User talk:Nardog/2019

Uvular lateral approximant
On this article, it reads that " ⟨ʟ̠⟩ may also represent the pharyngeal or epiglottal lateral approximant, a physically possible sound that is not attested in any language." I removed it on the grounds that the squares for lateral approximants do not go past the uvular column. It makes sense too, that pharyngeals and epiglottals aren't articulated using the tongue; even on the other articles about consonants articulated in those places, it states that "the central-lateral dichotomy does not apply." So how can they be lateral at all?

On the other hand, it seems that there is a well source appending this statement in the article, and I see that you've reinstated it with better wording. May I ask you a favor then? Please update the IPA chart template to reflect this better. I can't because I'm not sure how. And I don't want to do it myself, lest I accidentally make a mistake and make the template look ugly.

Thanks in advance. IPA editor (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. While I'm at it, do you mind taking the mention of me off your user page? I don't know you, there are other more prolific and qualified editors responsible for IPA-related articles, and the IPA isn't the only topic I edit articles about. Nardog (talk) 11:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. IPA editor (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just so you know, the establish convention is to add one indentation (made by a colon at the beginning of a line) for each new comment. Also, pinging an editor has no effect if it's on their talk page, because the editor is going to be notified for receiving a message anyway. See Notifications for more. Nardog (talk) 13:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Also did you edit the articles that say that "the central-lateral dichotomy does not apply?" I really hope you did. IPA editor (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I did, you can check the articles for yourself. Nardog (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

46.229.230.108 wants to ask you a question
He asked me why the labiodental m is not used in Help:IPA/Italian, in favor of regular m. I did not know, so I redirected him to you. Do you know, due to your better experience? IPA editor (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * How did he ask you that if that is not in his edit history? Pardon me for being blunt, but are you another one of the sockpuppets that have been asking that same question for weeks? Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What's a sockpuppet?
 * OT: He asked me on Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. Check my talk page there. IPA editor (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That IP address seems to belong to a Slovakian proxy. What you're doing is too transparent. I'd report you but that'd get ignored like most of what I write to Wikipedia admins (that's regardless of whether they have a point or not), so I'll leave it up to Nardog to decide whether he wants to do that. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 05:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your suspicion. Viviocon and Iuscaogdan have been demonstrated to be different people (unless they're so good at covering their tracks), and as far as I can see nothing about IPA editor's contributions indicates such account abuse. This is no place to speculate, remember WP:AGF and Hanlon's razor. Nardog (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't the fact that this guy brings up the same issue as the sockpuppets basically 24 hours after his first edit sufficient? The IP address belongs to a proxy and neither it nor IPA editor have made any kinds of edits to Commons besides to IPA editor's talk page . Why would the anon write there and not on Wikipedia? How would he know if IPA editor was going to be able to read the message? Also, why would the first edits of IPA editor be to the articles Labiodental nasal, Help:IPA/Italian and Help:IPA/Spanish (see )? To me there are just too many instances of strange behaviors (especially the first one) to dismiss any single one of them (which may or may not be a coincidence). To me, the response of the anon from today is just a diversion.
 * You'll do what you want with it, but to me this is genuine evidence for IPA editor being another sockpuppet. I wouldn't call it speculation, though I have no reason to press the issue further if you are not interested in doing that. Again, this is your call. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're still interested, you can see my input at right above on this page. I don't know if "Fotrion" (which is a sock of Viviocon) is the same person as the IP on Commons, but my reply serves as a reply to them anyway. Several editors have said basically the same things as I did, e.g. here and here.
 * Also, whenever you want to notify someone of something at some other place, link to it. A link to Commons can be made by  prefix, as in  —see Help:Interwiki linking for more. Or you could have at least just put the bare URL. Nardog (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not the same person as the IP, if that's what you're looking for. I've never even been to Slovakia. I was only bringing up the labiodental nasal issue because the IP asked me and I didn't know. IPA editor (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I falsely accused you after all. The evidence looks solid to me, but I could've been mistaken (or not - I have no idea).
 * I don't want to spam Nardog's talk page with this kind of messages anymore so this will be the last one from me. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is accessed by 500 million people every month. It's not at all inconceivable that multiple people have similar thoughts and decide to do something about it on Wikipedia within a short period of time. It's also possible that they're not the same person but were inspired by the same thing, like a post on the internet somewhere. The IP knew IPA editor would be notified because that person seems to be quite acquainted for an IP with how things work on Wikipedia (I assume they were just trying to be sneaky and IPA editor ironically blew their cover). If the articles you mentioned were the very first articles IPA editor edited, I too would have found it suspicious. But IPA editor's editing behavior simply doesn't align with that of Viviocon or Iuscaogdan (again, unless they are SO good). And frankly, it doesn't matter if someone is using multiple accounts so long as they are not abusing them, like being disruptive to other people or doing it to achieve an agenda. I would rather point to the fact that none of those who were complaining about the Italian key not using [ɱ] have taken it to Help talk:IPA/Italian and tried to have an honest discussion, despite having been suggested to do so by several editors. Now that is quite odd, and if people keep forum-shopping about this supposed discrepancy instead of trying to reach a consensus and put it to bed for good, that's when it becomes disruptive, whether sockpuppetry is involved or not. (So it may be a case of meatpuppetry rather than sockpuppetry.) Nardog (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And he got banned. This is why we shouldn't base our judgement on the way suspected *puppets speak to us (I'm not saying that you did by the way). See Sockpuppet_investigations/Viviocon - the way this guy behaves is as if he were a carbon copy of Diabedia (I'm not saying that others aren't capable of similar behavior, but that's who he reminds me of). Now I'm also pretty sure that Iuscaogdan is also one of the *puppets. The fact that he started behaving in a civil matter once he saw a chance that his proposal (or demand, which perhaps is a more accurate description) might be accepted after all is probably additional proof for my theory. The fact that another *puppet attack on your page occurred a few hours after I conceded defeat on WikiProject Linguistics is probably no coincidence either and I think that you may present that as additional evidence in the SI. The way Iuscaogdan started off on Wikipedia is very strange indeed and I do believe he's a *puppet. I've actually believed that from the very beginning. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

