Template talk:Usage of IPA templates/Archive 1

Archive 1

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") and 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 {{IPAEng}} redirects to {{IPAen}}, 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)

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)

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)

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)

{{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)

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)

Woodstone, why are you insisting on using the word "phonemic" for what are obviously phonetic transcriptions? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Are they? The ones I made (German & Irish) list only phonemes of the languages in question. We indicate surface pronunciation, not underlying representation, to be sure; but we give very broad representations. Maybe "broad" rather than "phone{m/t}ic" would be better. —Angr 18:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of using "phonetic" instead of phonemic (what with the brackets and all) but "broad" sounds good for most of them. It's arguable for Russian, though since Russian has five phonemic vowels but the transcription used utilizes three times that amount. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Using "broad" is good, since we're doing that already at the English version. −Woodstone (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

As for Russian, 'broad' is a relative term. We're writing for an English-speaking audience where those sub-phonemic distinctions are quite salient, and you might be able to argue that the Russian transcription scheme is broad for English speakers. kwami (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Touché. Broad it is for all, then. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Why square brackets?

I can't help noticing that some of these templates use square brackets while others use forward-sticks. Why is this? I can't remember ever seeing IPA written with anything other than forward-sticks. Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

In theory, square brackets are for phonetic representation and slashes (which I have never heard called "forward-sticks" before) are for phonemic representation. —Angr 11:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for the quick response. I should have paid more attention to the above discussion. "Forward-sticks" must be family dialect, we always seem to have strange words for things. Since its called the "International Phonetic Alphabet" and not the "International Phonemic Alphabet", shouldn't we always use slashes? Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If anything, it would be the other way around. But it's called that simply because it's the alphabet of the International Phonetic Association, i.e. the International Association of Phoneticians, and phoneticians (like phonologists) sometimes use phonemic transcription and sometimes phonetic transcription, depending on the topic at hand. —Angr 12:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've also had a look at Phonetic transcription#Narrow vs. broad transcription which helped a bit as well. Am I at least right in saying the the use of square brackets or slashes depends on the kind of transcription and not necessarily on the language? Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. However, here at Wikipedia (and a Wiktionary too) we tend to use narrower transcriptions for languages other than English, and broader transcriptions for English, on the assumption that most people who read English will have a good enough command of it that a broad transcription is sufficient for them, whereas for foreign languages more detail is necessary. —Angr 13:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed changes and general merger of all IPA templates

1. There is no need for so many templates. There is also a great inconsistency between the templates. For example some languages have the possibility of placing the preceding text in small font while other don't. Using template syntax, it would be quite easy to replace all the the templates with one single template. It would be more consistent and easier to make changes to the now single template. Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

1.2 Further to the #Why square brackets? and #Phonemic vs phonetic discussions above, individual writers could decide whether to use square brackets or slashes on a case by case basis. Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

2. The International Phonetic Alphabet is just that, international. Placing "Italian pronunciation" or "French pronunciation" is misleading as it may imply that there are different IPAs for different languages. It could also imply that the given phonetic characters aren't IPA. (To back this up the articles on Paris and Munich avoid using the respective "French pronunciation" or "German pronunciation" labels.) Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

3. The reason we add IPA code to pages at all, I assume, is to help English speakers pronounce non-English words. This is English Wikipedia after all! Thus it makes sense to link the IPA code to Wikipedia:IPA for English which explains IPA based on the sounds of common English words. (Or maybe even Wikipedia:IPA is which is more general.) It does not make sense to link IPA code to Wikipedia:IPA for Italian which explains IPA based on the sounds of common Italian words. Whatever non-native speakers they are who browse English Wikipedia hardly need to be explained how to pronounce their own language. The Italian template which links to Wikipedia:IPA for Italian is only used for Italian words, after all. Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Further to all of this I've written a test template and put in here and put up sample transclusions in a here.

The same IPA letter will mean different things depending on which language it's transcribing. It may therefore be easier to describe it language by language than try to cover everything in one chart. It's also easier for a newbie when the chart is restricted to the sounds of the language in question, rather than them having to wade though the entire IPA every time. kwami (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The idea of the templates is to link to specific help pages (now unfortunately moved to article space). A narrow transcription should in principle refer to IPA-all. A broad transcription should refer to the language specific page. In a broad transcription normally the standard latin letters are chosen for a sound in the specific language that is closest to it in the diagram. So the same symbol has different meanings per language. Adding all this detail to a generic template might make it unwieldy to use. −Woodstone (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Another benefit to having these language-specific IPA pages is to have a central place to discuss conventions of transcription and thus have certain degree of uniformity in our transcription. You can see examples of this at WP talk:IPA for Spanish and WP talk:IPA for French.

I'm not proposing to delete or merge these pages. Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the templates are all relatively new and still pretty obscure. I don't know of anyone systematically going through Wikipedia changing {{IPA-all}} or {{IPA2}} to a language specific template (other than myself, though I've been doing that to make the templates less obscure). Thus, Paris and Munich haven't avoided these templates because "X pronunciation" implies that there are different IPAs for different languages (which I don't think it ever would, as "X pronunciation" preceding an IPA transcription means "the pronunciation of this word in X language as opposed to Y language, given with IPA transcription") but rather because editors haven't gotten around to implementing the templates in full force. To illustrate this, I've edited the Munich article to use {{IPA-de}}. See how long it will take someone to change it (if someone changes it at all). I would've changed the French example, but the IPA was a link to an audio file and we haven't made {{Audio-IPA-fr}} yet. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

My objections to linking to the separate language pages is really more of a practical one rather than theoretical one. Someone looking at the Munich article and who clicks on the IPA characters, arrives at a page explaining German pronunciation by giving a list of German words. If they can't pronounce München they probably can't pronounce hat, ich, bahn or any of the other German words used on the page. Ideally the German page should give a list of German sounds based on English words. This may well be less accurate, but it would certainly be more useful. This is what you would find in a teach-yourself-German book. In short my problem is really more with the articles than with the templates themselves. BUT, I still think it would be better to have "pronounced /ˈmʏnçən/" and not "German pronounciation [ˈmʏnçən]". Blue-Haired Lawyer 08:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I would definitely support making them as accessible as possible. I think they should have English approximations whenever possible. (And, personally, I like "pronounced [ˈmʏnçən] in German".) But that is a different issue altogether than merging the keys. kwami (talk) 08:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Not entirely, this follows my second point above. Under you suggestion the Munich article would begin with

Munich (German: [München] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help), pronounced [ˈmʏnçən] in German listen ; Austro-Bavarian: [Minga] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)) is the...

