Talk:Richard D'Oyly Carte

Americanisation of pronunciation
I have removed a good faith insertion of a rhotic R into the IPA version of Carte's name. If anyone wants to add an extra American pronunciation, so be it, but it would be a dereliction not to have as the primary pronunciation how it is pronounced in English usage, and how we know from recordings how his son Rupert D'Oyly Carte and granddaughter Dame Bridget D'Oyly Carte pronounced it.  Tim riley  talk   18:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, regarding English IPA on Wikipedia, we use a diaphonemic system that broadly represents both RP and GenAm as well as it can. Thus, on the first link you'll see that /ɑːr/ is how START is transcribed, even though most Brits certainly say /ɑː/ for START. You can see this same IPA convention employed, for instance, on British placename articles like Cardiff, Carlisle, Hertford, Derby, etc. etc. Wolfdog (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I wonder if other editors will agree that we should show as the primary pronunciation a pronunciation that the Cartes did not use rather than the one they did. Comments welcome.  Tim riley  talk   18:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is an English name that was pronounced the same (non-rhotically) by all members of the Carte family, all of whom were English, and should always be pronounced without the rhotic "r". I (an American) disagree strongly with Wolfdog, and I would also disagree with adding any second pronunciation. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that including a rhotic "r" is undesirable in this case.Bkesselman (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If we know how they pronounced it (which we do from recordings) and that use is still the commonly used version, then I think it best we stick with it. - SchroCat (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * All your arguments makes sense and I hear you, but it's just simply not what we do on Wikipedia. What we could do is add a "UK" label to the IPA formatting. That shows a nation-specific pronunciation. I'm happy to do that. (But notice, for instance, if you wanted to transcribe the French-originating surname Caire for a Briton, there's no option in our WP convention for /kɛə/; you literally have to use the r-including . So it's not really about our personal feelings on the matter; it's about an established WP convention.) Wolfdog (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But in this case it is the British pronunciation which is standard. If one wished to have an alternative pronunciation it would need a US label, but this seems unnecessary.Bkesselman (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s not about “personal feelings” (with or without italics), it’s about how the family pronounced their name, and how it is still pronounced correctly. SchroCat (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You both seem not to be hearing me. The way a family name, given name, etc. is pronounced is still affected by one's accent. Let's take some other British names here on WP. The Chiwetel Ejiofor article says /ˈɛdʒioʊfɔːr/, which on WP means say [-foəɹ] for GenAm and [-fɔː] for RP. Piers Morgan says /pɪərz/, which on WP means [piəɹz] for GenAm, [pɪəz] for RP. This is the same situation. A convention has already been established. Again, just see Help:IPA/English. Wolfdog (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, Wolfdog, you'd point us in the direction of the Wikipedia policy that says that IPA transcriptions are all to be based on American pronunciation? If there is one, we can reconsider how to explain to our readers how the names are actually pronounced by those who own them.  Tim riley  talk   21:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Tim Riley is correct. Having checked the IPA help page linked above, my interpretation is that RP should be used, and it is then up to the speaker to decide whether they interpret the phonetics to reflect their own pronunciation. In this case, an American speaker may choose to use a rhotic "r" or not, but the IPA should most definitely not include one.Bkesselman (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Tim, I have in no way recommended American pronunciations as the basis for anything -- only Wikipedia pronunciations using the template IPAc-en. And I've given you the policy already: Help:IPA/English. So long as we're using IPAc-en, then This key represents diaphonemes, abstractions of speech sounds that accommodate General American, Received Pronunciation (RP) and to a large extent [other varieties of English]. Also, see the very first two sentences of this MoS policy for IPAc-en, and notice that the example given in fact includes the very /r/ we've been discussing (in a particularly British placename too, Oxford): It is often possible to transcribe a word in a generic way that is not specific to any one accent, e.g. Oxford as /ˈɒksfərd/. Speakers of non-rhotic accents, as in much of Australia, England, New Zealand, and Wales, will pronounce the second syllable [fəd]. Bkesselman, I'm not sure where you're getting your interpretations; please provide quotes or policy, as I've done. Wolfdog (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Try as I may I can't interpret the IPA help page as Wolfdog does. It seems to me that he is on a one-person mission here, and unless he can rapidly assemble a consensus here in favour of his contentions I suggest we regard the matter as closed.  Tim riley  talk   22:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Given it’s a help page, rather than a policy or guideline, I think I would agree. - SchroCat (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wolfdog, here is a quote from the page you link to.
