Template talk:IPA/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Why use this template at all?

In most cases where this template is used, it is counterproductive. I'm not only talking about the many display issues others mentioned above. But let's take a look at what it actually does: Its main function is displaying a tool tip saying "Pronunciation in IPA". Now let's look at the different cases when it is used, and if it makes sense.

Pronounciation explanations of article titles, such as geoduck. For these, we have already {{IPA2}} and {{IPA3}}, which provide a standardized way of referring to the pronunciation.
Tables, such as {{Consonants}}. In such cases, it is absurd to use this template. All it does is it prevents the tooltip from displaying the actual name of phone - which is automatically provided by the name of the linked article. (Compare the old version with the one without this template.) Moreover, by using {{IPA2}} in a table like {{Consonants}}, we introduce dozens of second-level transclusions into many dozens of pages. It's an absurd waste of bandwidth!

Can anybody point to a really useful application of this template? If not then I'd propose to delete it. — Sebastian 05:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This template is necessary because Microsoft Internet Explorer is stupid about displaying fonts in mixed Unicode ranges. Without this template, most Unicode characters won't show up in that browser. Before its introduction, there were constant revert wars over pronunciation guides and IPA.

It does screw up the tool-tip on links, but IPA text should not normally be linked (per Wikipedia:Pronunciation#IPA style), because underlines in browsers make some IPA unreadable. If you must link IPA text, try using <span class="IPA">, or some other HTML element with the attribute.

Tables with a lot of IPA should have class="IPA" added to the table attributes, instead of using multiple instances of template:IPA.

Template transclusions have been discussed elsewhere. They definitely don't require any bandwidth—although the code they insert may increase page size—and the consensus seems to be that they are not taxing on the Wikimedia servers. It's been a while since I've read any of the relevant discussion, but you may find more info at Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2007-06-19 06:51 Z

Thank you for your good comments; especially the one about using <span class="IPA"> was very helpful. That settles the matter for the big tables. I overlooked that the class property was part of the template, too. I now see that the template has some use.

However, I still don't see a use for the tool tip in this template. It comes at a cost, and I think the benefit is less than that of other templates. The template is used for two different cases:

Where we want to ensure IPA displays correctly. This is for cases where it is already clear to the reader that the text is IPA.
Where we want the above and alert readers that this is an IPA text.

I feel #1 would be better served with a simple template that only contains the class property. (I just created such a template as {{IPA0}}.) #2 would be better served with {{IPA2}} or {{IPA3}}. I therefore propose to phase out {{IPA}} and replace all occurrences with one of the three numbered templates. — Sebastian 21:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

We need it because Template:IPA is used for both screen output and print output. Observe:

Polemics (pronounced [pʰəˈlɛmɪks, pʰoʊ-]) [...]

We need custom anchors, so we can't use IPA2 or IPA3 in all cases. Sometimes you want to use square brackets instead of slashes as well. It's also nice to provide a visual cue on the IPA transcription itself, because that's where people would most likely point to first when they see something they don't recognize. --Kjoonlee 10:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There's one think I don't understand, though. Look, Template:IPA doesn't interfere with link titles. [ʃ] --Kjoonlee 11:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your patient explanation, and for fixing my oversight on IPA0. I now see that there are legitimate uses for this template, so the question of this section "Why use this template at all?" has been answered.

I still think most of the articles that use this template would be better served with one of the numbered IPA templates, and we need to think about how to standardize the pronunciation hints in our articles, but that would be the topic of another discussion.

To answer your question about the link: There are two ways to combine the template with a link - inside or outside. When used inside, as was the case in the consonants template, it appears like this: [ʃ]. — Sebastian 15:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

custom anchors for links

The following was a reply to Sebastian's message of 15:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC); this headline was inserted after the reply.

There's still the problem with custom anchors for links. Sometimes you might want to link to different articles for different languages. You can't use custom link text (anchors) with the numbered templates, which is something you haven't addressed yet. There's also the problem between phonetic [] and phonemic // transcription, which both need to be available as choices. The IPA2 and IPA2 use only one variant each. As for combining the IPA with links,

<span title="Pronunciation in IPA" class="IPA"><a href="/wiki/%C6%A9" title="Ʃ">[ʃ]</a></span>
<a href="/wiki/%C6%A9" title="Ʃ"><span title="Pronunciation in IPA" class="IPA">[ʃ]</span></a>

I think the former (from [ʃ]) results in more elegant code. --Kjoonlee 17:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it's much more elegant. As I wrote on User talk:Denelson83#IPA template transclusion, it was a smart idea.

I'm not sure what your point is about custom anchors. Are you trying to convince me of the usefulness of the IPA template? That would be beating a dead horse, since I already agreed that there are some legitimate uses. Or are you stating this as a related problem that needs to be discussed? (As a compromise between both possibilities I inserted the above headline only as level 3. Please adjust as needed.) — Sebastian 19:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to say that you can't just switch from IPA to IPA2 or IPA3, because of custom anchors and slashes/square brackets. You still said most articles would be "better served with one of the numbered IPA templates". --Kjoonlee 19:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did. And right in the next sentence, I specified: "We need to think about how to standardize the pronunciation hints in our articles, but that would be the topic of another discussion." It is beyond me how you can read "just switch" into this. By "standardize" I meant precisely the fact that we have many different ways providing pronunciation hints, including slashes (e.g. in Arizona and Aeschylus), brackets (Aberystwyth) or neither (Isaac Albéniz), not to speak of the many cases which use other templates or even pseudo-English pronunciations (Kulam, Qi), which are much harder to find. Bringing some order in this chaos obviously is more than "just switching", but it is worthwhile since these pronunciation hints are usually the first thing readers see in an article. However, I don't think that this template talk page is the right place to discuss this. — Sebastian 02:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

But we can't standardize on what editors think should be written: phonetic or phonemic transcription. We can't just all think alike in every case.... --Kjoonlee 04:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Updates

Hi, we don't have font names in the template anymore. I've updated bits of the talk page, and I would appreciate some help with this page and Template:IPA/doc. Thank you. :) --Kjoonlee 16:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's not throw unexplained acronyms at our readers

{{Editprotected}}
Please change the span title to ~~"Pronunciation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)"~~ instead of "Pronunciation in IPA". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually scratch that; let's change it to "Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" which is actually correct, and won't frustrate readers who think that if only they can try to click on the pop-up tooltip fast enough that they'll actually get to hear the pronunciation. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Done - Nihiltres^{t.l} 17:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)