Template talk:Place of articulation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Added a new place, Epiglotto-pharyngeal consonant. I can see how this might be considered a subcategory of epiglottal, but since we're including linguo-labial, laminal, and apical, I thought it would be appropriate. kwami 07:58, 2005 July 20 (UTC)

What about vowel places (close, near-close, close-mid, mid, open-mid, near-open, open; front, central, back)? --Angr/tɔk tə mi 23:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

This template is only used for the consonant place of articulation articles. It might be worth making an equivalent template for vowels, but personally I wouldn't bother: vowel articulation is much more transparent from the terms than consonants are, and there isn't as much information in the articles. kwami 00:53, 2005 July 31 (UTC)

"Active" vs. "passive" coronal[edit]

"Active" vs. "passive" refers to the articulator. For coronal consonants it's important to distinguish the place of articulation on the active articulator (the tongue) from the place on the passive articulator (the mouth). The old template completely mixes these up, and makes the nonsensical claim that "subapical" is a type of "alveolar". In fact the apical/laminal/subapical distinction can in general apply to any (passive) coronal articulation; furthermore, there isn't even any such thing as a supical alveolar consonant. Benwing (talk) 02:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW sorry, my undo comment was a bit snarky. Benwing (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that a better layout is desirable, but there is no such thing as a "passive" coronal. Coronal articulations are by definition active. Sorry, restoring stable version. — kwami (talk) 04:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but two can play at this game. You are well-known as someone who tries to bully others by aggressive reverting; please try to be constructive. Benwing (talk) 07:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
No, you need to learn how a cooperative enterprise like Wikipedia works. Read WP:BOLD. This is a template that's transcluded in multiple articles. Contested changes need to be discussed on the talk page. If you continue to edit war over this, I will ask to have the template protected so you don't continue to disrupt the encyclopedia. Or, if you continue to "play at that game", I'll ask to have you blocked. If you're correct, you should be able to convince us of it. First, where in the world did you ever get the idea of "active" vs "passive" coronal articulations? It looks like something you just made up. — kwami (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Kwami, you are the one being nonconstructive. Please read WP:DRNC (which BTW is linked from WP:BOLD) and try to view the editing process as constructive rather than adversarial. I'm hardly disrupting Wikipedia; I'm trying to figure out a better solution. "Two can play at this game" means nothing more than that you're not going to bully me as easily as you've bullied so many others. As I said, I'm happy to find a different compromise, but as it is I have no idea how to begin finding that compromise since you haven't made a single constructive suggestion here.
As to "convincing us" (there's only one of you), I already explained up five paragraphs or so what I mean by "coronal (passive)". You completely ignored it and instead decided it was more important to start blustering and threatening to sic the wiki police on me. During the time it took you to bluster like that, you could have instead spent a couple of minutes thinking about what I wrote and proposing a different solution. To make your life easier, however, I'll explain it again, more simply: "Coronal (passive)" means "Passive articulation where an active coronal articulation can occur"; but that is too many words to fit into the template. Would "acute" make you happier? If not, what would?
I'm going to leave the version as-is for the moment and await your constructive reply. If you don't reply constructively, however, I'm going to go ahead and restore my version. (BTW I would suggest you not try to carry out your threats. You've left a paper trail all over WP:ANI of obstructiveness and antagonism, and people have already suggested that you be de-sysoped or even blocked due to your nonconstructive behavior.)
Benwing (talk) 08:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Ben, I guess I need to repeat myself: If you make an edit that is challenged, especially when it is demonstrably wrong, then you take it to the talk page. You don't edit war over it. And of course I'll carry out my threats if you're not willing to edit cooperatively. The rules apply to you too, whether you like it or not; expecting that of you is not "bullying".
Apical and laminal are not "passive articulations where an active coronal articulation can occur", so it's still evident that your edit was wrong. In any case, it's not for me to prove you're wrong, it's for you to prove you're right. You've been here long enough to know that too.
As for me being the only one, this template has been stable with this usage for six years. I do think that a few people besides you may have seen it in that time.
As for a better solution, I don't have one. I tried thinking of one when adding these in six years ago, but couldn't think of anything. I put them under 'alveolar', even though they aren't specifically apical alveolar and laminal alveolar, because we already have a similar set under postalveolar, and because the terms are generally used in inventory charts for the alveolar consonants, so that's the first place one's likely to look for them.
We could perhaps add a box on tongue shape that includes laminal, apical, lateral, palatalized, pharyngealized, etc., just as we have a separate box for airstream mechanisms at Template:Manner of articulation.
kwami (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

broken list markup[edit]

the use of {{pad}} to indicate a substructure breaks wp:accessibility guidelines for lists. either use a bulleted list, or an association list, but visual padding does not work with screen readers. Frietjes (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)