Help talk:IPA/English/Archive 18

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

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

The Diaphonemic System

Moved from Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 35 § Is it OK for pronunciation symbols to be Original Research?

– I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 09:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I am finding it increasingly hard to follow this argument so, since my name has been mentioned in the Noticeboard Discussion, I would like to see if I have understood.

Symbols: some people seem to feel that WP is in danger of departing from the principles of the IPA, whose symbols are used. I don’t see this as a problem: the IPA has devised the symbols, and when they are used in phonetic transcription each has a precise and literal meaning in terms of articulation. However, the IPA recognizes that the symbols may be used for many purposes (ref IPA Handbook p.3) and when they are being employed for a purpose other than recording precise phonetic properties the IPA does not attempt to limit how they are used. On the other hand, inventing completely new symbols would be outside the IPA’s principles. The present discussion is about the representation of English, and I don’t see any sign of anyone wanting to invent new symbols here.
Symbols with diacritics: some people seem worried about the creation of new symbols by combining familiar symbols with diacritics, for example by adding a length mark ː to the symbol a to make aː. As far as I know this is perfectly OK. I do have doubts specifically about the creation of “barred” symbols, because I have always thought that the symbols ɨ and ʉ were one-off creations. The “barred ɪ” and “barred ʊ” symbols were, I believe, invented for the Oxford Dictionary of Pronunciation; the editors there refer in their Introduction to “the IPA convention of barring to signify centralization of high vowels and retraction of front vowels”, but that is not an IPA convention that I have seen referred to elsewhere. I certainly can’t claim to have read everything written about phonetic symbols, though.

Choosing symbols for phonemes: here the situation is quite different. Symbols for phonemes do not have to be exactly linked to specific phonetic qualities, and a variety of criteria affects the choice of symbol. A familiar example is the symbolization of the CAT vowel, which can be /æ/ or /a/, both of which have their advocates. We still use the symbol /ʌ/ for the CUT vowel in spite of the fact that the present-day pronunciation of that vowel in RP/BBC and in GA is a long way from the phonetic quality [ʌ]. Although there is a general consensus around the transcription of RP/BBC, publications from Oxford University Press have departed quite significantly from that consensus in the choice of vowel symbols, as have some recent textbooks. Therefore I can’t see any problem with WP choosing symbols for English phonemes that are different from those used by established works
Using phoneme symbols to represent more than one phonetic quality: phonemes may be pronounced in a number of different ways, depending partly on phonological context and partly on accent or dialect. For example, the diphthong symbolized /əʊ/ has a very wide range of realizations in British English accents and the symbol stands for all of these. Consequently it is understood that in a phonemic transcription any symbol may have a number of possible realizations and it is only possible to convert the phonemic representation into a plausible phonetic realization if one is in possession of the relevant contextual information. It’s not just a matter of the symbols themselves, but also of the analysis underlying them. For example, it’s perfectly possible to analyse the English vowel system as containing just 6 vowels. There is never a single correct phonemic analysis of a language or accent, unless one is one of the rare linguists who adopt a “God’s Truth” approach to the problem. So there is a great deal of leeway in the choice of phonemic analysis.

Deviations from phonemic orthodoxy: in practical applications of phonetics and phonemes it is sometimes found desirable to make a deliberate violation of the rules of phoneme theory. The best-known example is the “happY vowel”, where in certain (unstressed) contexts the symbol i is made to stand for both /ɪ/ and /iː/. A parallel case is u, standing for /ʊ/ and /uː/. This might be called a supraphonemic representation. It was devised originally for use in dictionaries. We also find cases where phonetic information is added to dictionary phonemic transcriptions with the practical goal of helping users with pronunciation. In the LPD and the CEPD the “flapping” of American /t/ is shown by adding the voicing diacritic (subscript v) to the /t/ in words such as ‘better’, ‘getting’. This information is, strictly speaking, redundant (being predictable by rule). We could call this a subphonemic representation.

Using one phonemic symbol to represent more than one phoneme: WP has adopted a transcription system which takes the principle behind the “happY vowel” and extends it further, with vowels a: and ɒː representing an either/or choice of vowel depending on speaker’s accent. This is where the main controversy seems to centre. I have to say that in my own dictionary work I never felt we could make such a scheme work. CEPD, LPD and ODP all give British (RP) and American pronunciations separately except where it is felt that there is no significant difference. Some time ago in this discussion I asked if there was any source which had actually used a diaphonemic system successfully, expecting the answer ‘no’, but Kwami pointed to the system devised for the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Huddleston and Pullum), which I had not been aware of. The system can be seen here (relevant passage is from p.13 onwards).

Finally, two issues have to be considered:

a. is the diaphonemic system a case of OR?

b. can the general readership be expected to understand it?

In answer to the first, I think the CDEL case is a very good precedent to cite in support of WP using a diaphonemic system. In answer to the second, I seriously doubt if the public will understand how the system works. Faced with a transcription such as //baːθ//, almost anyone would take aː to signify a front vowel quality if they know anything about IPA symbols. I would tentatively suggest that a possible solution to all the argument could be to adopt the CGEL diaphonemic transcription completely in place of the current controversial system. This would mean that WP could continue to have a diaphonemic system for representing English, if that’s what people want, but it would be a system with impeccable credentials that could not be accused of being OR. RoachPeter (talk) 10:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Peter. I don't blame you for not wanting to follow the entire conversation. You've provided some expert input, which is what I was hoping to get from you.

As it so happens, I recently came across a 1961 article that uses ⟨ᵻ⟩ dating back to ("System Status of Obscured Vowels in English" by Lee Hultzén in Language 37.4). I'm not sure exactly what it is intended to represent, though it doesn't seem to mean the same thing as the OED vowel means it. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Peter,

/a:/ is used for the back PALM vowel in quite a few sources. Generally, ⟨a⟩ can mean any low vowel in IPA transcription.

I just came across ᵻ again today for a central [ɪ̈]. And yesterday I found barred ⟨a⟩ for a central low vowel, contrasting with ⟨ä⟩ for a centralized (but still front) low vowel. That's informal, of course, but then so are ᵻ ᵿ. Though ᵻ ᵾ are quite established in Americanist notation. Maybe that's where the IPA usage comes from. — kwami (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@RoachPeter: You are saying that “I can’t see any problem with WP choosing symbols for English phonemes that are different from those used by established works”, based on the fact that the newer “publications from Oxford University Press have departed quite significantly” from the “general consensus around the transcription of RP/BBC”. I think you have overlooked a decisive difference between Oxford University Press and Wikipedia: Oxford University Press has all the liberty of introducing new transcription symbols. Wikipedia, however, has chosen a strict WP:No original research policy which forbids introducing anything new.

You have referred to the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (CGEL) transcription system as a justification of our diaphonemic symbols. However, the CGEL system does not go anywhere near as far as we do. To the contrary, when discussing – for example – the variance between /æ/ versus /ɑː/, the CGEL says that “instead of introducing a third symbol we give separate BrE and AmE representations when necessary” ([1], p. 16). That is the exact opposite of what we have been doing so far. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 08:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for helpful responses. I am not competent to judge on OR issues, but from a common sense point of view it surely can’t be literally true that WP is “forbidden to introduce anything new”. To take an extreme example, if WP designed a different typeface for its own use, I can’t imagine that being OR. I was just trying to suggest that in the debate about the diaphonemic transcription, it is not helpful if people feel that the alternative is a set of phonemic transcription conventions that are set in stone. I take the point about the CGEL’s treatment of open vowels, but in general its transcription seems an acceptably pragmatic solution that doesn’t go too far from current practices. RoachPeter (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the CGEL system would be a good solution, and an improvement over our current practices.