IPA template errors
Your recent edits to reduce "EXPENSIVE" ifexists have caused some error transclusions on Click consonant, Ejective consonant and Implosive consonant. These articles are also populating Category:IPA pages with non-existing IPA audio soundfile. I believe the (false-positive) errors are from Template:IPA link calls from Template:IPA soundbox. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for notifying me about this. I think I've dealt with the errors in those templates if there were any, and now it seems the errors in those articles are coming from ISBN. The category addition is and has been the way it is by design, by the way. Nardog (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirects
Hi, you have created a whole bunch of cross-namespace redirects (from H: to Help:), but these seem to violate the consensus not to create any more of these. Can you indicate if there was consensus to create these anyway (or a more recent discussion overruling the RfC I linked to)? Until then, please stop creating any more of these. Fram (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware what the latest consensus is, but Shortcut only says it's case-sensitive. I only created them because I just realized that, even though there are H:IPA-en etc., most of which I created earlier and some of which had existed before, typing e.g. "h:ipa-en" in the search box and hitting Enter/Return doesn't redirect to anywhere unless there is h:ipa-en or H:IPA-EN. If the consensus is not to create them, then you would have to delete the lowercase ones too. Nardog (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see that that page (which seems to be more recent) states that H (and some others) may be freely used and have broad community support, so you may disregard my query here and continue to create these. Thank you! Fram (talk) 07:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

