Template talk:Usage of IPA templates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also: Template talk:IPA and Template talk:IPA-all

Contents

[edit] IPA for language XX

There is some wild growth of special templates for IPA applied to various languages, like IPAEng, IPAHe, IPARus, IPA-pl, IPAes. Even these few are almost all differently constructed: two/three letters, caps/nocaps, dash/no dash. I propose to standardise using the two letters of the wikipedia space (like "en.wikipedia.org") an no caps, no dash. So we would have IPAen, IPAhe, IPAru, IPApl, IPAes. Is it too late to switch? −Woodstone (talk) 09:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No, not if we can get a bot to convert IPAEng. There are ten thousand of those! kwami (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
As long as start-IPAEng-end

</body></html> redirects to start-IPAen-end </body></html>, it's not a big deal. Irish has {{IPA-ga}}, but that's different: it's a little blue notice appearing in the upper right-hand corner of articles rather than an inline link. I was just about to create a template parallel to these; I guess I'll call it {{IPAga}} to fall into line with Woodstone's proposal. —Angr 15:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just doing a search on "template:IPA" to find if there are more of these. It turns up IPA-ga and IPA-pl but not IPAEng and IPARus. I guess the dash makes the word IPA searchable. Therefore I would like to change my above proposal to include a dash. So we get IPA-en, IPA-he, IPA-ru, IPA-pl, IPA-es. Sorry to Angr for his compliance above. −Woodstone (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that {{IPA-ga}} already exists and is something completely different. I suppose I could move it to something like {{IPA-ga notice}}, edit the pages where it's transcluded to reflect the new title (there aren't many of them), and then move {{IPAga}} to {{IPA-ga}} to be consistent. —Angr 20:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be good, if you don't mind. I have created {{IPA-en}} as a redirect to {{IPAEng}} (to be reversed later). We can update the documentation to show the new standardised naming and declare the old ones obsolete. −Woodstone (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the notice is now at {{IPA-ga notice}} and the inline template for IPA transcriptions is t {{IPA-ga}}. —Angr 07:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There are a huge number of IPA transcriptions for Portuguese names, so if anyone wants to tackle it, that would be a good addition. kwami (talk) 07:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. There are a couple of issues being worked out at Talk:Portuguese phonology but once school is over I'll def work on that and French. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 18:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IPA generic

I adapted the template names to be more consistent, as proposed above, in the document. I created he new names as redirects to the old ones. Later we can reverse the redirect. Hopefully we can get a bot to clean up the old instances.

I also want to rename the inelegant "IPA2", but don't know what to use as new name. "IPA" is already in use, "IPA-int(ernational)" is a pleonasm. Might it be "IPA-full"? Or "IPA-IPA"? Or "IPA-general"? −Woodstone (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't you just move the templates? As for IPA2, why not keep it where it is since there's nothing obvious to move it to? Don't forget what Emerson said about "foolish consistency". —Angr 17:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I did not think a move would adapt all references, as you seem to imply. Not for consistency per se, but IPA2 is so irritatingly non-descriptive. Plain IPA would be good, but that would need the existing IPA to be changed into something like IPA-font and it would become inconsistent with the IPA css class. Too many implications. −Woodstone (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by "adapt all references"? —Angr 20:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I meant that the places that use the (old) template would not automatically be "moved" to the new one. Meanwhile I have read up on "moving", and it appears that it automatically creates a "redirect" under the old name, so the issue does not arise. I found that even now a move is still possible, as long as no modifications are made to the newly named templates. I wil check it out tomorrow. −Woodstone (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, sorry; I didn't realize that you didn't realize everything that moving a template did! —Angr 11:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Performed the moves (moving the contents and history of the old page to the new one and making the old one a redirect). The page template:IPAEng is protected, so I cannnot do the move to template:IPA-en. An admin needs to step in. −Woodstone (talk) 07:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Would IPA-all be a fitting (still short) name for the current template IPA2, linking to help:IPA, containing all symbols and suitable for all languages? −Woodstone (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
It sounds okay to me, but {{IPA2}} still sounds okay to me too. —Angr 11:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, IPA2 still works, and lots of people will probably continue to use it, but IPA-all may be easier for some people to keep straight. kwami (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Should we get rid of {{IPA0}} (I'd think {{Unicode}} would work for that)? Rename or get rid of {{IPA4}}, since we no longer have an {{IPA3}}? (It's only used in one article.) kwami (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
For {{IPA-ga}}, should we move the key to Help space, together with all the other keys? Or maybe move all the others to Wikipedia space? kwami (talk) 07:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IPA link w/o intro word

Creating "IPAlink" and "IPAlink-en" for a link to the charts without an introductory "IPA:" or "pronounced". Some people like to have all alternate pronunciations linked, but it looks silly to repeat "IPA:" for each of them. Also, in the body of the text, it often flows better when the editor has choice over wording. Change the template name if you can think of something better. kwami (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we can put a note in MOS saying that it's usually only necessary the first time do do anything other than {{IPA}}. I like the intro words. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 18:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IPA-he

I have been by reverted by User:Aeusoes1 for restoring Template:IPA-he to writing just the more concise, "IPA" before it rather then the much longer, redundant, and potentially confusing, "Hebrew pronunciation." Firstly, to mark Hebrew pronunciation, a system of transliteration/transcription (it does both) is generally used (see WP:HE). The word 'Hebrew' is redundant, because next to clearly Hebrew letters preeceding with the word (Hebrew), it is clear. And, it should be 'IPA' over 'pronouciation', because the transcription can also be used for the pronunciation. Hebrew is not a latin based script like the other templates created. See below the difference between the two:


Firstly,


Spelling Lacking Niqqud (Hebrew: כתיב מלא‎ ktiv male, Hebrew pronunciation: [ktiv maˈlɛ], lit. "full spelling").


and,


Spelling Lacking Niqqud (Hebrew: כתיב מלא‎ ktiv male, IPA: [ktiv maˈlɛ], lit. "full spelling").