Coming back to your typeface analogy: Not every new typeface would be acceptable on Wikipedia. If we wanted to introduce a typeface where the character ⟨A⟩ looks like ⟨Ɑ⟩ – or where the character ⟨ɑ⟩ (as in the phoneme /ɑː/) looks like ⟨a⟩ –, then we would be introducing something new, and people would be right to challenge the introduction of such a new feature. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 13:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

There are already fonts that do the former, actually. People's challenging of this hypothetical font would be because of readability issues, not because of OR. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 14:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Readability issues are one of the reasons that have been brought up repeatedly against the use of original research pronunciation symbols. When encountering a transcription such as /suˈdaːn/, a reader who knows the IPA is likely to conclude that /aː/ refers to the PALM vowel.

You have said yourself that “newness may be negatively impacting the readability of our system” [2]. I whole-heartedly agree with that. The negative impact of newness on readability sums up the whole point I have been trying to make in all these discussions. Maybe we can find common ground on these terms? The only reason why I have referred to WP:NPOV, V and OR is because I wanted to to justify the point that newness negatively impacts readability. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 17:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I get your point, but this most certainly is not the case you have been making so far. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 18:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

That is your POV. To me, saying that material has newness that negatively impacts readability is the same thing as saying that material violates the WP:Core content policies. So from my POV, I have been making the same case all along. But wheter you call it newness or original research, it is good that we finally agree. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 19:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Newness is not the same thing as original research. In the comment you were referring to, I was talking about newness to the readers. So even if we did find a source that transcribes the BATH vowel with different symbols from both PALM and TRAP, we would be alleviating nagging concerns about original research while the issue of readability persists. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Because the WP:Core content policies “complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another.” If there were a source for ⟨aː⟩ (WP:V), it would be no longer WP:OR in the strict sense, but our use of ⟨aː⟩ would still not be justified. Instead, we also have to take WP:NPOV into account: If a source for ⟨aː⟩ existed, it would probably represent a remote minority point of view. So in the strict sense, you are right that avoiding newness is not the same as WP:OR. In a broader sense, avoiding newness corresponds to the WP:Core content policies taken together (as they are supposed to be taken). Of course, the example with ⟨aː⟩ is hypthetical because for all we know, ⟨aː⟩ being used as a diaphonemic sign is indeed WP:OR. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 18:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Talking about how exactly our core policies prompt us to reconsider the use of ⟨aː⟩ is academic wikilawyering. If we take a step back and think about it in the lens of common sense, the issue of readability or comprehension remains an issue. I have been a defender of ⟨aː⟩ in the system but I am reconsidering my support in light of points made by other users.

Insofar as a diaphonemic system incorporates what diaphoneme calls "diaphonic identifications" (that is, where speakers perceive sounds from different varieties as equivalent), it is helpful and IMHO intuitive; there might be some hiccups in guiding readers to the right approach of this system, but it works best when readers approach the transcriptions in the same way they might an orthography-based pronunciation system.

I've come to be a bit on the fence about how well a single symbol could work to represent the BATH vowel within the logic of the diaphonemic system; perhaps someone can point to studies that clarify the matter, but I suspect that the difference in incidence between /æ/ and /ɑː/ is as marked as that between /eɪ/ and /ɑː/ (in words like tomato). This makes BATH different in that it isn't an additional example of a phonemic contrast that not everybody makes but rather a difference in incidence (that is, a given set of words features one phoneme in one variety and another phoneme in a different variety) that even lay speakers would notice and thereby not make a strong diaphonic identification. Despite this reluctance, the mouseover feature of {{IPAc-en}} works to temper this concern as there is an anchor word (bath) that the reader can align their pronunciation to. However, if we extend ⟨aː⟩ (or whatever symbolization we choose) to any instance where there is variation between /æ/ and /ɑː/, then we lose the utility of the anchor word and thereby lose the necessary clarity for the system to work. A good example where we lose this is Denali, where the difference in incidence is actually the opposite of BATH (that is, /æ/ appears in British speech and /ɑː/ in American speech). — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 08:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The same applies to ⟨u⟩ symbolizing the diaphoneme that can be either /uː/ or /ʊ/. Am I correct that we now agree about the following changes?:

⟨aː⟩ – no longer to be used
⟨ɒː⟩ – no longer to be used
⟨ɨ⟩ – to be replaced by ⟨ɪ⟩ which is used in newer OUP publications or in the CGEL
⟨ʉ⟩ – to be replaced by ⟨ʊ⟩ which is used in newer OUP publications

If that is correct, then the only new symbol we still disagree on is ⟨ɵ⟩. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 11:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't cry if we did those things, though I'd like to get a little more input from other editors on my reasoning before we make these changes. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Very good then, so we have reached a consensus about the signs ⟨aː ɒː ɨ ʉ⟩. I will wait a few more days and then, if nobody has objected, make the requisit changes. The goal is working towards a removal of the OR alert. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 20:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

We actually don't have consensus on removing ⟨aː⟩ and ⟨ɒː⟩. Given the prior consensus, we can't assume that silence is agreement in this case, particularly from some of the editors who have already expressed their support of their use. For those two, I would like to see something more explicit. We may have more consensus to limit ⟨aː⟩ to the BATH vowel, rather than remove it outright. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 20:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

While silence is not agreement, it is not disagreement either. There was no prior consensus, but only a prior status quo. It was kept out of inertia in spite of many editors expressing their disagreement over the years. These discussions did not end in consensus, but because the defenders of the status quo were more persistent anwerers. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 22:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Silence being neither agreement nor disagreement furthers my point that we should wait for other editors to contribute. The rest of your comment is flat out wrong. Discussions on the matter can be found here, here, and here. In those three discussions, there was absolutely no disagreement. The incorporation of ⟨aː⟩ and ⟨ɒː⟩ was implemented last year and, until recently, only one user argued against it as part of his general opposition to the diaphonemic nature of the system, which he opposes. He couldn't convince others to agree with him, which is why we didn't change our system. This charge of false consensus is really an untoward and uncivil attack on the character of myself and other contributors; I suspect, because of the gross inaccuracy of it, that you are making this implicit charge based on unscrupulous comments rather than a personal reading of the relevant archives. Be more careful about this. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 23:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Support for ~~restricting the usage of ⟨aː⟩ only to BATH words~~ removing the symbols ⟨aː, ɒː⟩ from our guide. Peter238 (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this. The use of ⟨aː⟩ as a symbol for the BATH vowel seems to be a new Wikipedia usage that has no precedents from outside Wikipedia. It would be misleading to readers because the length sign could make them believe that ⟨aː⟩ were a symbol for the PALM vowel.

