Talk:Worcester

Pronunciation 4

Editors can't agree how to use MOS to transcribe the name of this city. 23:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution seems to be needed here: a user appears to be gaming the system by using the Manual of Style as a means of thwarting consensus. Metabaronic (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The MOS is the consensus. We're not debating how the word is pronounced, which would be relevant only here, but how to transcribe it, which is relevant to the entire project. We can't have little balkanized walled gardens all over the place, but need a single standard, or our readers will be completely lost. That's what the MOS is for. If the idea of having both universal and local pronunciations is unacceptable, that needs to be taken up with WP as a whole. kwami (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I've requested comment from other editors because everybody's had their say and nothing's moved on one way or another. Your interpretation of the MOS is inconsistent with mine and with others, but I'm not claiming my interpretation is correct, I'm asking for advice from experienced editors. If you're correct they'll likely support your view and we can archive this debate and move on.Metabaronic (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. kwami (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes during a discussion, a small group of contributors might collectively pretend to a majority consensus to negate a minority opinion and try to outmaneuvering the minority into WP:CIVIL, or simply force them to leave the discussion in dismay. Those of us who have been around for a while probably know just how much we can taunt each other without recrimination, but may be committed to an agenda with a personal, or group conviction that goes beyond rational discussion, and express themselves in a combative manner. Enthusiasm is fine if you are right, but caring more about your cause than objective editing is counter productive to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, many attempts to address such issues often end in an appeal to ANI or Arbcom, which is sometimes a waste of time because those with an agenda are likely to do whatever they can to prevent the plaintif from getting a fair hearing.--Kudpung (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This RfC wasn't listed on the appropriate pages. This isn't a question about how to re-write a policy; it's about how to apply existing advice to a specific subject. Please feel free to revise my 'question' (or to remove the RfC tag manually if you no longer need outside comments). I also suggest that you provide an explicit description, including diffs and sources that support your view, of what you need help with. Vague statements that "we need some help" are usually ignored by the community. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we all agree on how to pronounce the name. The question is how to transcribe it. — kwami (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, its more complex than that. This is a specific case where the argument from kwami is that to make specific changes requires a change to the MOS, while others disagree. This is therefore a question about the application of MOS and the need to change it if it prevents common-sense and consensus from prevailing in this case. It does not directly relate to how local residents pronounce things, but about the general, non-local transcription overriding the local one.

As for me vaguely saying "we need help": the fact that I'm new to using RfC and that I followed the process as described is the reason for this. All the evidence re:differences is contained within this talkpage.Metabaronic (talk) 07:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I might have requested it under 'policy' as well, so you did the right thing. They've now responded saying that it's a narrower issue than that, which IMO is also reasonable.

But I don't understand what you mean by 'common sense'. We currently list both the local and the international pronunciation. If you assume that the reader can't convert between the two (I assume they can, but no matter), what could be more common-sensical than listing both? — kwami (talk) 08:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Responding to the RFC: WP:IPA for English is quite clear; the transcription should be /ˈwʊstər/. The additional comment that locals and most other people from England pronounce it [ˈwʊstə] is all right, I suppose, but completely unnecessary since WP:IPA for English already says that non-rhotic speakers don't pronounce /r/ at the end of a syllable. It was decided a long time ago to use a pan-dialectal transcription of English names, because locals don't have a monopoly on the pronunciation of their town's name. Rhotic speakers are also allowed to talk about Worcester, and when they do, they pronounce it /ˈwʊstər/, and the non-rhotic pronunciation is easily derivable from that transcription. Likewise (as Kwami mentioned above), non-yod droppers are also allowed to talk about New Mexico, and when they do, they pronounce it /njuː ˈmɛksɪkoʊ/, and the yod-dropping pronunciation (which includes the pronunciation of New Mexico locals) is easily derivable from the transcription. An RP-speaking friend of mine once told me she was going to be visiting the U.S., specifically "Illinois and Indi[ɑː]na". That made me laugh out loud, but if that's the standard RP pronunciation of Indiana, then it's a legitimate alternative, even if no Hoosier would be caught dead pronouncing it that way. And it's the same with Worcester: we use a transcription that reflects everyone's pronunciation (or at least, that all standard pronunciations can be derived from), not just locals' pronunciation. +Angr 08:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

