Talk:International Phonetic Alphabet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article International Phonetic Alphabet has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
October 13, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
October 14, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
May 27, 2007 Good article reassessment Kept
June 10, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted
June 13, 2009 Good article reassessment Kept
August 6, 2009 Good article reassessment Kept
Current status: Good article
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation) for the style guide on the English Wikipedia regarding the use of IPA symbols.

New Changes[edit]

@Sweyn78: It seems some radical alterations to this article have just been made by Sweyn78. No explanation is given for why these changes were thought necessary (apart from the comment "Many section had the wrong charts"), and I am unable to see the full extent of what has been altered. There should have been a proposal on this Talk page before going ahead with this rewriting. I propose to revert all the recent changes by this person unless I see on this page a comprehensive explanation of what s/he has done. RoachPeter (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I have asked the Help Desk to advise me on this. RoachPeter (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
@RoachPeter: I hope I haven't caused any trouble. This was my first major edit to Wikipedia (although I have been using MediaWiki markup for 7 years now, and am also a junior web developer), and I spent two entire days trying to get everything just right. Maybe I don't understand how things are done here; I figured you just rolled up your sleeves and got to work improving things.
Wikipedia was a huge help to me when I first started getting into Linguistics 7 years ago. I wanted to give something back to it. I love phonetics, but the phonetics templates were poorly written, visually inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia, and some even had incorrect information (Template:IPA chart/table co-articulated consonants, for example, had the alveolo-palatal fricatives listed as co-articulated; Template:IPA consonant chart, on the other hand, not only had a more complete listing, but did not have this error (although it *did* have an error of its own: /ɧ/ was listed as an occlusive).). I saw also that there was an enormous reduplication of effort, with every consonant table at Template:IPA chart being separately implemented at Template:IPA consonant chart.
So, I got to work. I rewrote everything from scratch, making sure to preserve the template variables, such as making it possible to hide non-IPA. I went through the articles of every sound in the various tables, and verified that it was phonemic in at least one language (or that it at least had significant para/extra-linguistic use), and that it was correctly written. The retroflex clicks, for example, were unnecessarily using a non-IPA symbol in Template:IPA chart/table non-pulmonic consonants. And now, instead of having to edit two completely different templates whenever something needs changing, everything can be changed at one place, and propogated throughout the site.
The templates I made are a huge improvement over the originals in design and coding, and are far more easily extensible. The originals were littered with invalid CSS (such as "width" parameters being placed in "style=" instead of on their own). The vowel chart didn't even line up with the heights! The originals were also unminified, and Template:IPA consonant chart wasn't even using Template:IPA link.
I'm happy to fix whatever problems there may be with the templates I wrote, but they are absolutely an improvement, and the user-facing changes are almost entirely cosmetic.
/ˈswɛ̹͡yn/78 20:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Here are some links that will help you compare the different versions:
/ˈswɛ̹͡yn/78 21:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Given that it has been over a week since an explanation was requested, and given that no concerns have been raised since my explanation, it would appear that the changes I made (which again were almost entirely cosmetic) are acceptable to the community. I'm going to reapply the edits. If any problems are found with the edits, please post about them here (or attempt to fix them yourselves). /ˈswɛ̹͡yn/78 22:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
@Sweyn78:I like the changes for the most part. Two things seem a little off. The first is that the co-articulated consonants table looks messy, like someone goofed somewhere in the coding. The second is that the non-pulmonic consonants table has a lot of extra space that wasn't there before. I get the logic for the most part, but I don't like that the scheme chosen is one that necessitates so much unused space. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 23:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
@Aeusoes1: Sure!
The co-articulated table is actually two separate tables in one, and it's a little bit hacky as a result. I did it that way because a full place-manner chart would be weird to do for co-articulated consonants, and because the two groups of co-articulated consonants shown in the table don't quite correspond. I'll try to cook up something a little more reasonable. The most obvious immediate "patch" would be to set each subtable to the same width.
The non-pulmonic table was originally rather haphazardly constructed, but it *was* more space-efficient. I'll remove the unused places; that will condense it some. I could also do something like the co-articulated table, where I use several different tables (this would make the ejectives a lot smaller, since I wouldn't need to have a square for voiced versions. I'll remove the unused places first, though, and see where that leaves us.
/ˈswɛ̹͡yn/78 23:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I've made the changes. Here are some links to help you get there faster: co-articulated, non-pulmonic. /ˈswɛ̹͡yn/78 23:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sweyn78: I don't understand the decision to take out the affricates from the main consonants table. Please move them back. Nardog (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sweyn78 and Nardog: I second this. For me and probably many other editors, that table is the only way to get to articles about affricates. Plus, I can see more mistakes:
  • The articles about [ɸ, β, ð, ʁ, ʕ] cover both fricatives and approximants and so they should be placed in-between fricatives and approximants, as in the old table.
  • The article about [θ] doesn't cover the approximant variant and so there should be a vertical line below it (I don't know how else I can call that) as it is the case with [χ] and [ħ] in the table.
