Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2016-07/Pronunciation 2

Pronunciation 2
Voting on: Editing WT:EL.

Current text:
 * Pronunciation
 * Main article: Pronunciation

A typical pronunciation section may look like the following example based on the word portmanteau:



The region or accent [,, , et al.] is first if there is regional variation, followed by the pronunciation system (such as enPR or IPA), a colon, then the pronunciation. (See Wiktionary:Pronunciation key for an outline of these two systems.) The phonetic transcriptions are normally placed between diagonal strokes. Use an established system of pronunciation transcription, such as IPA.

Ideally, every entry should have a pronunciation section, and perhaps a sound sample to accompany it. However, pronunciations vary widely between dialects, and non-linguists often have trouble writing down pronunciations properly.

For audio pronunciations, upload the Ogg file to Commons and link here using Template:audio.

List any homophones of the word in alphabetical order, wikifying each one. For example, the Pronunciation section of the English word contains the line
 * Homophones (subsection)



which results in


 * Homophones: rite, wright, write

which are the English words that sound identical to.

If a word is a homophone in a particular dialect, it may be added provided the dialect is referred to (for example, is a homophone of  in accents with flapping, and  is a homophone of  in non-rhotic accents). Examples (for and, respectively):


 * Homophones: beta
 * Homophones: rite, wright, write, ride

The following must not be added to the homophones section:


 * Words that are “nearly” homophones or rhymes (for example, for, the words or );
 * Words that are homophones if they are mispronounced in some way (e.g. for, the word when pronounced with a lisp);
 * Words from other languages (which are unlikely to be true homophones anyway).

(Note that the term used here is ; the term used by some is ambiguous as it can mean either “homophone” or “homograph”.)

Add a link to the page in the “Rhymes” namespace that lists the rhymes for the word. So, for example, on the entry for, add the line
 * Rhymes (subsection)



to the code. This displays as



To see the usage instructions for, see Template:rhymes/documentation.

Do not list the rhymes themselves in the main namespace.

), and phonetic transcriptions between square brackets.
 * References
 * For audio pronunciations, upload the Ogg file to Commons and link to it using or a similar template.
 * Rhymes are listed in the "Rhymes" namespace. Do not list rhymes in the entry; instead, add a link to the respective rhymes page using . See the template for usage instructions.
 * Use the template to list hyphenation patterns.
 * Homophones are words in the same language that have the same sound. (Avoid using the ambiguous term, as it can mean either or .) Do not add: 1) words that are “nearly” homophones or rhymes (for example, for , do not add  or ); 2) words that are homophones if they are mispronounced in some way (e.g. for , do not add ); 3) words from other languages (which are unlikely to be true homophones anyway). Homophones are listed in alphabetical order using the  template. If a word is a homophone in a particular dialect, it may be added provided the dialect is indicated (for example,  is a homophone of  in accents with flapping, and  is a homophone of  in some non-rhotic accents).

A typical pronunciation section may look like the following (simplified) example based on the word :





Example with multiple accents (see entry ):



Examples with homophones in multiple dialects (see entries and, respectively):




 * References

Changes and rationale:
 * Votes/pl-2016-01/Pronunciation failed in March 2016. In the vote, some people objected using as the example word. In this poll,  is currently winning as the new example word, with 4 supports and 1 oppose.
 * More compact version of the same policy. No rules were intended to be changed, they are just described in a way that takes up less space.
 * The current text uses 4 entries as examples of multiple types of pronunciation information:, , , and . The proposed text uses as the "main" example with all the types of pronunciation information previously mentioned, inclding rhymes;  is kept as an example of multiple pronunciations;  and  are changed to  and  as better examples of dialectal homophones;  is removed because the "main" example  already has rhymes.
 * The proposed example shows the IPA transcription, audio, rhymes, hyphenation and homophones in the same order currently found in the entry.
 * Removed "non-linguists often have trouble writing down pronunciations properly". It's a comment rather than a rule.
 * Removed the footnote "previously called AHD, but renamed". It's a comment about a historical name that changed approximately 10 years ago, not a rule. The fact that AHD was renamed to enPR was recently added to Appendix:English pronunciation.
 * Using a bulleted list to organize the ideas. The order of ideas changes in a few places.
 * The subsections (Homophones and Rhymes) were removed. The same information was kept, albeit in the bulleted list.
 * WT:EL currently does not explain hyphenation. The proposed text mentions hyphenation, as well as includes hyphenation in the entry example.
 * Another step in the direction of having WT:EL completely voted.

