Talk:Richard D'Oyly Carte

624: 603: 4108: 571: 450: 412: 391: 241: 327: 3313:

diaphonemic system is so abstruse for lay readers, are we to create different keys for Southern English, Midlands, Northern English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, American, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, South African, etc.? That would leave the readers with a greater burden of having to learn different systems across articles. (The argument that a guideline shouldn't apply to biographies because it doesn't explicitly mention them also strikes me as

360: 509: 485: 4049: 211: 739: 721: 749: 634: 3579:

are understandably objecting that if they see an /r/ in a phonetic transcription it sure looks like the transcription wants you to pronounce an /r/. By making this change, it may become more obvious to the English reader that this is specifically an r that their dialect doesn't pronounce, and the IPA wonks (including myself) would still be satisfied since the logic of the system remains intact.

3783:

have already said that we can add this new suggestion. What I subsequently raised (and what I was calling crap) is the fact that no IPA I have seen is ever supported by a reliable citation. That's a failure of our policy on supporting information in an article with reliable sources.Again, I have to ask you to strike a misleading part of your comment, which is becoming rather irritating: I have

3285:

to demonstrate community buy-in for the changes proposed here. As an uninvolved administrator, I have no opinion on the matter (indeed, I barely understand it), but I will ensure that the proposed change is not achieved by bludgeoning. Those wanting a change need to either get the guideline updated to make it clear that it must be applied to all articles including biographies, or start an

2305:

of provocative language and name-calling was one of the main reasons I felt that a fresh start to the debate is needed (the other was that almost all the previous debate, and all the substantive arguments in it, happened well over a year ago, so I felt it was better to set out all the main arguments again from scratch rather then them being lost as separate posts in a massive thread).

2445:? Are they reeling from that dasterrrrrdly US tag on the ɪə? No more than Americans from the length marks in 'Barack Obama' I expect. Nevertheless, you are a true victim of inhumane treatment here; that is, seasoned editors letting a discussion which they know full well can have but one conclusion agonizingly stagger on through the years instead of just ripping the band-aid off. 519: 3387:

letter that's clearly there" than as "pronounce these two letters the same way". So I wonder if we could preserve the diaphonemic nature of the key but make things more obvious by writing the diaphonemes as //ɑː(r)//, //ɔː(r)//, etc. with the r in parentheses. Who knows, it might then be clearer to UK speakers that the r should only be pronounced across the pond.

3875:

which I would rather avoid. Given there are several people active on this page who are invested in how IPA works, I would hope that this policy failure is picked up by at least one of them and discussed in an appropriate forum. Why, now I've raised it, even you could open a thread on the point, given it concerns failure of one of our most important policies. -

2611:

the mess that was attempted to be forced onto the page confuses rather than enlightens, which is the worse case scenario for an encyclopaedia. Personally I’d drop all pronunciation guides entirely as being largely useless except to a tiny minority, or at least drop them into a footnote where they don’t clutter up a lead sentence. -

3365:, but that is not obvious, especially when we are using the single slash delimiter that normally indicates phonemes). I do not believe anybody would want different keys for countless varieties of English. Suggesting that we might end up having countless different keys feels to me like an exaggeration of the opposite point of view. 3078:. Unlike common terms which can reasonably have multiple valid pronunciations between American and British English, surnames are personal and individual to the subject. In this case we should not be introducing American IPA as a valid alternative because to do so is not only a factual error but a form of 3874:

1. I'm still waiting for you to strike the incorrect and/or misleading accusations you have made.2. Probably, but I have found little enjoyment or even a collegial mindset discussing these matters, so I really don't want to have further discussions. No doubt it would result in further unpleasantness,

3627:

That's precisely the point: we're not saying "we think it should be pronounced in this way". We acknowledge that pronunciation differs in different parts of the world, and that is why our pronunciation key is structured so that people from different parts of the world can read and understand in their

3556:

I'm really not sure why we have to make a special form for American readers. What about the rest of the world? Do they get their own versions too? I'm not sure we need to add in what would be a foreign pronunciation just for the sake of one nation and the five or so readers who may a) understand IPA;

3284:

mentioned above?) is not sufficient because that guideline does not say that editors should arrive at a biographical article and change the pronunciation guide in a manner that others claim disagrees with how that person's name was actually pronounced by contemporaries. The MOS:RHOTIC supporters need

2380:

The last civil discussion in this thread happened 18 months ago, and it is normal after that length of time to start a new discussion rather than attempt to continue an old one where all the points are hidden away, apart from each other in a lengthly thread that is overwhelming to read as a newcomer,

2319:

You’ve continued an edit war that someone started yesterday. They were blocked for it, but that doesn’t seem to worry you, which says a lot about your approach. Any editor with any sense of decency would self-revert to the very long-standing consensus and just discuss on the talk page. I doubt you’ll

2304:

I have only made one edit to the article, so I have not "edit warred". I stated my reasons for starting a new thread. You now seem intent on derailing this attempt at a fresh start as well, by writing in a deliberately provocative, inflammatory way rather than attempting to engage in debate. Your use

814:

I have removed a good faith insertion of a rhotic R into the IPA version of Carte's name. If anyone wants to add an extra American pronunciation, so be it, but it would be a dereliction not to have as the primary pronunciation how it is pronounced in English usage, and how we know from recordings how

3941:

Without wishing to provoke an Oxbridge punch-up (having been at neither establishment), I hope it may be helpful to say here that the Oxford Dictionary of English prescribes the IPA rendition /ˌdɔɪlɪ ˈkɑːt/, the New Oxford American Dictionary recommends /ˈdoilē ˈkärt/, the Canadian Oxford Dictionary

3447:, but if we had, then rhotic "r"s would be entirely reasonable and helpful, and non-American speakers like me would know how it is pronounced at home, whether or not we can manage the rolled "r"s ourselves. I just think "It's pronounced like this unless you prefer that" isn't helpful to our readers. 2643:

I highly doubt I'm in the minority. Have you asked any of our readers if they use think it useful? I doubt it: just the usual confirmation bias from asking people within a small group of WP users. The confusion lies in exactly what you've just said: people are adding an American pronunciation onto a

909:

This is an English name that was pronounced the same (non-rhotically) by all members of the Carte family, all of whom were English, and should always be pronounced without the rhotic "r". I (an American) disagree strongly with Wolfdog, and I would also disagree with adding any second pronunciation.

3782:

crap, but that's not in any way uncivil. Get over it and stop trying to get people blocked - it's an unpleasant thing to try and bully people away from a page when they are not being uncivil, but are only referring to a general situation as being crap.If you had bothered to read my comment above, I

3442:

I have been asked to comment here. I am no expert on the IPA – like most of Knowledge's readers – and all I would like is a pronunciation guide that readers can rely on. Of course non-native English speakers are entirely at liberty to pronounce English names as they please (in Paris I am invariably

2610:

As Tim has said, using a non-standard system of something the majority of readers don’t understand is a frankly ridiculous thing people have been edit warring to force onto the article. I’m glad someone has acknowledged the flexible nature of the guidelines (not, as has been claimed, a policy), and

1580:

Because this is an encyclopedia, not a list of pronunciations. Conciseness is far more important in an encyclopedia article. If the above discussion proves anything, it is that the pronunciation guide is not very helpful or useful at all. However, I am not in favor of deleting it, since that would

1500:

outcome? It provides both the diaphonemic transcription we normally use on lead sentences as well as a transcription that is more particularly British/specific to the family's own accent. This is literally providing every possibility that is desired by editors here (which, we are lucky only amounts

1244:

may not have the status of official WP policy, but it is widespread practice across all Knowledge articles to use the diaphonemic transcription outlined there. Speakers of non-rhotic accents are not the only ones who are allowed to utter the name D'Oyly Carte, and when rhotic speakers pronounce it,

3752:

warning about civility. We should not have to explain ourselves infinite numbers of times only for a lone editor to react with a snide tone. Tim, who is on your side, has remained civil throughout. I have already politely requested civility. One more perceived rude wording, and I will be notifying

3578:

I think it would bring an end to it, speaking as someone from the IPA-obsessed side of things. The main reason why this conflict is happening is that we tend to want a transcription such that you can reconstruct a wide variety of dialects by reading the symbols in a particular way, whereas readers

2929:

I don't have thousands of articles on my talk page, but I do have this one - which is why the discussion is taking place here. I suspect that - as I have said above - most editors, let alone readers, don't care about and/or don't understand the pronunciation guide so are unlikely to comment on the

2525:

It's not clear to Offa29, Sol505000, Célestine-Edelweiß, Mahāgaja, and I,—who have now explained this repeatedly and are backed by the larger community—why some feel a special exception should exist for this page. It's an open-and-shut case. (To be fair to the opposing side, Tim riley has the best

2426:

Take the patronising civility policing elsewhere: I have zero interest in your thoughts on it, particularly a whole wall of tiresome text. Such patronising dross will only ever wind people up. If you archive this thread, I will bring it back here again: there are very good arguments presented here

3386:

Considering how often the /r/ thing gets objected to – whereas we don't typically see American editors complaining that the IPA makes vowel distinctions that they don't – it seems to me that the mental block against our diaphonemic key might be greater when it's presented as "don't pronounce this

3312:

varieties of English, while accents vary within every anglophone country (especially England). If the subject of a biography is from the West Country, do we go rhotic? But what if they spoke RP for most of their life? What about historical figures from before non-rhoticity gained prestige? If the

2756:

article, not any others. So we discuss it here, not elsewhere. This has rumbled on for over 18 months, with people invested in IPA periodically edit warring here to try and get their way, and the disruption is obvious. If you edit war here, you discuss it here. At present there is no consensus to

2411:

In the meantime, I would strongly advise you to read through all the Knowledge material on civility, reflect on whether or not your comments over the past couple of days have lived up to what is expected of Knowledge editors, and take care to adhere to the spirit of the civility policy in future.

1410:

Again, these are valid points. I suppose that (to explain any controversy), many might wish to protect their own choice or tradition of pronunciation. I'm actually not sure that it was necessary to provide any pronunciation guide to this particular name, but I have no personal objection to either

1340:

vowel; when an RP speaker uses my name I expect them to pronounce it as is normal in RP, and when a Scottish English speaker uses my name I expect them to pronounce it as in normal in Scottish English, even though neither of those is my own pronunciation. Just because it's my name, that doesn't

1080:

Tim Riley is correct. Having checked the IPA help page linked above, my interpretation is that RP should be used, and it is then up to the speaker to decide whether they interpret the phonetics to reflect their own pronunciation. In this case, an American speaker may choose to use a rhotic "r" or

3787:

called a general guideline crap: your comment is so far from what I have actually written, I'n wondering if you actually bothered to read it at all, or whether the word 'crap' just trigged a response that was rather wide of the mark. Again: please strike this so it is mire in line with what has