IPA sound vandalism
Sibilant and non-sibiliant are distinct. 78.54.72.200 (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * According to whom? In what context? Nobody is disputing their existence per se, the only reason we don't have a separate article for it is because it's not notable. We discuss the sound in a section of an article called "Voiced retroflex fricative", not "Voiced retroflex sibilant fricative", not to mention we don't have separate articles for sibilant/non-sibilant sounds (except for the dental non-sibilant affricates, but that's because dental sibilant affricates are covered in the articles about alveolar affricates). I don't understand what you're getting at. Nardog (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Audio
The error check you recently added to Template:Audio has flagged errors in Chord (music), Ninth, Piet Kee and List of chords. Can you fix these? I'm not sure what to do about the missing audio files. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem a good idea to trigger errors in other namespaces. There are a bunch in Talk: and fixing them seems problematic. Some are deleted on commons, and I don't know if it's OK to create redirects in filespace on commons or not. Files used in talk may be deleted if they are no longer used in mainspace. wbm1058 (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Since there were only four errors in mainspace, and these are likely to be infrequent, I'm fine with flagging them in mainspace. I have a version that does that in the sandbox When these happen in the future (possibly by vandalism), I would likely just revert back to the last version that didn't have the error if I couldn't fix it otherwise. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I actually fixed dozens of them when I made the template show an error and those four are the ones I regrettably overlooked. I have made it so that error is used only in the main namespace and removed the link to the missing file. Nardog (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Linguistics disambiguation pages
Hello. I see that you've added disambiguation templates to pages such as Alveolar fricative. This raises the question of how we fix the incoming links. One view (expressed better here) is that topics such as Alveolar fricative are (not-very-)broad concepts rather than ambiguous terms. It's certainly possible to talk about alveolar fricatives in general, and incoming links often intend that general sense, in a way that's not true of, say, Mercury. (It's hard to say anything specific about the planet, god and chemical element as a group). Could we label these pages in some other way? Certes (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Piling on :) Yes, Template:Phonetics disambiguation admits it's not really a dab when its documentation says There are only a few pages that use this template, and many of them should be expanded into short articles like Dental stop. When they are, the template should be deleted. Make it a set index at least, if not a flat-out broad concept. Voiceless Alveolar fricative and voiced Alveolar fricative are both simply two types of Alveolar fricative, and not things unrelated to each other, right. Plus, most editors will have no clue about how to "disambiguate" these. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mind's not working right now. Will get back to you later. Thanks for your patience. Nardog (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No hurry; thanks for replying. I think WBM's idea of an SIA is a good compromise.  When we agree on a solution, let's remember to include Dental fricative which I reverted yesterday. Certes (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your patience. Given the way the phonetics-related articles are currently structured (which relies on the IPA's taxonomy), these pages are unlikely to grow to be anything more than a dictionary definition. And my personal inclination is that a DAB page is much better than an unreferenced substub. If an incoming link is intended to refer to both (or either) of the voiced and voiceless variants, then fixing it as e.g.  seems reasonable to me. In fact, some of the links to Dental fricative were only talking about one variant. If it were marked as a DAB, they would have likely been fixed because DPL bot would have notified the users who instated the links. If a broad-concept article is preferred, then it ought to have at least the bare minimum of discussion and sourcing, if you ask me. I wasn't familiar with the concept of an SIA, but I can also see that as an option. Nardog (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:SIA. Think of it as a sort of "soft disambiguation". Notices on editors' talk pages: good, if they respond promptly. Not so good if the work falls to the DPL patrol. wbm1058 (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HTML 5
Thanks for reverting my change. I saw the issue right after I edited, and I researched it and realized I needed to self-revert, but you beat me to it by 2 minutes. —Anomalocaris (talk) 11:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Help with IPA
Hello, via Chalamet's article, I see you do a lot of work within IPA on Wikipedia and would like to ask for your assistance. On the article for actor Rami Malek, I would like to include the IPA for his name pronunciation, but don't know enough to do so... Here's a Youtube video of himself saying it over and over incase you can assist with this: Rami Malek's name. Thanks,  on camera  20:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Nardog (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, can you confirm this? I'm not totally confident about the first vowel of the last name. Nardog (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's clearly on the first recording. I imagine that the second version is also  but with an open central  for the first vowel. The inconsistency with which the California vowel shift is applied by speakers of CE can be quite confusing. It definitely encroaches on the allophonic range of  in General American. The best you can do in such cases is to check multiple recordings, which you did. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yeah, I even tried checking the formants but they were all over the place and couldn't make heads or tails, but /æ/ seems right. Nardog (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I wonder whether the retraction of to  (or perhaps even slightly further back) can be seen as a variable - merger. I wouldn't find such an analysis surprising. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Horst Hof
Thanks - checked, yes, that was the only time. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  13:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Apologies
Sorry for originally calling your move "misguided". It was unnecessary to convey my point, and I don't want to unnecessarily disparage other editors. eπi ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 14:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You said " I think this recent move was misguided", so no offense taken. But I appreciate your AGF spirit! Nardog (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Because you did the exact thing I warned you against doing. Like I said on your user talk page, engage in a conversation at Talk:Tongva instead of editing the article directly, or you will be blocked again. By editing the article directly you are squandering the chance you've been given. If you want the title of the article to be changed, follow the instructions given at Requested moves/Controversial. When doing so, make sure to make an argument based on these criteria. Nardog (talk) 05:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Talking Tongva
Getting the hang of things, finally. How am I doing? Harryawhite (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