Schedule:
 * Vote starts: 00:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Vote ends: 23:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Vote created: --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion:
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Votes/pl-2016-01/Pronunciation and Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2016-01/Pronunciation (previous vote and talk page)
 * [[Image:Wikt rei-artur3.svg|20px]] Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2016-07/Pronunciation 2

Support

 * 1)  --Daniel Carrero (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) . — Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) . I disagree with Dan; I think the opening sentence is a good way to motivate what follows, and to give us a simply-stated goal to work towards. This, that and the other (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 4)  -Xbony2 (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 5)  --WikiTiki89 17:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , although the "Ideally, every entry should have a pronunciation section, with the phonetic transcription and an audio file" needs to be finessed. There are some languages that shouldn't have a pronunciation section (e.g. sign languages, which have a Production section instead, and many ancient languages whose pronunciation is unknown). Languages with no native speakers shouldn't have audio files. But for modern spoken languages, yes, the pronunciation section is an essential part of the entry, and an entry would be incomplete without one. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you make some good points, particularly around discouraging people from adding spurious pronunciations to ancient language entries; why don't we address those things in a follow-up vote? This, that and the other (talk) 02:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

 * : since "Ideally, every entry should have a pronunciation section, with the phonetic transcription and an audio file" sounds to much like a requirement to my taste. While the word "ideally" weakens it, it is still too much. The old version did not make any such statement; I don't see why the new should. If the word "ideally" is replaced with "eventually", I think this objection would no longer hold, but I would have to reread the text. On a broader note, I do not want to see similar phrases in all the sections, like "ideally, every entry should have an etymology section" and such. Of all the sections, I consider pronunciations to be one of the less substantive and lexicographically significant. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The old version did have such a statement in its third paragraph. This, that and the other (talk) 00:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact the entire phrase "Ideally, every entry should have a pronunciation section" has remained unchanged from the old version. --WikiTiki89 17:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right that the entire phrase "Ideally, every entry should have a pronunciation section" remained unchanged, up until that point. But, for the record, there was a really minor change afterwards, in the text that Dan mentioned:
 * Original sentence: "Ideally, every entry should have a pronunciation section, and perhaps a sound sample to accompany it."
 * Changed sentence: "Ideally, every entry should have a pronunciation section, with the phonetic transcription and an audio file."
 * --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * By the old version, I meant the version as it currently is in CFI, not the one in the previous vote. I should have been more clear in my phrasing. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , you said: "'Ideally, every entry should have a pronunciation section, with the phonetic transcription and an audio file' The old version did not make any such statement; I don't see why the new should."
 * After, you said: "By the old version, I meant the version as it currently is in CFI".
 * But, in WT:EL (not WT:CFI), there is: "Ideally, every entry should have a pronunciation section, and perhaps a sound sample to accompany it." --Daniel Carrero (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You are right. That's a major oops, isn't it? Since this is a legacy issue, I think it is not good enough reason for me to oppose. Striking the oppose until I find another reason to oppose it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Returning to oppose: I have now come to senses again. The fact that it is a legacy issue does not alleviate the problem: the existing text is not voted on and thereby does not carry that much weight whereas the voted text will carry weight via being voted in. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Decision
Passed: 6:1:0 (85.7%:14.3%) --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Edited WT:EL accordingly. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)