So we're discussing the general pronunciation. WP:IPA states that "English pronunciation in Wikipedia should be transcribed in such a way that its interpretation does not depend on the reader's accent". If this is, as you suggest, rhotic vs. non-rhotic, then surely the convention should be that the rhotic transcription leads for geographical articles pertaining to where rhotic pronunciation is used (say, a town called Worcester in the American Midwest), while the non-rhotic transcription should lead where that isn't the case (say, a town called Worcester in England). By using a rhotic transcription first you are saying that the general pronunciation is rhotic, and therefore giving that precedence over the equally valid non-rhotic pronunciation. I'm struggling to find any statement that rhotic always takes precedence over non-rhotic when determining general pronunciation. I think the definition of local is also at issue, as the non-rhotic English covers all of England. I'm beginning to see why the question is perhaps wider than this article alone, and why it might need a rethink at MOS level. Metabaronic (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

General takes precedence over specific. It's not giving rhotic pronunciations precedence, because it's not a rhotic pronunciation! The vowels, for example, are non-rhotic. An American could just as easily complain that it's a British pronunciation, but it's not that either: It's a melange that covers everyone (except unfortunately the Scots). The pronunciation that everyone uses, local and non-local, is given first, and the narrower transcription covering just the local is given second. I suppose we could word it "locally X; generally Y", but that strikes me as unnecessarily awkward.

It's the same thing with common nouns. If one pronunciation is used in both the US and the UK, and a second in only the US or the UK, we give the general pronunciation first, and then say "US also Y" or "UK also Z".

Besides, in this case, if you speak non-rhotic but conservative RP, you have an /r/ at the end anyway, so what, we give non-RP non-rhotic first, then RP non-rhotic, then rhotic? — kwami (talk) 10:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

First a question from an uninvolved editor. Is this dispute simply about whether the IPA pronumciation should be wʊstər or wʊstə? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure. The editor above just wanted the local pronunciation placed ahead of the generic one, which is a minor point, but the most prolific objector (the one I'm "abusing") objects to using a generic pronunciation provided for by MOS:Pronunciation at all, saying that national pronunciations (in this case meaning England rather than the UK) should be given instead. Every time I've tried to interpret his words he's said I've twisted them, but it would appear that he wants England-English pronunciations (and AFAICT not local ones) for English place names. But he objects to using Received Pronunciation as described by the British Library (with linking R), and wants instead his own take on RP (no linking R). He may very well be right and the British Library wrong about that point, and John Wells backs him up that younger generations lack linking R after many vowels (Wells himself retains it in a few cases), but again, that may be "twisting" his words. I've also found recent claims that the lack of linking R is still stigmatized in RP, so there's that problem as well. This wouldn't be an issue for, say, "York", for which our general pronunciation would record an R but which has no linking R, but he says that's irrelevant, so it would seem to be two arguments: whether or not RP has linking R, and whether we should use RP rather than our diaphonic transcription for English place names. If the British Library is correct, the results of the latter would be the same. I once thought he didn't want to indicate linking R even where it occurs for the sake of students of English, but he said that's not his primary concern.

He put up a request for resolution/discussion on the general point on another page, but I don't see a link here. I'll have to look for it. — kwami (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I have now read some of the background on this subject and it is a difficult problem - how to give pronunciations for a language that is spoken with many different accents in several countries. My initial thoughts are

All calm down and try to avoid this becoming a personal battle or a UK vs US issue.

I am not personally convinced that trying to impose a common 'neutral' accent in WP is desirable or even possible. It is not what is done with British English and American English. I would suggest that it takes more than a handful of editors to make such an important policy decision. Even if this policy is agreed, I think there should be an exception for personal and geographic names. Telling people how to pronounce their own name of the name of the place that they live in is bound to cause trouble.

My dictionary (Collins) gives the pronunciation wʊstə. It states that it gives pronunciations 'common in educated speech'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

A little history on the convention: We used to have separate US and UK pronunciations for every common word. Then people started adding Australian pronunciations too. We could see that this was unsustainable, since we aren't supposed to be a dictionary, and so decided to merge them into a single convention, much like what Webster's does for US dialects. What we ended up with was to use RP vowels but to retain /r/ and /h/. (Funny, no-one ever complains about us transcribing /h/ for place names in aitch-dropping areas, just /r/ in ar-dropping areas.) This has been widely accepted over several years.