But München is a German word. We hardly need to say how it's pronounced in German. We have the same problem with the current page:

Munich (German: [München] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help), German pronunciation: [ˈmʏnçən] listen ; Austro-Bavarian: [Minga] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)) is the...

which has the same problem. This is typically how the template is used in articles. I just think

Munich (German: [München] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help), pronounced [ˈmʏnçən] listen ; Austro-Bavarian: [Minga] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)) is the...

makes more sense. BTW, I've changes my template. It now allows editors to set the appropriate language. Blue-Haired Lawyer 09:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

←The thing is, I think cases like Munich/München are less common than cases like Berlin and Paris, where the English spelling is the same as the native spelling but the pronunciation is different. We can't just say "Berlin (pronounced [bɛɐ̯ˈliːn])"; we have to say something along the lines of "Berlin (pronounced [bərˈlɪn] in English and [bɛɐ̯ˈliːn] in German)". —Angr 10:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Now I see. But this really depends. Many Italian cities, have quite different spellings in English: Rome, Florence, Venice, Verona, Milan, Naples, Mantua, Trent, Turin, and possibly more... IMHO this is a good argument for more flexibility. My sample template allows editors to decide on what text to use on a case by case basis. Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at your template, it looks like a good step forward. More flexibility is always good. (But Verona is spelled the same in Italian as in English!) —Angr 11:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted -:) The template's currently in development. I'd appreciate any ideas you might have for it. (Best discuss it on it's talk page.) Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I can get behind the wording flexibility as well, but I noticed your template is using / slashes /. Unless we're linking to the phonology page of the language in question, we should use [ brackets ]. As the Manual of style says: "Normally a reader won't know the structure of the language in question well enough for a phonemic transcription in slashes to be useful. The use of slashes is only permitted in cases where the pronunciation represents phonemes, as in broad transcriptions of English." — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Although I still fail to see the huge importance here, the template supports both square brackets and slashes, and if you specify the language it links to the relevant page. Obviously the defaults can be changed. Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see why this would be an improvement. Yes, there would be fewer templates, but using it would be much more complex. Compare:

• {{IPAtemplate|'rəʊmɪəʊ|lang=Italian|text=2}}
• {{IPA-it-pron|'rəʊmɪəʊ}}

Which one do you think is easier to remember and type? −Woodstone (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Given the wide variety of templates available, the new template is (or could be) IMHO more self-explanatory. As far as flexibility is concerned, {{IPA-it-pron}} doesn't exist as a template. Someone would have to go out and create it themselves. Blue-Haired Lawyer 22:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

But {{IPA-it}} does exist. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

←I've updated the template. The new version reverts to using two letter language codes which reflects the current template names. Now if the editor specifies the language the template links the IPA characters to the appropriate page (i.e. Wikipedia:IPA for Italian) and use slashes. Otherwise it links to Wikipedia:IPA for Italian and uses square brackets. The names of the different options for the text to precede the IPA characters with is also more intuitive. New version:

• {{IPAtemplate|'rəʊmɪəʊ|lang=it|text=pron}}
• {{IPA-it-pron|'rəʊmɪəʊ}}

Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A further improvement is that the template now supports all iso language codes. All editors have to do is create a "Wikipedia:IPA for X" page, and it's all done for them. No template creation or modifications required. Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

move back to Help space?

Should we move the charts back to Help space? My impression is that Wiki space is for policies, guidelines, and the like for editors, not stuff for our readers. kwami (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should ask User:MBisanz the reasoning for the change. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The Help space is for describing technical features that are part of mediawiki, these pages are how-to issues that would apply in any technical setting, so they really don't belong in the help space. MBisanz ^talk 21:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Umm, why is this in the template space? It's not a template in itself, merely a list of templates. BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!} 03:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Surely the logical place to put them is in article space. They are intended to be read by the public at large aren't they? Blue-Haired Lawyer 07:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

They're help pages for the encyclopedia, not actual articles. In article space, people would object that we can't have Wikipedia help pages, we can only copy someone else's, or it's OR. kwami (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

They definitely don't belong in article space, as they aren't encyclopedia articles. They're tools to help users read encyclopedia articles. I would have thought Help: was the right namespace for that, but MBisanz believes Help: "is for describing technical features that are part of mediawiki". That leaves Wikipedia: namespace. This particular page is a template, I suppose, because it's transcluded onto each of the IPA help pages. —Angr 08:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(unident)The IPA-xx pages are meant to describe the way Wikipedia uses IPA and to support readers in interpreting the IPA transcriptions in WP. So both "wikipedia" or "help" space would be appropriate. In article space they would have to describe the way the world uses IPA for that language, including the many variants for each language. They would no longer be suitable to make a selection for consistent use in wikipedia. −Woodstone (talk) 09:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree the article space is the wrong spot for this kind of how-to. Whether it should be Wikipedia or Help, well I was BOLD and moved them, but that doesn't mean I'm right, just that I'm me, so if people really think they belong in the Help space, feel free to move them back. MBisanz ^talk 12:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Square brackets v. Slashes (again)

