Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Pronunciation/Archive 11

Distinction between varieties of English
Is there any possibility we can change the wording under this section to be a bit more authoritative in tone? There are fairly frequent debates about, for example, using a nonrhotic vs rhotic pronunciation on British-focused articles with say a transcription like. It is certainly standard on Wikipedia to use the diaphonemic system (encompassing both nonrhotic and rhotic pronunciations, PALM-LOT merger and distinction, and many other binary features), but it seems that there's a need to make that "all-encompassingness" clearer for certain editors. Annoyingly, the wheel has to be reinvented for each of these debates, and I wonder if the soft tone on this page contributes to that. In other words, It is often possible to transcribe a word in a generic way that is not specific to any one accent could be replaced with something like If a word can be transcribed in a generic way that is not specific to any one accent, it should be done so using Wikipedia's diaphonemic system. This seems more definitive. (In fact, the word diaphonemic only appears one time in parentheses on this whole page.) Am I off base here? Wolfdog (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

We also may want to reinforce the fact that this diaphonemic system covers the rhotic vs. nonrhotic distinction (specifically) with a note at Help:IPA/English. Wolfdog (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If we were to embrace the “diaphonemic” approach more overtly, then I think we should also mark it as such by using double slashes ⫽…⫽. Our current “diaphonemic” transcriptions use single slashes /…/, which are the common way for marking phonemic transcriptions. It does not surprise me that readers, seeing the single slashes /…/, are assuming that they contain phonemic transcriptions (if they know of such things). Then they will naturally argue that for topics tied to a certain location, a phonemic transcription adequate to that location should be used.
 * Double slashes ⫽…⫽ would highlight that our transcriptions are not phonemic. So if a discussion arises about a rhotic transcription in a topic tied to a non-rhotic location, then pointing out that the transcription is not phonemic would be much easier. On the other hand, overt double slashes ⫽…⫽ might have the opposite effect of inciting more discussions by phoneticians who question the concept of “diaphonemes”. But I believe being overt is the best way. You cannot eat the cake and have it. It is not only on this page that we hardly mention the concept of “diaphonemes”. Even on Help:IPA/English, the word only occurs three times, twice beyond the key and a third time in a footnote. --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 21:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, it would make it clearer what the representation actually is.  Nixinova   T   C   00:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Adding my agreement as well. Double sharp (talk) 04:58, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * How would we go about implementing this change? Wolfdog (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I can do it, but we'd have to clean up pages where IPAc-en isn't used to represent our diaphonemes (Help:IPA/English itself, many articles about dialects, etc.). Perhaps we better create a template akin to angbr IPA but for double slashes. Nardog (talk) 11:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it should be the other way round: Change IPAc-en to have double slashes, and use IPA (or create something akin to angbr IPA) for single slashes. The consequence of keeping single slashes for IPAc-en and creating a new double slashes template for diaphonemic transcriptions would be that Help:IPA/English, which is tied to IPAc-en, would no longer be diaphonemic. I am willing to revise pages that use IPAc-en. A good way to start might be looking through pages that use both IPAc-en and IPA notice. --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 05:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, what I meant is that I have the template editor right so I can make IPAc-en use double slashes, but in addition we'd have to manually fix the pages that use  for diaphonemes, like Help:IPA/English itself and articles about English dialects. Nardog (talk) 06:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Now I see what you mean. Do you think there should be a dedicated template for diaphonemic transcriptions without tooltips and link? It seems to me that such a template would only used in very few articles. We could simply use (as in diaphoneme). Some articles about English varieties use “diaphonemes” as if they were a point of reference, but that should be fixed regardless of the outcome of this discussion. --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 22:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The double slash is non-ASCII and harder to type, and we have angbr IPA for this very reason, so I don't see why not. Nardog (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You are right, I had not thought of that angle. --mach &#x1f648;&#x1f649;&#x1f64a; 06:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I lend my support to all that's been agreed to here. Wolfdog (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Just use Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics to notify the editors about any troublemakers, or go straight to the ANI. I don't think a change in wording of the policy will affect much. Sol505000 (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm with you there. Using a template but not following the instructions given in the very page it links to should be absurd to anyone by itself. Nardog (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So why don't we start with rewording the instructions? Does the edit wording in my first post above work? And we can edit Help:IPA/English too. Oh sorry,, I see now that I just misread your above comment. For some reason I thought you were saying the instructions already provided aren't clear enough. My mistake! Wolfdog (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What you're proposing essentially exists already in "IPA templates on Wikipedia". It should probably be merged with "IPA style".
 * I've felt that it would be handy if there was (a shortcut to) a section ("WP:IPAINTEGRITY" or something?) specifically about how a transcription linked to a key should adhere to the conventions laid out in the key, which the guide already says but in various places. I mean look at Sol505000's contributions. Nardog (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:IPAINTEGRITY is definitely better than having to link to Manual of Style/Pronunciation. Sol505000 (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Additional ambiguity in pronounciation
I have seen a manner of transcription on some pages, where the word varies in pronounciation not by dialectical patterns, but by simple ambiguity, such as /aɪ/~/i/ or the obvious /ə/~∅, so the author may transcribe a certain part of the word twice. I think this mechanism should be described here, since I have not found the information anywhere else, including having forgotten the titles of the original pages where I saw them. 8. Gazdag Ferenc (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Usability Improvement?
I don’t know where I would post this and I must admit I am a bit intoxicated and likely to forget I did this. Is it at all possible when you get linked to a pronunciation guide to somehow show the IPA that led you to that page in the first place so you don’t have to flip back and forth to figure out how to pronounce something? 67.166.19.167 (talk) 03:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)