The question here is narrower: should this be applied to personal and place names. The MOS specifies that local names can of course also be added (they are very often of interest). That's what we have here: the diaphonic pronunciation followed by the local one. This convention is used on hundreds of articles. Even when the local pronunciation is radically different from the general pronunciation, no-one complains about having both, unless an ar is dropped. Comments from several editors who have made this complaint suggest to me that the reason is paranoia about American cultural imperialism and a simplistic idea that rhotic = US, and has little to do with the name itself.

Also, we are not telling people how to pronounce the name of their own town. We often specify the local pronunciation. Even if we don't, WP:IPA for English, which the transcription links to, directs the reader to ignore distinctions they don't make: drop /r/ and /h/ if you don't pronounce them (as in much of England), merge /ɑ:/, /ɒ/, and /ɔ:/ if you don't distinguish them (as in much of Canada and the US), etc.

BTW, many dictionaries do not bother with linking ar, so without reading the intro, I can't tell if your Collins is saying that there is no linking ar in this name. Other UK dictionaries do have the ar, as was cited above. — kwami (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. This issue is clearly much wider than just Worcester so I suggest continuing at WP:IPA for English where I have started a new section. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's what that was! Kudpung's already started a broader discussion, I just forget where. — kwami (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Where exactly is this moving to? As the editor in question, I asked for resolution because, as a relatively new wikipedian not specialising in linguistics, the quoting of a rule to end an argument in the face of consensual opposition felt like gaming the rules. We were all going in circles and I for one couldn't find a clear statement that supported kwami's interpretation of the MOS, nor understand how it overrode 1. consensus within the specific article, and 2. how common sense applied here (common sense to me being that pronunciation/transcription used should defer to the dialect of origin first, and list any broad or widely used variations second). Metabaronic (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I no longer follow you. If you want to put the local pronunciation first, fine. That's a minor detail of style. There is nothing in the MOS that addresses it, just convention from other articles that are organized the other way.

But that's not what the debate has been about. The real objection seems to be that the consensus on using a general transcription for place names should not apply to places in England. That's a broader issue than this one article, and what Kudpung finally took elsewhere. — kwami (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

kwami, you have said 'The real objection seems to be that the consensus on using a general transcription for place names should not apply to places in England'. That is not my objection. My objection is to the whole concept of general transcription, which I have described in detail on the the IPA page. This objection applies equally to all countries since no country used the pronunciation that you propose. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

In a thread this long where you are debating with a number of people its easy to end up arguing about different things. Its certainly where I was coming from. I argued about the general pronunciation because I feel its placement within the article is implies it is the most common form of pronunciation, which I dispute. Hence my position is simple, that it should be changed or moved. Metabaronic (talk) 06:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I came here is response to the RFC and if you want my opinion on the IPA pronunciation here I am pleased to give it below.

Local IPA pronunciation first this is the only logical way for geographic names.Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Now that makes sense to me. Metabaronic (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course it does :) It's what several editors have been trying to explain to the editors of the various Wikipedia IPA articles since December, but our comments have been met with intransigence, and very complicated linguistic explanations that may of us especially those who might not be linguists, can't understand. It seems to be fairly clear however, that the system in use is contrived, and does not accurately reflect reality. By local, however, we probably mean national from an Americam point of view, in order to avoid thinking that we mean a vernacular that is restricted to a very small area of a town or district.--Kudpung (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to reiterate from a similar discussion eleswhere, where the comment went largely unaddressed:

Most likely in the United Kingdom they would mean:

• local = in the city, in the immediate area surrounding the city, and possibly the rest of the county.
• regional = the rest of a county that covers a particularly large geographic area, and its neighbouring counties.
• national = the country where the language is spoken. In this case, England, where a neutral RP is more commonplace and/or widespread than say, for example, Scotland and Wales where their national accents a re the accepted educated accents of the majority.
• global = worldwide, or in the case of this issue, the regions of the world where whre the two main versions (AE & BE) predominate, such as for example, The Philippines where AE predominates, and Southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent where BE predominates.