3995:

As long as the amateur variant of the IPA we use is correctly reflecting the pronunciation, that will be fine. An ogg sound file of the normal pronunciation will probably be useful to those of our readers - most of them, I'm sure - who don't tangle with the IPA in its normal form or Wikipedian

3889:

It seems that we are now discussing a different question, regarding the need to cite IPA transcriptions rather than the precise format they take. Regarding this article, I have provided a citation for the transcription on the talk page, and would be happy to add it to the article when the full

2958:

Please consider that some of us are trying to engage you in a good-faith conversation, and it's actually possible that we are not members of some zealous IPA cult. We are editors who tend to stick to guidelines and then suddenly we see one tiny article not following those guidelines. Sincerely

1188:

Right, haha, that sentence bolsters my point! Look at the example of how the broad IPA system transcribes the word "for" (in "grapes for Betty"): it gives the example transcribed as /fər/ (not /fə/). Rhotic transcription is maintained in the IPA system. (Tim, that alone doesn't make the system

2881:

There is nothing uncivil in what I have said, despite your claims to the contrary. You have misconstrued what I have said to have given a completely misleading impression, which is not a constructive approach at all. When I referred to the diktats, it was in reference to the location of the

3474:

So, would you consider a superscripted ʳ or parenthessied (r) for the extremely common case of "this r is pronounced in America but not in England" adequately helpful? It doesn't seem that unclear to me and would seem to help more of our readers without taking up too much space, but YMMV.

3832:(again) I'm delighted that you've now actually read what I wrote. I'll just await the striking of the parts of your comment that were erroneous mischaracterisations of what I actually said, with a request that you actually read my comments first before jumping to the wrong conclusions. - 3373:

which does not feel to me like the neutral point of view I would expect in the Manual of Style. We are used to be protective of our diaphonemic system. I do not want to question it. I am just saying that we should maybe have a more relaxed attitude and be open to other points of view.

3209:

I have fully protected the article for a week and will watch here for a while. Ask me or any admin to remove protection once a clear consensus is obtained. Warning: To avoid edit-warring blocks, please be sure that there is a clear consensus before changing the pronunciation again.

2521:, a guideline that gives us all we need here. If editors don't like this guideline (which is arrived at by consensus) then that's a separate matter and should be battled out at the guideline's talk page. But as long as the guideline exists, we ought to follow it on a specific page: 1059:

Perhaps, Wolfdog, you'd point us in the direction of the Knowledge policy that says that IPA transcriptions are all to be based on American pronunciation? If there is one, we can reconsider how to explain to our readers how the names are actually pronounced by those who own them.

3225:

The very long-standing status quo has now been edit warred away by people who don’t think discussion is warranted. There won’t be a consensus unless it’s one they are happy to bully into place. Reminds me of another group of editors who are disruptive in achieving their aims. -

3606:) that for the tiny number of people who can understand it, will pronounce it in line with their existing accent. It seems a complete waste of time and effort to try and confuse people over something that will have so little impact that disrupts the opening of the article. - 2169:. Are we inappropriately giving a "British" pronunciation of these American place names? No, we are transcribing them in a way such that the pronunciation is predictable in any major accent. It is predictable that in most American accents, what is transcribed as 3628:

own dialects. If you see /kɑːʳt/, and you're English, you pronounce it without the r. If you're American, you pronounce it with one. If you're Scottish, you pronounce it with a rolled r. That's why we tell people in the key that /ɑːʳ/ represents the vowel of

3516:

Well, if it helps to clarify things: the explicit result of my proposal if implemented would be that we'd write //ˈdɔɪli kɑːʳt//, with the central IPA guide updated to indicate that superscripted ʳ means "this r is pronounced in America but not in England".

1816:

What on earth is wrong with people that they are so arrogant that they continue to edit war even after someone has been blocked? And to tell untruths about IPA being a policy, when it really isn’t (it’s a guideline) and, like a lot of the MOS, flexible. -

3017:

The needs of readers are exactly why we have certain IPA conventions on Knowledge. That’s why we should not focus on the subject’s nationality but rather on the fact that people with all sorts of accents (including non-native ones!) visit this project. ~

2846:

other examples of names from England, see the Knowledge pronunciation transcriptions on the articles for Birmingham /ˈbɜːrmɪŋəm/, Derby /ˈdɑːrbi/, Manchester (/ˈmæntʃɪstər/. All of them include postvocalic /r/ that is not sounded in the local non-rhotic

2577:

as for all other English-language pronunciations, unless the pronunciation in a particular dialect swifts from the regular realization of the diaphoneme. But this person’s name is no special case; people with rhotic accents are not going to pronounce

1117:

It is often possible to transcribe a word in a generic way that is not specific to any one accent, e.g. Oxford as /ˈɒksfərd/. Speakers of non-rhotic accents, as in much of Australia, England, New Zealand, and Wales, will pronounce the second syllable

2698:

We have ENGVAR for a reason, and the spoken word is as much a part of national use as spelling. And here is the best place to discuss matters relating to this article and how the numerous flexible guidelines should or should not be applied to it. -

3145:

There is only one thing that is certain about WP Talk pages: Nothing is "for the last time". As an American rhotic speaker, I have no problem with the pronunciation guide being given the way Carte pronounced his own name, so I must agree with

2405:

I will take some time out, then in due course, archive this thread and make a new one where we can go back to first principles of the debate and discuss the matter anew. I will seek consensus for the change I wish to make. This is the only way

1134:

Try as I may I can't interpret the IPA help page as Wolfdog does. It seems to me that he is on a one-person mission here, and unless he can rapidly assemble a consensus here in favour of his contentions I suggest we regard the matter as closed.

