Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pronunciation (simple guide to markup, American)

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

Pronunciation (simple guide to markup, American)[edit]

Pronunciation (simple guide to markup, American) was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to shift the page (at request of original author). This article was shifted to Wikipedia:Pronunciation (simple guide to markup, American). I've also moved the old talk page to Wikipedia talk:Pronunciation (simple guide to markup, American)/oldtalk as I think the move was done via a copy and paste move. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:12, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Original research. Also, we don't need Yet Another Pronunciation Scheme. We already have an international standard. Nohat 06:34, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why doesn't it surprise me that you would list my efforts for deletion? Interesting that you appear to have authored much or most of the article you cite in the link above.
As reasons for deletion, you assert:
  1. It is original.
  2. Wikipedia has a phonetic article.
Arguments for retaining the guide I compiled and donated to Wikipedia:
  1. It takes the best features from over a dozen guides and incorporates them into a short and intuitive table, easy-to-learn. That weakens the "original research" claim, I'd think. Not to mention that the content is mostly obvious and largely entails compilation and organization, not "research."
  2. It is simple to understand and easy to use. I defy you or anyone to mark up the pronunciation of something like the List of heteronyms, for example, using your huge and cumbersome "international standard". That would be an abysmal experience. Wikipedia needs a SIMPLE guide to phonetic markup.
  3. It uses no special symbols save the tilde in the voiced t~h, as in the. In other words, in mere moments anyone can type in a pronunciation from an ordinary keyboard (that's OHRdihnehry KEEbohrd).
--NathanHawking 08:06, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)
  • Delete. If I understand this correctly, this markup is invented for Wikipedia, and isn't used outside of Wikipedia. That makes it unsuitable as a subject of an encyclopaedia article. It may be better off in the Wikipedia: namespace, as a proposed policy. Eugene van der Pijll 11:03, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is original work and doesn't conform to any standard that I am familiar with. As a teacher of the English language to non-native learners, there is already an easy to use system, namely the IPA. --Nicholas Alexander 12:24, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)
This list is little more "original" than any one of tens of thousands of paragraphs in Wikipedia which use unique arrangements of words to impart information and ideas. Few if any of the symbols are original; the concept is certainly unoriginal. The arrangement may be original, but no more so that any non-quoted paragraph in Wikipedia.
  1. Which part of the table is original? Can you point to any phonetic symbol that has not previously been used in some other pronunciation markup table?
  2. IPA is easy to use? Readability aside, are you saying that entering:
  • ˈæ.ɡɹə.ɡət is easier than AAGruhguht?
  • ˈæb.stɹækt is easier than AABstraakt?
  • dɪs.ˈkɑɹd is easier than dihsCAHRD?
It is absurd to think that non-pedants who wish to contribute entries for things like List of heteronyms will be bother with such keycodes.--NathanHawking 18:49, 2004 Nov 1 (UTC)
  • Delete, with regrets to the author. It is really great that you took the time to write this up, and that you've been thinking about the topic. We appreciate your eagerness to contribute, and the work you put into this. Unfortunately, it is original research, and we have a policy of not including that. Further, IPA, while cumbersome, is an international standard, making it possible for people all over the world to easily understand pronunciation of words. Nobody is, or should be, willing to give that up. In any case, Wiktionary is, as far as I understand, a place where they use IPA a lot more than here. I wish you the best of luck with Wikipedia -- you seem to have the right attitude in contributing. Unfortunately, we can't use this contribution, but we would appreciate your continued presence here. --Improv 18:54, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Original research, only useful for American pronunciation, and phonetically non-standard. Delete. Lacrimosus 22:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Move both this and Pronunciation (simple guide to markup, British) to the project namespace, and see if they catch on before deciding whether or not to delete. IPA, SAMPA and their variants all have a learning curve, so many encyclopedias and dictionaries use something similar to this. We can expect the IPA and SAMPA enthusiasts to be unenthusiastic about it, but we should see whether any other editors make significant use of it, and of course develop it like any other document in the Wiki. If there is no significant use made of it, that's the time to think about deletion. Andrewa 23:23, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed with Andrewa - move 'em into the Wikipedia namespace. They're policy proposals. That's where policy proposals and administrative pages go. - RedWordSmith 00:38, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Also agree with Andrewa. -- 00:41, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
      • The above was written by User:Jmabel, who probably just typed one too many tildes. - RedWordSmith 01:19, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In general, I agree than Wikipedia is not a forum for original research. But mindless application of that policy when a need clearly exists, and user contributed material can fill that need, seems excessively rigid.
It is no accident that so many encyclopedias and dictionaries use their own phonetic markup system and not some free "standard." Their reasons are the same reason why Wikipedia should as well.