--Kudpung (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Even within England, there's no such thing as one monolithic local pronunciation. I know two people from Exeter: one of them is a rhotic speaker who calls it [ˈɛksətər], the other is a non-rhotic speaker who calls it [ˈɛksətə]. But they're both locals, so who's to say which is the "local pronunciation"? I'm sure the same is true for other places: I have no doubt that some Hackney locals call it [hækni] and others [ʔækni], and that some Southwark locals call it [ˈsʌðək] and others [ˈsʌvək]. And it's no different in the U.S.: some New Jerseyites call their state [nu ˈdʒɜrzi] and others {{IPA|[nu ˈdʒɜɪzi]. The point of these pronunciation guides is to let people who aren't already familiar with the place under discussion know how to pronounce it, regardless of what their own accent is. Such people are not helped by the "local pronunciation first" mentality; after all, locals don't need to be told how to pronounce the name. +Angr 08:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, for heaven's sake. Any chance all you pronunciation geeks could please toddle off to Wikipedia_talk:IPA_for_English to finalise this and let the rest of us concentrate on improving the article? If this is how much fuss you can make of Worcester, then goodness only knows what you lot would make of Shrewsbury. I mean, really, how many casual Wikipedia visitors can actually understand IPA anyway? Bugger all, I expect. It's pronounced three or four different ways depending on where you live. Nobody's addressed the West Country accent ("Wusturr"), which starts a mere 20-30 miles south in Gloucestershire, but do us Tewkesbury residents complain? No. As my Russian colleague said, "In English you write 'Manchester' but it's pronounced 'Liverpool'" The key point is: so long as you pronounce Worcester with only two syllables rather than three, it doesn't much matter. Have the intro para list the local (city) and national (RP), then if you're absolutely desperate to be a pedant, split out the alternatives in a Pronunciation subsection and do your wittering on Wikipedia_talk:IPA_for_English. KTHXBAI Andrew Oakley (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

That is precisely what I have done! In order to try to get them to see sense. Their crazy mid-Atlantic, IPA-based, diaphonemic, transcription scheme is going to stir up trouble wherever it goes. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

But considerably less trouble than any possible alternative, except omitting pronunciation information from Wikipedia altogether. +Angr 10:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Not so. See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:IPA_for_English Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

In this particular case, wʊstə is likely to be misleading to rhotic speakers, since they will see the ars removed and assume that this is simply the non-rhotic pronunciation, and then put both ars back in, to give wərstər, which is wrong in any dialect.--Atemperman (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it may be helpful for editors to think about this in terms of whether specifying pronunciation for a word is content like the rest of the content in the main text, or is somewhat meta, in that it is an instruction to the reader on how to pronounce the word. That is, whether "Worcester [wʊstə(r)]" is more like "Worcester is a city and county town of Worcestershire, in the West Midlands of England.", or more like "This article is about the city of Worcester in England. For the city in Massachusetts, see Worcester, Massachusetts." I personally think that the current status of the page is fine; right now it does both. --Atemperman (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

A point that is being missed here by several recent contributors , and it probably comes from not having read the entire discussion, is that it is not a list of all the possible UK pronunciations that is being called for. People are requesting that the crazy mid-Atlantic, IPA-based, diaphonemic, transcription scheme be changed for something that causes less confusion. While BE and AE may have a great many accents, there is one clear, major distinction: American English in all its forms is undeniably American, and BE in all its forms, is undeniably British, and that's where Wikipedia articles need to provide a more accurate guide. It appears also (see above) that the word local has different connotations on each side of the pond.--Kudpung (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

People who dislike this system either do so because they don't understand it (and thereby find it confusing) or because they disagree with it on theoretical or political grounds. In the discussion above, I see Hallucegenia and GyroMagician (and possibly Martin Hogbin) as arguing against the system because of the former reason. Kudpung, on the other hand, disagrees with because of the latter reason. If I'm correct about Hallucegenia and Gyromagician, I wonder if they have read "understanding the key" at WP:IPAEN either before or after their comments here. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 17:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Aeusoes, before deciding for me what my objections to the system are, you might like to to check in a dictionary the difference between political and geographical - nothing is to be achieved in this discussion by misinterpreting or misrepresenting other peoples' contributions in order to sway opinion. It might be more politically correct to discuss the topic and not the editors: (WP:TPG). The IPA exists as a recognised international language tool, it's not the role of the Wikip)edia to redesign it and write another set of instructions for its use. ([[WP:NOTHOW]); To do so would be to confuse those who already have a working knowledge of it. in another discussioin I have also already cited what leadiing published linguists think of the value of a one-size-fits-all, diaphonemic transcription scheme as a pronunciation guide;--Kudpung (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no point to your parsing. You're obviously not confused about the system itself. You disagree with it because of option 2. If it's not political, then it's theoretical.

