Template talk:IPAc-en

Missing HTML class "IPA-label"
I was just setting up some custom CSS to make translations and such easier to read when I noticed this template doesn't add the class "IPA-label" to the label it generates, unlike the other IPA templates. Is that intentional, or should it be added?

For example:

results in:

which, for reference, is rendered as:

While for this template:

results in:

rendered as:

— W.andrea (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 24 April 2024
I talked about this above. Basically, this change is to bring the markup inline with Template:IPA.

In Module:IPAc-en, change

(Note: The template documentation doesn't need to be updated since it doesn't mention this behaviour.)

By the way, Template:IPA also has a  parameter that maybe this template should implement as well, but that's beside the point.

— W.andrea (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That alone won't be enough because without Module:IPA/styles.css  doesn't work. ✅. Nardog (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ideally this module should just call the IPA module instead of handling the label, audio, etc. on its own. Nardog (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

What's with the double slashes?
I've noticed that IPA is now wrapped in double slashes: ⫽

Is this a new standard? A coding change perhaps? Not a complaint, just genuinely curious what the reason is.

Editor510 drop us a line, mate  17:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I just noticed this too and, as mentioned in the edit summary Special:Diff/1233122572, some people think it makes it clearer that this is supposed to be a diaphonemic rather than phonemic transcription. It does, but only to those who already know about it. One problem I personally have with this change is that it makes things ugly because the double solidus usually ends up coming from some poorly designed fallback font on most systems. (No, it doesn't display in Gentium Plus for most people.) And I don't believe it's going to serve its intended purpose. Attentive reader will notice it's something different, but will have to check it in Help:IPA/English anyway because double slashes are just as ambiguous as single slashes (it surely must be a morphophonemic transcription, right?). But people who read Help (and MOS) pages and people who argue about which dialect to use are not the same people in the first place. – MwGamera (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I object to these changes too, and the way they've been implemented. Even Wikipedia's own article implies that ⫽⫽ is a fringe method of displaying IPA, being less common than the "less common conventions" in IPA – see International Phonetic Alphabet. For aesthetic reasons, the ⫽⫽ takes much more than double the space of // in an article's 1st sentence, where brevity is important, and that's if the unusual characters render properly. They are non-ASCII?
 * What discussion there was ended 15 months ago and can't be revived. They seem to be unwise changes. If many others have doubts I'd favour reverting for now. - 1RightSider (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Where did this discussion take place? Agree that it should be reverted. And where was the change actually made? There are no recent changes in the template's history. --Un assiolo (talk) 00:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The discussion is from April 2023:.
 * You won't see the change in the history of Template:IPAc-en, because the template is simply a wrapper for Module:IPAc-en. The change was actually made to the module: Special:Diff/1233122572. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 06:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 July 2024
Revert edit by Nardog. The edit appears to have been made suddenly and without consensus. Users are confused, as English IPA everywhere on Wikipedia now displays differently with nonstandard IPA notation, using non-ASCII double slash symbols rather than the single slash standard which has been used on Wikipedia forever.

Change nonstandard, non-ASCII double slashes (⫽) back to standard IPA single slashes (/). 174.115.78.157 (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * to let you know of this request and to get your take. No action taken thus far.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 05:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I saw this notation on one article and was surprised, as I had never encountered it before, even as someone with some knowledge of IPA. I figured it was a fluke with one article. Looking at more and more articles, I realized that the English IPA template (technically module) must have been changed. I won't claim to be an expert on phonetics so maybe there's some justification for the double slashes, but it's quite a shock as a reader. Skimming the article on diaphonemes (which seems to be related) left me scratching my head.
 * This may be a small edit, but it is to an extremely visible template. The edit summary pointed to a discussion from April 2023 involving only a handful of users: . I think there probably should have been a wider discussion first, but now that the change has been made, I guess more people will be drawn to comment, in line with WP:BRD. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 06:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with this revert request – the change was not well-considered. The double slash notation is not widely recognizable and is an overly technical way of attempting to draw a distinction, especially for the lay audience finding it on pages unrelated to linguistics (the vast majority of places where the template is used). Also, many pages use both this template and other ways of inputting IPA (e.g. in English-language vowel changes before historic /r/). Suddenly changing only this template means that such pages now use a combination of / and ⫽, in a haphazard way which confusingly appears as if the use of the two notations is contrastive but is actually unintended. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅, per WP:TPEBOLD, though I note the change was not done boldly by me but was requested by J. 'mach' wust and Wolfdog here. Nardog (talk) 08:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm at a loss as to what the pertinence of the double slash being non-ASCII is, given most IPA transcriptions do contain non-ASCII characters. I also find it a bit ironic that the very motivation for using double slashes was to emphasize that the transcriptions produced by this template are in fact "nonstandard" and not the same as phonemic transcriptions you see in any other work. Some of the objection seems to highlight what the change was trying to fix. Nardog (talk) 08:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think non-ASCII-ness matters at all, but the the symbol has very poor font support. And it works for emphasising nonstandardness, but it does absolutely nothing beyond that. It does not, in particular, make it any less ambiguous what kind of transcription it is or which standard does it conform to. – MwGamera (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have opened a request for comment to discuss the matter: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 21:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)