Template talk:IPA symbol

src: siudy.net

Video Template talk:IPA symbol

Proposed changes to the list

Just type a request below at the end of section. An editor familiar with the template might come along and change the list accordingly (stroke the line here when completed please).

• change 518 upstep into Upstep. {{IPAsym|518}} -> upstep
• add ?? for Upstep. {{IPAsym|??}} -> upstep
• add ? for Upstep. {{IPAsym|?}} -> upstep Already exists
• change 517 downstep into Downstep. downstep -> downstep
• add ?? for Downstep. {{IPAsym|??}} -> downstep
• add ? for Downstep. {{IPAsym|?}} -> downstep Already exists

-DePiep (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC) -DePiep (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• change 180 into singular "lateral click". {{IPAsym|180}} -> tenuis alveolar lateral click
• change 179 into singular "palatal click". {{IPAsym|179}} -> tenuis palatal click
• change 178 into singular "alveolar click". {{IPAsym|178}} -> tenuis alveolar click
• change 177 into singular "dental click". {{IPAsym|177}} -> tenuis dental click
• change 176 into singular "bilabial click". {{IPAsym|176}} -> tenuis bilabial click

-DePiep (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I moved upstep & downstep because there was nothing to dab from. I don't know if that will permanently be the case, though.

IMO the click families should be plural for the same reason language families are. We don't have our article at 'Semitic language', even though we could. -- kwami (talk) 11:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The change re Upstep and Downstep was obvious indeed.

I changed "clicks" into singular, as per WP:MOS. We do singular, unless absolutely necessary (scissors, pants). Although it is a family, the concept of "click" exists (we can write: A click is ...). We also have Consonant (but I know, stuff exists...). I am fine with the MOS.

Now right when I was typing this, an editor performed the editrequest here in IPAsym (I planned to pause it). Still, if you want to discuss it further, depending on the outcome we can and will revert, of course. -DePiep (talk) 12:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it's more than just lexicalized cases like 'pants'. Germanic languages, for example, even though we say 'Eng. is a Germanic language'. The problem in my mind is that people are always saying Zulu has three clicks (dental, alveolar, lateral), etc., clearly not recognizing that's like conflating /t d s z n l/ in English. Just as the pl. in 'languages' alerts the reader that we're not talking about 'a' language, or the pl. in Egyptian hieroglyphs, so if they read about 'the dental click' in some lang, the pl. here alerts the reader that there's more going on than they may be aware of. -- kwami (talk) 12:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Hm, this is something I must chew on. Can it be, that the "Germanic language" does not exist in itself? It is purely an idea or concept, so one cannot say "the Germanic language" but yes; "a Germanic language". (Comes to mind, maybe another example: on families, one says "the Johnsons are coming over", and one person then surely is "a Johnson", but there is not "the Johnson". Here too a common ancestor is understood). Any lesson from biology? Primates are in the (Order of) Primates (same stuff: family, concept, we rarely use "the primate" but yes "a primate"), clearly. Still, we do have the singular article name. Your line about the 'alert', is a bit weak as an argument for the pluralisation imo, but you could mean to alert about a concept.

Now this way there is a point for clicks to be plural as with "Germanic languages". But still. I understand the MOS so, that it tries to prevent plurals in titles unless impossible to do so. That is a nice guideline or policy, because it produces consistancy and such. So all species & orders in biology are singular in their title here. I am with the monkeys here: I know a monkey ;-). I don't think clicks are an exception enough. -DePiep (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Eh, Kwami, you reverted already? Into plural? Something is wrong. -DePiep (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Maps Template talk:IPA symbol

Please check

Hi there, I've just finished this template, which I'm going to use in a few places.

I have taken the symbols from Template:CSS IPA consonant chart and Template:CSS IPA vowel chart. Please add any missing symbols to the table. Also, I think due to a font issue, some of the symbols on my computer render as a central dot. For example, retroflex trill. Please check and substitute the proper symbol if my version is wrong. Thanks. 123.218.168.102 (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

src: siudy.net

Message to Kwamikagami

I write here because User_talk:Kwamikagami is protected - he/she may want to review this decision by the way.