I'd just like to clear up on of my questions above. Am I right in saying that if the IPA characters link to the appropriate page (ie Wikipedia:IPA for Italian) slashes should be used? And if if doesn't link anywhere or just links to Wikipedia:IPA, square brackets should be used? Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

For languages other than English, the only time you would use brackets would be if it links to the language's phonology page, not its Wikipedia:IPA for... page. Most of the latter are at least partly phonetic and using slashes presumes the reader understands the language's phonology, not its sound inventory. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

So for giving the IPA representation of "foreign" languages on Wikipedia we should always use slashes? This does not appear to be currently the case. Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The most logical way in my view would be as follows:

• use slashes /.../ when linking to a page Wikipedia:IPA for XXX
• use brackets [...] when linking to Wikipedia:IPA

The specialised pages are supposed to be broadly phonemic, whereas the full IPA set enables to express any language phonetically in various degrees of accuracy. −Woodstone (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This was what I went for with my template but there doesn't appear to be any consensus on this. Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate template?

Is {{IPAlink-en}} not identical to {{pron-en}}? —Frungi (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No, {{pron-en}} adds the word "pronounced" before. Observe:

• {{IPAlink-en|kæt}} = [[Wikipedia:IPA for English|/kæt/]
• {{pron-en|kæt}} = {{pron-en|kæt}}

—Angr 18:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Postscript to above: {{IPAlink-en}} has been deleted. The current way to show the transcription without the word "pronounced" is {{IPA-en|kæt|}} (which renders as /kæt/), and with the word "pronounced" it's {{IPA-en|kæt|pron}} (which renders as pronounced /kæt/). +Angr 09:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

We should EDIT the template!

We should now use [[Wikipedia:IPA for Russian|[{{{1}}}]]] instead of [[Help:IPA chart for Russian|[{{{1}}}]]]! --eugrus (talk) 12:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

True, though it technically doesn't make a functional difference. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 16:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

IPA-hy?

With the creation of, and the articles that already use {{IPA-hy}}, it seems that there is a need for the creation of WP:IPA for Armenian, the problem is that there doesn't seem to be an IPA transcription system that encompasses both Eastern and Western Armenian pronunciations. WP:Naming conventions (Armenian) simply glosses over Western Armenian since it's neutralized more sounds but I'm not sure if that's appropriate. Does anybody have any thoughts on the best way to do this? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 07:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any info that's lost by using Eastern, except Classical e vs. ē in non-initial position. Conversion to Western is easy, if not intuitive: voiced becomes aspirated, ejective becomes voiced, and two of the rhotics are conflated. Given that, I think basing the transcription on Eastern is a good idea. Potentially we might be able to automate transcription from the alphabet, the way we do with Polish, and might even be able to let readers set their CSS to chose Eastern or Western, but I doubt there'd be any demand for that. (I'd assume that most people for whom this would matter will be able to read Armenian to begin with.) kwami (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

page move/merge suggestion

I think this page should be moved or merged into wp:IPA. it's not a template, so it really shouldn't live in template space, and it will be easier to find if it's located somewhere in the help namespace. comments/objections? --Ludwigs2 15:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is a template of prose that is transcluded in a number of other templates such as {{IPA-es}}, {{IPA-ru}}, etc. It makes sense this way. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

ah, I hadn't realized that. ok. --Ludwigs2 19:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

additional languages

I added a Portuguese template, even though it only links to the phonology article for now, because there were hundreds of Portuguese articles with IPA links. There are also a lot of Romanian and Dutch, if someone wants to work on them. Numerically, I estimate they're probably next. kwami (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that. I've been putting off doing an WP:IPA for Portuguese because I'm not sure the best way to represent the diphthongs. I guess summer is the time for research. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 08:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

One of the nice things about the language specific articles is that it's nice to be able to review them as a group, and the common transclusion allows us some kind of consistency. Probably when there are more than a few hundred articles transcluding IPA2/IPA-all for a given language, it's time to start thinking about a dedicated template. kwami (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Did Romanian. Next are probably Dutch, Finnish, Croatian (can add a switch for Serbian, which so far is slightly less common), and maybe Belarussian, Danish.

IPA-all (which I admit I never use) and IPA2 are overworked. Once we get a language off onto a dedicated template, s.o. who knows it well will be able to go over all the articles that use it, to make sure they're accurate. When checking IPA2, you have dozens of languages, only so many of which you can keep in your head at once, which means a lot of errors and inconsistencies will slip through. kwami (talk) 08:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added a Slovak switch to IPA-cs and an Estonian switch to IPA-fi. I think those can be supported by a single key more easily than Brazil/Portugal, but please correct me if I'm wrong. I suggest when we get to Serb/Croat we should do st similar (IPA-sc); we could even have a switch for Bosnian and Montenegrin if people so desire. kwami (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If we make an IPA-for-Swedish key, can we incorporate Norwegian too? There isn't much Norwegian transcription, and they're pretty close. We might be able to include Faroese with Danish: there is a surprising amount of Faroese transcription. kwami (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really comfortable having switches for different languages. Slovak is not just a variety of Czech, nor is Estonian just a variety of Finnish, and both have sounds not found in the languages "hosting" them (Slovak has /æ/, which Czech doesn't, and Estonian has /ɤ/, which Finnish doesn't, not to mention super-long vowels and consonants). In addition, it seems neither NPOV nor particularly user-friendly to indicate Estonian pronunciation with {{IPA-fi|...|et}} rather than {{IPA-et|...}}. +Angr 15:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Could we have an added template without having an added pronunciation key? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Slovak is a variety of Czech, but they are registers of what is essentially a single language, close enough to share a single IPA key. We get that degree of separation of Brazilian and European Portuguese, and US and UK English. Plus there are so few articles with Slovak, Estonian, etc. that they would have to wait quite a while before someone came up with dedicated templates for them, if anyone ever did. Keep Yugoslavia in mind: are we going to eventually have separate templates for Bosnian and Montenegrin?