@Æµ§œš¹: What is that about? If I have offended you, please accept my apologies. It has not been my intention. My intention is just to oppose my POV to your POV. And believe me, I carefully read the past discussions about the OR issues. Most discussions did not end in consensus. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 00:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I linked to the three discussions that led to the implementation of ⟨aː⟩ and ⟨ɒː⟩. How can you look at those and see that as no consensus? Who are the "many editors" who opposed their implementation? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 01:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Editors who over the years have voiced their concerns about our pronunciation symbols include Taivo, Bazj, Fortnum, Kudpung, W. P. Uzer, and myself. The three discussions you have linked to do not show much disagreement, but they do not show strong consensus either. The issue was just not discussed controversely. The WP:NPOV, V and OR issue, for instance, was never discussed. RoachPeter’s concern that by introducing new diaphonemic symbols Wikipedia would “get too far away from contemporary practice” – a hint at the future NPOV/V/OR discussions – was not even answered. The reasoning was: Nobody is opposed, so let’s do it then. Afterwards, several users – including W. P. Uzer and me – have voiced strong disagreement. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 10:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

So far, nobody has disagreed with my above suggestion (removing ⟨aː⟩ and ⟨ɒː⟩, replacing ⟨ɨ⟩ and ⟨ʉ⟩ by ⟨ɪ⟩ and ⟨ʊ⟩, see [3]). In the spirit of WP:SILENCE, I am going to apply these suggestions soon.

Regarding previous consensus: Please consider that consensus can change – especially when previously unconsidered arguments have been raised (for instance, original research was not discussed in the previous discussions about ⟨aː⟩). I believe the previous consensus was really a wrongful consensus because it violates WP:NOR. Status quo stonewalling is not helpful. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 17:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you do not have consensus. I oppose what you are doing. If you really have started this process, please stop. In addition, please do not misrepresent the conversation. Peter238 just stated that he disagrees with removing ⟨aː⟩, and your response saying that you disagree with him makes your lie quite blatant. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 19:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Why do you oppose? What else do you propose? Why? Peter did not oppose my proposal; he made a different proposal. I am not misrepresenting the discussion. I will not give in to Status quo stonewalling. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 20:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

It's true that I don't oppose removing /aː, ɒː/. If I were to choose between keeping /aː/ and restricting its usage to BATH words, I would obviously choose the latter. That's what I meant. And if you're going to remove these symbols - by all means, go ahead. Peter238 (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

We have enough consensus to change ⟨ɨ ʉ⟩; I would recommend starting by altering {{IPAc-en}} to incorporate ⟨ᵻ ᵿ⟩ (but not ⟨~~ɪ ʊ~~⟩). As I said, I want input from more editors in regards to /aː, ɒː/. I think it's clear so far that we have a consensus to not have ⟨aː⟩ in non-BATH words (the extension of it to non-BATH vowels was most certainly done without consensus); if you want to go through and remove those, that would be fine but it might make for more work in the long run if we also decide to remove ⟨aː⟩ altogether. Give it time. Sometimes these things move slowly. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 21:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Since we seem to be voting, though nobody announced it: Support mach's proposal, removing //aː ɒː// and replacing //ɨ ʉ// with barred //ɪ ʊ// (not sure how to type those last symbols). In a previous discussion I supported the first two symbols, but I retract my support. I still understand the reasoning behind using them, but they're ripe for being misinterpreted by people who don't understand the concept of phonological comparison of dialects, as indicating that there are actually more low vowel phonemes in a given dialect than there actually are, and they have simply been entirely invented by Wikipedians. As for the second two symbols, it's weird to use the same diaphonemic analysis as the OED but use different symbols. It'll leave people wondering if the symbols mean the same thing as the slightly different symbols in the OED or not. Better to use the same symbols for the same analysis.

Comment: All these "consensuses" linked by Æµ§œš¹ above have been unofficial agreements among the small number of editors who participated in the discussion, with no formal vote. I would propose that one of the more involved editors make this into a formal vote, listing the various proposals and allowing editors to choose between them (or perhaps rank the choices), so that it's clear which proposal is supported by which editors, and why. Then there would be no need for bickering over who has consensus.

Also, I'm sure there are editors who have opinions, but haven't posted because they don't want to deal with debating with the more vocal editors. Those editors, like me, might be more willing to vote. — Eru·tuon 22:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Very good, so we all agree about ⟨ɪ⟩ and ⟨ʊ⟩. With regard to ⟨aː⟩ and ⟨ɒː⟩ I do not think polling would be a good idea. Any conensus that ends up in us using ⟨aː⟩ and ⟨ɒː⟩ is a wrongful consensus because there is no verification for such a use – it violates the core content policies. There is no verification either for the use of ⟨aː⟩ representing the BATH lexical set. Æµ§œš¹ has tried to argue that pronunciation symbols are somehow exempt from verification, but he has failed to find any compelling reasons. His argumentation always boils down to some assumption he cannot justify any further, e.g. “[o]ur IPA symbolization is merely the presentation of facts”.

We do not need more discussion. The matter has been discussed at nauseam. Arguing that more and more and more and more discussion is needed is a typical tactic of status quo stonewalling. This help page has a long history of status quo stonewalling. This has to stop. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 07:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

mach: I don't know what to think of the OR thing. There's been so many words flung between you and Æµ§œš¹ over whether the symbols are OR and whether it matters, that my brain has frozen over. I am unable to come to an opinion of my own. And it seems that most people disagree with you, so the best course of action would be to just say you disagree about the OR thing and stop talking about it. Agree to disagree. Focus your efforts elsewhere. Perhaps there are other reasons besides OR for Wikipedia not to use the symbols you dislike.

I'll ignore the thing about status quo stonewalling because I don't see how I'm supporting that. I want to end discussion by having a vote. And with a vote, there can be simple statements of why each person supports each proposal. No additional arguing over how wrong other editors think their reasoning is. — Eru·tuon 21:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The symbols I am objecting to are new and unsourced. To some editors, including W. P. Uzer or myself, this is OR in a nutshell. To other editors, including Æµ§œš¹ or SMcCandlish, it is not.

I think their argumentation is fallacious because they do not distinguish between OR on the transcription level (where the transcription scheme can be viewed as “style”) and OR on the single-symbol level. They are not denying new and unsourced material on the single-symbol level should be avoided, but they do not want to call it OR because transcription schemes are “style” on the transcription level – if I understand their argumentation correctly. By contrast, we think that any new and unsourced material should be called OR, whatever level it belongs to.

I am willing to agree to disagree whether new and unsourced material on the single-symbol level is called OR or not – as long as the new and unsourced material is removed. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 09:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I changed my vote. While I don't really care whether we restrict ⟨aː⟩ to BATH words or remove it, we really have to remove ⟨ɒː⟩. The reason is that the CLOTH vowel in General American has a different (wider) distribution than in conservative RP, so that while the word cloth is pronounced /klɔːθ/ in both conservative RP and non-cot-caught-merged GA (and /klɒθ/ in contemporary RP), the word dog is pronounced /dɔːɡ/ in NCCM GA, but /dɒɡ/ in all varieties of RP! This is too confusing. Peter238 (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment On a purely practical level, we cannot use Mach's proposal of soft-formatted ⟨ɪ⟩ and ⟨ʊ⟩ to replace ⟨ɨ⟩ and ⟨ʉ⟩ (though I just came across a source last week that used ⟨ɨ⟩), we need to use proper Unicode ⟨ᵻ⟩ and ⟨ᵿ⟩ so that they're copy-friendly.

Also, Mach's contention that any consensus he disagrees with is the wrong consensus is absurd. Also interesting that he's complained about a small cabal having decided things, but now that he's part of the discussion he wants the decision to be made by a small cabal. We may get rid of the CLOTH and BATH vowel, but it needs to be through consensus, not diktat. — kwami (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I think ⟨ᵻ, ᵿ⟩ work just as well as ⟨ɪ, ʊ⟩. I do not know where you take the copy-friendliness requirement from – what is your basis for this argumentation? But anyway, if you prefer ⟨ᵻ, ᵿ⟩, that is fine with me.