 * "Let's pick some grapes for Betty should be transcribed ... regardless of the variety of English and everyone should interpret that transcription according to their own dialect." (I'm not currently able to copy the IPA, hence the ellipsis.)Bkesselman (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Right, haha, that sentence bolsters my point! Look at the example of how the broad IPA system transcribes the word "for" (in "grapes for Betty"): it gives the example transcribed as /fər/ (not /fə/). Rhotic transcription is maintained in the IPA system. (Tim, that alone doesn't make the system "American" or an "Americanisation". Wikipedia conventions also maintain the phoneme /ɒ/, which one could just as well argue makes it more British!) Wolfdog (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You make a valid point and I understand where you are coming from. Bkesselman (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Many thanks to Wolfdog for taking the arguments above on board and making the appropriate change.  Tim riley  talk   20:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wolfdog is definitely not "on a one-person mission". Help:IPA/English may not have the status of official WP policy, but it is widespread practice across all Wikipedia articles to use the diaphonemic transcription outlined there. Speakers of non-rhotic accents are not the only ones who are allowed to utter the name D'Oyly Carte, and when rhotic speakers pronounce it, they pronounce the r. This is not an American vs. British issue, since not all rhotic speakers are American, or even North American. When English speakers from Scotland, Ireland, or Devon pronounce this name, they pronounce it with an r. The tooltips of IPAc-en make it clear that /ɑːr/ in the transcription does not mean that the /r/ is necessarily pronounced; it means that the sequence is to pronounced just like the ar in start, however that word is pronounced in any given speaker's accent. If we transcribe it then we are saying that everyone, rhotic and nonrhotic alike, pronounces it "kaht", which is untrue. Rather, everyone pronounces it as a homophone of cart, however they pronounce that. And that's what  says. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, the fact that the most famous members of the family happened to be non-rhotic speakers is irrelevant. My name contains the vowel; when an RP speaker uses my name I expect them to pronounce it [əʊ] as is normal in RP, and when a Scottish English speaker uses my name I expect them to pronounce it [oː] as in normal in Scottish English, even though neither of those is my own pronunciation. Just because it's my name, that doesn't give me the authority to override other people's native accents. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * And although Help:IPA/English is not, Manual of Style/Pronunciation is a guideline. It is Kafkaesque to see Wolfdog and you being chided for simply applying WP:CONLEVEL. Nardog (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, these are valid points. I suppose that (to explain any controversy), many might wish to protect their own choice or tradition of pronunciation. I'm actually not sure that it was necessary to provide any pronunciation guide to this particular name, but I have no personal objection to either version (though one is more natural to me than the other). Bkesselman (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Good heavens! Nobody is telling anybody how they must pronounce a name. English, French and American speakers of my acquaintance all pronounce the name Aristotle so differently as to make it seem almost like three different names. (How he himself pronounced it I shouldn't dare speculate.) What the pronunciation guide here is for is not to tell people 'You must pronounce the name this way', but, merely factually, 'This is how the people concerned pronounced it.'  Tim riley  talk   15:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps 2 pronunciations could be included (labelled suitably), as happens with other words on Wikipedia. Bkesselman (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As I indicated above, User:Bkesselman, I strongly believe that including two stupid pronunciation guides would be the worst outcome here. We have a consensus above, and I don't understand why Mahagaja should be allowed to edit war to change it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems that Bkesselman's proposal for two pronunciations is the only way forward (although it would be redundant). Ssilvers, how in the world would providing two pronunciations be the worst outcome? It provides both the diaphonemic transcription we normally use on lead sentences as well as a transcription that is more particularly British/specific to the family's own accent. This is literally providing every possibility that is desired by editors here (which, we are lucky only amounts to TWO possibilities: very doable!). Here's how it would look: ,. Wolfdog (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Because this is an encyclopedia, not a list of pronunciations. Conciseness is far more important in an encyclopedia article. If the above discussion proves anything, it is that the pronunciation guide is not very helpful or useful at all. However, I am not in favor of deleting it, since that would just lead to ongoing and repeated arguments about it. So let's leave it alone and move on to more important things. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I suppose ideally we could do as the OED does and give both English and American pronunciations (English /kɑːt/, US /kɑrt/) but as WP doesn't do that I concur with Ssilvers that we should stick with the status quo.  Tim riley  talk   18:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Giving both English and American pronunciations is exactly what the WP diaphonemic system does! 😂 Wolfdog (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Except that it doesn't: how does your /ˈdɔɪli kɑːrt/; reflect the English pronunciation?  Tim riley  talk   18:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it absolutely does. Its whole purpose is to incorporate both a standard American and a standard British accent into one system, for the umpteenth time. Again: See the very first two sentences of this MoS policy: It is often possible to transcribe a word in a generic way that is not specific to any one accent, e.g. Oxford as /ˈɒksfərd/. Speakers of non-rhotic accents, as in much of Australia, England, New Zealand, and Wales, will pronounce the second syllable [fəd], while rhotic accents will pronounce it [fəɹd]. Wolfdog (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Alas, readers familiar with the real-world IPA cannot be expected to guess that Wikipedia has its own esoteric phonetic system in which the pronunciation symbols mean "this unless you'd rather pronounce it that". Why not follow the OED and give the accepted pronunciations in English and American? We are supposed to help our readers rather than confusing them.   Tim riley  talk   14:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps it would ease controversy to delete the guide completely. I think this may otherwise turn out to be a never-ending cycle. I notice that there is none for other family members. (Hopefully no one will now add one to those now.) Bkesselman (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

This is a non-issue: as long as the IPAc-en template is used, MOS:DIAPHONEMIC applies. If you disagree with it, take it to either Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Pronunciation or Help talk:IPA/English. Sol505000 (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m glad you seem to be able to use that talk page, but maybe you should do so without the edit warring and rather arrogant edit summaries. Perhaps you could try and discuss civilly here? - SchroCat (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * What on earth is wrong with people that they are so arrogant that they continue to edit war even after someone has been blocked? And to tell untruths about IPA being a policy, when it really isn’t (it’s a guideline) and, like a lot of the MOS, flexible. - SchroCat (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Making a new thread as this debate has got too heated. I think it needs to be stated from scratch. MOS:DIAPHONEMIC sets out the best way of transcribing pronunciation of names in a generic way that it is not specific to any accent, which it is the Wikipedia norm to do where possible. Help:IPA/English defines the Wikipedia diaphonemic transcription system. is defined as the pronunciation of the embolded part of in the speaker's native accent. It does not imply pronouncing an /r/ if the reader is a non-rhotic speaker. This is not an "Americanisation" of the pronunciation. American English is not the only rhotic accent of English; there are rhotic accents in the UK: Scottish English, Ulster English, many speakers of West Country English and some speakers of Lancashire English. Nor does it mean that the transcription system favours American English in general. The transcription system is designed to account for distinctions made in all major varities of English. It includes the distinction between and  made in General American but not Received Pronunciation, but it also includes distinctions such as  and  made in RP but not General American.

