Template:IPAc-en is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the IPAc-en template.
The IPA is gibberish and I can't read it. Why doesn't Wikipedia use a normal pronunciation key?
The IPA is the international standard for phonetic transcription, and therefore the Wikipedia standard as well. Many non-American and/or EFL-oriented dictionaries and pedagogical texts have adopted the IPA, and as a result, it is far less confusing for many people around the world than any alternative. It may be confusing in some aspects to some English speakers, but that is precisely because it is conceived with an international point of view. The sound of y in "yes" is spelled /j/ in the IPA, and this was chosen from German and several other languages which spell this sound j.
For English words, Wikipedia does use a "normal" pronunciation key. It is Help:Pronunciation respelling key, and may be used in addition to the IPA, enclosed in the {{respell}} template. See the opening sentences of Beijing, Cochineal, and Lepidoptera for a few examples. But even this is not without problems; for example, cum laude would be respelled kuum-LOW-day, but this could easily be misread as koom-LOH-day. English orthography is simply too inconsistent in regard to its correspondence to pronunciation, and therefore a completely intuitive respelling system is infeasible. This is why our respelling system must be used merely to augment the IPA, not to replace it.
Wikipedia deals with a vast number of topics from foreign languages, and many of these languages contain sounds that do not exist in English. In these cases, a respelling would be entirely inadequate. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation for further discussion.
The IPA should be specific to a particular national standard, and the national pronunciations should be listed separately.
Listing multiple national pronunciations after every Wikipedia entry word quickly becomes unwieldy, and listing only one leads to accusations of bias. Therefore, we use a system that aims at being pan-dialectal. Of course, if a particular dialect or local pronunciation is relevant to the topic, it may be listed in addition to the wider pronunciation, using {{IPA|und|...}} or {{IPA|en|...|generic=yes}}.
The use of /r/ for the rhotic consonant is inaccurate. It should be /ɹ/ instead.
The English rhotic is pronounced in a wide variety of ways in accents of English around the world, and the goal of our diaphonemic system is to cover as many of them as possible. Moreover, where there is no phonological contrast to possibly cause confusion, using a more typographically recognizable letter for a sound represented by another symbol in the narrow IPA is totally within the confines of the IPA's principles (IPA Handbook, pp. 27–28). In fact, /r/ is arguably the more traditional IPA notation; not only is it used by most if not all dictionaries, but also in Le Maître Phonétique, the predecessor to the Journal of the IPA, which was written entirely in phonetic transcription, ⟨r⟩ was the norm for the English rhotic.
I was just setting up some custom CSS to make translations and such easier to read when I noticed this template doesn't add the class "IPA-label" to the label it generates, unlike the other IPA templates.
Is that intentional, or should it be added?
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Description of suggested change:
Hello, I suggest to update a tooltip:
Diff:
−
/ən/: 'on' in 'button'
+
/ən/: 'en' in 'even'
It seems highly unintuitive to apparently suggest the sound of the word "on" (and then a word some learners are liable to rhyme with "John") instead of something closer to the final sound. The suggested "even" seems as basic and neutral a word (though you may prefer hyphen, happen, heaven, alien...). 77.147.79.62 (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"ei" is a diphthong, and "eː" is an elongated pure vowel
The word face in most dialects of English is pronounced /feɪs/, while in Scottish English, it is often pronounced /feːs/.
These sounds should not be grouped together. Grouping them would be similar to grouping 'bait' (/beɪt/) and 'beat' (/biːt/) together, which represent distinct vowel sounds. Zaurus (talk) 08:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Grouping them would be similar to grouping 'bait' (/beɪt/) and 'beat' (/biːt/) together ... There would be some similarity to that if Scottish English had a separate /eɪ/ phoneme contrasting with /eː/, but that doesn't seem to be the case. This template is used only for diaphonemic transcriptions and /eɪ/ is indeed a monophthong in many varieties of English despite of what the symbol might suggest. The notation /eː/ belongs to a different system. – MwGamera (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
/eɪ/ is indeed a monophthong in many varieties of English ... Not according to the *Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary*[1] and the *IPA Handbook*[2], which list /eɪ/ as a diphthong in English. The monophthongal variant (/eː/) exists, but it's specific to certain dialects, like Scottish English or some Southern Hemisphere accents. --Zaurus (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
^Jones, Daniel. *Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary*. 18th edition. Cambridge University Press, 2011.
^International Phonetic Association. *Handbook of the International Phonetic Association: A Guide to the Use of the International Phonetic Alphabet*. Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Pronunciation code "pron"
The pronunciation code pron seems to be implemented to output a space, instead of "pronounced:", as I would have expected. Is this intentional?
Not done for now: The whole point of the category is to surface uses of {{IPA}} for English so they can be converted to IPAc-en, which doesn't need a category because it's for only one language unlike {{IPA}}. This request makes the category useless. Nardog (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