Thank you for your contribution. Please note that your adding the category broke the template, because the noinclude tag should be *on* the last line of the template body, not the next line. Now fixed, thanks. 123.218.143.22 (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not that familiar with it. (Also sorry for the protection: vandalism. Should be off in a few hours.) -- kwami (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool, I have added some documentation, still working on it. I meant to advertise the template when it's a bit more stable, but feel free to poke about. Now the documentation should make it immediately clear if it's broken badly, but do check Wikipedia:IPA_for_Russian and Wikipedia:IPA_for_French to be sure. I'll add some testcases later. (No worries about the protection, sorry myself, I assumed it was an indefinite protection, which I've seen abused too many times.) 123.218.143.22 (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

src: i.pinimg.com

Alternative symbols for t?s, d?z, t??, d??, etc

Hello there.

I am considering whehter this table should include alternative symbols for t?s, d?z, t??, d??, etc. I notice that these symbols are often written simply as ts, dz, t?, d?, etc. However, according to the respective sound articles (t?s, d?z, t??, d??), this is incorrect. (The case of t?? seems actually less clear-cut, but more likely that article is sloppier than the other ones.) If it is incorrect, then I see it more a motivation to fix those examples that use "ts" rather than "fixing" this table. This is exactly what I have done in project pages that now use IPAlink, like WP:IPA for Italian etc.

The articles above (as well as IPA) also point out that previously, ligatures were used instead (respectively ?, ?, ?, ?). I have therefore added those ligatures to the table.

If it is decided that we should actually also add "ts" etc as alternatives (but see my argument against, above), please use the fall-through syntax, like so

   ...    | ts    | ?    | t?s = voiceless alveolar affricate   ...  

Thanks. 123.218.143.22 (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone did that once before, and someone else then went through and deleted all the tie bars. Problem is, Microsoft fonts don't display the tie bar correctly. Also, it's rather distracting in languages like Italian which don't need it. (Polish is another matter.) -- kwami (talk) 06:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we have more details on the "Microsoft fonts" issue please? As for its being distracting, that's relative, and I think correctness trumps that. This discussion should probably be moved to WP:PHONETICS. 114.146.118.158 (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There have been multiple discussions of these issues. Maybe search for 'tie bar' + IPA on talk pages. -- kwami (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Re Kwami: Maybe MS does not show them correctly (which implies something for the preferred usage of these symbols in Wiki - OK so far). But that should not exclude these symbols from this template, is it? A specialised article on these signs should be able to use the template (with or without MS effects). Even better: this template produces the name for such a badly-rendered symbol. -DePiep (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2010

Surprise: currently the three ts-variants are in right now (edit 13 June 2010 by User:Xyzzyva):

  ...  | ?  | ts  | t?s = voiceless alveolar affricate  ...  

So this discussion seems to conclude different from reality? (conclusion: not because of MS-issues; reality: yes). -DePiep (talk) 10:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

src: i.pinimg.com

Capitalisation: to single style

Currently capitalisation is mixed:

• all lowercase: | m = bilabial nasal
• first capital: | ? = Nasal vowel

Usage in linking (as in [[{{IPAsym|m}}]]) still functions as expected: bilabial nasal.
Proposal: For consistency, I propose keeping the original style: all (to) lowercase. . -DePiep (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I just changed it. All lc. All OK-DePiep (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

src: en.islcollective.com

Including non-IPA symbols

Given the broad aim of this template (i.e. providing the name of a symbol), I propose to include non-IPA symbols too. Main goal is to provide the right name, not to punish editors who do not know that a symbol is non-IPA. Example (wanted situation):

• {{IPAsym|?}} -> epiglottal trill (not: )
• [[{{IPAsym|?}}]] -> epiglottal trill

To be solved then: should we mark the outcome like: epiglottal trill (non-IPA)? Would clarify the IPA-status, but would break a possible link. Any suggestions? -DePiep (talk) 10:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

We can add a redirect from epiglottal trill (non-IPA) to epiglottal trill. 123.225.152.131 (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

src: i.pinimg.com

Default string

Hi there,

I think it would be better if the default were a (potentially salted) non-existent page, so that {{IPAsym|xxxx}} translates to something like "xxxx does not correspond to any IPA article. Please modify Template:IPAsym if you think it should.".

This means that editors see immediately a red link and they can either change this template or just remove the IPAsym template usage for now - or correct the mistake in the argument.