  • Retroflex trills are possible and so the background color of the cell with [ɽ͡r̥, ɽ͡r] in it should not be grey but white.
Mr KEBAB (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@Nardog and Mr KEBAB:I followed the originals[1][2] relatively closely.
[ɸ], [β], [ð], [ʁ], and [ʕ] are still merged with the cells below them in the new chart, just as in original chart #1. The difference is that these characters are now located where they would be located in their strictest sense (half a cell higher). I had a couple reasons for this:
  • Template:IPA_chart/table_vowels was (and is) using double-bracket (literal) IPA. We know this, because ⟨a⟩ was/is used to represent [a̟] and not ⟦ä⟧.
  • The articles about these consonants use no diacritics when describing their strictest sense, while they do use diacritics when describing their additional sense(s).
In light of these points, I would ask you to reconsider whether it is best to move the letters a half-cell down, or whether it is best to leave them where they are most strictly correct.
Original chart #1 actually had [θ] merged with the cell below it, so that's an error that my chart inherited. I'll add a line.
The articles about the retroflex trills say "Although the tongue starts out in a subapical retroflex position, trilling involves the tip of the tongue and causes it to move forward to the alveolar ridge. Thus, the retroflex trill gives a preceding vowel retroflex coloration, like other retroflex consonants, but the vibration itself is not much different from an alveolar trill. Thus, the narrower transcription ⟨ɽ͡r⟩ is also appropriate.". According to these articles, retroflex trills are consonant clusters consisting of a retroflex tap and an alveolar trill (which is why I greyed the cell). I'll degrey it, but I'd like some more discussion on the matter.
I'm mostly okay with adding the affricates to the pulmonic table. The reasons I didn't include them to begin with, are:
Given these facts, I figured that it was probably an accident to include them in the pulmonic consonant chart (original chart #1) in the first place. So when I rewrote it, I planned to add them to their own chart. I haven't had a chance to write the affricate chart yet, but I will try to do so tonight. Once it's written, let's revisit whether the affricates should be included in the non-affricate charts.
/ˈswɛ̹͡yn/78 20:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@Nardog and Mr KEBAB: I hacked together an affricate chart using the affricate rows at the old Template:IPA consonant chart. I still need to include non-pulmonic affricates, and I need to redo DePiep's linking (his doesn't use Template:IPA link; this means his template is quite a bit larger (and its code quite a bit less wieldly) than it should be); but at least the new chart contains the vast majority of the missing information. /ˈswɛ̹͡yn/78 06:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@Nardog and Mr KEBAB: I've finished migrating the data from the old charts[3][4] to the new affricate chart. I'm not opposed to merging the affricates with their respective main tables[1][2] (In fact, I'm slightly in favour of it.), but something will in that case need to be done regarding the affricate section of the article and the affricate chart itself. /ˈswɛ̹͡yn/78 21:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sweyn78: I like the labels on the new vowel chart, but the vowel symbols are bit too small and the dots aren't where they should be (AFAIK that can't be fixed). Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB: For me (on both Linux Mint 18.2 (Serena) and Windows 10), the dots are perfectly centered. The font *is* small though, and I also don't like it. I'm unsure as to why that is the case, though, and I have looked through the relevant templates and wasn't able to find anything that seemed to deal with font size. For whatever reason, when the infobox wrapper is used (instead of the navbox wrapper), it shrinks everything down. I'll try to find a way to fix that. Previously, the vowel chart used a workaround, but that workaround didn't solve the problem at its source. /ˈswɛ̹͡yn/78 20:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@Mr KEBAB: Okay, I was able to reset the font size by adding "font-size:initial;" to tablestyle at Template:IPA chart. However, there are other formatting quirks that shouldn't be happening; and because of this, fixing the font size issue creates additional problems. I'm undoing the change I made. I'll have to look at all the upstream templates to find what the cause is, so that I know exactly what to patch here. I'll do that tonight. /ˈswɛ̹͡yn/78 21:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@Mr KEBAB: I drastically cleaned up the code at Template:IPA chart/core1 and Template:IPA chart/core2. It looks like a fair amount of core2 is probably unused, and if core2 is never directly transcluded outside of core1, it'd be best to merge the templates.
Anyway, I wasn't able to fix or even identify the problem upstream (I even read through Module:Infobox, but it didn't seem to contain any relevant styling information.), and was only halfways able to fix the problem downstream (text is still not centered or middled). Although my solution is a bit hacky, it's still less hacky than what was done before (DePiep's solution was done in each IPA chart/table template, which made these templates unnecessarily large when used directly. His/her solution also took up marginally more space.).
It may be possible to get the templates working without using Template:Infobox. This would fix this issue, and improve the styling in general.
/ˈswɛ̹͡yn/78 06:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
It's even less of an issue now (and a total non-issue for this article), since the International Phonetic Alphabet article now uses the "navbox" wrapper instead of the default "infobox" wrapper. /ˈswɛ̹͡yn/78 21:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I can't understand why the pulmonic consonant chart has a [◌̬] symbol described as a glottal trill. The physiology and aerodynamics of (modal) voice production are very unlike those of trill production, nor does voice by itself ever constitute a consonant. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@LiliCharlie: Good points -- I've removed it, as well as added a comment in the code explaining this at its point in the chart. /ˈswɛ̹͡yn/78 19:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sweyn78: The originals were littered with invalid CSS (such as "width" parameters being placed in "style=" instead of on their own). (Redacted) It is the HTML width that's obsolete, not the CSS one – see WP:HTML5. In my eyes, the previous versions are far more legible and neatly coded (compare e.g. [5][6]). All values of HTML attributes should be enclosed in double quotes. That is standard in Wikipedia (and elsewhere), partly because MediaWiki used to show in XHTML. Spaces should be inserted between CSS declarations.