The diaphonemic policy is standar on Wikipedia. used on names from all over the English speaking world, not just on names from England.

For other examples of names from England, see the Wikipedia pronunciation transcriptions on the articles for Birmingham, Derby , Manchester (. All of them include postvocalic /r/ that is not sounded in the local non-rhotic accent.

But, here's the thing, look at how Arizona and Tucson ( are transcribed on their respective articles. General American, and the varieties of American English spoken in these placs, lacks a  phoneme, and pronounces the sequence  as . Are we inappropriately giving a "British" pronunciation of these American place names? No, we are transcribing them in a way such that the pronunciation is predictable in any major accent. It is predictable that in most American accents, what is transcribed as  will be pronounced as  and what it transcribed as  will be pronounced as.

I would also note that, in many cases, transcribing a name in a non-rhotic way is not even possible, even if the name is British. If you attempt to transcribe /ɛə/, /ɪə/ or /ʊə/ under without the following /r/, it will return,  and. Offa29 (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Why you edit war when there was a thread already open and obvious disagreement? Why did you falsely claim it is a policy, whe it is nothing of the sort, but a guideline, flexible and not compulsory. - SchroCat (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have only made one edit to the article, so I have not "edit warred". I stated my reasons for starting a new thread. You now seem intent on derailing this attempt at a fresh start as well, by writing in a deliberately provocative, inflammatory way rather than attempting to engage in debate. Your use of provocative language and name-calling was one of the main reasons I felt that a fresh start to the debate is needed (the other was that almost all the previous debate, and all the substantive arguments in it, happened well over a year ago, so I felt it was better to set out all the main arguments again from scratch rather then them being lost as separate posts in a massive thread). Offa29 (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You’ve continued an edit war that someone started yesterday. They were blocked for it, but that doesn’t seem to worry you, which says a lot about your approach. Any editor with any sense of decency would self-revert to the very long-standing consensus and just discuss on the talk page. I doubt you’ll do that, however. I’ve merged the two threads as they are about the same subject and open at the same time, and it’s ridiculous to have a second one. - SchroCat (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am well of the three-revert rule and would take great care not to violate it.
 * I note that you archived this thread only yesterday, so it is interesting to see that you've now pivoted to wanting to keep the thread open.
 * Much of your input into the debate over the past couple of days has, in my opinion, been uncivil. It has fallen short of what is expected of Wikipedia editors as set out in WP:CIVIL. This includes comments like 'Why did you falsely claim it is a policy", "What on earth is wrong with people that they are so arrogant", "Any editor with any sense of decency would".
 * I do not think that these comments comply with the warnings against “rudeness, insults, name-calling” and the direction to WP:Assume good faith. Writing ’’’’why did you falsely claim’’” does not assume good faith.
 * The page warns that incivil comments “disrupt the project”, which has happened to this discussion. When a discussion has turned as toxic as this has, it is virtually impossible to de-escalate back to civil discussion.
 * The last civil discussion in this thread happened 18 months ago, and it is normal after that length of time to start a new discussion rather than attempt to continue an old one where all the points are hidden away, apart from each other in a lengthly thread that is overwhelming to read as a newcomer, and had long since drifted away from the intial principles of the discussion.
 * It is clear to me that no productive discussion will come from attempting to resurrect a thread from 18 months ago that has seen only toxic incivility since its revival. This thread is beyond salvage.
 * A fresh start, and a new thread, is needed, where we can jettison the baggage that this discussion has built up. I should have archived the thread when I made the new one, but I am not used to doing this.
 * But, given how toxic this discussion has become and how frayed all tempers, including mine have become, a break is needed for us to all cool down before starting a productive discission.
 * I will take some time out, then in due course, archive this thread and make a new one where we can go back to first principles of the debate and discuss the matter anew. I will seek consensus for the change I wish to make. This is the only way forward.