That I've brought up other editors or that I've made a generalization about users in general is not unbecoming. I'm trying to address concerns that people have brought up, including your own that it's confusing to some people. I will not cease this line of inquiry because you don't like my approach. If you'd like, you can report me for it.

It is well established that the IPA can be used for polydialectal transcription. Wells didn't think all dialects could be accomodated for, but Daniel Jones, George Trager, Henry Smith, Hans Kurath, and Raven McDavid felt that polydialectal (if not pandialectal) transcriptions were possible. In another discussion I have already detailed why WP:NOTHOW doesn't apply. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 20:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've read WP:IPAEN, and have to re-read it most times I want to use a WP IPA transcription. Funnily enough, I actually do a little research before commenting on a debate. I'm confused primarily by the usage of IPA for a 'generic' English pronunciation. I had always understood the IPA as being designed to transcribe the actual sounds of a word, i.e. phonetically rather than diaphonemically, taking the name as my first clue (but as I keep saying, I'm no expert). My 'not understanding it' is a little deeper than 'not bothering to read the instructions'. But I really don't care any more. I've found this to be the single most frustrating Wikipedia 'discussion' I've every become involved in. For example, see above where we were accused of creating a walled garden because we asked how this transcription works. Or where Hallucegenia quotes from six different dictionaries, clearly demonstrating a confused picture, and asks others to add more refs if they have them. Rather than trying to add any clarity to the discussion, kwami then follows up with a 'See, I'm right' while ignoring half the entries. I'm tired of seeing discussions summarized with so much bias as to completely change the meaning. So I don't want to play any more. I'm off to go-and-do-something-less-boring-instead. I hope you all fix it. GyroMagician (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason I've asked if you've read it is because it's possible that the instructions aren't clear enough. If we can explain it better from the get-go, then less people will be confused in the long run. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 20:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"I had always understood the IPA as being designed to transcribe the actual sounds of a word, i.e. phonetically rather than diaphonemically". Unfortunately, you aren't the only person who has this misconception. The IPA is a phonetic alphabet in the sense that each letter stands for a sound - but "sound" is broadly defined. It can be - and always has been - used to transcribe phones, phonemes, diaphonemes, archiphonemes, etc., for as long as it's been around. Of course there are disadvantages to a diaphonemic transcription, but the consensus reached years ago at WP:IPA for English was that the advantages (e.g., allowing us to give just one phonemic transcription in most articles rather than half a dozen or more, thus allowing the lead sentence to get to the point quicker) outweigh the disadvantages (e.g., that the transcription doesn't exactly reflect anyone's actual pronunciation, and of course that speakers of nonrhotic varieties of English have to suffer the indignity of seeing place names from home transcribed with /r/s at the ends of syllables). This has all been discussed and hashed out before. If those of us on the pro–status quo side of the argument (e.g. Kwami, Aeusoes, and me) are starting to sound snippy, it's because we've heard all of these arguments before: neither Kudpung nor Martin Hogbin is saying anything that hasn't been said a hundred times already or that wasn't taken into consideration when consensus on WP:IPA-EN was hammered out. I myself was opposed to diaphonemic transcription 2½ years ago, but I've since come to see it's the only realistic option. If we don't use diaphonemic transcription we have only two options: (1) No pronunciation information at all; or (2) Entries that list the pronunciation in RP, General American, Australian English, Canadian English, Caribbean English, Indian English, Irish English, New Zealand English, Scottish Standard English, Singaporean English, South African English, and Welsh English at a minimum. Whatever the disadvantages of the diaphonemic option, I consider it far preferable to either of those options. +Angr 21:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

A thorough read of the discussion that has been precipitously archived will reveal that providing simply TWO IPA transcriptions: AE & BE ,will address the requirements of the vast majorityf English speakers; To suggest we should have more would be counter productive, and has never been up for debate;--Kudpung (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Here it ius again: While BE and AE may have a great many accents, there is one clear, major distinction: American English in all its forms is undeniably American, and BE in all its forms, is undeniably British, and that's where Wikipedia articles need to provide a more accurate guide. --Kudpung (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Aeusoes, I have already stated more than once that my objection is purely geographical; I cannot find any semantic similarities between geographical and theoretical; I cannot see the object in constantly telling readers that what I am saying is not what I am saying; Please let them read my comments themselves, allow them to draw their own conclusions, and stick to policy: discuss the topic and not the editors; Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

On theoretical grounds, you believe that dialects from multiple geographic areas can't be reconciled into one transcription. Pick any adjective you want, I suppose. The point is that you're not confused. This isn't an attack, so it's okay.