I still think the affricates should be included in the first table at least in {{IPA navigation}}. After all they are "pulmonic" as well, and they are often included in the same table in the IPA illustrations of consonant inventories. It makes little sense to list them below the non-pulmonics, which are far less common, as you did to the templates and to this article. If we include the ejective affricates at all, it only makes sense for them to be grouped with other ejectives, not with the pulmonic affricates, since the larger classification is pulmonic vs. non-pulmonic. Nardog (talk) 03:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea how anyone could think the originals were on the whole neatly coded[7][8]. Even in the one you just mentioned, you can see duplicated documentation calls at the bottom; and the spacing throughout the code is arbitrary (line 4 vs line 5, for example), and semicolons are missing after several CSS statements (these are necessary in the strict compliance you're advocating) (lines 5-8 are the first instances of this in that page). In the one I just mentioned, notice how the original (and this was after heavy cleanup by Erutuon) had <span><span></span></span> with duplicate CSS parameters. Additionally, the comparison you gave was with a template that was barely used -- Template:IPA consonant chart was the king before my edits, and it was way worse. Now, it doesn't even need to exist anymore.
The originals *did* try to conform more strictly to W3C, but that increased their size without a good reason, and W3C itself will still validate properly minified code[9][10]. Leaving out the quotes doesn't break any compatibility (so long as there are no spaces required within any used CSS statements -- hence why quotes are important in ie templates) -- just as leaving out the / from <br/> doesn't break anything (apart from WP's beta syntax highlighter; but this is a bug with that highlighter, as again, W3C validates <br>.). And even in WP:HTML5, spaces are inconsistent after colons. You're correct that width is also a CSS property, and it's true that CSS is preferrable to static HTML; but the original CSS width statements weren't working for me in Firefox (I didn't express myself properly in my initial statement; this is what I'd meant by "invalid" -- I should have used a different word, such as "broken". The syntax was fine.).
I agree that the affricates should be merged with their respective tables; thank you for going ahead and doing that. What should be done with the separate affricate table? Like all the other tables, it existed before I made any changes. Should it be forgone? Or should it be left as-is?
/ˈswɛ̹͡yn/78 15:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Sweyn78 wrote: "Template:IPA consonant chart ... doesn't even need to exist anymore."
Please note that hundreds of pages need this template for transclusions or redirects. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@LiliCharlie: I have not -- and don't plan on -- moving these templates, deleting these templates, or redirecting these templates; and all edits I have made have preserved existing variables. I was trying to give a nod to Nardog's erasure of the article; I figured it were the result of some discussion, but given the lack of that here, I'm guessing it was just out of the blue. I'll make a new subheader for that. /ˈswɛ̹͡yn/78 06:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@LiliCharlie: Special:WhatLinksHere is never a useful tool when ascertaining how many pages are actually invoking a template because it includes every occasion of transclusion such as templates within templates, including pages whose server cache has not been refreshed. To find out you'd have to make a search e.g. hastemplate:"IPA consonant chart" insource:"IPA consonant chart", and you can see that no article is in fact invoking the template and thus it can be safely turned into a redirect. @Sweyn78: I'll reply to your new comments later. Nardog (talk) 07:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