 * In the meantime, I would strongly advise you to read through all the Wikipedia material on civility, reflect on whether or not your comments over the past couple of days have lived up to what is expected of Wikipedia editors, and take care to adhere to the spirit of the civility policy in future. Offa29 (talk) 23:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Take the patronising civility policing elsewhere: I have zero interest in your thoughts on it, particularly a whole wall of tiresome text. Such patronising dross will only ever wind people up. If you archive this thread, I will bring it back here again: there are very good arguments presented here that you cannot just hide because you want to, no matter how much you want to bloat the thread will walls of tedium no-one is going to read or take seriously. - SchroCat (talk) 04:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There are not only no "very good" arguments in this thread, but no arguments at all. How many Britons in the last 48 hours do you think have gone and looked into the new prime minister? Are they reeling from that dasterrrrrdly US tag on the ɪə? No more than Americans from the length marks in 'Barack Obama' I expect. Nevertheless, you are a true victim of inhumane treatment here; that is, seasoned editors letting a discussion which they know full well can have but one conclusion agonizingly stagger on through the years instead of just ripping the band-aid off. Célestine-Edelweiß (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please focus on the issue and engage in a civil manner. Further poking will result in a block. Johnuniq (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I will take some time out, then in due course, archive this thread and make a new one where we can go back to first principles of the debate and discuss the matter anew. I will seek consensus for the change I wish to make. This is the only way forward.
 * In the meantime, I would strongly advise you to read through all the Wikipedia material on civility, reflect on whether or not your comments over the past couple of days have lived up to what is expected of Wikipedia editors, and take care to adhere to the spirit of the civility policy in future. Offa29 (talk) 23:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Take the patronising civility policing elsewhere: I have zero interest in your thoughts on it, particularly a whole wall of tiresome text. Such patronising dross will only ever wind people up. If you archive this thread, I will bring it back here again: there are very good arguments presented here that you cannot just hide because you want to, no matter how much you want to bloat the thread will walls of tedium no-one is going to read or take seriously. - SchroCat (talk) 04:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There are not only no "very good" arguments in this thread, but no arguments at all. How many Britons in the last 48 hours do you think have gone and looked into the new prime minister? Are they reeling from that dasterrrrrdly US tag on the ɪə? No more than Americans from the length marks in 'Barack Obama' I expect. Nevertheless, you are a true victim of inhumane treatment here; that is, seasoned editors letting a discussion which they know full well can have but one conclusion agonizingly stagger on through the years instead of just ripping the band-aid off. Célestine-Edelweiß (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please focus on the issue and engage in a civil manner. Further poking will result in a block. Johnuniq (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please focus on the issue and engage in a civil manner. Further poking will result in a block. Johnuniq (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

As a follow-up to one aspect of this discussion (or rather as a follow-up to Help talk:IPA/English), I have opened a request for comment: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 21:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why we can't all agree to follow MOS:RHOTIC, a guideline that gives us all we need here. If editors don't like this guideline (which is arrived at by consensus) then that's a separate matter and should be battled out at the guideline's talk page. But as long as the guideline exists, we ought to follow it on a specific page: It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. It's not clear to Offa29, Sol505000, Célestine-Edelweiß, Mahāgaja, and I,&mdash;who have now explained this repeatedly and are backed by the larger community&mdash;why some feel a special exception should exist for this page. It's an open-and-shut case. (To be fair to the opposing side, Tim riley has the best point in saying readers familiar with the real-world IPA cannot be expected to guess that Wikipedia has its own esoteric phonetic system. That's fair, but if you feel it's an overriding issue, again it should be battled out elsewhere. The fact is we have our "esoteric" system and it's consensus-created. But to be fair my side, it obscures the larger truth that IPA is not used in any perfectly consistent or universal way, even from one dictionary to the next, so Wikipedia editors had to agree upon and create our own system to implement it.) Wolfdog (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Chiming in to second this. There is no reason why we shouldn’t use IPAc-en and respell as for all other English-language pronunciations, unless the pronunciation in a particular dialect swifts from the regular realization of the diaphoneme. But this person’s name is no special case; people with rhotic accents are not going to pronounce Carte as . ~  Ivan Scrooge 98  ( talk ) 14:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * As Tim has said, using a non-standard system of something the majority of readers don’t understand is a frankly ridiculous thing people have been edit warring to force onto the article. I’m glad someone has acknowledged the flexible nature of the guidelines (not, as has been claimed, a policy), and the mess that was attempted to be forced onto the page confuses rather than enlightens, which is the worse case scenario for an encyclopaedia. Personally I’d drop all pronunciation guides entirely as being largely useless except to a tiny minority, or at least drop them into a footnote where they don’t clutter up a lead sentence. - SchroCat (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's fine that you feel this way about pronunciation guides, but you're in