My Talk page
Thanks very much for all of your comments at my Talk page while I was off-wiki.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

KEBAB vowel
Hi Nardog,

Can you think of a Wells-type key word for the lexical set of the 'a' vowel in 'kebab'? Like the BATH vowel, but with the GA and RP values reversed. Common for foreign names that have [a] in the original language. — kwami (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand the question. And please indicate the article(s) and context in which you could use an answer. You mean a keyword that's established (or at least used) in linguistic literature? If so I'm not aware of any. Nardog (talk) 02:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This wouldn't be for a WP article, but for my own use. Wells didn't create such a set. I was hoping you might be able to think of something -- a familiar word like 'kebab', but one syllable. It could be useful for heading off debates over how to pronounce names like Makemake. Wouldn't need to be used in the lit. — kwami (talk) 02:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I can't help you. Looking at American and British English pronunciation differences etc., there do not seem to be a lot of monosyllabic words that fall in this category. It did remind me of this paper by Charles Boberg, though. Nardog (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks anyway. "Pasta" looks like the best bet to me from that list. — kwami (talk) 03:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You can call it the MANN vowel. See General American. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 10:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's not close to any of the other key words. Given your name, maybe I should've asked you to begin with! — kwami (talk) 01:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * excuse my butting in but Just to add to the confusion, in my country Australia, the word kebab typically falls into the set, as in the UK, but pasta falls into, as in the US. However, this could even vary nation-wide, especially with kebab, seeing as far as I'm aware these are the pronunciations used in metropolitan Sydney (where I live). Just for context, where I come from kebabs are often eaten in takeaway shops that commonly also sell burgers, pizza or gozleme. — oi yeah nah mate amazingJUSSO ... [ɡəˈdæɪ̯]! 11:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd almost be disappointed is someone didn't confuse the issue. Wouldn't feel like Wikipedia! And of course in the US this only works with Thomas Mann. For Horace Mann, we use the same pronunciation as in the UK. So, yeah, there's that too. — kwami (talk) 01:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Angbr
I guess there might be different viewpoints on the relative merits of Angbr and Angle bracket, but if we're going to have a large-scale change of one to the other, wouldn't it be a good idea to step back and examine some alternatives? Like using a dedicated shortcut for orthographical representation, to provide better semantic markup and to help prepare for the time in the future when the variety of uses of Angbr might get disentangled into separate templates. – Uanfala (talk) 14:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not changing  to  . I'm just trying to reduce transclusions in the construction   because it was used in hundreds of articles. Nardog (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, my bad. I only examined this edit and assumed the rest that ended up on my watchlist were the same. – Uanfala (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Clive Upton article
Hello Nardog - I'm new to this so apologies if I get things wrong. Would you be able to look at the Clive Upton article to see if it is appropriately neutral? Thanks. Isogloss (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The neutrality of the article as it's written doesn't seem to be much of a problem; it had many formatting issues, though, most of which I just fixed. The problems are (1) whether its content is verifiable by reliable sources (usually third-party; works by the subject himself may be used, but there are caveats), and (2) whether you are affiliated with the subject in any way. If you are, you must disclose the relation. If you wish to keep contributing to Wikipedia, please familiarize yourself with its policies—the list of links in the message I posted on your talk page is a good place to start. Nardog (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Vowel Length - your revert to my edit
Hi, Nardog,

You reverted my edit to Vowel Length with the comment, "Unlike Unicode, alt codes depend on code page". Can you explain your point of view more and what a code page is? My perspective is that as an English and ESL teacher, I sometimes need to type phonetic symbols on my PC, so I need an alt code. I added the code to the article in an effort to help others in a similar position. Also, as an editor, I added "may be" to clarify the sentence and make it sound better. I would really appreciate it if you would revert your reversion. DBlomgren (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As the article Alt code explains, Alt codes are operating system–dependent and vary across computers—on my computer pressing + does nothing—whereas Unicode is an international standard maintained by a consortium. Besides, "720" is just the decimal representation of the Unicode code point 02D0, which is hexadecimal. That information was actually already found on the infobox (see the "Encoding" panel). I agree, though, that the infobox isn't all that helpful. I think it's at least slightly better now. You make a good point about the wording of the part about the half-long symbol; I've reinstated your version. Nardog (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