New new changes[edit]

@Nardog: Some of your recent changes need discussion and reversion.

  • Template:IPA consonant chart should probably be reverted into being its own template, rather than a redirect. It doesn't make sense for a chart about consonants to include vowels and more. I've reverted it until further discussion has ocurred.
  • You removed the templates' use of their wrapper templates. These templates were useful, because they contained links to the audio tables, as well as footnotes. Now, all of these links are gone. I will re-add the links. I understand why you did this, as the wrappers took up unnecessary server CPU usage; but please be more thorough in avoiding breaking existing functionality. Worse, you've broken every instance where the wrappers are still used, and you didn't even preserve variable names.
  • You moved all the templates. Their naming scheme was standardized years ago per community discussion.
  • You degreyed some very weird cells in Template:IPA chart/table non-pulmonic consonants.
    • Velar and further-back clicks are impossible given a velar or uvular airstream; see Back-released_velar_click#IPA_symbol_withdrawn.
    • Glottalized consonants are not primarily glottal in articulation; if we degreyed every glottalizable place in the main table, there would be white space along the entire column, and this would contradict the official IPA chart.
    • Glottal ejectives are impossible. An ejective is an ejective because it uses the air trapped between its primary articulator and the glottis. Air can't get trapped between the glottis and the glottis.
  • You degreyed weird cells in Template:IPA chart/table pulmonic consonants.
    • Strictly pharyngeal stops, along with some other strictly pharyngeal manners, are not possible.
    • Linguolabials cannot be sibilant.
    • You have confused strict pharyngeals with non-strict pharyngeals. In a general sense, "pharyngeal" can be used to mean "pharyngeal" or "epiglottal". Since there is an epiglottal column on this chart, the two should be considered separately.
    • Pulmonic epiglottal consonants are capable of voicing, just like anything else north of the glottis.
    • Non-lateral palatal taps are unattested, per Flap_consonant#Types of flaps; but I'll leave these ungreyed, since there *are* lateral taps.
    • Non-uvular dorsal trills aren't possible, with the possible exception of nasal trills.
    • Sibilant palatal fricatives were greyed out in the original chart, and for good reason.
  • You made a single, generic contour click take up an entire row in Template:IPA chart/table non-pulmonic consonants.
  • You removed the invisible spacing columns. I already explained that these are necessary, because they give each cell equal width. Without these columns (or a workaround), columns without letters become weirdly sized. These cannot be supplemented by the header itself, since it has colspans of greater than 1.
  • You are hardly writing any edit summaries. Please start writing edit summaries, per Help:Edit_summary#Always_provide_an_edit_summary.
  • You have syntax errors in your CSS (for example, you're missing a closing quote at | style="border-left:0;| in Template:IPA chart/table non-pulmonic consonants), and you didn't even follow your own rules (for example, you left several inline CSS bits without trailing semicolons). Please use a validator, like the one I posted earlier. I'm re-minifying the code, after my explanation above. Minified CSS is still valid CSS. However, in an effort to meet in the middle, I'm leaving CSS enclosed in quotes, and I'm leaving spaces after semicolons.
  • You should not capitalize after a colon, per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Initial_letters_in_sentences_and_list_items.
  • You messed up all the comments in Template:IPA chart/table non-pulmonic consonants, carelessly leaving them on the fronts and ends of lines, and haphazardly deleting only some of the commented-out places' lines.
  • You removed rowspans, and replaced them with individual cells. This is bad, because using rowspan allows for vertical centering between cells. Not using rowspan increases the size of the table, does not allow centering with an even number of rows, and requires manual adjustment whenever the rowcount is changed.