Thoughts? 118.7.230.94 (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Great idea. Actually, it is already implied. Template:IPAsym has a /doc that describes the option:

{{IPAsym|p??k|Boy, what a strange input}} -> Boy, what a strange input

The default output should stay "IPA", because current uses depend on that. Unless you promise to changee all current usages, the default should not be altered. -DePiep (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, OK I was not aware of the addition of a second parameter. Out of interest, when would it be useful to specify a second parameter?

I think I'm going to go ahead with this change. It's not really going to break anything. The worst that could happen is some links going red and attract attention, which is exactly what this change is meant to achieve. 205.228.108.58 (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If you go ahead changing the default text "IPA", it might be reverted. You'd break working links. The template is automatically used in {{IPAlink}} and {{IPAblink}}, which presume linkability (i.e. yes to IPA, not to your suggestion xxxx does not correspond to any IPA article. Please modify Template:IPAsym if you think it should.

2nd parameter is only added recently. However, it does not return the input character (1st variable, xxxx in yr example above). To achieve that, you could repeat the character in the 2nd variable, like

{{IPAsym|xxxx|xxxx has no IPA-article}} -> xxxx has no IPA-article

The 2nd variable is used in {{infobox IPA base}} (and so via {{infobox IPA}}) in case the character (actually IPA-number) is not found:

{{infobox IPA{{Infobox IPA |ipa-number=999 |ipa=dddd }} produces the return text (red in top) "IPA-nr: <ipa-number>", not the default "IPA" (which would be less sensible here):

-DePiep (talk) 10:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this idea could work: if not found in IPAsym, then link to say IPAsym-pagenotfound, which should be a redirect to IPA. This should work fine for all current use (nicely to IPA as expected), and gives you the opportunity to research omissions by checking "What links here" on the redirect-page. Be sure to doc that well on the redirect, and allow 30 days for all caches to reflect the new link when checking WLH. Dunno if redirects should be used this way. -DePiep (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, done. I don't think you understand, the whole point of this change is to make some links red. I know this template and IPAlink quite well, since I created them. Please discuss here if you find instances where this is actually breaking something. Thanks. 122.25.218.126 (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I do understand. I do not want red links. Until now, I thought you'd understand too. I'll take a look at what you did. -DePiep (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverted, as I announced. Apart from seriuos Talk here, why diff IP's? -DePiep (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Please point out here an example of real usage that in your opinion is "breaking". Until then, please do not revert. I am just correcting a design mistake I made when creating IPAsym and IPAlink. The documentation of IPAlink (which incidentally you failed to revert, thus leaving the pair in an inconsistent state) bears witness that it would have been a better idea to do this from the start, "The latter is normally more an example of accidental misuse than intentional use, or it could be a sign that a symbol is missing from the {{IPAsym}} table."

"I do not want red links" seems a rather obtuse statement and not a good justification for this revert. Red links are part of a functional wiki. They are not something "broken" or to be avoided at all cost. They highlight the fact that either (1) the target has been misspelled, or (2) information is missing, in this case either an article is missing, or an entry in IPAsym is missing, or both. 60.45.93.7 (talk) 22:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

118.7.230.94, 205.228.108.58, 122.25.218.126, 60.45.93.7: hi who are you. -DePiep (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how my identity is relevant to this discussion.

Please provide a valid rationale for your reversion and your opposing this change in general.

I think I have amply explained why this change is desirable, how it is not going to break anything and how it is in line with the original intention. Please provide any argument to the contrary, other than "I don't like it". 60.45.93.7 (talk) 12:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

- Not your identity, but your IP's. Because they're changing, I have to check whether (and assume that) I am discussing with one and the same person.

- The example of a broken link I gave before at 10:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC) (my reply "If you ..."). You have not explained or checked what happens to the links that currently (I still suppose) link to IPA, as is expected by any editor who uses IPAsym. This is what is documented, and how it the template is currently used. Indeed red links are not forbidden etc., but changing a working link into a red one is working backwards.

- You're right it might have been done different from the start, but now tyhe template us used given the IPA-default.

-Please note that your plan is aimed at editors, while articles are meant for readers. Your error-message is a jump out-of-text. Readers should not be bothered with error-messages. btw, why not use my tip on the redirect? Or check & change manually all WLH-articles that currently end up in IPA? -DePiep (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The intention of this change is to show any new bad links as red in the future, which is in line with the way MediaWiki works. Also, and more to the point, the intention is to turn any links that currently point (incorrectly) to IPA into red links.

