Template talk:Usage of IPA templates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:IPA-pl)
Jump to: navigation, search
the Wikipedia Help Project (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the help menu or help directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This template has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Linguistics / Phonetics  (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by the Phonetics Task Force.
 

redirects for future templates[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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)