User talk:Thylacoleo

Welcome!

Hello, Thylacoleo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Whopper 03:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dioceses in Australia

Thanks for your comments on standardising Roman Catholic and Anglican diocese names. Work commitments limit the time I can spend on Wikipedia and I've been a bit out of the loop so I'm not sure what happens next. Is this something that should be addressed at a Wikiproject level, or in the manual of style, or elsewhere?

Regarding Archdioceses: my understanding is that in Australia, we don't use the word Archdiocese, just Diocese, but the Metropolitan of a Province (roughly corresponding to states in most cases) is the Archbishop of the respective capital city diocese.

Claudine C. (talk) 05:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RCC name mockup

Sorry. You said to edit it mercilessly so I assumed you meant it was ready for primetime and that people could edit it once it was put up on the Talk Page. Sorry for misinterpreting your intentions. --Richard 07:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, but I did clearly say it was a "mock-up". Also note that the wording as it stands (in the last dot point) presumes that the article name is actually "Catholic Church" and not "Roman Catholic Church" as it currently is. Thylacoleo 07:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

Thanks for your help on the astronomy pronunciation issues. You might be interested in this essay: User:RandomCritic/Sandbox3. If you have the time or inclination to look through it, I'd appreciate any comments you have on the Australian pronunciations indicated in it -- I suspect they are several degrees away from correct.

There was also a discussion of possible phonemic representations of these Anglicized pronunciations at Help talk:Pronunciation_respelling_key. I don't like (at all) the particular system used on the adjoining Help page, but I could see some use for a more phonemic system which would obviate some of the inevitable problems with dialectal variation. RandomCritic 13:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my preferred method of pronouncing Latin leans more toward the classical rather than the fully anglicised version - as an example, having "Ave" pronounced as [æɪ.vi] rather than [aː.væɪ] strikes my ears as very odd).

Not surprising; this mode of pronunciation (outside of particular words and proper names) hasn't been taught in most schools for some 80 years, and in some places for well over a century. It may never have been used in Australia at all, depending on when the first Latin schools in Australia were opened.

Just one thing in the Australian transcription that struck me right away is that the vowel corresponding to AmE ɑɹ and BrE ɑː is more front in AusE - it is conventionally shown as aː, but ɐː would also be acceptable.

Fixed.

Also, I know it would be time-consuming, but could you perhaps put in more IPA templates - there are a great many places where I see just boxes, and while I can probably reliably pick the intended symbol, I'd prefer not to have to guess.

I think I've found most of them, but as my display doesn't distinguish between templated and non-templated symbols, it's hard for me to tell just by scanning. If you find any more "just boxes", please let me know! RandomCritic 13:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

La Trobe (sic)

To be honest, I was surprised to see that mistake by the ABS although I know I shouldn't have been. Hopefully, by rigidly applying Wikipedia:Verifiability and other policies, people might eventually realise that the ABS isn't as perfect as they think and may give it a little less credibility in some areas. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to add a footnote but I think a change to the prose might be better than a footnote. You might care to read the first citation in the article[1], especially the definition for Statistical Divisions and Statistical Districts, which make it fairly clear that the locations don't necessarily relate to a specific physical location. As it stands, the article alludes to this but doesn't make it clear. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]