As I said [4], the source you found for the use of ⟨ɨ⟩ is not relevant because it is not a broad phonemic transcription, but a purely phonetic study without any phonemic analysis (unless I guessed wrong and the source you only hinted at is not the one I identified – then please identify your source).

Refuting kwami’s straw men: I have not “complained about a small cabal having decided things”. I have complained about a small group of users engaging in status quo stonewalling. I have not said that “that any consensus he disagrees with is the wrong consensus”. What I have said is that a consensus that violates the core content policies is a wrongful consensus. Nobody wants to get rid of the CLOTH and BATH vowels – we want to get rid of the signs ⟨aː⟩ and ⟨ɒː⟩ because they are new and unsourced (which some would call OR, but some wouldn’t).

It seems we are reaching consensus:

⟨aː⟩ – no longer to be used
⟨ɒː⟩ – no longer to be used
⟨ɨ⟩ – to be replaced by ⟨ᵻ⟩ which is used in newer OUP publications or in the CGEL
⟨ʉ⟩ – to be replaced by ⟨ᵿ⟩ which is used in newer OUP publications

--mach 🙈🙉🙊 09:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Except "I strongly oppose this", and "it seems that most people disagree with you", and "We may have more consensus to limit ⟨aː⟩ to the BATH vowel, rather than remove it outright", and "contention that any consensus [one] disagrees with is the wrong consensus is absurd", and "On a purely practical level, we cannot use Mach's proposal", and etc., etc. I detect a strong current of WP:ICANTHEARYOU going on. The nom's comment "All these "consensuses" linked ... above have been unofficial agreements among the small number of editors who participated in the discussion, with no formal vote" does not properly reflect WP:POLICY and WP:CONSENSUS. Every consensus on WP is determined by whoever shows up, there is no such thing as "official" on WP, and consensus does not require an RfC (though one often helps arrive at consensus), and RfCs and other discussions are not a "formal vote". There are not formal votes on WP, other than for elections of a few sorts.

A long-standing consensus, however few editors formed it initially, gains in consensus level the longer it stands and the more it is adopted in actual practice across a range of WP topics. Thus a sudden putsch to change it, especially if it may affect a large number of articles, is expected to gain a significant level of editorial buy-in before consensus can be said to have actually changed. This (admittedly flawed) pronunciation transcription system has been in place and stable for a long time, and the sky did not fall. There is no hurry, and we should get it right this time. I would strongly suggest an actual RfC. I think it should be either be written by someone other than Wust, or by him if he agrees to avoid making NOR arguments in it, which he knows that several of us have challenged (and provided details rationales for challenging, to which he's basically responded with a combination of "I don't get it" and "I just don't agree" without a counter rationale. At the WP:NORNB discussion, Wust conceded that this would not be settled at a NOR matter, but a WP:COMMONSENSE matter, so let's stop clouding the issue. Let's also stop pretending this discussion, which is part of a three-way discussion split, the exact opposite of discussion centralization, can possible represent a consensus change to major way-things-are-done (even if it's not actually a guideline or policy itself), and let's instead open a proper, organized, centralized discussion about it via RfC, which will draw in additional editors via WP:FRS. (NB: I say all that as someone who also opposes what has been done with quasi- and pseudo-IPA here; but it does the goal of rectifying that problem no good at all to rush through a proposal, that is roundly or in-detail opposed by so many, to try to impose a false consensus that will just get reverted. It would do more harm than good, since it would give a "not this crap again" excuse to ignore a later, more WP:PROCESS-cognizant attempt to resolve the issue.)

PS: An RfC on this should probably enumerate each of the problematic symbols, what the problem(s) is/are with each, and what the known alternative approaches are, as well as an overview of the problem for people not very familiar with IPA. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 11:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Your quotes are out of context. A closer look shows that not a single one of them serves as evidence for lack of conensus:

“I strongly oppose this” [5] – that was not against the consensus we are forming here, but against an alternative proposal. And, by the way, it was me who uttered it.
“it seems that most people disagree with you” [6] – that was not against the consensus we are forming here, but that was Erutuon’s remark about the discussion at WP:NORNB.
“We may have more consensus to limit ⟨aː⟩ to the BATH vowel, rather than remove it outright” [7] – this was indeed about the consensus we are forming here. We continued to discuss. I gave my reasons why I think limiting ⟨aː⟩ to the BATH vowel is not a good idea [8]. Two editors explicitly agreed that they favor dropping ⟨aː⟩ entirely [9] [10]. No editor stated any opposition – not even kwami or Æµ§œš¹. It seems we have found a consensus about this point.
“contention that any consensus [one] disagrees with is the wrong consensus is absurd” [11] – that was not against the consensus we are forming here, but a straw man argument by kwami. I had never said such a thing.
“On a purely practical level, we cannot use Mach's proposal” [12] – this was indeed about the consensus we are forming here. Even while I do not follow kwami’s reasoning in this regard, I have altered my position [13]. It seems we have found a consensus about this point.

So, all things considered, it appears we have reached a consensus in this discussion.

Your interpretation of WP:CONLEVEL seems one-sided to me. You are setting a very high bar for the removal of pronunciation signs, but these same signs never passed such a high bar when they were introduced. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 13:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Consensus actually works in a "one-sided" manner here: While consensus can change, the default is the status quo, which does not have to be defended to remain in place absent a clear consensus to change. This is the one and only reason that WP is mostly stable instead of an unusable fireball of chaos. That said, keep in mind I want to see these things changed to. It just won't do any good to change them on the basis of a personal declaration that consensus has been found, by the proponent of the change. The consensus needs to be clear or will just lead to reversion attempts, especially since such a change will affect so many articles. I'd rather have this discussion one and do it right than have it seven times over the next two years. Because of the implementation costs of making changes like this, it should not be see-sawed back and forth. I'll just take your word for it on all quotation context stuff; the point wasn't to raise specific objections and analyze them, only point out that any review of whether consensus had been found would likely not have concluded that it had been, and various disagreements were extant and their exact contextual interpretation may be ambiguous. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 11:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

While a certain bias towards the status quo is a good thing, there is also the danger of Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling, when people who suggest changes are regularly fended off even if their suggestions are honest improvements. As I see it, that is what has happened here over and over again. I understand your desire to solve the matter once and for all, and I would also “rather have this discussion once and do it right than have it seven times over the next two years”. But we already had this discussion so many times, there is a good chance opening yet another discussion would not lead to anywhere, again. This discussion, however, looks quite promising. To my knowledge, there are no extant disagreements with the consensus we are forming. Some changes are already on the help page and have not been reverted so far. If they stand the test of time for another couple of days or weeks, I think we can start implementing the changes in the article space. I would rather stick to this promising discussion than open a new one that might get stuck again. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 15:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Status quo stonewalling is when one editor, or occasionally a coordinated two-or-three-editor WP:TAGTEAM abuse WP:BRD to blockade all changes they don't like. That's not what happening here. No one agrees with you. This is a case of WP:1AM. You need to stop accusing people of status-quo stonewalling. It's an uncivil accusation of bad faith. The sad thing is that several of us do agree that the pronunciation key has issues that need to be resolved, but you've derailed most of the discussion toward that goal with this refusal to get it or to drop the stick, and stick that is not helping and is not needed. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