the minority on that view. And what is the mess that was attempted to be forced onto the page [that] confuses rather than enlightens? You're talking about /kɑːrt/? Most Americans pronounce that /r/ and most Brits don't. What's the confusion? Wolfdog (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I highly doubt I'm in the minority. Have you asked any of our readers if they use think it useful? I doubt it: just the usual confirmation bias from asking people within a small group of WP users. The confusion lies in exactly what you've just said: people are adding an American pronunciation onto a British topic. It causes confusion for readers, despite whatever people from a small sub-project may think: this isn't US.WP, and we have things like ENGVAR for a reason. - SchroCat (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What’s confusing is using different conventions to transcribe English pronunciations across Wikipedia rather than stick to IPAc-en which is meant to apply to most varieties and is directed at readers – not at article subjects; the issue has little to do with ENGVAR, since pronunciation transcriptions are not part of normal language usage. Again, this specific page is not the place where you should discuss this. ~  Ivan Scrooge 98  ( talk ) 16:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We have ENGVAR for a reason, and the spoken word is as much a part of national use as spelling. And here is the best place to discuss matters relating to this article and how the numerous flexible guidelines should or should not be applied to it. - SchroCat (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ENGVAR is about spelling and grammar, not about the way you represent pronunciation. And the reason for using over  is very simple: there are a lot of English speakers that distinguish the two; if your variety doesn’t, it’s enough to ignore the distinction. You have not contested anything about the article topic, you have questioned the conventions at Help:IPA/English altogether; so no, this is not where you should discuss this. ~  Ivan Scrooge 98  ( talk ) 16:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You repeating that something should be discussed elsewhere doesn't make it true. We're discussing how a flexible guideline should be applied to this article, not any others. So we discuss it here, not elsewhere. This has rumbled on for over 18 months, with people invested in IPA periodically edit warring here to try and get their way, and the disruption is obvious. If you edit war here, you discuss it here. At present there is no consensus to change, so try constructively discussing, rather spewing forth diktats on where you want the discussion to take place. - SchroCat (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright, then here are my two cents on “this article”: if the only reason not to use IPAc-en consistently is because you don’t want to see an symbol, it makes more sense to remove the transcription altogether. And keep the regular usage of the template in the remaining thousands of instances found in articles about British people or locations. ~  Ivan Scrooge 98  ( talk ) 17:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But two of us are telling you to discuss your qualm at a more relevant place. You're acting as if your problem is with this one specific page when it is quite clear to Ivan and I that, really, you have a problem with an entire guideline here at WP. So, from Ivan's and my point POV, you're simply not listening. In all respectful terms, this is the implication we're getting. You accusing us of spewing forth diktats when we are merely following a very commonplace guideline is in fact verging on being uncivil, which has already warned us against.  even provided you other examples of names from England, see the Wikipedia pronunciation transcriptions on the articles for Birmingham /ˈbɜːrmɪŋəm/, Derby /ˈdɑːrbi/, Manchester (/ˈmæntʃɪstər/. All of them include postvocalic /r/ that is not sounded in the local non-rhotic accent. This is a well-established transcription on WP which you are inaccurately continuing to simplify as people are adding an American pronunciation onto a British topic. Others have already described non-American accents this accommodates (Irish, Scottish, even certain dialects from England like in the West Country or traditional Lancashire). The more you make these arguments, the more you bolster our observation that you have a problem with the whole larger guideline.
 * While, yes, MOS:RHOTC is flexible and allows for exceptions, you've continued not to make a case for WHY you feel a special exception should exist for this page. Wolfdog (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There is nothing uncivil in what I have said, despite your claims to the contrary. You have misconstrued what I have said to have given a completely misleading impression, which is not a constructive approach at all. When I referred to the diktats, it was in reference to the location of the discussion - this was made extremely clear in my comment. It was not about following the guideline, and you should strike the misleading parts of your comment. - SchroCat (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, I see now that the spewing was about location rather than a WP convention. That's been amended. Meanwhile, for the third time, to the matter at hand: WHY do you feel a special exception should exist for this page? Why would we treat this instance any differently than, in Ivan's words, the thousands of instances found in articles about British people or locations? Wolfdog (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't have thousands of articles on my talk page, but I do have this one - which is why the discussion is taking place here. I suspect that - as I have said above - most editors, let alone readers, don't care about and/or don't understand the pronunciation guide so are unlikely to comment on the pages on their watchlist. Thank you for your partial striking of the comment, although the untrue allegation of incivility should also have been stricken. - SchroCat (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The question on the floor is why should we treat this article any differently than the numerous similar others?
 * Yes, I am happy to admit when I make mistakes; it would be nice to see you extend a similar olive branch. Incivility is in the eye of the beholder and I won't be striking my opinion that spewing diktats is sharp, uncollegial language.