The essence of your opposing this change is that it could turn some links red. Can you not see a problem with your argument? That's part of the intention...

You keep saying "You'd break working links", yet you have not offered one example where this would actually happen. By example I don't mean a thought-up scenario, but an actual instance of current use of this template that would be (in your opinion only) "broken" by this change.

In summary, you are reverting this change on a flawed argument and on a supposition that you can't be bothered to verify.

Your suggestion of a redirect is not satisfactory, because editors would have no visual feedback that their link is... well, red.

The argument "articles are meant for readers" doesn't really cut it, because the way Wikipedia works is that readers who click on red links become editors. Admittedly this would be slightly more indirect, but I don't foresee any major catastrophes. If you do, please share any such disastrous scenarios.

You also say "You're right it might have been done different from the start", so it follows that your only point of contention really consists in those supposed broken links.

I have manually checked and there are no such links. I will therefore reinstate the change, with your kind permission. 123.218.168.141 (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If there is no current use of the IPA-default, a change can be made on that aspect. (Simply, since you propose the change, it is up to you to prove that no harm is done). But please see next point:

Then, you introduce an error-message as a link. That use is not the way to use links or templates. It is like jumping out of the wiki-articlespace. If you want to show an error-massage in future edits then instead of a link (a "salted page"), you can show red text in the preview as is done at <ref></ref>-errors, or incorrect expressions (see Help:Calculation). That is: straight text (probably in red), not a link. Could you respond on this? -DePiep (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh, you checked 230 pages manually? Could you tell what you did exactly? -DePiep (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC) correction -DePiep (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I like your idea of a proper error message, thanks for pointing me to an example. I don't know how that works, but the "exception" will need to propagate through all the invoking templates. It should be fine, I'll have a look. Cheers. 123.225.176.231 (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ One way is to use the text (where you'd write the default/notfound text):
'''<span style="fontsize:big; color:red;">Here goes your message</span>'''
producing: Here goes your message
So you are manually sure in the 230 pages there is none that uses the #default? -DePiep (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC) btw, be sure to check the effect on {{infobox IPA}}, because that one uses parameter {{{2}}} for #default. added -DePiep (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Uhm... yeah, but if it's that simple that's not going to cut through the invoking template, is it? End users invoke stuff like IPALink, not IPASym directly. I'll have a look at Help:Calculation. If it's not possible I'll fall back to the red link solution.

My understanding is that the infobox by design never uses what now is "IPA", I was under the impression that you introduced the second argument exactly for that reason. I'll check it anyway, don't worry. Thanks. 122.26.79.88 (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

-(plot spoiler: My final line below is: go ahead)

-Help:Calculations is only an example here of yes red text error message in preview, and not link to a salted page. I'd hope the code example is clear (to produce big red text). Just replace the default "IPA" with "<span style="color:red;">My Red Message</span>". Try it, it might work (the <span> ... </span> does the effects): My Red Message.

-If you create the red text in IPAsym (so replacing default text 'IPA'), it will produce ;ile [[My Red Text message]] in IPAlink etc (now red twice!). That I would not consider a problem: the editor previews, and sees your message in red, with or without brackets. Good.

-re infobox IPA is using a 2nd parameter: yes, I checked them all individually (and added the IPA-number in IPAsym when red). I did not provide a help/error-text. But you go ahead, and I'll take a look into it later on, and come back here to discuss. Just hope you're in for another improvement to keep the infobox IPA going.

-Just a tip you can skip: I like using the /Sandbox, that every Template/document (green in my screen) provides, in the bottom lines. I copy the source template-code, and the /Sandbox-page is free to test & try. There's also a link to a /Testcases page, to test the template like from a Wikipage. Playground!