Epson291 (talk) 01:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be much better and more consise to have it the second way. Epson291 (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at the other IPA templates, namely {{IPA-ru}}, {{IPA-es}}, {{IPA-pl}}, {{IPA-ga}}. While you've given an example where having "hebrew pronunciation" would be awkward or redundant, there are many examples where it is important to distinguish between the Hebrew pronunciation of a word and the English one. Let's say we have an article on a loanword from Hebrew:

In Christian belief, Armageddon (Greek αρμαγεδδων; armageddôn from Hebrew הר מגידו IPA: [haʁ megiddo]) is the final battle...

Now, if we leave it like that, it's confusing as to whether the IPA pronunciation is English, Greek, or Hebrew. This is why it's made explicit for the other IPA templates and for this one. If, as in your example, "Hebrew pronunciation" is awkward or overly redundant, then don't use {{IPA-he}}.
Now, if the system of transliterating Hebrew is also used to indicate pronunciation on Wikipedia, then we don't need {{IPA-he}} at all. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 02:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The way you wrote your Armageddon example was extremly awkward, it would be much better phased as

In Christian belief, Armageddon (Greek: αρμαγεδδων armageddôn, IPA: [ɑrməˈgɛdn], from Hebrew: הר מגידו har megido, IPA: [haʁ megiddo]) is the final battle...

And if it was written like that, it would benefit from just 'IPA'. But that is besides the point, you're arugment that if its not liked, "then don't use {{IPA-he}}" can be made in the other direction as well. It was originally just "IPA," and it was made before the onslaught of all the other templates you linked to/created yourself. Epson291 (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Please address my inquiry about the necessity of {{IPA-he}} (it is only used in three articles currently). The other templates indicate a consensus; if you disagree with them then you must also disagree with this one. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 03:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Currently, most of them are using {{IPA}}, and I haven't gone through to change some of them, but consensus at WP:HE is to use {{IPA-he}} when dealing with IPA. Your example should not have even been using the template, becuase the template links to the pronunciation of Modern Hebrew, the modern language of Israel. As for the other templates, I don't take exception to them as they are in the latin alphabet. Epson291 (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Russian and Korean use non-latin scripts. I don't understand how that's relevant though.
I couldn't tell which article your example was referring to at first, but the way it is laid out at ktiv male (which is different than how you've laid it here) is an example of how the template should be used. There's the word, then the pronunciation, then the Hebrew script, then the translation. The placement of the IPA transcription is such that readers might think it's an English transcription. Further instances of the IPA use {{IPA}} (rather than {{IPA-he}} every time). Thus, using "Hebrew pronunciation" makes for less possible confusion. This is pretty much how it's used with all the other language-specific templates. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 04:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking ktiv male should be moved to Full spelling, or Spelling lacking niqqud/Spelling lacking diacritics per WP:UE but that besides the point. In an example like that, even you agreed it would be "awkward or redundant," and many examples to use this template would have an English form first. [As for Russian, it uses the cyrillic alphabet, as do many other languages, that was my point (as it would be potentially ambiguous). (And, I know nothing of Korean to comment).] As for using {{IPA}} after the first usage of the Hebrew IPA template, I disagree, as it would link to Help:IPA veruus Help:IPA for Hebrew. In many Modern Hebrew examples, they have English forms, so as it is done currently in ktiv male would not work. As for Biblical Hebrew examples, they can't use this template anyways, so a combination of Greek, and Latin for example would be rare. Since you agree some examples can be "awkward or redundant" there is an apparent need for it not to be. Epson291 (talk) 04:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I would find the following acceptable, as it omits the word pronunciation (and is similar to {{IPA-En}}, and is still completly unambiguous for which lang. it is about. Spelling Lacking Niqqud (Hebrew: כתיב מלא‎ ktiv male, Hebrew IPA: [ktiv maˈlɛ], lit. "full spelling") or (Hebrew: כתיב מלא‎ ktiv male, IPA for Hebrew: [ktiv maˈlɛ], lit. "full spelling"). Epson291 (talk) 04:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
All right, "Hebrew IPA" seems adequate. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 04:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I changed it. Epson291 (talk) 04:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{IPA-es}}

I think something needs to distinguish European Spanish pronunciation from LAm pronunciation. The article Vacilando has the IPA transcription of the Castillian pronunciation: the template should note this somehow.  — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 18:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's even the main example of foreign pronunciations in the MoS. kwami (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the way you've nuanced it, though I hope we won't need to do so for every Spanish pronunciation we give with the palatal lateral approximant or the voiceless dental fricative. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 01:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phonemic vs phonetic

I straightened out the documentation to show all languages mentioned of equal level. Of course, this being an English encyclopedia, that language is maintained as first. However, I discovered inconsistent usage of the symbols [...] and /.../. In my view all transcription templates aimed at a specific language should us the phonemic symbolism /.../. Only the generic version with postfix "-all" should be indicated as phonetic by [...] symbols. −Woodstone (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh I disagree. According to MoS, we should use [ brackets ] for other languages unless we link to the phonology page of that language. Help:IPA for Spanish, Help:IPA for Russian, and Help:IPA for Korean, for instance, are structured to show non-phonemic aspects of their respective languages' phonologies. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 13:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)