Actually, most dictionaries do use IPA for marking pronunciations. American Dictionaries in the "Webster's" tradition are the only notable exception, although many American dictionaries intended for ESL learners use IPA too. The giant in the field of English dictionaries, th Oxford English Dictionary, uses IPA. The two major English pronunciation dictionaries, the Longman Dictionary of Pronunciation and Daniel Jones' English Pronouncing Dictionary use IPA. The Cambridge Dictionary of American English uses IPA. Most foreign-language dictionaries that mark pronunciation also use IPA. IPA is not used only by pedants and academics. Nohat 03:19, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It has its place. So does a simple guide. This debate should be taken to the article's talk page, don't you think?--NathanHawking 03:30, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the significance of "moving something to the project namespace" is. Can somebody explain this or give a link which does? Whatever it is, if it allows an opportunity for a need to be filled, that makes more sense than rigid rules which permit holes in Wikipedia's ease of use.--NathanHawking 02:21, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)
NathanHawking: moving to the project namespace means (I believe) that it won't be in the encyclopedia, it will be on some Wikipedia forum on which to discuss policy matters such as standard pronunciation. Pnot 03:01, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Nathan, you can move the page to Wikipedia:Pronunciation (simple guide to markup, American). That would be the proper location for an article about wikipedia. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (pronunciation) and its Talk page; that's where I would expect to find the pronunciation guide for wikipedia (there isn't one at the moment). Eugene van der Pijll 04:02, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And when it's moved there, what then? How does it become the subject of discussion, i.e., how is the issue presented to the community at large?--NathanHawking 07:23, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)
  • I support Andrewa's proposal to move this and the British version to somewhere where their merits can be debated. Certainly don't keep then in Wikipedia. (I find these attemptedly "intuitive" pronunciation encodings more trouble than they're worth: I don't doubt that the pronunciations are intuitive to whoever thought of them, but they end up counter-intuitive to others: my first two guesses for the /AA/ code would have been (1) as in "spa" and (2) as in "law". Off-topic for this debate, I realize, but I just wanted to add a counterpoint to NathanHawking's criticisms of the IPA.) Pnot 03:01, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree, intuitive is a relative thing, but the issue is: compared to what? See the article's talk page for symbol selection considerations.
No simple system can do everything. How intuitive do you find the symbols & and &? Those are used by the Merriam-Webster pronunciation guide. Criticizing is easy--suggesting improvements would be more helpful. --NathanHawking 03:18, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)
My point is that no system is intuitive to everyone, so rather than reinvent the wheel I would prefer to make use of the IPA or, failing that, SAMPA, which (with all due respect) are more complete and more widely understood than your system. (This is still not the issue at stake, however. No matter what its merits, a new proposal such as this doesn't belong in the encyclopedia proper.) Pnot 05:28, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I disagree that because any simple system will have a couple of non-intuitive symbols, like aa and uu, we might as well use anything. A couple is very different from dozens of opaque symbols. This hardly reinvents the wheel. But that debate belongs elsewhere. --NathanHawking 07:23, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)
  • Save This site is great for many things, and has a pretty large amount of users, if you actually check the member count. ;)
    • Unsigned votes do not count. --Improv 16:58, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • What's more, the phrasing of the vote suggests it's nothing to do with the article under discussion. What site? What users? What member count? It's either a troll or a mistake. Pnot 21:21, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikipedia namespace as a proposal. FWIW, I tried much the same thing (mine is at Wikipedia:English phonetic spelling) but the reactions I got when I actually tried using it in a few articles led me to abandon the project as unworkable. I agree that IPA and SAMPA have problems, especially when used to transcribe non-rhotic and insular speech; I tried to address those issues in my proposal. Smerdis of Tlön 16:46, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing me toward your proposal; there are interesting and significant differences between our articles. I note that yours has been there over a year, with a few corrections in the history but no discussion on the talk page. Was this actually considered--discussed--elsewhere? --NathanHawking 20:32, 2004 Nov 2 (UTC)

PLEASE SPEEDY DELETE: OK, a pronunciation Simple Guide is not a subject for an encyclopedia article unless it's already been published and is widely known. This one isn't, and I don't know of one which is. That does not diminish the need, however. The content more closely resembles, in principle, Policy articles--meta-content. So I've followed the advice to place it in Wikipedia:Pronunciation (simple guide to markup, American), and make the case for it on the corresponding talk page.

Accordingly, please speedily delete Pronunciation (simple guide to markup, American) and Pronunciation (simple guide to markup, British) from the encyclopedia space. Thanks for the suggestions on how to proceed with this.--NathanHawking 02:27, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)

Placed on Policy Thinktank: This issue has been raised on the policy thinktank list.--NathanHawking 21:17, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.