The reader isn't going to see the template coding, so that really isn't relevant; and a single IPA key allows readers to see the similarities and differences of the two at a glance. Plus it cuts down on the number of templates. Another possibility for that is the IPAr template, but that could quickly become unwieldy. kwami (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that Czech and Slovak are "registers of what is essentially a single language", and Finnish and Estonian certainly aren't. And while the reader isn't going to see the template coding, he is going to be surprised to be taken to Finnish phonology when trying to figure out the pronunciation of an Estonian word, and especially disappointed if he's wondering about õ / [ɤ], which of course isn't discussed in that article since it isn't a sound of Finnish. But the users I meant by "user-friendly" aren't readers but other editors. Editors who may know something about how Estonian and Slovak are pronounced and who know enough IPA to transcribe them, but who don't keep this page on their watchlists, may very well attempt to use {{IPA-sk}} and {{IPA-et}}, and then be dismayed - and possibly not a little insulted - to find they have to use {{IPA-cs}} and {{IPA-fi}} instead. +Angr 20:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The alternative right now would be to use IPA2, so {{IPA-sk}} and {{IPA-et}} wouldn't work regardless.

There is only one |est}} switch so far, at Estonian language. I left a note on the talk page saying the link to Finnish phonology was temporary, that eventually we should have a key for the IPA for Finnish and Estonian, and in the meantime if they have any problems with that they should comment here. kwami (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

{{IPA-sk}} and {{IPA-et}} can (and probably should exist to) be redirects to {{IPA-cs}} and {{IPA-fn}}, respectively. {{IPA-cs}} right now goes to WP:IPA for Czech and Slovak and when someone gets around to it, an WP:IPA for Finnish and Estonian can easily be created.

While I don't think that Czech and Slovak are "essentially a single language", the genetic, orthographic, and phonetic similarities are enough that having separate key pages would be redundant. If that can be said of the languages of the former Yugoslavia and of Swedish+Norwegian, then those can also get the combo-key. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

{{IPA-sc}} for Serbo-Croatian. Since SC doesn't have a 2-letter ISO code, I chose the -sc of Sardinian. If we even get to a Sardinian template, we can always use the 3-letter code, and we would for other small languages.

Switches for Bosnian and Montenegrin. Evidently Montenegrin has a couple phonemes Serbian lacks. If anyone can add those to the key, I'd be obliged. (Montenegrin does not have any ISO code, as Ethnologue considers it a dialect of Serbian, so I made up |mn. Since this only works inside the IPA-sc template, it won't interfere with whichever language was assigned ISO mn.) kwami (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Created {{IPA-da}} so I can start separating the Danish articles, but for now it just directs to the Danish phonology article. I don't have any confidence working with that language. I assume we might be able to integrate Faroese, but I'll leave that to whoever is ambitious enough to create the Danish IPA key. kwami (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The two-letter code for Serbo-Croatian is sh. It's deprecated now, but at least it doesn't conflict with another language's code. The usual code for Montenegrin would be sr-ME (like en-US for American English and en-GB for British English); mn is the code for Mongolian. So if we want to keep to standards, I'd move {{IPA-sc}} to {{IPA-sh}} and I'd change the Montenegrin switch from mn to ME. As for Faroese, I don't see any reason it should be lumped in with Danish. If it has to be lumped in with a larger language, I think Icelandic would be the more likely candidate. +Angr 12:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, will move. Icelandic doesn't have a template either, but maybe the two of them together would be worthwhile. (We don't even have Hindi/Urdu, Mandarin, or Cantonese yet.)

What about adding Scottish Gaelic to IPA-ga? kwami (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Too late (as you know); there's now a separate WP:IPA for Scottish Gaelic and {{IPA-gd}}. Another pair that occurred to me is Turkish and Azerbaijani, which could easily be covered together. +Angr 10:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would work, though there's little of either. (There seems to be just as much Kyrgyz, Turkmen, etc.)

What of Catalan? There're quite a few transcriptions, and it also has two prestige dialects. I wonder if we'd be able to include Occitan etc. kwami (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Spanish again

Do people still want dialect switches for Spanish? Should we add Cast for "Castilian pronunciation" and local for "local Spanish pronunciation" maybe? Same thing for the Portuguese template: BR for "Brazilian Portuguese pronunciation" and PT for "European Portuguese pronunciation"? kwami (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. Spanish is nice in that when you get the Castilian pronunciation, you can apply the differences you know between a local variety and Castilian to get the accurate one. Our WP:IPA for Spanish only covers Castilian and I don't think we should promote representing regional varieties without beefing that page up. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 08:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

At the same time, the MOS calls specifically for transcribing the local pronunciation. Should we change that?

My understanding of that policy is that the local pronunciation is notable when it goes beyond a simple dialectal difference. For instance, locals pronounce Missouri with a final schwa while outsiders pronounce it with a final i of some sort ([i ɪ ɨ] etc.) but this is not an otherwise typical feature of Missourian speech. Similarly, if the Spanish local pronunciation differs only from Castilian in that it has an [s] instead of a [θ], it's not a notable enough difference.

