User talk:Marco79

Me new here as of 20th November 2005.

?

Mark, Mark who? He he, only kidding. Yes it is me.

I mainly created this account to move a page to a correct title, but because I'm a new member it wouldn't let me. Now that I have returned after a week, I can't for the life of me remember the page name. ~~It probably still wouldn't let me move the page now, because of my _{very low} edit count.~~ It now lets me move pages, so edit count is unimportant, very cool. Marco79 ~~15:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)~~ 15:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry. Your vote is fine then since you've been around for a while. See you around. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 15:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IPA chart for English

First of all, please see WP:3RR.

I accept that you have a point, although I also think there's a strong case for having the various transcriptions there. One way forward might be to create a page with a table with the alternative transcriptions, with a clear link from the chart page there.

--JHJ 12:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page move - American & British English

Please see message here TrevorD 16:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Union Flag

Please see my comments at Talk:Union Flag. I am a bit bothered that you reverted the move before participating in the discussion, without responding to the reasons provided, and based on misconceptions about Wikipedia procedure. I wonder what makes you sure that your interpretation of policy is correct - have you got much experience working with naming conventions here? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see Talk:Union Flag for reply. – Marco 79 13:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vowel tables

I seem to be stepping on your toes a bit. To clarify my edits, there's no reason to merge the cells for two different dialects if there are two different example words, according to Australian English phonology and New Zealand English the vowel in nurse is [ɘ] for AUE and [ɵ] for NZE, and there's no writing system for paici so there's no reason to unmerge the cells. For more information, see the guidelines for these tables here. Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 07:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I know where you're coming from but you're not following the table format.

In this edit you argue that it's perfectly all right to represent [ɘ] as [ɜ̝] but looking at the link you provided, that vowel is so high that it's in the close-mid space and so is better represented in the central close-mid page.
In this edit you summarize it by saying that they have the same vowel for "car and cart" but the AuE example is a different word than the NZE example. If they truly are the same and the same word can be illustrative for both dialects (which, I believe cart would do in this case) then pick a word and use it once.
Likewise, in this edit you revert it because you don't know what you're doing wrong. It's one example per dialect/language and if there's a word for both that applies... well you get the point.

I'm taking this way too seriously. Take a look at the table guidelines and if you figure this all out then more power to you. If not, there's always tomorrow. Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 08:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think it's original research. If you read AUE phonology you'll see that the symbol in question is so new that any literature older than ten years wouldn't use the <ɘ>. The page itself says that this is more convention than accuracy. The IPA changes and one can use common sense to figure out what the phonetic character of a sound is without a source having to explicitely use that symbol. One of the sources for Russian phonology for example is so old that palatalization is indicated with an underhook rather than a superscript j. As such, arguing that the backwards epsilon, by being used commonly by linguists, is more accurate or better actually goes against some previous agreements on the vowel pages. Take a look at Talk:Near-open central vowel, Talk:Open-mid back unrounded vowel.

But this is pretty much the last time I'll be on Wikipedia for the next month so I'll see if I can remember to get back on this when I get back. Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 13:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Chicago

Please reply at Talk:Municipal_flag_of_Chicago#Requested_move or at my talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Building of the World Trade Center

Hello, You appear to have taken part in a vote to move Building of the World Trade Center. A new poll is in progress and your vote is appreciated!

Thanks Reginmund 04:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date-autoformatting

Hi Marco—in response to your query at the Australia talk page, the disadvantages of using the function are set out under cap in a section above your post. We're keen to receive feedback on the matter. Might I add that the differences between 17 February and February 17 are rather trivial at best, and most English-speakers have been exposed to both formats. American WPians see international formatting after every signature on talk pages, for example. But more important are our readers out there. Tony (talk) 03:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony, where would you like me to post any feedback I may have with regards to date autoformatting? – Marco 79 14:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page? Tony (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Ben vs Clock Tower

This old chestnut has reared its head again - as you commented before I thought I'd let you know in case you wish to do so again: Talk:Clock Tower, Palace of Westminster

Regards Chillysnow Chillysnow (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lalor pronunciation

Can you pelase explain further, as there is no hint of a final "r" sound in "LAW-la". Supt. of Printing (talk) 10:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for the late reply, been so busy lately. In reply to your statement: when Australians pronounce "Lalor" they do not hear a "final 'r'", because our accent is a non-rhotic accent, which means we only pronounce an 'r' sound at the beginning of a syllable. But this final 'r' is present in the North American, North English and Irish accents, which is why the second pronunciation — in brackets — is there, which is to accommodate those accents that do use a final 'r'. – Marco 79 16:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Thylacine. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Bidgee (talk) 04:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne

That pronunciation has long been acceptable to Melbournians, so I doubt it will prove to be inaccurate. You might want to fact-tag it, but I don't see a reason to comment it out. It's also more likely to get fixed if it's visible. kwami (talk) 07:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Macquarie references

Hi Marco, thanks for adding refs to some of my rough'n'ready IPA transcriptions. One question, however: Does the Macquarie treat every unstressed vowel as "schwa", per this? I lived in Mundubbera for some time—of course my opinion carries no weight for wiki purposes—but I would have said the last two vowel sounds are completely different with the first being an unstressed "ɛ". Oh well, can't fight the lexicographers ... Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 08:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think they do. It will make a distinction if there are strong and weak versions, for example, "will" has a strong /wɪl/ form and two weak /wəl/ and /l/ forms, so I guess they may use a schwa in place of an unstressed vowel, but I think they do this just to make the point that it is unstressed. Now I'm not going to guess their intentions, so I'll just use what they have used. MD only gives a broad transcription — as most dictionaries do — and as such they don't go into the details that a narrow transcription would. I think this is satisfactory for Wikipedia, because it also uses broad transcriptions. If you feel the reduced vowel should be mentioned, then I'm not against using a local narrow transcription — using Australian IPA — in conjunction with the broad transcription. As for "Mundubbera" they do give an unstressed vowel (/ə/) in place of an [e]. – Marco 79 09:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't argue with the source (the Macquarie will give an adequate Australian transcription) and if a "local" transcription was used it would be /'dʌbrə/ with the merest hint of a preceding /m/ :-) I was just curious. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, the local transcription would be something like this: [məˈdabɹə], with the first vowel having been reduced. BTW, before I looked in the Macquarie Dictionary for "Albury" I had always pronounced the city's name [oːlbɹi]. – Marco 79 10:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jervis Bay

Hi, I noticed you reinserted the rhotic pronunciations of Jervis Bay. Maybe we can find a compromise.

Doesn't it seem a bit superfluous to have three different pronunciations given? I mean, everyone knows that the Australian accent is non-rhotic, so anyone who understands IPA and prefers to speak with a rhotic accent will be able to insert the R for themselves. Also, giving a rhotic pronunciation first violates the national varieties of English rule.

Likewise, there's no need to convert /ɑː/ into /aː/ - anyone who cares about Australian accents can do that themselves. The only time local pronunciations are necessary is when they're unpredictable, like /ɜː/ instead of /aː/.

Here's my suggestion: we first give /ˈdʒɑ(r)vɨs/ as the standard pronunciation, because it's the broadest transcription, then [ˈdʒɜːvəs] as the local.

Also, do you have a source saying that John Jervis spoke with a rhotic accent? Nick (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was using a compromise, which also includes references to each of the different pronunciations. The compromise being the standard international pronunciation first and the local (non-rhotic) pronunciations second (using narrow Australian transcriptions for the Australian accent). Also included with these pronunciations are the references for the international pronunciation — which uses an /r/ — and the Australian pronunciations — which doesn't use an /r/. I'm not sure whether giving the rhotic pronunciation first is in violation of the national varieties of English rule, because it doesn't state anything about pronunciation. BTW these "rules" are generally guidelines — to avoid edit wars — and are not hard-and-fast rules.

No, I don't think it's superfluous in having three pronunciations. I think it's a big assumption by saying that "everyone knows that the Australian accent is non-rhotic", because that is simply not true. It's necessary to identify the differences between international and Australian pronunciations, because not everyone reading the article is going to know the differences, so showing all transcriptions clarifies the differences, which are major differences that need to be shown.

The round brackets are not advisable in the standard broad transcription used in Wikipedia, because they are hard to read and makes the IPA harder to understand.

No, I don't have a source saying that John Jervis spoke with a rhotic accent. I was using the standard pronunciation transcription used in Wikipedia, because no references were given. It is an assumption to state either rhotic or non-rhotic transcriptions without references to backup which one was used. – Marco 79 14:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since posting my message I've since had a look at the Melbourne page so let this go for the pronunciation of Melbourne as well:

Yes, three different pronunciations is a kind of compromise but what I'm saying is that it's an unwieldy one. I agree that parentheses is not the best solution but it's surely much better than a whole extra pronunciation, which differs only in the presence of an R.