 * Please consider that some of us are trying to engage you in a good-faith conversation, and it's actually possible that we are not members of some zealous IPA cult. We are editors who tend to stick to guidelines and then suddenly we see one tiny article not following those guidelines. Sincerely speaking, perhaps that can help you see our perspective: why our confusion is understandable and why we are trying to explain how we use this guideline, alongside asking natural questions on the topic. Wolfdog (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

sorry about my typing - right hand temporarily in plaster - but i think we really ought to keep in sight the needs of our readers rather than any theology about wikipedia's version of ipa.  Tim riley  talk   18:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The needs of readers are exactly why we have certain IPA conventions on Wikipedia. That’s why we should not focus on the subject’s nationality but rather on the fact that people with all sorts of accents (including non-native ones!) visit this project. ~  Ivan Scrooge 98  ( talk ) 18:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree exactly with Ivan. Now, if you don't like the guideline (what you're calling the theology) and you have thoughts on how to make it a bit more transparent (it's definitely not perfectly reader-friendly but it does have the tooltip function which is quite useful), it would be appropriate to voice such opinions at Help talk:IPA/English or perhaps Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Pronunciation. If you wish to abolish the diaphonemic system entirely, I suppose those same two talk pages are where you could voice those thoughts. Wolfdog (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment. This conversation needs a healthy dose of WP:COMMONSENSE. Unlike common terms which can reasonably have multiple valid pronunciations between American and British English, surnames are personal and individual to the subject. In this case we should not be introducing American IPA as a valid alternative because to do so is not only a factual error but a form of WP:Original Research.4meter4 (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * No one's introducing American IPA. This has already been discussed (ad nauseam). Wolfdog (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * For the last time, any personal detail about the subject – such as their nationality – should have no bearing on which accent the reader is going to pronounce their name in. English IPA on Wikipedia is intended to cover all the major pronunciation variants across the dialects. ~  Ivan Scrooge 98  ( talk ) 21:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * There is only one thing that is certain about WP Talk pages: Nothing is "for the last time".  As an American rhotic speaker, I have no problem with the pronunciation guide being given the way Carte pronounced his own name, so I must agree with User:4meter4 on this one, and I must disagree that the IPA guide is required to cover "all the major" pronunciation variants, whatever those are. But most of us here are repeating ourselves. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I wasn’t saying it is required to do so, I merely restated that’s the convention we have been following so far in the vast majority of cases (and for this reason, we’re discussing this in the wrong place – a thread has been opened at Help talk:IPA/English). ~  Ivan Scrooge 98  ( talk ) 22:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Protected
I have fully protected the article for a week and will watch here for a while. Ask me or any admin to remove protection once a clear consensus is obtained. Warning: To avoid edit-warring blocks, please be sure that there is a clear consensus before changing the pronunciation again. Johnuniq (talk) 05:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The very long-standing status quo has now been edit warred away by people who don’t think discussion is warranted. There won’t be a consensus unless it’s one they are happy to bully into place. Reminds me of another group of editors who are disruptive in achieving their aims. - SchroCat (talk) 05:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

( notifying those who commented on 9 July 2024 ). Those advocating for a change should be aware of two things. First, the approach taken here is very reminiscent of the Infobox Wars which led to numerous disputes and WP:ANI reports, culminating in an exhausting battle at WP:ARBINFOBOX. Second, there have been many cases where people have disagreed about the format or style or whatever in articles, and where the dispute led to major disruption that was eventually resolved by applying the principles of WP:ENGVAR. That is, people should not systematically change the style of anything in articles without first showing a strong consensus for that change. The fact that there is a guideline (MOS:RHOTIC mentioned above?) is not sufficient because that guideline does not say that editors should arrive at a biographical article and change the pronunciation guide in a manner that others claim disagrees with how that person's name was actually pronounced by contemporaries. The MOS:RHOTIC supporters need to demonstrate community buy-in for the changes proposed here. As an uninvolved administrator, I have no opinion on the matter (indeed, I barely understand it), but I will ensure that the proposed change is not achieved by bludgeoning. Those wanting a change need to either get the guideline updated to make it clear that it must be applied to all articles including biographies, or start an WP:RFC at this talk page regarding how the pronunciation should be shown in this case. Johnuniq (talk) 05:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The philosophy behind MOS:RHOTIC is the same one behind MOS:COMMONALITY, a subsection of ENGVAR. Our readers come from all over the world, so we try to accommodate them as widely (but also as concisely) as possible. Also, ENGVAR is about choosing between national varieties of English, while accents vary within every anglophone country (especially England). If the subject of a biography is from the West Country, do we go rhotic? But what if they spoke RP for most of their life? What about historical figures from before non-rhoticity gained prestige? If the diaphonemic system is so abstruse for lay readers, are we to create different keys for Southern English, Midlands, Northern English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, American, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, South African, etc.? That would leave the readers with a greater burden of having to learn different systems across articles. (The argument that a guideline shouldn't apply to biographies because it doesn't explicitly mention them also strikes me as letter over spirit.)