Having read your replies, I'd say go ahead. -DePiep (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This is done. I have used class="error", which is the standard way of reporting errors. It supports use of #iferror, no need to hard-code formatting, etc. Testcases check out fine. Please report any problems. Thanks. 122.26.79.88 (talk) 05:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice. class="error" is even better, & a discovery for me. Consider this
 Done
-DePiep (talk) 08:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

src: 3.bp.blogspot.com

No viable showsymbol option for IPAblink

[merged from {{IPAblink}} talk page. -- kwami (talk) 06:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)]

IPAblink with showsymbol option doesn't display the specified symbol, why? Could this please be fixed? E.g., {{IPAblink|?|showsymbol=s?}} produces [s?]. Whereas {{IPAlink|?|showsymbol=s?}} produces s? in any case, i.e., if I don't want the brackets, I'll use IPAlink, not IPAblink. Dan ? 12:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look into that. -DePiep (talk) 12:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Now it's like this: {{IPAblink|?|showsymbol=s?}} --> [s?]

please let me know (e.g. here) if there's something strange left. -DePiep (talk) 12:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanx Dan ? 15:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge from {{IPAlink}} talk

Why not just have two parameters, the first being the link and the second the display, without having to type it "showsymbol=" each time? -- kwami (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

linking

I've found about 200 articles with manual links, and am converting them over with AWB. Rather that adding 'showsymbol=', which is a pain in the ass, I'm adding additional symbols to this table.

Could we maybe get a shorter / quicker to type call extension for that? [as merged request above] -- kwami (talk) 09:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, linked all I could find, apart from ones which use non-IPA symbols or link to Australian English phonology. -- kwami (talk) 06:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

using {{IPA|p}} as input errors

At WP:VPT village pump I have asked this Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#font-related_class.3D.22IPA.22_disrupts_a_.23switch: about IPAsym returning error when entering like: {{IPAsym|{{IPA|p}}}}. -DePiep (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Outcome: do never use the template {{IPA}} around the input symbol. It will fail. -DePiep (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

ejectives or glottalization

Glottalization states, "There are two other ways to represent glottalization in the IPA: (a) the same way as ejectives, with an apostrophe...". Biblical Hebrew uses ' to denote glottalization, but the {{IPAblink}} templates there link the symbols to articles on ejectives. It's a mess. Suggestions? Dan ? 00:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That article appears to say they likely were ejectives, so the link is appropriate. Actually, it says they're "glottalized", which could mean either ejectives or implosives; presumably it doesn't mean the latter. Probably it intends that there's something going on in the throat and we don't know what. If you're arguing they're not ejectives, then the ejective symbol should not be used when transcribing Hebrew in the IPA if you want to link anything. Same with using for an affricate in Indic: if you use a symbol for something other than what it's defined to mean, then your links aren't going to work right. The fix shouldn't be at this end, but in the imprecise use of precisely defined symbols. -- kwami (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the glottalization article was imprecise. It should have said "to represent glottalization of sonorants in the IPA". The apostrophe and under-tilde are not interchangeable for obstruents. Fixed. -- kwami (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

dental approximant and syllable break

• ð?
• .

178.101.44.228 (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Reverted, at least for now. Those aren't good links. -- kwami (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Why aren't they good links? There isn't a syllable break article yet (so, it could link to either hiatus (linguistics) or syllabification, or just create a whole new article).

IPA suprasegmentals include a plain dot (used to break syllables), but you just include an interpunct (used for syllabification)

With regard to the approximant, there is here already a bilabial approximant (found in Spanish) which links to voiced bilabial fricative, so I don't know why you don't have a dental approximant (also found in Spanish).

Couldn't you include ð? and .? Thanks.

Linked to redirects, in case those are ever expanded. -- kwami (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Template hacked

It would appear that the template has been hacked. Admins may need to review. dazzafar (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It was, in fact, vandalism at {{StripWhitespace}}, which appears to have been fixed now. Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

IT's still vandalized. 69.113.235.6 (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't see any sign of the original vandalism. If you're still seeing it, try clearing your browser cache. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Name changes are stable?

 Changed soundfile names to new article names using {{media rename}}. -DePiep (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Recently [1] a dozen or so article names have been changed. e.g:

• ? was Voiced postalveolar fricative -> Voiced palato-alveolar sibilant
  

No problem with me. A consequence is, that the corresponding soundfile has a different name:

• {{IPA soundbox|?}} ->
• {{IPA soundbox|?|soundfile=voiced postalveolar fricative.ogg}} ->

So: we need to enter the (non-default any more) soundfile name separately, or change the name of the soundfile. This problem also happens in the IPA infobox (example: see Voiced palato-alveolar sibilant, the soundfile is not found and not available any more).