3557:

and b) give a toss about the foreign pronunciation of the name. If it brings an end to the 18-month long slow burn nonsense on this, then I supposed we can add something that isn't needed, even if it doesn't actually help any of our readers. -

858:

as well as it can. Thus, on the first link you'll see that /ɑːr/ is how START is transcribed, even though most Brits certainly say /ɑː/ for START. You can see this same IPA convention employed, for instance, on British placename articles like

1174:"Let's pick some grapes for Betty should be transcribed ... regardless of the variety of English and everyone should interpret that transcription according to their own dialect." (I'm not currently able to copy the IPA, hence the ellipsis.) 2721:

is very simple: there are a lot of English speakers that distinguish the two; if your variety doesn’t, it’s enough to ignore the distinction. You have not contested anything about the article topic, you have questioned the conventions at

2228:

I would also note that, in many cases, transcribing a name in a non-rhotic way is not even possible, even if the name is British. If you attempt to transcribe /ɛə/, /ɪə/ or /ʊə/ under {{IPAc-en}} without the following /r/, it will return

3168:

I wasn’t saying it is required to do so, I merely restated that’s the convention we have been following so far in the vast majority of cases (and for this reason, we’re discussing this in the wrong place – a thread has been opened at

1758:

Perhaps it would ease controversy to delete the guide completely. I think this may otherwise turn out to be a never-ending cycle. I notice that there is none for other family members. (Hopefully no one will now add one to those now.)

1882:. Nor does it mean that the transcription system favours American English in general. The transcription system is designed to account for distinctions made in all major varities of English. It includes the distinction between 3593:

Given, as has been repeated multiple times in these threads, pronunciation differs in different parts of the world, what is the point of saying "we think it should be pronounced in this specific way"? Aside from this failing

2496: 3048:) and you have thoughts on how to make it a bit more transparent (it's definitely not perfectly reader-friendly but it does have the tooltip function which is quite useful), it would be appropriate to voice such opinions at 3744:, yet refuse to engage/discuss that at the relevant pages, as has been requested. Then, at the same time, you suggest you're not interested in the guideline and only care about this one page. 2) Your use of verbiage like 3276:. Second, there have been many cases where people have disagreed about the format or style or whatever in articles, and where the dispute led to major disruption that was eventually resolved by applying the principles of 153: 768:, a group writing and editing Knowledge articles on operas, opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project 4109: 2672:– not at article subjects; the issue has little to do with ENGVAR, since pronunciation transcriptions are not part of normal language usage. Again, this specific page is not the place where you should discuss this. ~ 1249:. This is not an American vs. British issue, since not all rhotic speakers are American, or even North American. When English speakers from Scotland, Ireland, or Devon pronounce this name, they pronounce it with an 3714:

citation. When we convert from imperial to metric we don't need to support the maths, but we do need to support the figure in question. IPA doesn't bother with any citation from any source. It is, as far as our

3810:

Again: not the most collegial way to support the proposal. It feels quite sarcastic. Can you see that? I'm happy to hear you're on board though; the passage I just excerpted did not directly imply that to me.

3686:

to solve the endless problem that seems to arise from misunderstanding our use of the symbol /r/. Surely that can't be OR, or else it'd be OR to convert data from imperial to metric, which it obviously isn't.

2789:

symbol, it makes more sense to remove the transcription altogether. And keep the regular usage of the template in the remaining thousands of instances found in articles about British people or locations. ~

2501: 2376:

The page warns that incivil comments “disrupt the project”, which has happened to this discussion. When a discussion has turned as toxic as this has, it is virtually impossible to de-escalate back to civil

2391:

A fresh start, and a new thread, is needed, where we can jettison the baggage that this discussion has built up. I should have archived the thread when I made the new one, but I am not used to doing this.

2820:

are telling you to discuss your qualm at a more relevant place. You're acting as if your problem is with this one specific page when it is quite clear to Ivan and I that, really, you have a problem with

2959:

speaking, perhaps that can help you see our perspective: why our confusion is understandable and why we are trying to explain how we use this guideline, alongside asking natural questions on the topic.

2386:

It is clear to me that no productive discussion will come from attempting to resurrect a thread from 18 months ago that has seen only toxic incivility since its revival. This thread is beyond salvage.

962:

do is add a "UK" label to the IPA formatting. That shows a nation-specific pronunciation. I'm happy to do that. (But notice, for instance, if you wanted to transcribe the French-originating surname

3598:, it does beg the larger question of why we are bothering. People will pronounce the name in line with their own accent, so you're showing something (with or without the r, whether /kɑːt/, /kɑrt/, 1434:

so differently as to make it seem almost like three different names. (How he himself pronounced it I shouldn't dare speculate.) What the pronunciation guide here is for is not to tell people 'You

3963:

How so? If you look up each symbol in the front matter it will be evident they correspond to the same vowels/consonants (apart from /r/). Those dictionaries are in agreement with Cambridge.

3733:

The fact is, we are trying to negotiate and come to a middle-ground, and most of the editors involved in the recent suggestion are in favor. Even Tim riley finds the suggestion "admirable".