RfA?
Hi Nardog, I have been looking over contribs of some 'technical' type editors and saw you've been active in this area. Would you be interested in running a RfA? As an admin you would have access to additional technical tools that could help to improve the project. Thanks for you consideration! — xaosflux  Talk 21:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see myself fit for adminship. Plus, I don't think I've ever needed more access than the template editor right grants, which is a privilege already. Thanks for the suggestion though. Nardog (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

IP 95.135.135.162
Why ? Please check the IP's provenience ! Ukraine – and look my global account ! AVS (talk) 08:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC) -2 The IP concerned has – as you can see and by the given links hear – entered several examples – all beeing inadequate. -3 What's that? An investigation?! AVS (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps you should clarify what your point is on Help talk:IPA/Standard German. (Pinging a user on their very talk has no effect btw.) Nardog (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * -1 Pinging a user on their very talk has no effect  Obviously it had!
 * It really doesn't. When you write a message on a user talk page, that user automatically gets notified. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia's vowel demonstrations
Hello. Phonetician Peter Roach has recorded demonstrations of the vowels [a ä ɐ ʌ ɒ ɔ] and released them under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license:


 * File:PR-open front unrounded vowel.ogg
 * File:PR-open centralized unrounded vowel.ogg
 * File:PR-near-open central unrounded vowel.ogg
 * File:PR-open-mid back unrounded vowel.ogg
 * File:PR-open back rounded vowel.ogg
 * File:PR-open-mid back rounded vowel.ogg

These are far superior to Wikipedia's existing ones so I would like to replace them, but being new to Wikipedia I do not know how. Could you help, or alternatively do it for me? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuvernööri (talk • contribs) 21:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The complete list of Peter's uploads is at commons:Special:ListFiles/RoachPeter. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of these recordings sound fine, except for which is a bit too front and perhaps  which also sounds fronted. I'd use the rest on WP, sure. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * With regard to Roach's [ʌ], surely it is still preferable to Wikipedia's attempt at the vowel which sounds even less back? As for Roach's [ä], he specifically stated that Wikipedia's recording is "not front enough". Kuvernööri (talk) 22:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I won't argue about, but to me the current recording of is correct - that's the exact vowel I have in Polish. Roach's  sounds too front, and it's close or identical to cardinal  (like contemporary RP ). We'd need input from other Wikipedians who have  in their native language (Nardog,  and  come to mind), because this may only be my view.
 * I don't question Peter's competence, but isn't a cardinal vowel and, AFAIK, he doesn't have such a vowel in his native accent. I do, and I say that Peter's  is too front to fully pass for the main allophone of Polish (and also Spanish) . Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, Peter's [ä] does sound a little too front to my ears. The filename suggests he thought ⟨ä⟩ meant centralized rather than fully central, but since the IPA offers no such distinction we generally mean the latter by ⟨ä⟩. Peter's [ʌ] does sound superior to me though (neither his nor the current one is completely satisfactory perhaps). Nardog (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, he centralized it from his cardinal which to my ears is almost, perhaps with slight lowering. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't "[æ] with slight lowering" precicely what cardinal [a] is? To my ear Roach's [a] sounds less [æ]-like than Daniel Jones's [a ]. Kuvernööri (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is precisely why should be considered the cardinal open front unrounded vowel. It doesn't matter that it's closer than  - so is  in relation to . Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 05:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We can leave Wikipedia's [ä] for now. I think it's more important to get the cardinal vowels right. So, who shall do the editing? Kuvernööri (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Go for it, as far as I'm concerned. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't you think we should consult a broader community like WT:LING or H:IPA? Nardog (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 05:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know how (which is why I started this thread). If I click 'Edit source' on the main vowel page, I can't find a link to any recording. And if I go directly to the file page there is no option to edit. --Kuvernööri (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Clicking Edit on Module:IPA symbol/data and placing an edit request that the content of the module be replaced by this version will do it, although, again, I'm not sure if three people on a user talk constitute a consensus, on which Wikipedia relies for decision-making, so I'm not at the moment doing it myself. Nardog (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, well, I'll let you do the edit when you've gotten a consensus. Kuvernööri (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's a comparison: These other phoneticians' demonstrations must be of help. There is also this table of vowel formants I extracted from these recordings and some other sources some time ago, though I can't guarantee its accuracy. Nardog (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Seeking consensus here. Discussion of this matter should take place there from now on. Nardog (talk) 12:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Todd (now Emily) VanDerWerff having come out as transgender Close
Is there a reason you closed discussion without any kind of closing statement? Given that this ended up at ANI some summary of what consensus had (or less likely given how I see it as an involved participant had not) been reached would be helpful. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Nardog (talk) 23:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Reverts
See User talk:203.194.51.42. No problem with your revert on this one article. Some of this user's changes are sensible, but they have been making mass changes of this sort for years, and it not possible to investigate each one individually. SpinningSpark 11:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks for the explanation. Nardog (talk) 11:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