The changes are:

My question is: are these changes stable now (i.e. no disagreement between phoneticians, no re-moves to be expected)? If so, then we can change the soundfile-names into the new names. If not, we'll wait. -DePiep (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

We, it's not a disagreement so much as a preference. [b] can be called a stop, plosive, or occlusive; [s] a fricative, sibilant, or sibilant fricative. None of them are wrong; it's more a matter of precision and common name. As for -sation vs -zation, since the -z- is both British and American but the -s- only British, the forms in -z- are preferable.

Can the infobox be customized so that it doesn't matter if the names match or not? -- kwami (talk) 04:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

About that last one: IPA infobox, IPA soundbox and more use IPAsym essentially to produce the one and only sound-(article-)name; then, extending it with ".ogg", it composes the soundfile name as a default. So to cover multiple acceptable names for that sound, we'd need a new, different template that maps all the names to a single soundfile name (structure like {{IPAsym}}, but left hand entries differ), like.

...

| voiced postalveolar fricative

| voiced palato-alveolar sibilant = voiced postalveolar fricative.ogg

...

This would add another maintenance-thing. Especially since this does not warn the editor for missing entries (unless he's looking for them), we will loose more and more linked soundfiles in infobox & soundbox. Which is why I prefer stable (unchanging) names. If it is just once we can put up {{Rename media}} requests to rename the filenames.

Another solution is to enter the non-default filename in the IPA infobox, like | soundfile = voiced palato-alveolar sibilant.ogg. Which is an unwarned maintenance thing too, while still keeping the different name.

All together, if the new names will stay unchanged, we can propose the namechange once for these files. -DePiep (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't expect they will change again any time soon. -- kwami (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Cool. And so short. I'll do as said. Sounds will be again. -DePiep (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Check on existence .ogg-file old name/new name:

-DePiep (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC) - Done -DePiep (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about taking so long to respond, I've been out of town. I agree that the names are now probably going to be stable, and that changing the sound files accordingly was the right thing to do. Benwing (talk) 02:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Support appreciated. -DePiep (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

request re editprotect

{{editprotect}} I'd like to make some edits as I am familiar with; please open it up for an hour or so. -DePiep (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

 Declined - This isn't how editprotected works. If you have changes you would like to make, please provide the code you'd like replaced and the code you'd like to replace it with here and an admin will make the edit. If you want a page unprotected, you should list it at WP:RFPP, although a high-profile template like this is very unlikely to be unprotected for any reason. Also, for future reference, the edit protected template adds pages to a watch category; you don't need to ask an admin directly. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes I know. I build this template virtually myself, as you can see in the history (and of the sandbox, and of the /doc, lest you forget). The decision to fullprotect is opaque, and cascading through a usersubpage does not help understanding either. I'll ask for pp change. -DePiep (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Adding lines

1. To add one complete line:
<!-- EJECTIVES -->

• Where: right above the line | 101 401
• Above this injection a whiteline will stay present.
• Note: of course, this is to keep some overview in the list

2. To add: seven complete lines, starting with a space:

  | ?' = retroflex ejective  | f' = labiodental ejective fricative  | ?' = dental ejective fricative  | ?' = alveolar lateral ejective fricative  | x' = velar ejective fricative  | ?' = uvular ejective fricative  | c???' = palatal lateral ejective affricate  

• Where: right below the line | s' = alveolar ejective fricative (search near "132 401")
  
• Below these lines a whiteline will remain.
• Note: the lines will add seven more IPA-symbols linked to an article.

The edits have been unit tested in the Template:IPAsym/sandbox, this version. -DePiep (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah done ultimately, but it has cost me two hours time+ and a day through to only get the question right with admin officers. And still no answers. -DePiep (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Todo done: add later on

 added July 2011 -DePiep (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
When protection is loosened: As used in Affricate consonant:

• add t?? for t?? = voiceless alveolo-palatal affricatevoiceless alveolo-palatal affricatevoiceless alveolo-palatal affricate
  
  
• add ?? for ??? = voiceless retroflex affricate voiceless retroflex affricate
  
  
• add t?? for t?? = voiceless palato-alveolar affricatevoiceless palato-alveolar affricate
  
  
• add d?? for d?? = voiced palato-alveolar affricate voiced palato-alveolar affricate
  