The templates were a sleek piece of engineering, and more importantly had valid phonetic data; and you came in with a sledgehammer and messed everything up. Fixing your mistakes is costing me several hours that I don't have. Please read about the different airstreams, places, and manners before editing IPA table contents. We all make small mistakes; but these are beyond that.
Regardless, thank you for adding the affricates, and for doing it in a way that allows them to be turned on and off.
You guys are on your own from here-on-out; I have to focus on real life.
/ˈswɛ̹͡yn/78 06:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sweyn78: Before I begin I'd like to apologize for using some strong language in the comment above. My opinion still stands, but the way I put it was totally unnecessary. I'm sorry.
I understand that your edits were made with sheer intention to help improve Wikipedia as a website and as an encyclopedia, but they genuinely made my browsing experience on the site considerably worse, particularly the nested boxes, increased empty space, separated affricates and reduced font size in {{IPA navigation}}; I'd be shocked to find anybody who thinks your version of the template looked better than how it was before. In fact, you have perfectly articulated how I felt when you made those edits. For me the templates were perfectly fine, even though I thought they needed some minor tweaks, until you suddenly ruined them. So that made me try to undo some of them, but I see that's how you felt about my edits too.
So you have every right to revert my edits as I did yours, but I for one would much prefer the versions before your changes (which isn't to say your edits didn't include any improvements, it's just my overall preference).
I also think you could have at least waited for RoachPeter to reply before you put your changes back, especially when the only editor who endorsed them as a whole was Aeusoes1, while the two who had expressed concerns (RoachPeter and LiliCharlie) hadn't got around to reply to your explanation. One week is not nearly enough for people to review such an overhaul, in fact I was just about to put a request-for-comment notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics etc. and start looking into your codes when you got them back.
Now on my edits:
  • I concede you are way more acquainted with articulatory phonetics than me, I was simply following the IPA chart. So I'm more than happy to follow your judgments about (im)possible articulations, so long as they can be explained. The decision to separate pharyngeal and epiglottal, though, I think needs consensus.
  • I removed the width for each column because the first column (manner) became twice as wide as it should be on my Chrome, but I should have implemented an additional solution for that without compromising the other columns. My mistake.
  • Wikicodes do not need to be minified, but be legible. That's the reason we use MediaWiki over other markup languages in the first place, so everybody can edit. Your  | and  ! at the beginning of each cell despite the dominant convention (, ) strikes me as bizarre, as do the commented-out hyphens before each row.
  • I omitted the spaces after colons and the semicolons before closing quotes simply because that used to be prevalent at least at some point on Wikipedia, but now I look around this practice seems to have fallen out of favor. I'll add them, which is the way I prefer outside Wikipedia anyway.
  • The wrapper template was an overly elaborate and complicated solution whose most options were barely used. Simple templates such as these should be written simply so more people can easily edit. I ditched the backward compatibility with the intention of deprecating the wrapper down the road, but of course we can still discuss if that's a good idea at a relevant talk. I thought the moves were okay since consensus can change, but you may apply WP:BRD to this as well.
  • Links to the audio tables can be re-added directly to the tables just like the footnotes. I left them out because I thought they also needed amendment, but I don't mind either way.
  • I'm not so sure if what's written in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Initial letters in sentences and list items applies here. "IPA: Vowels" makes far more sense to me than "IPA: vowels", but that could be just me.
  • Single, generic contour click taking up an entire row was at least better than the way you placed it, if you ask me.
  • I'm sorry but I'm not sure which rowspan you're referring to. If it's about "Clicks", I removed it to realize the "taking up the entire row" thing, but now that I think about it I could have used rowspan anyway in that situation, so you're right, my bad.
  • You have a point about errors and summaries. I'll try to pay more attention from here on out.
Your changes included aesthetic, internal (coding), and phonetic ones. While I didn't particularly have a problem with the last, I had problems with the first two (especially the former), and that clouded my judgment about the phonetic aspects of your changes. For that I apologize. Nardog (talk) 11:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