You are right that the most significant difference (rhotic vs. nonrhotic) is best exemplified by AE vs. BE and, before the diaphonemic system was used, we generally only had these two (unless I remember wrong). But by what criteria do we draw the line at these two? Part of the trigger for the diaphonemic transcription was when an Australian IPA template was created and no one could come up with a reasonable NPOV justification for excluding them (or, slippery slope thinking would argue, anyone else wishing representation), so there was indeed more than just two up for debate. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 00:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You are right, I'm not confused, But you are still mistaken in trying to convince our readers that I am basing my opinion on theoretical and/or political reasons. Nobody can dispute the isogloss especially when it is marked by a 4,000 mile wide pond. The differences between AE and BE are very evident, and represent very clearly the two vastly major main blocks of English. AUS English is far, far closer to BE than it ever was to AE, so whatever adjective you try to use to describe my opinion, it's all down to one basic, undeniable fact: geography - and if you take care to read everthing I have ever discussed on this topic, I have never inferred anything else. Politics? Well, I have expressed my amazement that Americans, especially those who have never been to Britain, seem to know more about BE and its local forms than the Brits themselves, and stipulate by some elusive consensus which form should be used to transliterate Worcester (UK). British Wikipedia readers are are not all linguists, some of them are just using the encyclopedia to look stuff up, and they claim the right to see their place names written phonetically in a form they already more or less understand, and not in some confusing form that has been hatched up by a 'consensus' of two non British Wikipedians two and a half years ago, and forces them to relearn the IPA from a contrived key.

This discussion is about improving the Wikipedia experience for its readers. Policy can change and can be changed. I support those views, and will continue to do battle for those non-linguists who are leaving the discussions in dismay. I suggest that this Worcester talk page is not the place to discuss issues that have site-wide implications; for that we have a current on-going discussion at Wikipedia talk:IPA for English . --Kudpung (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree; we should discuss it there. Any other editors wishing to contribute to this issue should do the same. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 03:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

How many fire stations does Worcester have?

how many fire stations does worcester have? the worcester mass article says they got 10? i will try to find out thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.226.222 (talk) 03:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Erm, this is the main Worcester article - the one about the large ancient city in England. I think Worcester Mass is in America. Perhaps you could try looking HERE. --Kudpung (talk) 02:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Infobox image

This article has recently been brought into line with comparable others, such as Hereford, Gloucester, Lincoln and Canterbury, by using a view in its infobox rather than a coat of arms. The coat of arms image is captionless and raises more questions than it answers with its arcane Latin motto, whereas a photograph contains real information that cannot be conveyed by words alone, giving a visual impression of the town itself. The coat of arms can be used elsewhere or, by substituting the settlement infobox for the UK place infobox, both can be included. In either case, I think a view adds value and improves the consistency of articles about cities. Exok (talk) 09:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The article has been brought in line with comparable others to include a city crest in the infobox. Just because a few people can't read Latin is no reason to remove it because they just don't like it. Here in the UK almost all city mottos (and those of all the good schools and universities) are in Latin, and sometimes even in other languages. Honi soit qui mal y pense. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Failing a reasoable explanation for the image, a modern skyline phopto of Worcester at File:Worcester.jpg with the copyright notice "this image is in the public domain in the United States. In most cases, this means that it was first published prior to January 1, 1923", I am going to propose the file for deletion. This may have consequences for other articles that had been using the original image, a photocopy of Samuel Worcester from New Echota Historical Site, used with permission. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, long-time-no-see. As I guess you're aware, I realised something odd had happened with the upload of the Worcester image. This was nothing to do with Exok, who has kindly fixed the problem anyway. I like the idea of adding a photograph to the infobox - I find it far more informative than a coat-of-arms. As it happens, I think the replacement photo is much better (less dark) than the first. Now, rather than rattling copyright sabers and snarking about reading Latin, shall we try to welcome newcomers (to this article at least) and make some constructive comments? GyroMagician (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)