You are mistaken. There are others editors who share (or shared) my POV, as I have demonstrated below [14]. Sadly enough, several ones of them have left this talk page in disgust when their good faith improvement proposals have been met with fundamental opposition – this has really happened several times, and that the reason why I think the harsh accusation of status quo stonewalling can be justified. You are diminishing my POV by wrongfully claiming that I am the only one to uphold it. At the same time, you are boosting your POV by claiming that it represents a well-founded consensus. That may be so, but then please tell me where this consensus has been founded so well. I would much prefer if you would actually participate in the discussion about the issue at hand instead of converting it all in a discussion of my behaviour. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 23:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

You're projecting. Most people, when confronted with reasoned opposition and detailed rationales why their "OR applies outside mainspace" approach is wrong, will stop beating that dead horse. When they do, this is evidence of a logical approach and respect for consensus, not "lea[ving] in disgust when their good faith ... [is] met with fundamental opposition" blah blah blah. WP is not a melodrama. The consensus is "founded so well" because all of WP operates on the basis that WP:CORE applies to content, not internal documentation. This has been made clear to you numerous times by multiple editors or multiple pages. It's also been made clear to you why mass accusations of status-quo stonewalling are an incivil bad faith assumption, and you've already been warned of discretionary sanctions in this topic area, so I have to strongly suggest that you not do it again. 2601:643:8302:1D50:72CD:60FF:FEAA:C075 (talk) 17:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear IP. Nobody has an “OR applies outside mainspace” approach. What I and others are insisting on is that WP:CORE be honoured on the main article namespace, with no special exception for pronunciation symbols. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 18:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

BATH vowel symbol: pros and cons

@DavidPKendal: You have written: “I think it [the symbol /aː/] should be restricted only for use in BATH words” [15]. I am taking the liberty of answering here, because this is where we have discussed removing /aː/ (and removing /ɒː/ and replacing ⟨ɨ ʉ⟩ by ⟨ᵻ ᵿ⟩). Also, it was you who (re)proposed the symbol (see Help talk:IPA/English/Archive 14#Proposal for new symbols) and added it to the help page [16] (sorry, I had not looked that up earlier or I would have pinged you).

I think inventing our own symbol for the BATH vowel is not a good idea. My main reason is that there is no precedence. Basically, I think it is original research (some editors agree to this, but others don’t). It is true that our broad phonemic transcription scheme is somewhat different from others because we intend to be pan-dialectal (or at least multi-dialectal). But we are not the only ones with this intention. Another example is the CGEL. I actually think their solution is even better than ours because they are not as decidedly rhotic as we are – which means their scheme has more NPOV.

Now with regard to the BATH vowel, the CGEL argues that both British and American English have only two low vowels: the TRAP vowel and the CALM vowel (if I am not mistaken, these two vowels are distinguished in most dialects of English, though some might have additional low vowels). The BATH vowel is not a third low vowel different from the other two. Instead, it is identical to one of them. To which one – that depends on the dialect. Therefore, the CGEL says “instead of introducing a third vowel we give seperate BrE and AmE representations when necessary” (CGEL. “Preliminaries”, p. 16). I think we should follow this example instead of introducing a new symbol.

Also, it seems quite counterintuitive to me that some words where the pronunciation varies between /æ/ and /ɑː/ should be written with a special sign (the BATH lexical set), while others should not (words like Sudan or Iraq). The distinction is actually quite intricate and requires knowledge about the diachrony of English vowels. Furthermore, I guess that among the words on the English Wikipedia where the pronunciation varies between /æ/ and /ɑː/, most do not belong to the BATH lexical set. The pronunciation of the BATH lexical set words is usually trivial, so they do not get an IPA transcription. Foreign or complicated words such as Sudan, Iraq or Nazism are more likely to get an IPA transcription, but these words do not belong to the BATH lexical set proper. So there would be very few proper BATH words left – too few for justifying the invention of a new symbol. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 17:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

"requires knowledge about the diachrony of English vowels" — false, and doubly false in the context of Wikipedia. Since our pronunciations have to be referenceable, use of /aː/ should be clear from our sources. Unfortunately I don't have a copy of the LPD to hand at the moment, but looking at the front matter in Amazon Look Inside, I'm reasonably certain that we could use it for BATH vowel symbols, using it iff both /æ/ and /ɑː/ are listed as variants in the British section, and the /æ/ variant is marked with the § 'BrE non-RP' symbol. (See p. xix.) Other dictionaries like the EPD or the Oxford pronunciation dictionary may also mark this; I haven't seen them. As a more broadly referenceable rule, any occurrence of /æ/ in AmE/northern BrE in these contexts, where standard pronunciation and general dictionaries (esp. of British English) give both /æ/ and /ɑː/.

Some dialects do have a three-way TRAP–BATH–PALM. See Accents of English vol 2 p 346–7.

Finally, I wish you'd get off this "original research" hobby horse of yours. It is well settled that, as a help page establishing a notational convention, the IPA key is not subject to Wikipedia's normal proscriptions on original research, any more than the Manual of Style is. Nor is WP:USdict or WP:PRK (it's worth noting that this page was originally in the 'Wikipedia' namespace like those two, and I personally have quibbles with the decision to move it into the Help section). DavidPKendal (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, so diachronic knowledge is not necessary, but knowledge on how to handle specific indications about British and American pronunciations. But couldn’t there be false positives (an almost false positive is oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com – Iraq)? The knowledge about specific phonetic contexts is pretty much what I meant when I referred to knowledge about diachrony.

So there are dialects that have a distinct BATH vowel. That is interesting – a pity there is nothing about this yet in Wikipedia. Are these dialects noteworthy enough so we should use them in our transcriptions (keeping in mind that very few words are concerned and that we do not encode all distinctions, see Help:IPA for English#Dialect variation)? Is there a broad phonemic transcription for these dialects?

If it is “well settled that, as a help page establishing a notational convention, the IPA key is not subject to Wikipedia's normal proscriptions on original research” – then where has this ever been settled?

Calling the invention of new pronunciation symbols original research is certainly not my “hobby horse”. Other users have shared this POV – see e.g. [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. Your are trying to make it look as if I were the only one to uphold this POV, even though I am demonstrably not the only one. It would serve your POV better if you would try to justify it. Trying to make our POV look bad does not serve your POV. The justification for our POV is very simple: Creating new material is original research; coining new uses for IPA characters is creating new material; consequently, coining new uses for IPA characters is original research. But I do not even need to justify this POV because Wikipedia policy says that the burden of proof is not on my side when I raise the original research issue.