Let me rephrase my claim: everyone who has heard an Australian accent knows that it's non-rhotic. Neither Jervis Bay nor Melbourne are about educating people in Australian accents, we should only show differences in pronunciation. So, in fact, I'm proposing that we reduce the number of local []accents by collapsing the general Australian with the /international pronunciation/. It burdens the reader with too much information to transcribe the standard international pronunciation into Ocker.

But what do you mean by "international pronunciation"? Maybe this is where we disagree - when I said that giving the rhotic pronunciation violates the National Varieties rule, I meant that I don't see rhotic accents as a standard international norm; there are at least two international standards. I would however, recognise it as such if the R were indicated as optional. Citing Webster's for Jervis Bay and the American Heritage for Melbourne leaves me quite unconvinced.

Unfortunately the OED doesn't include proper nouns, but it does have the proper adjective Melburnian, for which it gives two pronunciations: Brit. /mɛl'bənɪən/, U.S. /mɛl'bərniən/. Thus, I think for Melbourne we can lose [ˈmelbən] and just use /ˈmɛlbən/. (And retaining [ˈmælbən] as the only significant difference.) Anyone who actually cares about accents can work out that, in the mouth of a Sydney-sider it becomes [ˈmelbən], adding this info is beyond the scope of the article (and in no one's ears will they be mistaken for two different cities). Nick (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't see it as unwieldy, but I do see that someone unfamiliar with IPA could be overwhelmed by the amount of information given.

I suppose if someone wanted to understand and maybe learn the Australian accent, they can start at the Australian English phonology page, which gives the proper IPA symbols for vowel qualities in Australian English and external links for further information on the Australian accent.

What I mean by "international pronunciation" is the compromised version used in the Wikipedia:IPA for English (WP:IPAEN) page.

The source I use for Australian pronunciations is the Macquarie Dictionary, Fourth Edition (2005), which uses non-rhotic transcriptions. In it, it gives the adjective Melburnian as /mɛlˈbɜːniən/, and the nouns Melbourne and Jarvis Bay as /ˈmɛlbən/ and /ˈdʒɜːvəs, ˈdʒɑːvəs/ respectively — using compromised English non-rhotic transcriptions from WP:IPAEN. If we were to merge the compromised transcription with the Australian transcription, then I'd prefer to use a compromised non-rhotic transcription, which is also used in Australian English dictionaries: the Macquarie Dictionary and the Australian OED. This would also be in keeping with the national varieties of English rule, even though it says nothing about pronunciation, which maybe it should. Thus, as this page is in Australian English (spelling, grammar, etc), I suppose, why not use Australian non-rhotic transcriptions too. Any rhotic speaker would probably automatically insert an /r/ where they think it would go anyway.

I think there are many Australian Wikipedia editors that prefer the non-rhotic option too. – Marco 79 15:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A compromised non-rhotic pronunciation sounds like an excellent suggestion. (I agree that rhotic speakers will instinctively cope.) Let's go ahead and change them to those you got from the Macquarie.

I think you're right that the national varieties of English page needs to say something about pronunciations. I'm not sure where to start — Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board? If we post a proposal there and get agreement, will we then have the right to add a line to the national varieties of English page, saying that compromised non-rhotic pronunciations are recommended for all Australian pages? Nick (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a consensus on the Australian Wikipedians Notice Board sounds like a good first step. And I mean first step, because if we get a consensus there to use Australian non-rhotic transcriptions for all pages on Australian topics, the second step would then be to notify this consensus on the talk page of the national varieties of English MOS page before the addition of this consensus is made to the page, which would be the third step. I think that this is the best way to go. – Marco 79 14:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian rules football

Your redirect has been reverted, as the topic is NOT the rule book, but rather the rules themselves. Australian Football is a term that is too general for a worldwide encyclopedia such as this, so the full term of Australian Rules Football MUST be used to avoid confusion. any questions should be directed to the talk page here or at WP:AFL. Footy Freak7 (talk) 04:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allestree

Hello not sure of IPA but AL/ez/TREE is correct (g-g-grandad's property before the parish and locality); minor diff from Derbyshire pronunciation Cheers Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thankyou. I'll change the /s/ to a /z/, but the other sounds are right. Cheers. – Marco 79 10:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Shire of Campaspe may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

| pop_footnotes = (2011))<ref name="Census2011">{{cite web |url=http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]