OED spelling: analy{s|z}e
Hi Nardog, contrary to what I consider common belief was not strictly necessary, as the OED calls the spelling analyze "historically quite defensible" and doesn't label it as obsolete or a foreignism, though analyse is, of course, equally correct, and mentioned first. — This is the complete etymology and rationale: You live and learn. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 04:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "a. mod.Fr. analyse‑r (= faire l'analyse), f. analyse ; see prec. (It might also have been formed in Eng. itself on the prec. n.) On Greek analogies the vb. would have been analysize, Fr. analysiser, of which analyser was practically a shortened form, since, though following the analogy of pairs like annexe, annexe‑r, it rested chiefly on the fact that by form-assoc. it appeared already to belong to the series of factitive vbs. in ‑iser, Eng., = L. ‑īzāre, f. Gr. ‑ίζ‑ειν, to which in sense it belonged. Hence from the first it was commonly written in Eng. analyze, the spelling accepted by Johnson, and historically quite defensible. The objection that this assumes a Gr. ἀναλύζ‑ειν itself assumes that analyse is formed on Gr. ἀναλύσ‑ειν, which is etymologically impossible and historically untrue."
 * I'm afraid I don't quite follow. The rationale for the revert is that WP:ENGVAR (particularly WP:RETAIN) prohibits changing from one acceptable option to another for no good reason. And doesn't "Oxford spelling", at least in the sense we use on Wikipedia (including in Template:British English Oxford spelling, which explicitly says "use analyse"), mean the spelling OUP uses in its publications and dictionary headwords? I bet there are a plenty of other spelling variants OED finds "defensible" and not "obsolete or a foreignism" but does not use as headwords. Nardog (talk) 09:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There are two headwords analyse, -ze and analyze, -able etc. that both mention several forms. For comparison: There is only a headword criticize but no separate criticise, though the latter spelling is mentioned under the criticize entry. I wonder if the wording of the template documentation should be changed. — I thought there was "good reason" to alter the spelling to analyze because this seems to be the form that is equally sanctioned in all parts of the English-speaking world. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 09:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:RETAIN prohibits changing even forms not sanctioned in some parts of the Anglosphere so long as the article was written in a variety that sanctions them and the subject does not have a strong tie to another variety, so I don't see how that could be good reason. Nardog (talk) 09:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Laterals
Hi. I see you've edited the IPA chart template to show that pharyngeal laterals are possible, but not labial laterals. Since labial laterals are demonstrated, that seems a bit odd. If we go by the definition of 'off the side of the tongue', then that would exclude pharyngeals as well. — kwami (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * When I made that edit, I was simply following what Ladefoged & Maddieson (1996:191) said, but you raise a good point about labials. In fact the IPA Handbook (p. 9) says the shaded cells include combinations not just impossible but also "too difficult to produce", so it seems that, despite the fine print below the table, some cells are not entirely impossible but are still intentionally shaded because they are extremely unlikely to be attested. I'll reinstate the shading. Nardog (talk) 10:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I suspect it's that they're assuming a definition of laterals being lingual because anything else is extremely unlikely to be acoustically distinct, and so not needed in the IPA. I have no problem with the change you made, which is just a change from acoustics to articulation, just if we're going to do it for the pharyngeals, IMO we should do the same for the labials. My own /f v/ are lateral, for example, and that's evidently quite common. — kwami (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I sent you an email re. the charts, BTW. — kwami (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

