hope to have the chance to visit this museum some day. Opus33 ( talk) 02:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. (The current article is mostly a translation.) Lfh ( talk) 09:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about the tags I just put on it - they aren't CSD or PROD! iIm sure you'll be providing some refs later. take them off if you like. -- Kudpung ( talk) 12:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. The history could probably be shortened - the layout on the German page is a bit of a mess - but I see you've done some rearranging already. Nearly everything from the original seems to be based on the Dresden/Saxony Tourism site (External Links), which is a third party, though perhaps not a cast-iron RS. I'll have a look around. Lfh ( talk) 14:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.