1800:

I’m glad you seem to be able to use that talk page, but maybe you should do so without the edit warring and rather arrogant edit summaries. Perhaps you could try and discuss civilly here? -

3324:. If we did a referendum on the guideline as Johnuniq suggests, we could totally lose it, because consensus on Knowledge is formed by self-selected members and cares little about expertise 2996:

sorry about my typing - right hand temporarily in plaster - but i think we really ought to keep in sight the needs of our readers rather than any theology about wikipedia's version of ipa.

2951:

Yes, I am happy to admit when I make mistakes; it would be nice to see you extend a similar olive branch. Incivility is in the eye of the beholder and I won't be striking my opinion that

1496:

It seems that Bkesselman's proposal for two pronunciations is the only way forward (although it would be redundant). Ssilvers, how in the world would providing two pronunciations be the

4293: 585: 3308:, a subsection of ENGVAR. Our readers come from all over the world, so we try to accommodate them as widely (but also as concisely) as possible. Also, ENGVAR is about choosing between 2857:

like in the West Country or traditional Lancashire). The more you make these arguments, the more you bolster our observation that you have a problem with the whole larger guideline.

3280:. That is, people should not systematically change the style of anything in articles without first showing a strong consensus for that change. The fact that there is a guideline ( 889:

I wonder if other editors will agree that we should show as the primary pronunciation a pronunciation that the Cartes did not use rather than the one they did. Comments welcome.

1033:

You both seem not to be hearing me. The way a family name, given name, etc. is pronounced is still affected by one's accent. Let's take some other British names here on WP. The

147: 2446: 1611:

does and give both English and American pronunciations (English /kɑːt/, US /kɑrt/) but as WP doesn't do that I concur with Ssilvers that we should stick with the status quo.

467: 4288: 2644:

British topic. It causes confusion for readers, despite whatever people from a small sub-project may think: this isn't US.WP, and we have things like ENGVAR for a reason. -

1005:

But in this case it is the British pronunciation which is standard. If one wished to have an alternative pronunciation it would need a US label, but this seems unnecessary.

1482:

stupid pronunciation guides would be the worst outcome here. We have a consensus above, and I don't understand why Mahagaja should be allowed to edit war to change it. --

3890:

protection is taken off. (Unless, of course, someone beats me to it.) Regarding citing IPA transcriptions in general, I think that deserves a separate discussion indeed.

3268:). Those advocating for a change should be aware of two things. First, the approach taken here is very reminiscent of the Infobox Wars which led to numerous disputes and 1836:

sets out the best way of transcribing pronunciation of names in a generic way that it is not specific to any accent, which it is the Knowledge norm to do where possible.

1690: 1112: 202: 3443:

Monsieur Rilly, to rhyme with silly) but I think we should be indicating the customary English pronunciation of an English name. We haven't got an IPA guide for, e.g.,

1715:

Alas, readers familiar with the real-world IPA cannot be expected to guess that Knowledge has its own esoteric phonetic system in which the pronunciation symbols mean "

2441:

There are not only no "very good" arguments in this thread, but no arguments at all. How many Britons in the last 48 hours do you think have gone and looked into

2538:

side, it obscures the larger truth that IPA is not used in any perfectly consistent or universal way, even from one dictionary to the next, so Knowledge editors

2427:

that you cannot just hide because you want to, no matter how much you want to bloat the thread will walls of tedium no-one is going to read or take seriously. -

4278: 2286:

Why you edit war when there was a thread already open and obvious disagreement? Why did you falsely claim it is a policy, whe it is nothing of the sort, but a

580: 495: 457: 1263:

make it clear that /ɑːr/ in the transcription does not mean that the /r/ is necessarily pronounced; it means that the sequence is to pronounced just like the

3150:

on this one, and I must disagree that the IPA guide is required to cover "all the major" pronunciation variants, whatever those are. But most of us here are

2930:

pages on their watchlist. Thank you for your partial striking of the comment, although the untrue allegation of incivility should also have been stricken. -

1689:

is to incorporate both a standard American and a standard British accent into one system, for the umpteenth time. Again: See the very first two sentences of

2523:

It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.

944:

If we know how they pronounced it (which we do from recordings) and that use is still the commonly used version, then I think it best we stick with it. -

4298: 1723:". Why not follow the OED and give the accepted pronunciations in English and American? We are supposed to help our readers rather than confusing them. 1019:

It’s not about “personal feelings” (with or without italics), it’s about how the family pronounced their name, and how it is still pronounced correctly.

2320:

do that, however. I’ve merged the two threads as they are about the same subject and open at the same time, and it’s ridiculous to have a second one. -

1115:

for IPAc-en, and notice that the example given in fact includes the very /r/ we've been discussing (in a particularly British placename too, Oxford):

1189:"American" or an "Americanisation". Knowledge conventions also maintain the phoneme /ɒ/, which one could just as well argue makes it more British!) 703: 4273: 3361:, in others it isn’t. The presence or absence of the rhotic phoneme is a difference, not a commonality (I know the commonality is the diaphoneme 428: 2752:

You repeating that something should be discussed elsewhere doesn't make it true. We're discussing how a flexible guideline should be applied to

3115:

is going to pronounce their name in. English IPA on Knowledge is intended to cover all the major pronunciation variants across the dialects. ~

3660: 3640: 44: 1041:

says /pɪərz/, which on WP means for GenAm, for RP. This is the same situation. A convention has already been established. Again, just see

3857: 3053: 1778: 1941:

The diaphonemic policy is standar on Knowledge. used on names from all over the English speaking world, not just on names from England.

