Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Register (phonology)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Keep. This was a messy nomination. The statement by the nom that this article contains information that is also covered in other articles and does not go as indepth is silly. Look at Science, Philosophy, Tools, Music etc. This discussion, which was not going anywhere, did not arrive at a consensus which made deletion the proper course of action. It was more of a collaborative discussion of highly-technical content points, the kind of thing that should happen on a talk page, not in a deletion process. So my choices were no consensus or keep, and the very weak nomination leaned me over to keep. They are essentially the same thing anyway. JERRY talk contribs 04:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Register (phonology)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete This article contains information and is on a topic that is on several other wikipedia articles including Tone (linguistics), Tone language, and Vocal registration. The information presented is not as thoroughly or precisly presented as in the other articles and there are no references cited so any merger would be pointless.Nrswanson (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * We need to merge the info you deleted. You claimed the Burmese example of creaky high tone is wrong, because vocal fry is low tone. However, in Burmese it is high tone. We should also bring Khmer back. Unless we keep a separate article, the Vocal registration article needs to be rewritten to cover register languages. It wrongly defines 'registers' as tone, and then lists phonation as examples, while 'register' is something else again - a conflation of tone and phonation. If the term is used to mean phonation in speech pathology, then we need two sections for these contradictory definitions. kwami (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment You are incorrect. The register page is correct and the information is well sourced. Vocal fry and creaky voice are the same thing. The references on both the phonation pages and vocal fry page says that, including the ones you listed on the web. They also state that creaky voice is low tone. And pitch is a factor in phonation as certain kinds of phonation can only be produced at certain pitches. The laryngeal function of creaky voice can only be phonated within a certain pitch or tonal area which is low. The term register is closely associated with tone. As the article states, "Registers originate in laryngeal function. They occur because the vocal folds are capable of producing several different vibratory patterns. Each of these vibratory patterns appears within a particular range of pitches and produces certain characteristic sounds." Read the creaky voice (aka vocal fry) article. Furthermore, I have no problem with the inclusion of this information if it is cited from reputable sources. But as it is not only contradictory to the well cited information on other pages and currently is not sourced I have removed it. Also the issue here is not only content but the fact that this page is redundant as the topic exists on the other pages listed above. It seems to me that you are trying to divorce tone from the term register which is not a correct approach from any source listed on the phonation pages that I have seen. Furthermore, although phonation is in a sense seperate from tone they are overlapping subjects that sometimes effect each other. You are trying to draw boundaries where none exist. Show me some references and I will support it but as of right now every reference I have seen doesn't support your hypothesis.Nrswanson (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Also, I believe the terms tonal language and register language are used interchangably. And that article is lot more detailed. If there is a difference let me know but the article contains some of the same information that is on the register (phonology) page. What makes this topic unique? Also, I have no problem with a section on register languages being added to the vocal registration page but the information on this page has no sources and presents highly individualized information that really doesn't explain the broader topic well.Nrswanson (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I just found a definition of a register language in the American Heritage Dictionary. "Register language-A tonal language that uses different voice registers." It seems to me that this topic does belong on the tonal language page. It is my understanding that a register language is a certain kind of tonal language that is concerned with specific types of phonation as well as pitch. A language that only used the modal voice but had different meaning based on pitch would be simply a tonal language. A language that employed other vocal registers (aka vocal fry, falsetto, whictle, etc) would be a specific kind of tonal langauge know as a register language because it uses more than just the modal register. Understand though that those other registers have certain pitch areas. Creaky voice or vocal fry can only be phonated at low pitches as the voice is physically not capable of creating those sounds at higher frequencies. That was why I didn't like your chart. There is no such thing as a creaky voice with a high pitch level. Check out the source you cited in the phonation article. It will prove my point. [ click here http://www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/phonetik/EGG/page10.htm]Nrswanson (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep I'm a total non-expert but based on the discussion above, and the WP{ article, it seems that this is a particular subtopic, that would be worth an article, if it were developed and sourced. How accurate it may be is for the article talk page.DGG (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * DELETE, I agree completely with DGG, as I too am a vocal layperson. However, the lack of any reference sources is a deal-breaker for any WP article (All WP articles need reliable, verifiable sources for notability and everything else come second). If someone with an interest in the article puts references in it, then I will change my vote to KEEP.--Sallicio$\color{Red} \oplus$ 02:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge.
 * 'Register' is not used in phonetics the way the the term is used in the Vocal registration article. Rather, it is a conflation of tone and phonation. I think Nrswanson and I have come to something of an understanding at Talk:Register (phonology).
 * We could merge under 'tone', but note that the reason there is a separate word is that some argue that these are not tonal languages, or can't agree as to whether they are phonemically tonal, phonational, or a conflation of the two.
 * I agree that refs are needed. Unfortunately I am not at home and don't have anything available. I'll see what I can swipe from Google Books. kwami (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.