American English: Flapping
By or becomes a flap when occurring both (1) after a vowel or  and (2) before an unstressed vowel or a syllabic consonant (including  if preceded by  but not ) that usually begins a new syllable, I meant that we'd get a flap in the word bidden (preceded by /d/) but not bitten. The begins a new syllable part is my attempt to incorporate the morpheme parameter. So, for the nonce word fleetodd, we'd expect it, syllabified as fleet.odd, to have a flap and, as flee.todd, not to have the flap. Wolfdog (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not that /d/ followed by [n̩] can be flapped but that /d/ followed by /ən/ can be flapped if /ən/ is realized as [ən] as opposed to [n̩].
 * Given the right environment, /ən/ can be realized as either [ən] or [n̩] (English phonology). Another way to put this is to posit /n̩/ as a phoneme that can be realized as either [n̩] or [ən]. So some phonologists refer to some or all of what we normally transcribe as /əl, ən, əm, ər/ as "syllabic consonants", but that usage would be too confusing in our articles because it refers to what they regard as phonologically syllabic consonants, which may surface as phonetically syllabic consonants, but not always.
 * Then say "when stem-internal", "unless spanning a morphological boundary", or something to that effect. There is so little agreement on how to syllabify English words (English phonology), especially those subject to flapping, that we might as well avoid mentioning it. Nardog (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem that morphemes alone do the trick much better than syllables, but I'll word it that way for now.
 * Yeah, I was going to argue that it's not really how we transcribe "syllabic consonants" so much as when the possible-flap in question is underlyingly a /t/ or a /d/. I can't think of any time /-tən/ is allowed to become [-ɾən] unless the /n/ is morpheme-initial (optionally?), and even then I can't think of anything off the top of my head! Wolfdog (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Although I concur with your observation regarding /t/ vs. /d/ (I even brought it up at Talk:Flapping), as I told you, you'd be hard-pressed to find any reliable source that corroborates it.
 * I feel flapping in /-tən/ is fairly common with -ance, -ant, -ence, -ent words, as in competence, impotent, inheritance, omnipotent, etc. Maybe the key is that /t/ in these words is not immediately followed by stress. But I also feel I occasionally hear flapping in important, written, etc. Nardog (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, those are good examples. Thanks! Wolfdog (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks
This discussion (as well as your edit summary here) revolutionized my understanding of IPA. It's gonna take a bit, for all the implications of this to sink in. In the meantime, thanks a lot for this, and I'm trying to imagine the patience required to have to explain essentially the same thing over and over again. I feel a bit the newbie here, though I've been around a dozen years, and not altogether unversed in matters of language before that, though I must admit, this area was a lacuna. Anyway, thanks! Mathglot (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Neutral notice
This is a neutral notice to all registered editors who have contributed to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film over the past year (Sept. 15, 2018-present) that a Request for Comment has been posted here. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion(s)
Hi Nardog! You said you were going to intervene in this discussion; are you still willing to do so? No hurry, I don’t mean this as any way to rush you, it’s just so to know if we can take it (along with a couple others, if you don’t mind) to a conclusion. Thanks! 〜 イヴァンスクルージ九十八 ［IvanScrooge98］ （ 会話 ） 10:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again, and sorry if it sounded like I rushed you. 〜 イヴァンスクルージ九十八 ［IvanScrooge98］ （ 会話 ） 09:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