1334:

Incidentally, the fact that the most famous members of the family happened to be non-rhotic speakers is irrelevant. My name contains the

4020:

that will allow automatic generation of audio from IPA, though it's been stalled and it'll likely be years before it becomes available.

3056:. If you wish to abolish the diaphonemic system entirely, I suppose those same two talk pages are where you could voice those thoughts. 2497:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Linguistics#RfC: Should we keep our non-standard use of single slashes to enclose diaphonemic transcriptions?

4091: 419: 396: 79: 4221: 2512: 4039: 2127:

are transcribed on their respective articles. General American, and the varieties of American English spoken in these placs, lacks a

168: 3852:, you may well have a good point (though I don't initially agree), but shouldn't this (again) be discussed at a more relevant page? 4313: 3942:

goes for /ˌdɔili ˈkɑrt/, the New Zealand Oxford Dictionary prescribes /ˌdɔɪli: ˈka:t. I trust this adequately confuses the matter.

693: 536:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to 135: 3421: 3111:

For the last time, any personal detail about the subject – such as their nationality – should have no bearing on which accent the

2904:

was about location rather than a WP convention. That's been amended. Meanwhile, for the third time, to the matter at hand: WHY do

2491: 1768: 1468: 1420: 4303: 3396: 3011: 2472: 2454: 1794: 1361: 838: 537: 252: 4268: 3091: 2551: 1699:. Speakers of non-rhotic accents, as in much of Australia, England, New Zealand, and Wales, will pronounce the second syllable 2280: 4318: 3489:

I really am a duffer at the IPA, but if I correctly understand your immediately preceding comment it sounds admirable to me.

3039: 85: 4248: 4202: 4188: 3526: 3504: 3484: 3194: 3163: 2811: 2766: 2747: 2708: 2693: 4283: 3899: 3728: 3696: 3673: 3653: 3615: 3588: 3381: 3136: 2658:

What’s confusing is using different conventions to transcribe English pronunciations across Knowledge rather than stick to

2603: 2369:

I do not think that these comments comply with the warnings against “rudeness, insults, name-calling” and the direction to

541: 210: 198: 194: 190: 3766: 3437: 1453: 1232: 1090: 4328: 3708:

I'm not claiming that - that's a straw man. What I've noticed on every piece of IPA gobbledegook is the complete lack of

2757:

change, so try constructively discussing, rather spewing forth diktats on where you want the discussion to take place. -

1491: 933: 809: 270: 4142: 4076:

As discussed, I've made a sound file (ogg.vorbis) to be added to the IPA rendition of the name: D'oyly-carte-spoken.ogg

3329: 2528:

readers familiar with the real-world IPA cannot be expected to guess that Knowledge has its own esoteric phonetic system

1826: 1809: 1626: 1351: 1329: 1212: 1198: 1183: 1164: 1129: 1014: 953: 919: 129: 4308: 4011: 3990: 3544: 3462: 3235: 3065: 1738: 1710: 1680: 1660: 1581:

just lead to ongoing and repeated arguments about it. So let's leave it alone and move on to more important things. --

1150: 1075: 904: 884: 669: 545: 30: 4123: 4029: 3972: 3884: 3869: 3841: 3820: 3797: 3566: 2968: 2939: 2924: 2895: 2876: 2653: 2638: 2620: 1590: 1575: 1295:, rhotic and nonrhotic alike, pronounces it "kaht", which is untrue. Rather, everyone pronounces it as a homophone of 1109:, abstractions of speech sounds that accommodate General American, Received Pronunciation (RP) and to a large extent . 1054: 1028: 1000: 3719:

on supporting information in articles, unsupported original research. It's a bit crap all round, really, isn't it? -

3679: 3341: 3106: 2502:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Linguistics#RfC: Should we keep delimiting diaphonemic transcriptions with single slashes?

2450: 2436: 2421: 2329: 2314: 2299: 1380: 4323: 4263: 3977:

I'm with Nardog. All of this is already covered (and quite efficiently covered!) by our diaphonemic transcription:

1120:

Bkesselman, I'm not sure where you're getting your interpretations; please provide quotes or policy, as I've done.

770: 339: 125: 2625:

It's fine that you feel this way about pronunciation guides, but you're in the minority on that view. And what is

2530:. That's fair, but if you feel it's an overriding issue, again it should be battled out elsewhere. The fact is we 532: 490: 345: 258: 99: 2853:. Others have already described non-American accents this accommodates (Irish, Scottish, even certain dialects 310: 104: 20: 2713:

ENGVAR is about spelling and grammar, not about the way you represent pronunciation. And the reason for using

2629:? You're talking about /kɑːrt/? Most Americans pronounce that /r/ and most Brits don't. What's the confusion? 175: 3535:

also accommodates Scottish, Irish (Northern and Southern), West Country, and traditional Lancashire readers.

2860:

While, yes, MOS:RHOTC is flexible and allows for exceptions, you've continued not to make a case for WHY you

1944:

For other examples of names from England, see the Knowledge pronunciation transcriptions on the articles for

665: 647: 608: 74: 1862:

in the speaker's native accent. It does not imply pronouncing an /r/ if the reader is a non-rhotic speaker.

1459:

Perhaps 2 pronunciations could be included (labelled suitably), as happens with other words on Knowledge.

371: 4133:. I support substituting the sound file for the IPA guide that is currently at the top of the article. -- 3957: 3362: 3358: 2786: 2718: 2714: 3740:, I sense several ongoing problems. 1) You continue to criticize the general guideline, as in calling it 3298: 3219: 3079: 2370: 958:

All your arguments makes sense and I hear you, but it's just simply not what we do on Knowledge. What we

763: 726: 65: 3428:

with that superscript (already used in some dictionaries). I would be content with either step forward.