The comparison to the respelling keys is not a good justification (and why do we have two different ones?). They are unsystematic by nature, and what is more imporant, they have been equally accused of being original research (see e.g. [26], [27], [28], [29]). I have not yet seen any substantial justification why coining new pronunciation symbols should be exempt from WP:NOR. The best justifications I have seen stop at the observation that a pronunciation symbol scheme can be viewed as a pronunciation’s style (opposite the actual pronunciation as the pronunciation’s content). They then jump to the conclusion that the coining new pronunciation symbols cannot be original research. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 21:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow, it's one thing to take someone's words out of context, but dredging up old comments by Angr to characterize him as against the current system when he is now one of its defenders is quite a stretch. I'm surprised you didn't find my own comments against the system before I was swayed to support it. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 23:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I have not characterized Angr “as against the current system” – I have only pointed to people who “have shared” the POV that inventing new pronunciation symbols is original research. People’s opinion can change. I could well imagine that your own opinion has changed since you said that new pronunciation symbols are original research a few weeks ago (the reasons would be interesting). I may have overlooked many who have voiced their concerns about an incompatibility of new pronunciation symbols with Wikipedia principles because I have only searched for a few keywords in a few places. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 00:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I might believe that if I thought you didn't know what "hobby horse" means. But when you say "Your are trying to make it look as if I were the only one to uphold this POV, even though I am demonstrably not the only one" (emphasis added) it is clear you are trying to make the case that the users in question all share this view.

The saddest part is you don't even have to lie to make your point. You've mixed in examples of users who legitimately share your view (which is what you were trying to show) with people who arguably don't. You really know how to shoot your credibility in the foot. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 09:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion would be served better if you contributed substantially instead of constantly nit-picking my contributions (it seems to me you are really trying to turn this into a personal issue). For instance: What is your POV? Why have you changed it (if you have)? --mach 🙈🙉🙊 09:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll leave it to others to determine if my contributions have been substantial or not; I think I have already made my perspective clear. What would really serve the discussion better us if you dropped the OR angle. It's not persuading anyone and distracts from legitimate points people are making. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 17:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I will not drop the “OR angle” any more than you will drop the anti-OR angle. I think indeed that the re-discussion of the original research issue in this section has been gratuitous and superfluous and a distraction from the topic (“BATH vowel symbol: pros and cons”). But I feel it is not my fault that DavidPKendal and you have jumped on the original research issue even though it was not a central part of my argumentation – I had even mentioned expicitly that there is no agreement [30] (to be fair, DavidPKendal has mostly written about the topic of this section). When I see my POV misrepresented – e.g. by insinuating that I am the only one with this POV –, I will answer. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 20:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

“If it is “well settled that, as a help page establishing a notational convention, the IPA key is not subject to Wikipedia's normal proscriptions on original research” – then where has this ever been settled?” — it’s well-settled enough to be mentioned in the list of perennial topics in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Pronunciation. Do you think also that Citation Style 1 is 'original research'? It was invented for Wikipedia, by Wikipedia, by adapting existing standards. DavidPKendal (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

“Are these dialects noteworthy enough so we should use them in our transcriptions (keeping in mind that very few words are concerned and that we do not encode all distinctions, see Help:IPA for English#Dialect variation)? Is there a broad phonemic transcription for these dialects?” — looking back at the original proposal which caused me to add /aː/, I'm reminded that American Theater Standard is perhaps the most prestigious pronunciation (albeit an artificial one) which has a three-way TRAP–BATH–PALM split. So any transcriptions for that are good. See Accents of English under the cited page, and the pages specific to the accents it mentions there (West Country dialects — I believe the three-way split is also found in the north-eastern UK in County Durham, but I don't have time to check sources for that now), for transcription information.

“knowledge on how to handle specific indications about British and American pronunciations” is a basic requirement of using our pan-dialectal transcription scheme anyway. If you don’t know that you should keep /r/s from a US transcription which are omitted in a British one but keep /ɒ/ in a British transcription which is changed to /ɑ/ in a US one, you can't use Wikipedia's IPA transcription scheme at all.

I remain convinced that /aː/ is a good idea for transcription in general, but you may be right in saying that Wikipedia has too few cases where it would be useful to justify its addition here. I shall review its use in the morning (that is, assuming you haven't gone ahead and pre-emptively wiped it out of all the entries which once used it) to see if I still think its inclusion is sensible. DavidPKendal (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I have not yet wiped anything – I am planning to do so, but I am waiting for this change to sink in a few more days. If you want to review the instances of ⟨aː⟩, you might benefit of the method for finding these instances I have posted above [31]. Unless you know a better method – then I would be happy if you shared it.

You are right that “knowledge on how to handle specific indications about British and American pronunciations” is required anyway. But wouldn’t there be false positives – instances of BrE /ɑː/ vs. AmE /æ/ that do not belong to the BATH lexical set (especially foreign words or names)?

I think the main problem about using ⟨aː⟩ as a symbol for representing the BATH vowel is that this use is a new invention on Wikipedia. That means it may affect readability, and in two ways. a) When a reader familiar with the IPA sees a transcription such as “/suˈdaːn/” (as in the article Sudan), they may easily misread it as a PALM vowel because ⟨aː⟩ has indeed been used as a symbol for the PALM vowel – not only in Australian English phonology, but also it “was popular in EFL work in the middle of the twentieth century” (John Wells: “Phonetic transcription and analysis”, p. 9 [published in: Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics]). And b) when a reader unfamiliar with the IPA learns about our use of ⟨aː⟩, they may assume that this is the normal meaning of ⟨aː⟩ and use it off of Wikipedia. – BTW, many thanks to SMcCandlish ☺ for the clear distinction between these two points [32]. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 16:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

PS: Please excuse me – I overlooked your reference to the “perennial topics in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Pronunciation”. I really think that the reasoning in these perennial topics regarding our broad phonemic IPA pronunciation scheme being original research is fallacious. It is obvious that a help page is not an article. The point is, however, that material from the help page is meant to be added to articles, and it is indeed being used on tens of thousands of articles (cf. [33]). While the help page by itself may not be subject to NOR, all the articles where material from the help page is being used are. So this is a particularly bad justification for the “anti-OR angle”. There should be a better one.

It is no surprise to me that this particular perennial topic has been added by kwami [34] (and kwami was probably the only one who ever changd it [35]). Kwami clearly is a representative of the “anti-OR angle”. I wonder whether this perennial topic represents a consensus, or whether it is just kwami’s POV. Has it been discussed? I have found no discussions, but I might have overlooked them. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 17:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you have overlooked them. If you care to slog through the archives, you will find numerous instances where editors are informed that OR does not apply to in-house conventions. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 04:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Please post diffs. I have slogged through the archives, and I have found no such things. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 06:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure. You can see the convention/content distinction made here (at the bottom). It was also implied pretty strongly here where a user argued strongly that IPA for English should not be in article space so as to "keep our article space clean of project contamination." It was repeated here where a user says "It's outside article space, and so shouldn't run afoul of Original Research charges." The issue was brought up again here where a user claimed that an in-house respelling system would be OR, the response was "A system unique to Wikipedia would simply be a convention, like a hundred conventions in Wikipedia, and not original research, which applies to content." The idea that transcription conventions are not subject to OR was stated again here and here.

I could probably go on, but I think I've shown enough to demonstrate that the issue sufficiently counts as a "perennial" topic worthy of a hatnote, having been brought up and addressed multiple times by the time of Kwami's inclusion of said hatnote. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

“instances of BrE /ɑː/ vs. AmE /æ/ that do not belong to the BATH lexical set (especially foreign words or names)?” — that’s why I propose only to use /aː/ when both /ɑː/ and /æ/ are recorded BrE variants, or in those contexts where BATH vowels actually occur (usually before unvoiced fricatives, but you can see the link above for the list of usual contexts). For instance, the OED 3 transcribes pass as “Brit. /pɑːs/, /pas/ U.S. /pæs/”.