I'm also thinking about the compromise between abstract phonology and actual phonetics that we agreed on. If we are to allow local pronunciations, I'd rather we incorporate them into the guide so that editors and readers aren't forced to make so much guesswork that the guide proves useless. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the Portuguese pages already are specifically regional, or at least national. kwami (talk) 08:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Part of the reason I've been putting it off is because of the regional pronunciation differences. With the new styles, I think it's more workable. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, WP:IPA for Portuguese is done. It accommodates some regional variation, but not all of it. I think if we can accommodate regional variation as complicated as what we have in English, we can certainly accommodate something as comparatively straightforward as Portuguese. +Angr 15:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

link populations

Many of our keys still don't describe the sounds in a way that a reader unfamiliar with either the IPA or the language in question will be able to follow. To give an idea of which keys are have a priority for touching up, here are the numbers of mainspace articles that currently link to each key (some of the links to WP:IPA have yet to be moved over):

pl: > 35,000		en: 7476	IPA: 2322
pt: 1103	cs: 698	de: 697	fr: 556
es: 362	ro: 240	ru: 212
it: 150	sv: 149	gd: 147	hu: 143
sh: 140	fi: 137	ga: 131	ar: 118
ko: 89	cy: 87	ca: 75	he: 69
ja: 55	nah: 52	vi: 35	hy: 24

To Do list

Languages large numbers of transcriptions

• Welsh
• Nahuatl
• Catalan
• Belarusian (merge w Russian?)
• IPA key for Swedish + Norwegian
• Bulgarian + Macedonian

Lower priority:

• Persian
• Modern Greek (+ Classical?)
• Turkish + Azeri (+ Tatar, if possible—there's a lot of Tatar)
• Hindi-Urdu
• Thai + Lao
• Mandarin
• Cantonese

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwamikagami (talk • contribs) 21:49, 23 June 2009

I can make a key for Welsh, and probably one for Catalan as well. +Angr 09:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Catalan is bilectal, so it would be nice if both were covered. Occitan too if not difficult, but there is only a very limited amount of Occitan transcriptions, so that's not important.

Nahuatl is easy enough for me to do. For Swedish, I'm a bit stuck on tone, which is straightforward for Norwegian. kwami (talk) 10:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

With Catalan, we're calling the western variety "Valencian" right?

I'm not sure about merging Russian and Belarusian. They have a few different consonant phonemes, including (most importantly) domed postlveolar fricatives and affricates rather than retroflex or alveolpalatal (despite what our article on Belarusian phonology says). There's also different allophony, including the process of vowel reduction. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if I do Catalan, it can only be based on the Barcelona standard, because that's the only variety I have a source for. +Angr 20:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Aeusoes, since you're the primary contributor to Catalan phonology, I'll leave WP:IPA for Catalan to you. You seem to have many more sources for it than I do. +Angr 12:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, done. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a key for Ancient Greek is really needed. Ancient Greek words should be given in polytonic with a transliteration, but an IPA transcription shouldn't be necessary. +Angr 12:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You may be right. But if we're going to have a Modern Greek key (not a high priority), I thought it might be illuminating to include Classical as well, in a second column. (There are a few articles, not many, that currently transcribe Classical in IPA. But it might be of interest even if only linked through Modern.) kwami (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I added an IPA-pol template. I keep converting full IPA transcriptions to IPA-pl, when that is a respelling template that has had tens of thousands of bot additions. It may be useful to keep these separate, for ease of maintenance (AWB maxes out before it exhausts the list of transclusions), and eventually I'd like to see IPA-pl migrate to conv-IPA-pl or something, and the new IPA-pol at IPA-pl. kwami (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Making fhe listen symbol stay in the article

[copied from template talk:IPA.]

Currently when clicking listen next to a sound file on an ipa like in the article Marco Polo, the user goes off the article and to the file page which still awaits to be clicked and the user then goes back to the article and continues reading. This is a very bad usability issue for general readers. Could this be somehow changed so that when click the reader stays on the page?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

In that case, the sound file is off-site: it's on Commons instead of Wikipedia. But it would be nice if this worked more smoothly. Does anyone here know how to do this? kwami (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Licensing issues with Template:Pronounced

We have a rather serious problem concerning some of the pronunciation templates. Please see discussion at Template talk:pronounced#This needs immidate fixing.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

{{Infobox Korean name}}

It occured to me that IPA might be a worthwhile addition to {{Infobox Korean name}}; see my suggestion over at Template talk:Infobox Korean name#International Phonetic Alphabet. Given that I am not overly familiar with the intricacies of IPA, is this suggestion sound or not?

Also, given that Wikipedia:IPA for Korean is based on standard South Korean dialect, is it appropriate to use {{IPA-ko}} in a North Korean context (I see it is being used at Pyongyang)?

Thanks in advance for any input. :) PC78 (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It could easily be included in the infobox. However, if there isn't an actual IPA-ko template, it will become difficult to review all the transclusions to keep them in agreement.

As long as it doesn't leave out any phonemic distinctions, there's no problem using one transcription system for all of Korean. However, we can always add a local pronunciation as well. kwami (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The infobox would transclude {{IPA-ko}}, so that shouldn't be an issue. PC78 (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

But is that transitive? If would all the articles that contain the infobox also transclude IPA-ko, so they can be reviewed as a group? kwami (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, IIRC. IPA-ko would only be transcluded if the IPA parameter was used. PC78 (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

For everyone else, might we want to add a hidden 'IPA in infoboxes' category to the various infoboxes when they include a pronunciation field? That might make it easier to keep track of which are using the IPA, so there would be no problem with having a default IPA format for the field. kwami (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

redirects

For anyone who's cleaning up, there are a couple redirects: template:IPA-sc for IPA-sh, IPA-hi for IPA-hns, IPA-tu for IPA-tr (currently empty), and in the future, IPA-pol for (now occupied) IPA-pl. kwami (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

audio categories

The Audio-IPA template adds a category for sound files in language X. Should we do something similar, so that if any of these templates are formatted with a sound file, they add the appropriate category to the article? kwami (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Accessibility problem

While reviewing Nikita Khrushchev for featured-article status I noticed an accessibility problem with {{IPA-ru}}. Currently it's used like this:

{{IPA-ru|nʲɪˈki.tə sʲɪrˈgʲe.jɪ.vʲʲɪ̈ʧʲ xrʊˈʃʲːof|pron|Ru Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev.ogg}}

which currently generates this:

pronounced [nʲɪˈki.tə sʲɪrˈgʲe.jɪ.vʲʲɪ̈ʧʲ xrʊˈʃʲːof] ^ⓘ

The part that has an accessibility problem is the last bit, in parentheses. It is generated by this code in {{IPA-ru}}:

([[File:Speaker Icon.svg|13px|link=:Media:{{{3|}}}]] [[:Media:{{{3|}}}|listen]])

which generates the following HTML:

(<a href="/wiki/Media:Ru_Nikita_Sergeyevich_Khrushchev.ogg" title="Media:Ru Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev.ogg"><img alt="Speaker Icon.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/Speaker_Icon.svg/13px-Speaker_Icon.svg.png" width="13" height="13" /></a> <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Ru_Nikita_Sergeyevich_Khrushchev.ogg" class="internal" title="Ru Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev.ogg">listen</a>)

When this HTML is read aloud to a visually impaired reader, using a screen reader such as JAWS or Orca, you might hear something like this:

"link speaker icon dot ess vee gee link listen"

There are two problems with this. First, the same link is spoken twice (even though there's only one resource being linked to, it's linked to twice). Second, reading "speaker icon dot ess vee gee" is not very friendly to the visually impaired reader.

There are multiple possible fixes, depending on what the intent is here. If the intent is to provide a link directly to the media file, with an icon giving the reader a visual cue as to that intent, one way to address this is to mark the icon as being a purely decorative image in the W3C accessibility sense, so that screen readers skip over the icon. This will cause a screen reader to output something like this instead:

"link listen"

which is much more concise and helpful. Please see Wikipedia:Alternative text for images #Purely decorative images for more on this topic.

To this, all we need to do is install this simple sandbox patch into {{IPA-ru}}. Comments? Eubulides (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Definitely needs a fix, but for all IPA templates which support sound files. kwami (talk) 01:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Are these templates listed anywhere? I can come up with fixes for each of them; it's not hard. Eubulides (talk) 02:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of them are listed on this template, if you click the 'template' tab above. There's also Category:IPA templates. kwami (talk) 06:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I looked through both lists and found that the same basic patch applies to all of them. I fixed the following templates, as they were not edit-protected: {{IPA-hy}}, {{IPA-ca}}, {{IPA-cs}}, {{IPA-da}}, {{IPA-nl}}, {{IPA-fi}}, {{IPA-fr}}, {{IPA-de}}, {{IPA-he}}, {{IPA-hns}}, {{IPA-hu}}, {{IPA-ga}}, {{IPA-it}}, {{IPA-ja}}, {{IPA-ko}}, {{IPA-cmn}}, {{IPA-nah}}, {{IPA-pl}}, {{IPA-pt}}, {{IPA-ro}}, {{IPA-gd}}, {{IPA-sh}}, {{IPA-es}}, {{IPA-sv}}, {{IPA-tl}}, {{IPA-tr}}, {{IPA-vi}}, {{IPA-cy}}, {{IPAc-en}}, {{IPAc-hu}}, {{IPAc-ja}}, {{IPAc-pl}}. Six IPA templates still need the same patch, but I can't change them since they're edit-protected, so I'll add an {{editprotected}} in the next subsection, so that an admin can fix them. Eubulides (talk) 07:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Accessibility fixes

{{editprotected}} As described in the previous subsection, most of the IPA templates have had this WP:ACCESSIBILITY problem fixed, but the same basic patch needs to be applied to the six IPA templates that are edit-protected. Please install the following patches:

• {{IPA-all}} (patch)
• {{IPA-ar}} (patch)
• {{IPA-en}} (patch)
• {{IPA-ru}} (patch)
• {{Pron-en}} (patch)
• {{Pronounced}} (patch)

Eubulides (talk) 07:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Done, and thank you very much for helping us with this! +Angr 09:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

media help link

I was alerted by a discussion on my talk page to the fact that the IPA-xx templates, when an audio file is provided, do not include a link to WP:Media help, unlike Template:Audio-IPA (as well as pretty much all other standard audio templates used on Wikipedia):

{{IPA-de|bɛɐˈliːn|-|de-Berlin.ogg}} → German pronunciation: [bɛɐˈliːn]  ( listen)

{{Audio-IPA|de-Berlin.ogg|[bɛɐˈliːn]}}→ <span class="IPA nounderlines" style="white-space:nowrap;">[[File:Loudspeaker.svg|11px|link=Media:de-Berlin.ogg|de-Berlin.ogg]] [[:Media:de-Berlin.ogg|{{IPA|[bɛɐˈliːn]}}]] {{#ifeq:|no||<small class="metadata">([[Wikipedia:Media help|help]]·[[:File:de-Berlin.ogg|info]])</small>}}</span>{{#if: | [[Category:Articles including recorded pronunciations ({{{lang}}})]] | [[Category:Articles including recorded pronunciations]]}}

It seems that most Internet Explorer users cannot play Ogg Vorbis out of the box. The media help link is thus of vital usability importance, and it should be added to the templates. — Emil J. 13:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be a better solution to include a link to help information in the header of the sound file page. That page will open automatically for a user who cannot play the file. That way the new user will get help without cluttering every occurrence of a sound link. −Woodstone (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