2396:

But, given how toxic this discussion has become and how frayed all tempers, including mine have become,

3808:

I supposed we can add something that isn't needed, even if it doesn't actually help any of our readers.

3378: 2509: 1438:

pronounce the name this way', but, merely factually, 'This is how the people concerned pronounced it.'

185: 1608: 2849:

This is a well-established transcription on WP which you are inaccurately continuing to simplify as

303: 141: 1910:

made in General American but not Received Pronunciation, but it also includes distinctions such as

1832:

Making a new thread as this debate has got too heated. I think it needs to be stated from scratch.

3353:

I believe there are people who would disagree with that point of view. In some varieties the name

1430:

pronounce a name. English, French and American speakers of my acquaintance all pronounce the name

1217:

Many thanks to Wolfdog for taking the arguments above on board and making the appropriate change.

427:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

4242: 4182: 4055: 3996:

variant, and once I have back the full use of both hands (recent surgery) I'll do the necessary.

3632:

in whatever dialect you have, not a specific sound; and the same goes for all the other entries.

3188: 3130: 3033: 2805: 2741: 2687: 2597: 1866:. American English is not the only rhotic accent of English; there are rhotic accents in the UK: 109: 2348:

Much of your input into the debate over the past couple of days has, in my opinion, been uncivil

4151: 3895: 3692: 3649: 3584: 3522: 3480: 3392: 3412:

As the skeptics/objectors, what do you think of this proposed change? For example, transcribe

3853: 3375: 3247: 3170: 3075: 3049: 2886:

about following the guideline, and you should strike the misleading parts of your comment. -

2506: 1782: 820: 652: 377: 24: 1095:

Tim, I have in no way recommended American pronunciations as the basis for anything -- only

623: 602: 3273: 1875: 1764: 1464: 1416: 1208: 1179: 1086: 1010: 929: 816: 424: 240: 4017: 2053:. All of them include postvocalic /r/ that is not sounded in the local non-rhotic accent. 326: 8: 4084: 4004: 3950: 3497: 3455: 3044:

I agree exactly with Ivan. Now, if you don't like the guideline (what you're calling the

3004: 2343:, so it is interesting to see that you've now pivoted to wanting to keep the thread open. 1790: 1731: 1673: 1665:

Except that it doesn't: how does your /ˈdɔɪli kɑːrt/; reflect the English pronunciation?

1619: 1446: 1225: 1143: 1068: 897: 831: 55: 4228: 4217: 4198: 4168: 4138: 3880: 3837: 3827: 3793: 3773: 3724: 3703: 3669: 3611: 3562: 3551: 3326:(we wouldn't be having this conversation if the IPA was taught like the periodic table) 3294: 3243: 3231: 3215: 3174: 3159: 3151: 3116: 3019: 2935: 2891: 2791: 2762: 2727: 2704: 2673: 2649: 2627:

the mess that was attempted to be forced onto the page confuses rather than enlightens

2616: 2583: 2468: 2432: 2325: 2295: 1879: 1822: 1805: 1586: 1487: 1368: 1346: 1324: 1160: 1024: 949: 915: 70: 1367:

a guideline. It is Kafkaesque to see Wolfdog and you being chided for simply applying

3986: 3891: 3865: 3816: 3762: 3688: 3645: 3580: 3540: 3518: 3476: 3433: 3388: 3102: 3087: 3061: 2964: 2920: 2872: 2829:. In all respectful terms, this is the implication we're getting. You accusing us of 2634: 2547: 1706: 1656: 1571: 1271:, however that word is pronounced in any given speaker's accent. If we transcribe it 1194: 1125: 1050: 996: 880: 262: 51: 4227:

Not necessary actually, but I think it’s better if it’s immediately identifiable. ~

4212:

Do we even need the word "pronunciation", or is the little player symbol enough? --

1155:

Given it’s a help page, rather than a policy or guideline, I think I would agree. -

4161: 4119: 4025: 3968: 3337: 3314: 3277: 2779: 2723: 2662: 2571: 2561: 2417: 2310: 2276: 2260: 2246: 2232: 2214: 2200: 2186: 2172: 2158: 2144: 2130: 2101: 2062: 2018: 1988: 1950: 1927: 1913: 1899: 1885: 1867: 1843: 1837: 1548: 1505: 1376: 1357: 1302: 1274: 1257: 1241: 1100: 1042: 1034: 973: 845: 524: 1099:

pronunciations using the template IPAc-en. And I've given you the policy already:

161: 3369:

uses similar language. It contains an example with 6 different pronunciations of

3348: 3305: 3097:

No one's introducing American IPA. This has already been discussed (ad nauseam).

2460: 2351: 1833: 1774: 1760: 1542: 1475: 1460: 1412: 1204: 1175: 1082: 1006: 925: 3289:

at this talk page regarding how the pronunciation should be shown in this case.

225: 4079: 3999: 3945: 3511: 3492: 3469: 3450: 3407: 3321: 3255: 2999: 2334:

I am well of the three-revert rule and would take great care not to violate it.

1871: 1786: 1726: 1668: 1614: 1441: 1220: 1138: 1063: 892: 826: 639: 570: 2948:

should we treat this article any differently than the numerous similar others?

