Wiktionary talk:Todo/Entries containing obsolete IPA characters

To be added: ʧ, ʣ. - -sche (discuss) 19:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also probably ʥ, possibly ʩ, ʪ, ʫ . - -sche (discuss) 19:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ʩ, ʪ, ʫ are OK since they don't represent affricates. [f͡ŋ] would be flat-out wronɡ for [ʩ] since it isn't a simultaneous [f] and [ŋ], but some sound you apparently have to have a cleft palate in order to articulate. [ʪ] and [ʫ] are equivalent to [ɬ͡s] and [ɮ͡z], but not to [l͡s] and [l͡z]. At any rate, none of these three digraphs is deprecated, as the affricate digraphs are. —Angr 09:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ʨ, on the other hand, should be added. —Angr 09:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input; I've struck the OK ones. - -sche (discuss) 01:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The only entry which contained ʪ (other than ʪ) was lisp (q.v.). The only entries which contained ʩ and ʫ were the entries for those characters. - -sche (discuss) 01:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Avar
Mglovesfun caught an instance of ʦ in a "transliteration" of an Avar translation in the entry Avar. I changed it to t͡s because the transliteration was actually a phonetic rather than an orthographic one. - -sche (discuss) 01:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Bot
It would probably make more sense to find out which entries use these characters 'properly' (e.g. the entry for each character can use it and link to the others), and then have a bot change all main-namespace instances except those. - -sche (discuss) 01:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Entries which a bot should ignore: ʤ, ʦ, ʧ, ʣ, ʥ; dezh, tesh, dz, ǳ, ts, ƾ, ƽ, ƿ. - -sche (discuss) 01:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * See Grease pit/2012/October. - -sche (discuss) 01:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember doing all of these, or as many as I could. Could someone update the list, please? I will watchlist it so I can check it when it's updated. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've updated the list. It now contains about 700 entries. Note that obsolete characters inside rhymes sections shouldn't be updated to include tie bars... (You could just not use tie bars at all, that would probably simplify things considerably, though it'd be slightly less than optimal.) - -sche (discuss) 22:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

g
Could a bot search for any instances of  (U+0067) inside  and replace it with   (U+0261)? I occasionally encounter these and replace them myself, but a bot would be more efficient. —Angr 08:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Search found no hits
I performed a search using a database dump from 2021-09-01, searching through the text of the English sections of all mainspace pages that had an English section, and I did not find any offending pages that were not already listed under to skip. Is there any reason to keep this page around? - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 04:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I realized that my original seach was unjustifiably English only, so I performed a search through the full text of all mainspace pages. I found a total of 26 lines that contained at least one of the obsolete characters. The only use I found that looked like it was part of a pronunciation was Hebrew קצוץ. (I don't feel confident enough in my understanding to change this myself.) Some of the uses I found were not in pronunciations, but often in etymologies:


 * Pnar chit, ja
 * Bahnar kơting
 * Baha ʨam⁴⁵
 * Eastern Lawa ซอง
 * Chinese 粽子

And of course there were entries documenting the existence of the obsolete characters. But it seems to me that these characters appearing in pronunciations is not much of an issue anymore.

- excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 06:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)