@Sweyn78: The recent (16 September 2017‎) changes have flooded the error transclusion list with false-positive errors. If you don't want {{error}}-checking in IPA articles, that's fine with me, as these can be difficult to track and fix for non-IPA experts. But If you want to continue monitorng for errors, I suggest reverting to the way it's been done before the recent changes. Yes, that probably means you should use #if-statements. wbm1058 (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

My apologies; I didn't realize there was an error-tracker. I've re-added the #if: statements to Template:IPA chart/table vowels/vowelpair, re-added an error-message to Template:IPA link, and started a discussion at Template talk:IPA link#Error. /ˈswɛ̹͡yn/78 21:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Potential list article[edit]

I was hoping to create a list article for IPA charts, to make it easier to grab symbols without having to scroll through a long article. I apologize if using a subpage wasn't the correct way to do this. Can the article (International Phonetic Alphabet/Tables) be moved somewhere where it would be acceptable? /ˈswɛ̹͡yn/78 23:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

There is a spot below the edit box that has an IPA feature. You can even click on the characters to insert them, no C&P necessary. Is there something missing from this? — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 23:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I was unaware of this feature until you mentioned it. It's good to have; thanks! TypeIt's full IPA keyboard is also nice for IPA input.
There are reasons besides input for an IPA list article, though. It would provide a quick reference of the entire IPA, akin to File:The International Phonetic Alphabet (revised to 2015).pdf, but with the full power of MediaWiki markup. The closest thing we have at the moment is Template:IPA consonant chart, but it only contains consonants, and I don't think most people realize they can visit templates directly.
/ˈswɛ̹͡yn/78 00:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

GOOD Article[edit]

Judging by the size of the 'This is a good article icon', I expected the best article in the entire wiki universe. (talk) 06:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The page was transcluding so many templates it failed to process the good article template. Perhaps we should reduce the number of transclusions in the IPA templates. Nardog (talk) 08:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it's just my XP fossil of a laptop, but the icon took up half the corner of the page. Mighty impressive it was. I wouldn'tr be to concerned about it though. It is a very good article and seems to be helping a lot of people, just don't let the small stuff bring you down. (talk) 09:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
This was actually the case on the article Vowel too so they had to remove the {{IPA navigation}} template (see Talk:Vowel#IPA navigation template). I've reduced transclusions and reinstated the template there. Nardog (talk) 07:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on International Phonetic Alphabet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

3d interactive plot of IPA vowels[edit]

Using the formants F1, f2 and f3, it would be great to add a 3d interactive plot object of the IPA vowels. I have read R software could make it, but I am afraid I have never used it. --Backinstadiums (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Palatal Merge[edit]

Who, actually, why did the alveolo-palatal consonants merge with palatal consonants? Just curious. I didn't find anything on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Mr KEBAB. His rationale for the merger was that the alveolo-palatals are the sibilant equivalents of the palatals. I personally would favor abandoning the sibilant rows entirely and placing the alveolo-palatals either in a dedicated column or outside the table, because the IPA doesn't officially define the acoustic characteristics or specific tongue shapes of the symbols, but that might be just me. Nardog (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Syllables in IPA[edit]

Anyone ever compose a diglyph-form or triglyph-form syllabary chart in IPA? -Inowen (talk) 08:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Add link to Interactive IPA Chart with Audio?[edit]

Hi guys, (I searched the archives of this talk page and haven't seen any previous mention of the following, so bringing it up here):

While trying to figure out how to pronounce some Latin word, I came across a website that looks useful: It offers an interactive chart that lets you click an IPA character/phonetic symbol and hear how it is supposed to be pronounced. I have no expertise to judge how reliable/trustworthy it is, but it does claim to be based on work from the UCLA Phonetics Lab Archive which is likely trustworthy.

