Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Phonetic Alphabet chart for English dialects

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There really aren't strong policy arguments on either side here, so I feel a close of "keep" wouldn't really be correct given that some legitimate issues were raised, but there also isn't a consensus to delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Phonetic Alphabet chart for English dialects

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

@Nardog: has suggested nuking it (see this discussion). I agree with the point that he's made, that picking one accent per country is arbitrary. There also are other problems, such as traditional transcription vs. sufficiently narrow phonetic transcription (see RP) and unnecessary discrepancies between transcriptions of different accents. For instance, there's zero need to differentiate between [o̯] and [ʊ̯] when it comes to the ending points of diphthongs. [e̯] vs. [ɪ̯] seems to me to be an overkill as well.

The South African row is an abomination. It mixes up broad, general and cultivated vowels without a single indication which is which. The Welsh row should be removed as it's inappropriate for the Cardiff accent and (less so) for a number of other accents. For instance, it shows NURSE as unrounded when in fact it is rounded and fronted in the south.

To me that article is just superfluous. Australian English phonology, English phonology, General American, New Zealand English phonology, Received Pronunciation and South African English phonology are all good articles that convey sufficient information for our readers. If not, we can always improve them. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 11:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'll just repeat what I said on the talk (a different section from the one the nominator mentioned): No dialect or even idiolect is as stable as the chart makes it out to be. Every realization, even of the same phoneme, even in the same phonetic environment, is not exactly the same as another. So the chart as it stands presents an unrealistic level of phonetic detail. But if we made the chart completely phonemic, that wouldn't allow for much comparison between varieties. But if we decided to make it less narrow, we wouldn't possibly be able to agree on how much detail to include [or maintain the same level of narrowness across accents]. So I find the premise of the article quite implausible in the first place. Nardog (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that it's an inconsistent and overly narrow mess, but we should have a one-stop resource for people who want to compare the diaphonemic IPA transcription to other dialects, particularly those that might be present in dictionaries. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 18:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But which column represents a variety of English as it's transcribed in any given dictionary? The Australian and New Zealand columns aren't examples of that. As far as I know, neither system is actually used in any dictionary. We already have Help:IPA/Conventions for English and we can expand English phonology so that it covers more varieties than just RP, GA and General Australian. How many? I guess 3 more (let's say those would be General NZE, General SAE and Standard Scottish English) wouldn't hurt anyone. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aeusoes1: in case he didn't see the reply. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep, it’s useful to have such an article, and issues can be improved instead of deleting the entire article. Umimmak (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not following the noms argument for deletion. If pages like Australian English phonology are acceptable, then a comparison between such pages is also acceptable. The article seems to be well sourced, despite the claims of OR, and such comparisons are certainly notable. Book sources discussing the subject include Variations in the Phonologies of Different English Varieties and New Zealand English which includes a chart comparing four different English varieties. The rest of the complaints come under cleanup, which AFD is not. SpinningSpark 00:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also don't follow the arguments for deletion. The nom mentions English phonology as a good article, and yet it also "picks one accent per country" to show the vowel phonemes. And the nom also suggests adding other standard or general varieties to that article, so what is the problem with having them here? If there are problems with the variety chosen to represent each country, or with the phonetic representation of certain phonemes for some varieties (or even of mixing of varieties), that is a question of improving the article, not deleting it. And yes, as well as sources for each variety of English, there are sources which compare them - it is definitely a notable topic. I think having a chart comparing the phonetic realisations of the consonant diaphonemes would also be useful, rather than a single chart and lots of footnotes, but again that is a matter of improvement. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.