When I added /aː/, the code 'a:' was already programmed into Template:IPAc-en as an alias of /ɑː/. To fix pages using it for this (now incorrectly), I created a temporary category and added the tag for it to the code generated by 'a:'. I intended to do this again, but unfortunately, since that time, the template has been rewritten to use Lua and I'm not allowed to edit it. I’m not sure yet how I can find all instances of /aː/. Please withhold from obliterating it from the wiki until I can find a way to compile usage statistics. DavidPKendal (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@DavidPKendal: The “method” I showed you will take quite a lot of work (repeating it for all signs, then filtering out all the instances where ⟨aː⟩ does not appear in IPA for English), but it is doable. I agree with you that editors pretty much need to know the typical context of the BATH vowel – which is pretty equivalent to the “knowledge about the diachrony” I originally mentioned.

@Æµ§œš¹: You have not understood my question. I know very well that the issue whether or not inventing new pronunciation symbols is original research has been mentioned here and there. But “I wonder whether this perennial topic represents a consensus, or whether it is just kwami’s POV” – by this I mean the following: When kwami added the perennial topic [36], did he act on the grounds of a consensus that had been reached in previous discussions, or did he just act on his own terms? To me, it looks as if he acted on his own terms because I have seen no previous discussion of the issue (a mere mention of “original research” is not tantamount to a discussion), let alone a consensus. Some of the links you provided show that the issue whether or not inventing new pronunciation symbols is original research has been mentioned by some editors, but not one of them points to a substantial discussion, let alone to any consensus that the issue should be added to the top of the talk page as a perennial topic. But even if there had been such a previous consensus, the reasoning kwami mentioned is still fallacious since the point of the broad phonemic transcription schemes is that they are meant to be used in the article space. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 17:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You asked if it was consensus. It is. Not only did multiple editors contribute that idea, but we must also remember that, particularly in a place that gets as much traffic as MOS/P, silence can be construed as consensus. You don't need a long, drawn-out conversation to establish consensus. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 18:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

So you have not found any explicit discussions either. Your argumentation “that, particularly in a place that gets as much traffic as MOS/P, silence can be construed as consensus” does not convince me. One might as well assume the contrary: the more traffic a page has, the more is explicit discussion required before consensus can be construed (compare that silence does not imply consent when drafting new policies). On the other hand, let’s not forget we are only talking about a talk page, not a real guideline. Things that are being said in the introduction to a talk page are probably not a particularly solid basis for any argumentation, especially when they have never been discussed or edited and when they exhibit fallacious reasoning. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 19:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I have pointed to explicit discussions. They weren't long or drawn out because every time someone explained how OR doesn't apply to in-house conventions, others accepted the argument. I don't know why you keep thinking that WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT will work to convince people of your perspective. It hasn't worked so far. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 20:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Please stop accusing me of disruptive behaviour. I know where WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT links to.

I did not want to review the links you posted in detail because this discussion has veered far too much off-topic already. A talk page introduction that uses fallacious reasoning and that has not been discussed before or after its creation is no solid basis for anything. But since you insist:

“here (at the bottom)” – kwami’s POV; the responding editor may have implicitly consented
“implied pretty strongly here where a user argued strongly that IPA for English should not be in article space so as to ‘keep our article space clean of project contamination.’” – I see no connection to original research
“It was repeated here where a user says ‘It’s outside article space, and so shouldn’t run afoul of Original Research charges.’” – it is obvious that the use of made-up symbols outside the article space is not original research; if you are implying that I’d ever said such a thing, then this is a typical straw man argument.
“here where a user claimed that an in-house respelling system would be OR, the response was ‘A system unique to Wikipedia would simply be a convention, like a hundred conventions in Wikipedia, and not original research, which applies to content.’” – You have omitted that the user does not preclude the possibility that newly invented pronunciation symbols might be original research, cf. the immediately following text: “If it did in fact count as original research, so would an attempt to regularize the usage of IPA”; the responding editor may have implicitly consented.
“The idea that transcription conventions are not subject to OR was stated again here” – You are mistaken; this is not about the “idea that transcription conventions are not subject to OR”, but about one very specific proposal that is based on sources and indeed contains no original research, see User:Gheuf/Sandbox2.
“and here.” – You are mistaken; this is not about the “idea that transcription conventions are not subject to OR”, but about one very specific proposal that is based on sources and indeed contains no original research, see User:Gheuf/Sandbox2.

Recapitulating: Out of the seven links you have posted, only a single one unambiguously supports the notion that the invention of new pronunciation symbols should not be considered original research. It was written by kwami. Only 1 and 4 are in response to a previous post that was about original research. Not a single one got an answer that continued about original research, so your statement that “others accepted the argument” cannot be verified. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 22:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Your characterization of these previous conversations is quite inaccurate. In the interest of other readers seeing an explicit account of the relevant exchanges (rather than having them slog through the archives) I will quote directly from six of them:

1. The conversation goes as such:

Woodstone: "Although I appreciate your efforts, it doesn't look any better than any of the many versions already shown in Pronunciation respelling for English. Yours must be qualified as original research and as such not a candidate for standardisation in Wikipedia."

Kwamikagami: "What research? It's a convention. It's no more 'research' than a table of contents."

Keenan Pepper: "Then it must be moved to the Wikipedia: namespace."

Not only did the responding editor implicitly consent, but Woodstone himself later on proposed his own ad-hoc IPA system during the discussions, clearly having foregone his OR concerns. That is three users all agreeing.

2. I may have been seeing what I wanted to see with this one. A second look makes the connection to OR much less obvious.

3. I don't know if I even understand what you are denying. I pointed to this conversation to highlight claims made about how OR applies to conventions. The specific conventions being discussed weren't my point. The relevant exchange is as follows:

Michael Z "Are there any online references for these four respelling systems?"

CJGB: "It's outside article space, and so shouldn't run afoul of Original Research charges. It's a proposed convention, like a hundred other WP conventions."

As with the first exchange, the initial editor did not overtly agree or disagree with the claim that OR does not apply to WP conventions, but he did respond; in this response, he declined to disagree. The implication from this that CJGB convinced Michael Z may not be strong, but it does arise when we see that Michael Z worked on developing the current system, providing tacit approval of its OR nature.

That is two more users agreeing.

4.

Nohat: "A new system invented for Wikipedia would run into trouble with Wikipedia:No original research..."

CJGB: "A system unique to Wikipedia would simply be a convention, like a hundred conventions in Wikipedia, and not original research, which applies to content."

CJGB goes on to say that "If it did in fact count as original research, so would an attempt to regularize the usage of IPA." This does not, by any stretch of the imagination, mean that CJGB believes that "newly invented pronunciation symbols might be original research" (as you say). It means that trying to consider in-house IPA conventions to be original research would create a catch-22 situation where it is OR to come up with your own system but also OR to try to impose a single standard as the standard. In other words, CJGB was expressing that applying OR to IPA transcription systems would be undoable.

Meanwhile, Nohat (who may have implicitly consented for the same reasons that Michael Z did) went on to participate and approve of the diaphonemic system.

That is one more user agreeing.

5. The user in question, Gheuf, stated " All that is new is the proposal of a certain sort of transcription as a Wikipedia convention – just like all other conventions on Wikipedia, it is not covered by the ban on "originality" in the same sense as contentful articles are." What he proposed is almost exactly what we have now. The principle he applies is that the content be synthesized from "standard pronunciation books on English." That is exactly where we get the information for the BATH vowel.

That is one more user agreeing.