I later noticed that that page I'm referencing links back to the General Phonetics page on Wikimedia Commons, which seems to have somewhat similar contents, and may perhaps be even better, as users can also figure out licensing issues regarding the audio files.

Either way, I think at least one of these pages ( or should appear as a clear external reference (i.e. under the External References section) with an explanation that there the reader can find out what sounds IPA symbols represent, by actually hearing them, not just reading about them.

agree? Ynagar (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The external links section of this article included links to interactive charts including the one you mentioned, and other resources not maintained by the International Phonetic Association, but they had to be removed because the list grew and less-than-reliable resources clearly not meeting the standard of WP:EL were creeping in (some were moved to Help:IPA#External links). The site you mentioned is using files from Commons so it's kind of a WP:CIRCULAR source, which clearly falls into WP:ELNO #1.
If you're looking for a reliable interactive chart, I recommend [11] and [12], which are overseen by John Esling, former IPA President. There are also interactive charts produced as supplements to Peter Ladefoged's books and released online: [13] [14]; but they are old and may not work properly on your browser. There are also [15] and [16], which are nonetheless hosted by universities, but I don't find them to be as reliable as Esling's or Ladefoged's. Wikipedia also has its own interactive charts, but they are scattered across articles so they may be better accumulated in a single page à la the IPA chart article. Nardog (talk) 10:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
first, thanks for your elaborate answer. I've read it a couple of times, and went chasing the links you provided... pheeww... there certainly is lots of stuff there (found the seeingspeech one particularly helpful indeed).
But I'm afraid that's also what can get people more confused.
Look, I honestly am not at all an expert on this subject matter. Just a person who sometimes encounters an unfamiliar word, from an unfamiliar language, and wants to know how to pronounce it. So in this specific case, I found my solution. But my bottom line is, right now, if someone else like me is looking for a guide to pronounciation that uses actual audio (rather than phonetic symbols that require prior knowledge/learning/deciphering), this article does not provide a clear reference to such a place (even though I expected it to).
So I think that it would be great if someone more knowledgeable than me on this matter would add (a) link/s to at least one reliable source - whether it's on Wikipedia commons or one of the others you mentioned (Esling's or Ladefoged's, etc.). I'm not qualified to know which one is better/best, perhaps its worth linking to more than one. I don't know. But the bottom line is I think other folks would benefit from this. Instead of having an answer to this need here in the talk page, currently addressed to one person (me), possibly seen by a few others who happen to read here, and potentially/eventually disappearing down the talk archives, it will be much better to have something in the article itself. Just my 2 cents. Ynagar (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
The first line in the article refers to page help:IPA where almost all symbols are linked to an audio file. −Woodstone (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Woodstone. I missed it somehow. I suspect its because the line says: "For usage of IPA in Wikipedia, see Help:IPA", and I didn't take "usage in Wikipedia" to also imply that it would include audio help.
I don't think that it's necessarily obvious from this line of text. So perhaps the best thing would be to change the sentence at the top of the page to something like: "For usage of IPA in Wikipedia, and for a pronunciation guide including audio, see Help:IPA", or a similar sentence in that spirit? Ynagar (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Actually the page help:IPA is not specific for the usage of IPA in WP. Perhaps it's time again to discuss moving it to the main space. Anyway we could give it a separate hatnote like "for an extensive list of IPA symbols and their pronunciation including audio see ..."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodstone (talkcontribs) 06:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Agree. (Went to implement the change on the page, saw you just did it... thanks!)(re: moving to main space - I assume that means Wikimedia commons, I agree with that too but don't know how to do it, so I'll leave that for someone more savvy. I'm just going to fix a typo now (link=links). Thanks for your help! Ynagar (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
No, our main namespace isn't Wikimedia Commons, see Wikipedia:Namespace#Subject namespaces. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 09:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I think it should stay in the Help namespace. Remember Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a manual, guidebook, or textbook, although, as I alluded to earlier, a page like IPA chart but with audio, merging the existing IPA vowel chart with audio etc., may be worth considering. Nardog (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)