 * That said, I'm also tempted to urge "the MOS:RHOTIC supporters" to just drop it. If we did a referendum on the guideline as Johnuniq suggests, we could totally lose it, because consensus on Wikipedia is formed by self-selected members and cares little about expertise (we wouldn't be having this conversation if the IPA was taught like the periodic table). One transcription in one article is definitely not worth having to review 44K+ articles. Nardog (talk) 06:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The philosophy behind MOS:RHOTIC is the same one behind MOS:COMMONALITY, a subsection of ENGVAR. I believe there are people who would disagree with that point of view. In some varieties the name D’Oyly Carte is pronounced with the phoneme, in others it isn’t. The presence or absence of the rhotic phoneme is a difference, not a commonality (I know the commonality is the diaphoneme , but that is not obvious, especially when we are using the single slash delimiter that normally indicates phonemes). I do not believe anybody would want different keys for countless varieties of English. Suggesting that we might end up having countless different keys feels to me like an exaggeration of the opposite point of view. MOS:RHOTIC uses similar language. It contains an example with 6 different pronunciations of Oxford, which does not feel to me like the neutral point of view I would expect in the Manual of Style. We are used to be protective of our diaphonemic system. I do not want to question it. I am just saying that we should maybe have a more relaxed attitude and be open to other points of view. --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 13:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Considering how often the /r/ thing gets objected to – whereas we don't typically see American editors complaining that the IPA makes vowel distinctions that they don't – it seems to me that the mental block against our diaphonemic key might be greater when it's presented as "don't pronounce this letter that's clearly there" than as "pronounce these two letters the same way". So I wonder if we could preserve the diaphonemic nature of the key but make things more obvious by writing the diaphonemes as //ɑː(r)//, //ɔː(r)//, etc. with the r in parentheses. Who knows, it might then be clearer to UK speakers that the r should only be pronounced across the pond. Double sharp (talk) 08:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As the skeptics/objectors, what do you think of this proposed change? For example, transcribe ore as ɔː(r). At Help_talk:IPA/English, another solution suggested is the transcription ɔːʳ with that superscript (already used in some dictionaries). I would be content with either step forward. Wolfdog (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have been asked to comment here. I am no expert on the IPA – like most of Wikipedia's readers – and all I would like is a pronunciation guide that readers can rely on. Of course non-native English speakers are entirely at liberty to pronounce English names as they please (in Paris I am invariably Monsieur Rilly, to rhyme with silly) but I think we should be indicating the customary English pronunciation of an English name. We haven't got an IPA guide for, e.g., Cole Porter, but if we had, then rhotic "r"s would be entirely reasonable and helpful, and non-American speakers like me would know how it is pronounced at home, whether or not we can manage the rolled "r"s ourselves. I just think "It's pronounced like this unless you prefer that" isn't helpful to our readers.  Tim riley  talk   14:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So, would you consider a superscripted ʳ or parenthessied (r) for the extremely common case of "this r is pronounced in America but not in England" adequately helpful? It doesn't seem that unclear to me and would seem to help more of our readers without taking up too much space, but YMMV. Double sharp (talk) 14:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I really am a duffer at the IPA, but if I correctly understand your immediately preceding comment it sounds admirable to me.  Tim riley  talk   14:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, if it helps to clarify things: the explicit result of my proposal if implemented would be that we'd write //ˈdɔɪli kɑːʳt//, with the central IPA guide updated to indicate that superscripted ʳ means "this r is pronounced in America but not in England". Double sharp (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And remember, that r also accommodates Scottish, Irish (Northern and Southern), West Country, and traditional Lancashire readers. Wolfdog (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm really not sure why we have to make a special form for American readers. What about the rest of the world? Do they get their own versions too? I'm not sure we need to add in what would be a foreign pronunciation just for the sake of one nation and the five or so readers who may a) understand IPA; and b) give a toss about the foreign pronunciation of the name. If it brings an end to the 18-month long slow burn nonsense on this, then I supposed we can add something that isn't needed, even if it doesn't actually help any of our readers. - SchroCat (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it would bring an end to it, speaking as someone from the IPA-obsessed side of things. The main reason why this conflict is happening is that we tend to want a transcription such that you can reconstruct a wide variety of dialects by reading the symbols in a particular way, whereas readers are understandably objecting that if they see an /r/ in a phonetic transcription it sure looks like the transcription wants you to pronounce an /r/. By making this change, it may become more obvious to the English reader that this is specifically an r that their dialect doesn't pronounce, and the IPA wonks (including myself) would still be satisfied since the logic of the system remains intact. Double sharp (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Given, as has been repeated multiple times in these threads, pronunciation differs in different parts of the world, what is the point of saying "we think it should be pronounced in this specific way"? Aside from this failing WP:OR, it does beg the larger question of why we are bothering. People will pronounce the name in line with their own accent, so you're showing something (with or without the r, whether /kɑːt/, /kɑrt/, ɔː(r) or ɔːʳ) that for the tiny number of people who can understand it, will pronounce it in line with their existing accent. It seems a complete waste of time and effort to try and confuse people over something that will have so little impact that disrupts the opening of the article. - SchroCat (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's precisely the point: we're not saying "we think it should be pronounced in this way". We acknowledge that pronunciation differs in different parts of the world, and that is why our pronunciation key is structured so that people from different parts of the world can read and understand in their own dialects. If you see /kɑːʳt/, and you're English, you pronounce it without the r. If you're American, you pronounce it with one. If you're Scottish, you pronounce it with a rolled r. That's why we tell people in the key that /ɑːʳ/ represents the vowel of start in whatever dialect you have, not a specific sound; and the same goes for all the other entries. (Well, right now we still write a full-sized r in it.)