  
• add d?? for d?? = voiced alveolo-palatal affricate voiced alveolo-palatal affricate
  
  

Currently, I have solved it differently in that article, the links are provided (by using the second, existing IPA symbol). -DePiep (talk) 09:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• add k???' and k?' for velar lateral ejective affricate velar lateral ejective affricate(check presence. It looks like the first one, with an L, is missing. Second ione has Private Use Area code U+F268 LATIN LETTER SMALL CAPITAL L WITH BELT; keep?) -DePiep (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
• add k???? k? (variant symbol with PUA U+F268) for Voiceless velar lateral affricate voiceless velar lateral affricate
• addc???? for c?' voiceless palatal lateral affricate voiceless palatal lateral affricate (2nd one uses Private Use Area U+F267 LATIN SMALL LETTER TURNED Y WITH BELT) -DePiep (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit protected

Request

Please copy all code from the sandbox into the Template: {{IPAsym/sandbox}} -> {{IPAsym}} (this version).

Changes

Added six symbols (see previous post on this talkpage). Includeonly moved.

Tested

Sandbox code is checked in test. -DePiep (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Danger (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Appreciated -DePiep (talk) 01:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Todo

• Removed my own post, see Proposed changes to the list, top of page) -DePiep (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit protected request

Request

Please copy all code from the sandbox (this version) into the Template: {{IPAsym/sandbox}} -> {{IPAsym}}, .

Changes

Added symbols as per talkpage: upstep, downstep, clicks into singluar. Also extra IPA numbers. Added comment groupnames. See sandbox diff for all changes.

Tested

Sandbox code is checked in testpage.-DePiep (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done

Name change

[2] Now it's File:Voiced palatal stop.ogg. We've lost links to File:Voiced palatal plosive.ogg. -DePiep (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, how do we display the proper name, link to the correct article, and also link to the correct sound file? -- kwami (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Option 1: change the filename File:Voiced palatal plosive.ogg into File:Voiced palatal stop.ogg. This is out of out English WP, but can be done and is solid (assuming that the new name is OK). Any admin can find the template to request this.

Option 2: Use bypass, as explained {{IPA audio filename}}.

Note: right now, no clicks have sound links: Template:IPA chart non-pulmonic consonants with audio.

-DePiep (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

IPAlink

The new functionality of IPAlink (the bracket parameter) is inconvenient. The brackets should be the 2nd parameter, not the third. However, since we don't actually use this, I've left it for now. What we could do is add a line to recognize the input: if the 2nd param is a bracket, then it would look to the 3rd for text replacement; if not, then it would use the 2nd as text replacement. That way it wouldn't matter which order they're in, and there would be no need for a double pipe to skip a param. -- kwami (talk) 08:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I've made this in the sandbox: parameter 2 and 3 each can take a bracket or a label text (aka showsymbol). If a bracket is entered, that is recognised & used. Any other text (in parameter 2 or 3) will be used as label. See {{IPAlink/testcases}}

Examples:

• {{IPAlink/sandbox|m}} -> m
• {{IPAlink/sandbox|m|<}} -> ?m?
• {{IPAlink/sandbox|m|My text}} -> My text
• {{IPAlink/sandbox|m|My text|<}} -> ?My text?
• {{IPAlink/sandbox|m|<|My text}} -> ?My text?

(using {{IPAlink/sandbox}}). Is this OK? -DePiep (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks good. Actually, the coding looks simple enough that I wonder if we couldn't modify it to optionally pass the bracket through {{{1}}} as well, though perhaps that would create complications with distinguishing link from display. Not important enough to bother with unless it's really easy. -- kwami (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I will chew on that idea. Wil be an extension of functions, so no decision needed for now (will fit). Btw, input options "] >" are gone deprecated by now and there is option "<" to produce "?" correctly. Will put this version into live. -DePiep (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC) correcting -DePiep (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Input "g" errors

When I use {{IPAlink|g}}, it screams with reddish error...!? -Konanen (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Formally the symbol isU+0261 ? LATIN SMALL LETTER SCRIPT (HTML ɡ), which is not the regular keyboard "g". But since it is unambiguous, I've added the regular g U+0067 g LATIN SMALL LETTER G (HTML g) for this as input. So now it works: voiced velar stop. -DePiep (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Undid: in should be the right character, not the regular "g" e.g. in /?/.-DePiep (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

typo in {{IPAsym/check}}

There is a typo in the results of the {{IPAsym/check}} output. "Creacky voice" should be "Creaky voice" instead. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 02:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Changed in {{IPAsym}}. -DePiep (talk) 11:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