What's the consensus on these IPAc templates?
It seems only a handful of articles use the &#123;&#123;IPAc&#125;&#125; templates that include phonetic explanations on hover. I personally find the tooltips to be very helpful. There are only 280 transclusions of IPA-is, I could replace them all with IPAc-is (only the segmentation of the dipthongs would need manual checking). Do you think that's something I'm free to do, or would that need a wider discussion / bot approval? – Thjarkur (talk) 01:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As this table shows, the IPAc templates exist to convert othographic representation or non-IPA phonetic transcription to IPA (that's where the "c" comes from), not to provide tooltips. So the template you created doesn't really follow the nature of the pre-existing IPAc templates, and I would stop you from replacing IPA-is with it.
 * AFAIK there is no real consensus on IPAc templates except for IPAc-en, although some of them seem to have gained wide currency, particularly IPAc-pl and IPAc-cmn. They are usually created and used with little or no prior consultation. I and other prolific editors of IPA transcriptions tend to stay away from them. One problem is that the conventions of many keys have not been settled or are frequently tweaked, so the design of an IPAc template is prone to lag behind. I also don't like the way some of the IPAc templates omit the label preceding the transcription by default—the reason IPAc-en does is because transcriptions on the English Wikipedia are expected to be about English (also English is the only one we use phonemic slashes for).
 * They are also kind of things of the past, as most of them were created before Lua modules became available, and even the Lua-based ones still inherit syntax from their non-Lua predecessors, when a module can take a full, undivided word or phrase as an input and convert it to IPA for languages with phonemic orthographies (Wiktionary has such templates for Spanish, Italian, Polish, Finnish, Japanese, etc.) or take a whole IPA transcription as an input and provide tooltips for each symbol. But that solution is also not free of problems as such a complex template would require skilled and committed editors maintaining it as changes are made to the key and bugs are found.
 * I personally don't find the tooltips all that helpful because they're hard to notice or look through, and mobile users, who make up half the visitors to Wikipedia, don't get to see them (I think they should ultimately be replaced by something like this, but that would require a change in MediaWiki and thus a broader consensus). Tooltips in non-English transcriptions are even trickier for the same reason I mentioned above (the instability of the keys); it's also not easy to find the best English approximations.
 * So the situation is one hot mess, if that can serve as an answer. Nardog (talk) 10:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah all right. Yes I noticed the inconsistency between IPAc-en (converts to IPA and creates tooltips), IPAc-fr (just converts to IPA) and IPAc-it (just creates tooltips), but I didn't think much of it and just copied the Italian one. I'll move my template to userspace for the time being. I've added an edit request which will hopefully make tooltips work on mobile. I quite like your popup example, shouldn't be that hard to create a gadget for it. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I took your Popup idea and put together this userscript: User:Þjarkur/IPA popups. It loads the table rows from the relevant IPA help page, and it actually works rather well given the limited effort I've put in. Think this could be something we could expand on? – Thjarkur (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe my idea would be best realized in a popup using OOUI, shown at the center of the screen by clicking the notation rather than hovering it. Anyways, do you think this (implementing  class in IPAc-en) is a good idea? (See also Template:IPAc-en/testcases.) Nardog (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, for those of us on desktop who have the "Show tooltips over text with a dotted underline" setting on in ReferenceTooltips it's quite nice (I don't know why it's not the default setting). For mobile users, it doesn't prevent the link from working on first click, the browser opens Help:IPA before the tooltip has a time to be shown, so this change would be invisible but harmless for them. I'll see if I get around to making that popup, might require some more standardization in the IPA pages (or some additional markup for better row identification) to work reliably. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. I personally don't think pulling data from the tables on the guides themselves is a good idea; I would use Module:IPAc-en/phonemes directly or store similar data somewhere. Nardog (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

"H:IPA-AEC" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect H:IPA-AEC. Since you had some involvement with the H:IPA-AEC redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Wug·a·po·des​ 07:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Featured picture
Have you considered nominating File:IPA-euler-manners-features.svg as a featured picture? It's better than pretty much any diagram I've seen in textbooks, so it's definitely "among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer". I'm not well versed in the featured picture process, but I'd say it meets the other criteria as well. Either way, an outstanding diagram! Wug·a·po·des​ 06:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the first feedback I've ever gotten about the image, so thank you! I'd been gestating the idea for months and it took another month to actually make it, so it means a lot to me, especially coming from (if I'm not mistaken) an actual academic/linguist. I'm not sure if it meets the featured image criteria, however, as I think the design is kind of amateurish and the classification also could use some working (e.g. trills are definitely [+continuant]). (A practical problem in designing this kind of diagram is that a term like "continuant" can have a traditional definition in phonetics that differs from that in feature-based phonology, and the latter definition is often shaky as it varies from language to language and has changed over time, and its basis in articulation as Halle/Chomsky/Jakobson originally proposed is no longer widely upheld. But today the phonological definition is the one encountered far more often, so it must be reckoned with.) In any case, if you find it so helpful and are so inclined, please share it with your fellow teachers/students. If it was used in classrooms I couldn't be happier because I made it because I wished I had had it when I was learning linguistics for the first time. Nardog (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Dvorak
Shouldn't it be respelled as DVO-rak instead of DVOR-ak? Akeosnhaoe (talk) 09:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No. /ɔːr/ operates independently of /ɔː/, so that even in accents that merge /ɔː/ with /ɑː/, /ɔːr/ is distinct from /ɑːr/ (story doesn't become starry even in cot–caught merging accents). This is why a sequence of vowel + /r/ is usually analyzed as belonging to the same syllable, unlike with other consonants. "DVO-rak" suggests or, which are not only inaccurate but impossible. Nardog (talk) 09:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Phonetic transcription
Thanks for the advice on being bold (which I had forgotten). I felt I ought to explain what I was planning to do.

Best wishes for 2020! RoachPeter (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)