Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2013-10/Removing SAMPA and X-SAMPA

Wording and name
I would change the wording of the vote to "Removing SAMPA and X-SAMPA pronunciation markup from Pronunciation sections. As a consequence, deleting Template:X-SAMPA, and modifying WT:ELE accordingly, so that entering SAMPA and X-SAMPA into Pronunciation sections shall no longer be allowed." and move the page to Votes/pl-2013-10/Removing SAMPA and X-SAMPA. There is no reason to be less explicit about it. --WikiTiki89 19:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have updated the vote based on your suggestion. I think it was clear enough, but your suggestion is okay. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

All or nothing
As I see it, there should be a grey area. X-SAMPA can be autogenerated from IPA by means of Lua, so this vote should allow the use of a gadget wherein users can choose to see X-SAMPA in place of IPA. As it stands, I think that this vote would prohibit that, even if it is opt-in only and the user wishes to see it. (If my assumptions about the vote are wrong, its wording should be made more explicit.) —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 21:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We could also decide to make X-SAMPA a valid input method for the template. The template would then automatically convert it to IPA.  21:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would oppose X-SAMPA as being valid in the IPA template, I think it would be very confusing for those of use who do are not fluent in X-SAMPA. Also, I think there are very few computers out there that are still limited to ASCII encoding, and therefore I do not think it would be useful to anyone to have an option to display IPA as X-SAMPA. In terms of inputing IPA characters, we already have editing toolbars for that (which can definitely use some layout improvement, but I have no idea where I can edit it). --WikiTiki89 21:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Is there any demand for X-SAMPA as an input method? I don’t have anything against the idea, but why pursue it if no one wants it? Wikitiki, while no computers are limited to ASCII or any particular code page, most keyboards and their users will continue to be.


 * Yes, this should be written so it doesn’t prohibit gadgets that display IPA in different ways. Conceivably, pronunciation respelling for English could also be generated automatically. —Michael Z. 2013-10-19 22:07 z 


 * Wikitiki, it's at MediaWiki:Edittools. 23:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh cool, I'll have a look at that. But that's only the one below the edit box, is there any way to edit the one above it? --WikiTiki89 23:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably, I just don't know how. I'm not sure why we have both of these side by side anyway, they do more or less the same thing... 23:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Redundancy is inertia. If there is an algorithm that will reliably, losslessly, unambiguously convert IPA to SAMPA, then we should definitely ditch SAMPA and rely on the algorithm to produce either IPA (from some template), or both IPA and SAMPA (if there is a demand for the latter, or if a user has chosen to see it, etc.). Equinox ◑ 22:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Module:IPA produces X-SAMPA from IPA text. Let’s delete X-SAMPA from entries, and add the module when a reader requests X-SAMPA. That has not happened in Wiktionary’s history. —Michael Z. 2013-10-19 23:05 z 


 * I would support rewording the vote so that it does not preclude any of that. --WikiTiki89 22:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have updated the vote to make it clear that producing SAMPA automatically is allowed. However, no one has still managed or bothered to post a rationale. My guess at the rationale is that removing SAMPA markup is going to remove redundancy from the wikitext, on the assumption that SAMPA and X-SAMPA can be unambiguouly determined from IPA. Let me note for the record that I am not the proposer of this vote; I have created this vote for the editors who supported removing X-SAMPA from the wikitext of entries in RFDO, September 2013. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have entered a rationale. Please improve. —Michael Z. 2013-10-20 15:53 z 

what about the others?
Besides IPA we have enPR/AHD, Deseret and Shavian. What do we do with these? enPR is seen on a few terms, but it's not that widespread. Is it used/wanted by our readers? -- Liliana • 11:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually like enPR. But I think the reason we want to get rid of X-SAMPA is not because it is nothing more than IPA in ASCII characters, making it both redundant and unreadable. This does not apply to the other ones you mentioned. --WikiTiki89 12:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)