A good idea, but a much broader discussion than what we have here. That would need to be WP policy. And how would we ensure that all sound files would have that info? Could we automate it? kwami (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Now a button with the "play" symbol is shown, with pop-up "play sound". It should be possible to automatically always add a link to a help page for installing sound support. We should ask around how this can be done. −Woodstone (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a good idea except the sound file pages are not distinguished in any way. We would have to manually tag sound file pages, or teach a bot to recognize sound files as such. The extension .ogg, used for sound files, is used for other media besides audio. It also assumes that the sound file page will automatically be loaded, which is not true in my experience. When I have used a computer that cannot play .ogg (usually a PC using MS-IE), I get an error message from the browser itself. This has happened from three different locations on three different networks. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Current ideas are to create transcription/audio links as follows:

• {{IPAc-en|en-us-Alabama.ogg|ˌæləˈbæmə}} → [deleted due to auto-cat problems]

If clicking the speaker does not work, the user might click the information symbol and land on the *.ogg file, where the link to WP:media help would be found in the header. This can be generic help for all *.ogg files. −Woodstone (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I was going to argue for the same "help/info" links that Audio-IPA uses, but the above system looks good to me as well. As an ordinary user who can already play .ogg files, I still value the links to the sound file pages, which I find more convenient than the automatic download provided by the "listen" link - and I have also noticed that IE on other people's PCs can sometimes play .ogg files directly from the sound file page even when "listen" doesn't work. The information symbol, above, provides this useful option. Lfh (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The idea has merit, but the "i" doesn't show up clearly in some systems. Small italics are usually hard to read and interpret. I would suggest not using italics. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

We have also been pondering to use an icon like:

• /ˌæləˈbæmə/ 

But some found it too big. −Woodstone (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

What will the non-English IPA-xx templates look like? Lfh (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You may want to have a look at the examples at Template:IPAc-en and discussion at Template talk:IPA-en#IPA Amalgamation. I suppose after English is agreed and implemented, the other languages will follow. −Woodstone (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You can keep the IPA link and the help link with the following arrangement, which is only slightly inelegant:

{{IPA-xx|ˌæləˈbæmə}} {{Audio-IPA|en-us-Alabama.ogg|}}

I picked it up from Herman Van Rompuy (the article, not the man). Hope there's no problem with it. Lfh (talk) 12:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

automatic picking out of rows for users clicking on an IPA link

I'm not sure where else to post this, but here goes. Instead of clicking on the typical IPA representation and being taken to the page with a huge chart of all the symbols and example pronunciations, why not dynamically put the word that was clicked on at the top of the webpage and extract out the relevant rows from the IPA chart in order. And the reader can then read it off quickly without going through the whole chart. This might be more suitable as a javascript code snippet, a browser addon or greasemonkey script, but I just wanted to get the idea out there. If this would be better posted somewhere else on Wikipedia, please let me know, or just cut/paste it yourself. Thanks. --Rajah (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hiding licensing info

When I checked out Nikita Khrushchev today and saw the link to the pronunication I noticed that there are still audio templates in use that don't link to license information. This is clearly not acceptable and I made a quick switch for a template that did reveal licensing info. From a quick check of usage of other IPA pronunciation templates (IPA-ja, IPA-pl, IPA-de) it seems that the problem is not limited to just the Russian template either.

As far as I can tell not disclosing licensing would constitute would amount to a minor copyright violation and should therefore be amended as soon as possible, especially when the audio is linked from in featured articles, and particularly from those that appear on the main page.

Peter ^Isotalo 01:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

redirects for future templates

I've created a bunch of redirects for various languages, listed in the notes. If people could use one of them (or create a new one) whenever they transcribe a specific language, there will be several benefits:

1. We'll be able to keep track of which languages are most in demand for a dedicated template
2. Editors will be able to keep the transcriptions in line with a specific standard, even without a dedicated template
3. If we do create a dedicated template, the articles will be pre-linked.

IPA-all will continue to be useful, for generic comments about sounds divorced from a particular language, to transcribe local pronunciations that deviate from a dedicated language template, and for the hundreds of languages which are not widely enough transcribed on WP to bother with creating a dedicated template.

The coding is just the following:

#REDIRECT [[template:IPA-all]]

{{R with possibilities}}

[[Category:XX language]]

[[Category:Future IPA templates]]

The 'R with possibilities' line will hopefully prevent bots from linking the articles directly back to IPA-all. (Angr says this is actually a problem with manual 'corrections', rather than bots, but better to be safe.) — kwami (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Separate templates for separate languages

At the moment, we have a single template for each of the following sets of languages:

1. {{IPA-mk}} for Bulgarian and Macedonian
2. {{IPA-nl}} for Dutch, Flemish and Afrikaans
3. {{IPA-fi}} for Finnish and Estonian
4. {{IPA-sh}} for Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian
5. {{IPA-sv}} for Swedish and Norwegian
6. {{IPA-tr}} for Turkish and Azeri

In some cases, the IPA-xx template for the other language is a simple redirect to the main template, while in other cases the IPA-xx template doesn't exist at all:

1. {{IPA-bg}} redirects to {{IPA-mk}}
2. {{IPA-vls}} and {{IPA-af}} don't exist
3. {{IPA-et}} doesn't exist
4. {{IPA-bs}} doesn't exist; {{IPA-hr}}, {{IPA-sr}} redirect to {{IPA-sh}}
5. {{IPA-no}}, {{IPA-nb}}, and {{IPA-nn}} don't exist
6. {{IPA-az}} doesn't exist