 * And BTW, it's not OR: The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language uses precisely this convention with superscript ʳ. Double sharp (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Which page of The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language refers to the pronunciation of "Richard D'Oyly Carte"? - SchroCat (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * None, and I never claimed that there was any. The pronunciation is from another reliable source, and we are simply proposing to convert it into the conventions of The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language to solve the endless problem that seems to arise from misunderstanding our use of the symbol /r/. Surely that can't be OR, or else it'd be OR to convert data from imperial to metric, which it obviously isn't. Double sharp (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming that - that's a straw man. What I've noticed on every piece of IPA gobbledegook is the complete lack of any citation. When we convert from imperial to metric we don't need to support the maths, but we do need to support the figure in question. IPA doesn't bother with any citation from any source. It is, as far as our policies on supporting information in articles, unsupported original research. It's a bit crap all round, really, isn't it? - SchroCat (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The fact is, we are trying to negotiate and come to a middle-ground, and most of the editors involved in the recent suggestion are in favor. Even Tim riley finds the suggestion "admirable". NOTE after edit conflict with SchroCat:, I sense several ongoing problems. 1) You continue to criticize the general guideline, as in calling it crap, yet refuse to engage/discuss that at the relevant pages, as has been requested. Then, at the same time, you suggest you're not interested in the guideline and only care about this one page. 2) Your use of verbiage like crap continues to feel uncollegial and fiery to me, despite warning about civility. We should not have to explain ourselves infinite numbers of times only for a lone editor to react with a snide tone. Tim, who is on your side, has remained civil throughout. I have already politely requested civility. One more perceived rude wording, and I will be notifying WP:AN. Wolfdog (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Stop with the tedious civility nonsense: I've called a situation crap, but that's not in any way uncivil. Get over it and stop trying to get people blocked - it's an unpleasant thing to try and bully people away from a page when they are not being uncivil, but are only referring to a general situation as being crap.If you had bothered to read my comment above, I have already said that we can add this new suggestion. What I subsequently raised (and what I was calling crap) is the fact that no IPA I have seen is ever supported by a reliable citation. That's a failure of our policy on supporting information in an article with reliable sources.Again, I have to ask you to strike a misleading part of your comment, which is becoming rather irritating: I have not called a general guideline crap: your comment is so far from what I have actually written, I'n wondering if you actually bothered to read it at all, or whether the word 'crap' just trigged a response that was rather wide of the mark. Again: please strike this so it is mire in line with what has actually be said. - SchroCat (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear. The way that you already said that we can add this new suggestion is when you said the following: I supposed we can add something that isn't needed, even if it doesn't actually help any of our readers. Again: not the most collegial way to support the proposal. It feels quite sarcastic. Can you see that? I'm happy to hear you're on board though; the passage I just excerpted did not directly imply that to me. Wolfdog (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * (again) I'm delighted that you've now actually read what I wrote. I'll just await the striking of the parts of your comment that were erroneous mischaracterisations of what I actually said, with a request that you actually read my comments first before jumping to the wrong conclusions. - SchroCat (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As for your comment that no IPA I have seen is ever supported by a reliable citation, you may well have a good point (though I don't initially agree), but shouldn't this (again) be discussed at a more relevant page? Help talk:IPA/English or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Pronunciation, which have been repeatedly recommended. Wolfdog (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. I'm still waiting for you to strike the incorrect and/or misleading accusations you have made.2. Probably, but I have found little enjoyment or even a collegial mindset discussing these matters, so I really don't want to have further discussions. No doubt it would result in further unpleasantness, which I would rather avoid. Given there are several people active on this page who are invested in how IPA works, I would hope that this policy failure is picked up by at least one of them and discussed in an appropriate forum. Why, now I've raised it, even you could open a thread on the point, given it concerns failure of one of our most important policies. - SchroCat (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems that we are now discussing a different question, regarding the need to cite IPA transcriptions rather than the precise format they take. Regarding this article, I have provided a citation for the transcription on the talk page, and would be happy to add it to the article when the full protection is taken off. (Unless, of course, someone beats me to it.) Regarding citing IPA transcriptions in general, I think that deserves a separate discussion indeed. Double sharp (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Without wishing to provoke an Oxbridge punch-up (having been at neither establishment), I hope it may be helpful to say here that the Oxford Dictionary of English prescribes the IPA rendition /ˌdɔɪlɪ ˈkɑːt/, the New Oxford American Dictionary recommends /ˈdoilē ˈkärt/, the Canadian Oxford Dictionary goes for /ˌdɔili ˈkɑrt/, the New Zealand Oxford Dictionary prescribes /ˌdɔɪli: ˈka:t. I trust this adequately confuses the matter.  Tim riley  talk   15:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * How so? If you look up each symbol in the front matter it will be evident they correspond to the same vowels/consonants (apart from /r/). Those dictionaries are in agreement with Cambridge. Nardog (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm with Nardog. All of this is already covered (and quite efficiently covered!) by our diaphonemic transcription: ˈdɔɪli ˈkɑːrt! Wolfdog (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As long as the amateur variant of the IPA we use is correctly reflecting the pronunciation, that will be fine. An ogg sound file of the normal pronunciation will probably be useful to those of our readers - most of them, I'm sure - who don't tangle with the IPA in its normal form or Wikipedian variant, and once I have back the full use of both hands (recent surgery) I'll do the necessary.  Tim riley  talk   16:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WMF is to develop an extension that will allow automatic generation of audio from IPA, though it's been stalled and it'll likely be years before it becomes available. Nardog (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 July 2024
As discussed, I've made a sound file (ogg.vorbis) to be added to the IPA rendition of the name: D'oyly-carte-spoken.ogg  Tim riley  talk   06:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Note to responder: this can be added as : . Note the empty parameter between the transcription and the filename. Nardog (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. I support substituting the sound file for the IPA guide that is currently at the top of the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I second this. pronunciation replacing IPA-all. ~  Ivan Scrooge 98  ( talk ) 09:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The edit has been made as full protection has expired. Johnuniq (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Do we even need the word "pronunciation", or is the little player symbol enough? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Not necessary actually, but I think it’s better if it’s immediately identifiable. ~  Ivan Scrooge 98  ( talk ) 18:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)