6. The OP, Amarkov, asked if the transcription system needed to be sourced. Gheuf said it didn't, and Amarkov thanked him.

That's seven users. Add to that the tacit approval by those who monitor the relevant talk pages and did not actively disapprove of these agreements. You thus have a consensus that a WP IPA transcription system does not fall under the purview of NOR. This consensus has gotten stronger over time, such that those who monitor the MOS/P talk page did not oppose the inclusion of the perennial discussions hatnote that Kwami added. This consensus was also reinforced recently at the NOR noticeboard, where numerous editors reiterated it.

I think I have done enough to make the case that there is a long-established consensus here. I will leave it to other readers' judgments as to whether this is convincing or not. You can respond if you would like, Mach, but I am not interested in pursuing this OR line anymore. You have made it clear that you are unable or unwilling to see how others disagree with you. I do think that your IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude is becoming disruptive and I fear continuing to pursue the OR angle would magnify its disruptive nature. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 01:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I repeat: Please stop accusing me of disruptive behaviour. Just because I don’t adopt your POV does not make me a disruptive editor. I am not calling you a disruptive editor either just because you are not adopting my POV.

I am relieved that you are finally willing to stop this tedious and pointless debate that is completely off-topic. If you still want to keep discussing, I invite you to do so on my talk page.

I disagree with your view that my “characterization of these previous conversations is quite inaccurate”. That is your POV. I have a different POV. I see no reason why your POV about what these contributions should prevail over my POV. I think my POV is better justified and accounts better for the context, and you probably think the same about your POV. I have not been inaccurate in the characterization of any of the six conversations:

You had not told before that Woodstone later changed his POV (though I do not yet know whether he really did because you have not posted any link).
You have admitted I was right.
I stand by my view: This discussion cannot be counted among the allegedly “numerous instances where editors are informed that OR does not apply to in-house conventions” [37] and I cannot “see the convention/content distinction made” [38] – which is what you have claimed about all these discussions. Instead, I only see an editor arguing that OR does not apply “outside article space” – which is something I have never denied.
You are misrepresenting my POV by using a selective quote. I have not said that “that CJGB believes that ‘newly invented pronunciation symbols might be original research’”. What I have said is that the editor “does not preclude the possibility that newly invented pronunciation symbols might be original research”. Please appreciate this difference.
I stand by my view: The section’s name says “THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS NOT AGAINST WIKIPEDIA'S GUIDELINES” (allcaps in the original, but my underline), and it begins with the sentence: “I would like to show that this proposal is not against Wikipedia's Guidelines” (my underline). As I see it, Gheuf carefully distinguishes between two different levels where the proposal might be accused of original research: (a) the level of the proposal’s “content” and be (b) the status of the proposal “as a Wikipedia convention”. On level (a), Gheuf refers to relevant sources for demonstrating that the “content” of the proposal is not original research. On level (b), Gheuf argues that the ban on original research does not generally forbid Wikipedia conventions and that the proposal will no longer be Gheuf’s original creation after a consensus with other editors has been reached.
I stand by my view. This is still a discussion of Gheuf’s proposal.

You have not addressed my concern that silence does not imply consent when drafting new policies. Your argumentation that alleged implicit consent by seven users could be the basis for a solid consensus seems untenable to me. It seems to me you are just counting the supporters of your POV, while dismissing the opponents. And anyway, WP:CONSENSUS is not determined by majority, but by quality of argumentation. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 16:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

List of pages that use ⟨aː⟩ in an English transcription

@DavidPKendal: Since I think I am going to use it myself, I have now collected a list of the pages that contain ⟨aː⟩ in an English transcription, see User:J. 'mach' wust/sandbox#List of pages that use ⟨aː⟩ in an English transcription. There are bound to be some mistakes, but I think the list should be reasonably accurate so we can work with it. If you are still going to make your own list, I would very interested to know whether you come up with similar numbers. If not, please be my guest and use my list.

The result is quite clear: Out of 114 articles I have found, there are only 3 where ⟨aː⟩ has been used in an actual BATH vowel. Ironically, two of those are the word bath, in the articles Bath, Somerset and Bathtub (no idea why that got an IPA transcription), while the third one is in the article Newcastle, New South Wales.

There are about 15 articles where it is very obvious that /aː/ has been used by mistake instead of /ɑː/. These are cases with final /aː/ (English syllable structure forbids final /æ/), or where an accompanying respelling key indicates the BATH vowel, or where a transcription with /aː/ is opposed to a transcription with /æ/, or cases that are really non-rhotic /ɑːʳ/. Examples include Repertoire, Dane DeHaan, Ayahuasca, Z-Cars.

There are at least as much articles where /aː/ might be a mistake for /ɑː/, e.g. an article such as Baden-Württemberg where I would only expect a pronunciation with /ɑː/.

I think we can say two things:

There are very few instances of the BATH vowel (more than 95 % are other words).
The cases where /aː/ is being used by mistake instead of /ɑː/ are more numerous than the instances of the BATH vowel.

--mach 🙈🙉🙊 23:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

In at least two of those cases of erroneous use because of confusion with /ɑː/, the /aː/ was there before the symbol was even added to the chart. Apparently I missed them when fixing the 'a:' code problem I described above.

In re Baden-Württemberg — I suspect that may be deliberate. You never know what will happen to German vowels in the mouths of English speakers. For instance, I often hear 'Bahnhof' as /ˈbɑːnhɒf/ even though a more natural Anglicization would surely be /ˈbɑːnhoʊf/. Also common is Americans rendering German /a/ as [ɑ], which to me as a Briton sounds like they're mistaking short A for long A (where a better Anglicization to a Briton, especially one with a low [a] TRAP vowel, is /æ/). I've definitely heard Baden-Baden pronounced /ˌbædən ˈbædən/ — extending this to the name of the state seems like a distinct possibility.

I see that the number of legitimate BATH vowels is indeed small. In that case, I tentatively support its withdrawal. But I note there may be other places where it was simply never adopted because it has only been around a short time. DavidPKendal (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer – so you agree to withdrawing ⟨aː⟩, at least tentatively. In the meantime, one of the three instances of the BATH vowel I have found has been deleted by Æµ§œš¹ [39]. Of course, if it turns out there is a need for a BATH vowel symbol in the future, we should change the consensus again – after all consensus can change. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 16:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

ENGLISH HAS TOO MANY DIALECTS

ENGLISH HAS TOO MANY DIALECTS. IPA IS WORTHLESS. CONSIDER THE WORD HUT IN AUSTRALIAN IS hat IN CHICAGO IS hʌt IN APPALACHIAN IS hɜt IN GENERAL AMERICAN IS hɐt. AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. THEY HAVE TO STOP USING IPA. IT IS POINTLESS AND JUST END UP MAKING UP AN DIALECT THAT DOESN'T EXIST OR THAT WOULD BE MORE OLD-FASHIONED SINCE PRONUNCIATION/PHONOLOGY IS CHANGING CONSTANTLY.98.254.198.111 (talk) 09:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)yoandri dominguez

Please read the first sentence of Help:IPA for English#Dialect variation. Peter238 (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Question

When a word only has one syllable, should a stress still be included in the IPA key, even though it will always be ˈ? Sorry if this is in the wrong place. Mechanic1c (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it's more optional in that case. Even considering function words that often don't carry stress, the lack of stress is apparent in the vowel used. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 19:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)