Contents

Talk:IPA number

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Writing systems Low‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Linguistics: Phonetics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Phonetics Task Force (assessed as Low-importance).

Requested move 21 August 2022

[edit]

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. Our time is better spent on other things. Nardog (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IPA number → IPA Number – Per the Handbook of the IPA (pp. 31, 161ff). Nardog (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the Handbook has "the IPA alphabet" and "a set of numbers referring to IPA symbols", all lower case, but "a unique, three-digit number known as its IPA Number. IPA Numbers were assigned in linear order following the new IPA Chart." So this is not just an instance of title case. Also an "IPA Number Chart." Whether WP should follow IPA capitalization I don't know. We tend to be more conservative than many in-house sources. — kwami (talk) 23:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalizing it makes sense so long as it's a proper name, not dissimilar to the International Standard Book Number or the Universal Product Code. We're not talking about any number associated with IPA letters but about this specific system. Nardog (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does make sense. I'm just not familiar enough with our capitalization conventions to know how well that would fit with WP:CONSISTENT. I've been surprised before by things that I would capitalize but that WP does not. I certainly don't oppose the move, and if you'd asked rather than starting a RMC, I'd've simply moved it and let someone object if they didn't like it. But my 'support' vote would mean little if it's contrary to our naming conventions. — kwami (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per MOS:CAPS, Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. An "IPA number" is obviously not a proper name. No such user (talk) 10:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The handbook is just a single source; do you have other reliable sources to show that it is consistently capitalized? Fredlesaltique (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, apart from a couple JIPA pubs in the 1990s by Esling, who was the author of the Handbook material. I'd deleted this section from the IPA article a couple times as not being notable, but it was restored, and I figured if we're going to present it, best to split it off. But it looks like I wasted my time cleaning it up. This is not a notable topic. AFAICT it was never used by anyone, and even the IPA isn't bothering to maintain it. Anyone mentioning it is probably just repeating the IPA Handbook and won't count as an instance of use. — kwami (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did find one source that discusses it for a couple pages (and notes that in practice it's been superseded): Steven Moran & Michael Cysouw (2018) The Unicode cookbook for linguists, p. 44-45. They don't capitalize; "IPA number" is treated as analogous to "IPA symbol". — kwami (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.