"Aspiration (phonetics)" redirects to "Aspirated consonant"

Hi, whoever has the "magical" access to how (where?) this IPA template converts IPA notation to Wikipedia article links to associated phonetics articles needs to update whatever displays the results at Template:IPAsym/check_all for all the IPA symbols/notation that link to Aspiration (phonetics) as that is now a redirect to Aspirated consonant. Thanks, Bumm13 (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Your compliments, from inside knowledge, are received happily. -DePiep (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I came off sounding sarcastic, as it wasn't intended. No changes have occurred to IPA notation types that "dynamically" link to Aspiration (phonetics). I came across this issue at the Yale Romanization#Initials page (the "x?" wikilinks). It'd be nice not to have to use redirects for those links, but I can't see how to make such changes myself. Bumm13 (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I could have read it that way. So you want [p?] to link to Aspirated consonant directly, no to the redirect Aspiration (phonetics). Done [3]. -DePiep (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

?

So where do you get your info? The official chart I linked to says it's rounded. -- Lfdder (talk) 09:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The Handbook also calls it the "near-close near-back rounded vowel" (p. 180). -- Lfdder (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting catch. File:IPA vowel chart 2005.png has it on the right side of a dot, so rounded. That would also imply that in Template:IPA_chart_vowels we have swapped into wrong the pair at near-close central? -DePiep (talk) 11:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, kwami made that chart (probably). There's no dot on the official one. I think I put that on the other side just to hide the dot. -- Lfdder (talk) 12:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 July 2013

Move the tpl and its talk page to 'IPA symbol', a much less cryptic name for this template. Or just unprotect it for a bit so we can get it done. -- Lfdder (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• Agree. asap. Extensive discussion: [4]. Also requested at ANI: [5]. -DePiep (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Request already was done as required: [6]. Sigh. -DePiep (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Then why were those discussions not linked when the edit request was made? I'm not a mind reader. Declined, per this edit summary: if I wasn't pissed off then, I am now. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

By time moments (and before ce) you might be right. By content here, requesting editor Lfdder better had been rewarded for making sense. -DePiep (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

And it is WP:RM/TR. the requst stands. -DePiep (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Front vs. central "a"

Apparently, the IPA link for "a" currently always goes to Open front unrounded vowel, in keeping with the definition of IPA "a" as that cardinal vowel. However, in practice, in the description of many (or most) individual-language phonologies, "a" tends to be used for vowels that are not distinctively "front" but central (or variable). We have a separate vowel article for this, Open central unrounded vowel, Would it be feasible to have a choice of link target here, so that "a" could be linked to the "central" rather than "front" article where appropriate? (Similarly for "e" and "o", which are often used in phonemic or broad phonetic notations to stand for "mid" rather than ""close-mid" variants.) Fut.Perf. ? 09:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

You do have a choice. If you want to link to the central [ä], you need to write "ä|" before "a}}". Same for the mid vowels - write "e?|" and "o?|" before "e}}" and "o}}", respectively. -- Peter238 (v???z?? m???? t??o?k? p?????d???) 13:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

This is finally a request to the IPA to acknowledge that there is an Open central unrounded vowel which indeed contrasts with either of the open cardinal vowels, and assign an own symbol to it. The latest attempt to have it done failed because too many authors and publishers apposed for sheer economic reasons, trying to avoid to have to revise and reprint their publications. I strongly support another symbol for various reasons but I am currently not a member of the IPA because I cannot afford to pay the steep membership dues :-( --Purodha Blissenbach (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

In which languages though? As far as I'm aware, only the Hamont dialect of Limburgish has a phonemic /a - ä - ?/ contrast. Which, indeed, should be enough. -- Peter238 (v???z?? m???? t??o?k? p?????d???) 20:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Low German and Bavarian have at least /ä - ?/ contrasts and at least some Palatinean and Moselle Franconian varieties clearly have /a? - ä/ contrasts in addition to lenght contrasts on them. There are certainly many more. --Purodha Blissenbach (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia