Wiktionary talk:Sample entry

Pronunciation[change]

Hi all!

I think we should change the style of the pro-section from currently

===Pronunciation===
* {{enPR|pronunciation}}
* {{IPA|pronunciation}}
* {{SAMPA|pronunciation}}
* {{audio|filename|Audio (UK)}}
* {{audio|filename|Audio (US)}}
* {{hyphenation|hy|phen|ation}}

to

===Pronunciation===
* {{UK}}
** {{enPR|pronunciation}}
** {{IPA|pronunciation}}
** {{SAMPA|pronunciation}}
** {{audio|filename|Audio (UK)}}
* {{US}}
** {{IPA|pronunciation}}
** {{SAMPA|pronunciation}}
** {{audio|filename|Audio (US)}}
* {{hyphenation|hy|phen|ation}}

I think it looks better this way and it is more user-friendly. It makes the page a bit longer, but it is more clear. I saw this style already on some article, but I'd like to see some other opinions. -Barras ^talk 11:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a good option, however, on many of our entries, the country of origin for the IPA, SAMPA and enPR pronunciations aren't specified, so how would we list them in entries such as that? Furthermore, what about entries that have just an audio file? I would find it pointless to add a *{{US}} before it as it would not really be needed. While in total, I like this idea, this idea still has a lot of work needed to be done before I could support adding it as the standard on the Simple English Wiktionary.

The way that I currently set pages up is like this:

* {{US}}
** {{IPA}}
** {{SAMPA}}
** {{enPR}}
* {{UK}}
** {{IPA}}
** {{SAMPA}}
** {{enPR}}
* Audio file
* Audio file
* {{hyphenation}}

While this is a little different than the one that Barras proposed, it is definitely fairly user-friendly, and in my opinion, would be a good choice for us to use on the Simple English Wiktionary. The following would be examples for pages that have only one country of origin for the pronunciations:

* {{US}} or {{UK}}
** {{IPA}}
** {{SAMPA}}
** {{enPR}}
* Audio file
* {{hyphenation}}

This would work, in my opinion when there are multiple kinds of pronunciations, however, maybe we could save a little space on some entries that only have a single kind of pronunciations by having it set up like this:

* {{US}} or {{UK}} {{IPA}} or {{SAMPA}} or {{enPR}}
* Audio file
* {{hyphenation}}

That would save some space in the entry itself, and would make it less space-filling, however, maybe we want to go the spread out route with this one as well:

* {{US}} or {{UK}}
** {{IPA}} or {{SAMPA}} or {{enPR}}
* Audio file
* {{hyphenation}}

Another thing to think about: What if the IPA, SAMPA, and enPR pronunciations are from one country and the audio file is from a different country? How would we set up the pronunciation section in that kind of instance? Anyways, these are some suggestions and things to think about, so I hope you enjoy them :) Razor flame 20:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will reply soon. I'm just a bit busy checking our new pages backlog which is more important. -Barras ^talk 09:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't really dabbled in the pronunciation sections (ever), but it seems to me that the most important thing is to be clear, though saving space could be a good thing as well. I'd say that as long as the entries are clear, we're good. If the audio file comes from a different country, I think it is important that people are able to understand that. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 17:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) Sorry for the very long delay. I was just too busy across different projects to think about this carefully. For me it is not about saving space on a page. Our articles are most often quite short. If they aren't, some really long articles won't hurt. For me it's just about being reader friendly and easy to understand. A clear layout. The propose I made above was just for the long articles, or better for articles with many types of pronunciation helps. For shorter things, I'd say just use common sense and try to let it look good. -Barras (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, I think this is a lot of unneccesary work for little to no benefit. It also looks sloppier than the current setup, imho. I propose keeping it the way it has always been done rather than create HUGE amounts of work for, again, little to no benefit. It is plenty clear as is. · Ty grrr... 17:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find it a lot of unnecessary work because I find it quite easy to change the pronunciaiton sections quite quickly. I don't think it is a matter of semantics; more, it is a matter of how the page looks to people learning English. If I were learning Engish, I would want things laid out as clearly as possible, and this new way of doing pronunciations lays that out quite clearly in my opinion. Razor flame 17:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide an example of something you think is unclear. I remain unconvinced that there is a compelling reason to make these changes. · Ty grrr... 18:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify what I'm saying, to sum up Barras' proposal as I understand it, s/he is saying that we should change from

===Pronunciation===
* {{UK}} {{enPR|pronunciation}}, {{IPA|pronunciation}}, {{SAMPA|pronunciation}}
* {{US}} {{IPA|pronunciation}}, {{SAMPA|pronunciation}}
* {{audio|filename|Audio (UK)}}
* {{audio|filename|Audio (US)}}
* {{hyphenation|hy|phen|ation}}

to

===Pronunciation===
* {{UK}}
** {{enPR|pronunciation}}
** {{IPA|pronunciation}}
** {{SAMPA|pronunciation}}
** {{audio|filename|Audio (UK)}}
* {{US}}
** {{IPA|pronunciation}}
** {{SAMPA|pronunciation}}
** {{audio|filename|Audio (US)}}
* {{hyphenation|hy|phen|ation}}

I don't see how this clarifies anything. It is an alternate option that we could have chosen when originally implementing pronunciation sections, but I see no reason to change to it now. It conveys the exact same information in a slightly different form. Why create thousands of edits worth of changes for something that does not significantly change what is conveyed??? · Ty grrr... 18:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some ESL learners have problems when presented with blocks of text without any breaks. What we are trying to accomplish by switching the formatting here is to make it more open and easier to read and less cluttered. Basically, we are opening up entries and making them, in my opinion, much easier to read each pronunciation, and I believe ESL learners would find the same to be true. That is all this is trying to accomplish. Furthermore, while they may not need to happen right now, I've already set up Darkicebot to go through all of our entries and change them to the new pronunciation formatting in case it is needed. I don't see why you have to be so resist to change when the change would better ourself as a Wiktionary. Razor flame 22:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TBH, I'm not sure this is a big issue - or at least not big enough to warrant the time needed to change things. The proposed changes are better only aesthetically IMHO (I'll admit they do seem a bit less cluttered), but I don't think one can become confused with our current system. I'd rather we were focussing our efforts on creating and expanding actual entries instead of more minor stuff like this. WT:BNC03, anyone? Tempodivalse [talk] 03:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, thank you, thank you for chiming in!!! You make me feel sane!!!!! I also feel that the supposed benefits do not make it worth the time and effort of changing all the pages we already have, plus teaching a new system to newcomers and returning users. Let's please just continue using the current system and get back to editing! :-) · Ty grrr... 14:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]