I think that all of these templates should exist independently. Even with the templates that already exist, you can't use them unmodified. If I want to give a Bulgarian pronunciation and type {{IPA-bg|o}}, what I get is: Bulgarian pronunciation: [o]. I have to write {{IPA-bg|o|bg}} to get Bulgarian pronunciation: [o]. So why not separate out {{IPA-bg}} and {{IPA-mk}}, and likewise for the other templates? Just because we have unified pages like WP:IPA for Bulgarian and Macedonian doesn't mean the templates that point to them have to be unified too, does it? +Angr 07:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I just created IPA-bg because I forgot about IPA-mk. I don't have a problem with most of these (they could of course have separate display parameters, or simply be redirects like -bg), but I think we should consider the implications of separate templates for what are phonologically single languages: Hindustani, Malay, and Serbo-Croatian. Could there be political or walled-garden complications down the road if we give these separate existences? — kwami (talk) 08:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Divergence could be avoided by a through-call instead of redirect. The generic template "IPA-xx-yy", containing the data, would be called from IPA-xx and from IPA-yy with an added parameter to make the selection. −Woodstone (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Would you like to try that with IPA-sh? — kwami (talk) 09:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think we need to worry about the ramifications on entities that are phonologically single languages. All the templates do is say "Serbian pronunciation:" or "Hindi pronunciation:" or whatever and add a link to the page where the symbols are explained. I'm not saying those explanation pages at "WP:IPA for Fooish" should be split up. I just think if someone's adding a Bulgarian or Norwegian pronunciation, they shouldn't have to remember that the template and/or parameters are different than if they're adding a Macedonian or Swedish pronunciation. For Serbo-Croatian, {{IPA-sh}} already has parameters allowing us to specify Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, or Macedonian; separating the templates would just mean users can type {{IPA-bs|sǎrajeʋo}} instead of {{IPA-sh|sǎrajeʋo|bs}}. It's just more intuitive, as is typing {{IPA-no|ùʃlu}} instead of {{IPA-sv|ùʃlu|no}} and {{IPA-bg|ˈsɔfija}} instead of {{IPA-mk|ˈsɔfija|bg}} or even {{IPA-bg|ˈsɔfija|bg}} (as one currently must). And of course, as Woodstone points out, this could be done with a through-call, i.e. the content of {{IPA-bs}} could be simply {{IPA-sh|{{{1}}}|bs|{{{2}}}}}. +Angr 11:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I understood what you meant. With separate templates for Bulgarian, Norwegian, etc., we would be prepared if it were ever decided to split up those IPA keys. (There's been discussion of whether Norwegian is really close enough to Swedish for this to be the best way to do it, etc.) I like the idea of call throughs for keys which should never be split up. — kwami (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

We also have Cape Verde creole and Galician, both linked to Portuguese, and Tajik linked to Persian. Close enough, or should they be split off? or the keys expanded? — kwami (talk) 02:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

prelinked articles for redirected templates

I'm comparing IPA-all & pronunciation transclusions with X, Xs, X language, X phonology, and lang-X, and replacing them with IPA-xx for our various rd. templates. Here are the number of prelinked articles after I'm done: — kwami (talk)

• IPA-be: 119 articles on 00:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
• IPA-tt: 70 articles 04:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
• IPA-uk: 50 articles on 02:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
• IPA-bn: most of these do not look Bengali to me.

generic extensions?

I've created IPA-art for conlangs, mostly Tolkien stuff, to get them out of the way. There are a number of small languages, such as Piedmontese, which might warrant templates, but I wonder if we might want some areal ones as well. For example, Australian: most aboriginal languages share a similar phonology, which we could encapsulate in an IPA key, since the difference between laminal and apical would be hard to find in the full key. I don't think any of these languages are transcribed enough to make an IPA key worthwhile otherwise. Similarly for all Mayan languages, maybe Pacific Northwest (US/Canada), etc. — kwami (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for the ISO 639-5 codes. You've already created {{IPA-art}}, {{IPA-aus}}, and {{IPA-myn}}. For the Pacific Northwest, there's no single code, but we could create {{IPA-sal}}, {{IPA-wak}}, etc., and then when we get around to writing Wikipedia:IPA for Pacific Northwest languages, have them all point there. +Angr 12:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm currently, slowly, moving IPA2 and IPA-all over to IPA-..., including IPA-xx for langs w few transcriptions. Ultimately IPA-all should be for transcriptions that don't correspond to any particular language, and IPA-xx could be our holding pen. But I've got 1333 articles to go, so it's going to take some time. — kwami (talk) 07:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

greatest need for new keys

IPA-... redirects to IPA-all with more than 20 transclusions in article space

• IPA-endia (and probably quite a few more that could be linked to it: this should perhaps link to our IPA for En dialects chart)
• -dedia
• -bn
• -fo (combine w -is?)
• -gsw
• -kk (combine w -ky?)
• -kok (50 together w -mr)
• -mi
• -ml
• -mnw
• -sal (sal, wak, etc.)
• -ta [started, needs help]
• -wuu
• -art (mixed lot)

More than 50

• -ky
• -tt
• IPA-bo [started, needs help]
• -fj
• -is
• -lo
• -yue

More than 100:

• IPA-be

I went ahead and made a Belarusian key. It was maddeningly between Russian and Ukrainian, so a combined page didn't seem possible.

Like you suggest, it seems that Lao could be integrated with Thai (and Isan, which seems to be Lao-ish but in Thailand—they're all supposedly mutually-intelligible).

I recently suggested a page to cover various English dialectal features at WT:IPA-EN, but got no response.

I suppose this is a good enough excuse to finally tackle Icelandic... wish me luck. — ˈzɪzɨvə (talk) 05:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Most of the 3000 transclusions of 'pronounced' and 'IPA-all' went to existing templates, and a few hundred are at IPA-xx, but these numbers got bumped up as well. (There are also thousands of unformated IPA transcriptions which I've only got partway through.)

Nice thing about combining the keys is that they can anchor a relatively obscure language like -be w a more familiar one like -ru.

Any chance of a combined -is-fo key?

I'll try -lo (which is how Isan is tagged) & -fj. And maybe -yue. The central Turkic langs can be a bit tricky, and -bo is all over the place.

Didn't see your -en-x proposal. Yeah, that's pretty much what I had in mind. — kwami (talk) 06:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Did Icelandic; Tibetan next. — kwami (talk) 05:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)