2911:? Why would we treat this instance any differently than, in Ivan's words, the 966:

for a Briton, there's no option in our WP convention for /kɛə/; you literally

449: 221: 4257: 4213: 4194: 4134: 3876: 3833: 3789: 3749: 3737: 3720: 3665: 3622: 3607: 3573: 3558: 3403: 3290: 3286: 3269: 3251: 3227: 3211: 3155: 2931: 2887: 2837: 2758: 2700: 2645: 2612: 2490:

As a follow-up to one aspect of this discussion (or rather as a follow-up to

2464: 2428: 2381:

and had long since drifted away from the intial principles of the discussion.

2350:. It has fallen short of what is expected of Knowledge editors as set out in 2321: 2291: 1818: 1801: 1582: 1483: 1342: 1320: 1156: 1020: 945: 911: 3328:. One transcription in one article is definitely not worth having to review 3982: 3861: 3812: 3758: 3754: 3595: 3536: 3429: 3259: 3204: 3147: 3098: 3083: 3057: 2960: 2916: 2868: 2630: 2543: 2442: 1702: 1652: 1567: 1237: 1190: 1121: 1046: 1038: 992: 876: 754: 2913:

thousands of instances found in articles about British people or locations

2400:

is needed for us to all cool down before starting a productive discission.

1037:

article says /ˈɛdʒioʊfɔːr/, which on WP means say for GenAm and for RP.

4115: 4021: 3964: 3444: 3333: 2841: 2413: 2306: 2272: 1372: 3678:

None, and I never claimed that there was any. The pronunciation is from

226: 4114:. Note the empty parameter between the transcription and the filename. 3366: 3281: 2518: 2012: 1945: 1106: 850: 411: 390: 2373:. Writing ’’’’why did you falsely claim’’” does not assume good faith. 1431: 333: 3682:, and we are simply proposing to convert it into the conventions of 664:

Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the

4103: 3320:

That said, I'm also tempted to urge "the MOS:RHOTIC supporters" to

2557:

Chiming in to second this. There is no reason why we shouldn’t use

1695:

It is often possible to transcribe a word in a generic way that is

1203:

You make a valid point and I understand where you are coming from.

868: 864: 544:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the 508: 484: 223: 1341:

give me the authority to override other people's native accents. —

2882:

discussion - this was made extremely clear in my comment. It was

2534:

our "esoteric" system and it's consensus-created. But to be fair

2057: 860: 656: 2851:

people are adding an American pronunciation onto a British topic

2726:

altogether; so no, this is not where you should discuss this. ~

924:

I agree that including a rhotic "r" is undesirable in this case.

2095: 1501:

to TWO possibilities: very doable!). Here's how it would look:

1773:

This is a non-issue: as long as the IPAc-en template is used,

227: 2668:

which is meant to apply to most varieties and is directed at

1983: 872: 855: 2825:

here at WP. So, from Ivan's and my point POV, you're simply

2360:

What on earth is wrong with people that they are so arrogant

748: 738: 720: 633: 3850:

no IPA I have seen is ever supported by a reliable citation

1411:

version (though one is more natural to me than the other).

4294:

Mid-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles

4043: 3422:

Help_talk:IPA/English#Edit warring at Richard D'Oyly Carte

2492:

Help talk:IPA/English#Edit warring at Richard D'Oyly Carte

3664:

refers to the pronunciation of "Richard D'Oyly Carte"? -

2834:

when we are merely following a very commonplace guideline

1697:

not specific to any one accent, e.g. Oxford as /ˈɒksfərd/

991:

on the matter; it's about an established WP convention.)

3347:

The philosophy behind MOS:RHOTIC is the same one behind

3304:

The philosophy behind MOS:RHOTIC is the same one behind

1854:

is defined as the pronunciation of the embolded part of

1840:

defines the Knowledge diaphonemic transcription system.

1081:

not, but the IPA should most definitely not include one.

4193:

The edit has been made as full protection has expired.

3778:

Stop with the tedious civility nonsense: I've called a

3748:

continues to feel uncollegial and fiery to me, despite

2542:

agree upon and create our own system to implement it.)

3634:(Well, right now we still write a full-sized r in it.) 2517:

It's not clear to me why we can't all agree to follow

160: 2065: 1864:

This is not an "Americanisation" of the pronunciation

332:

A fact from this article was featured on Knowledge's

4289:

GA-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles

1777:

applies. If you disagree with it, take it to either

774:

is a place to talk about issues and exchange ideas.

744: 629: 514: 423:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 15: 3644:uses precisely this convention with superscript ʳ. 2104: 2074: 2021: 1991: 1953: 1651:is exactly what the WP diaphonemic system does! 😂 1508: 1171:

Wolfdog, here is a quote from the page you link to.

3424:, another solution suggested is the transcription 2785:consistently is because you don’t want to see an 1426:Good heavens! Nobody is telling anybody how they 4255: 4099:{{IPA-all|ˈdɔɪli kɑːt||D'oyly-carte-spoken.ogg}} 3804:already said that we can add this new suggestion 3272:reports, culminating in an exhausting battle at 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 1299:, however they pronounce that. And that's what 2906:you feel a special exception should exist for 2263: 2249: 2235: 2189: 2175: 2161: 2147: 2068: 2045: 1514: 979: 268:If it no longer meets these criteria, you can 4279:High-importance Gilbert and Sullivan articles 3684:The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language 3661:The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language 3641:The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language 2110: 2033: 1916: 1902: 1554: 1280: 1240:is definitely not "on a one-person mission". 174: 3858:Knowledge talk:Manual of Style/Pronunciation 3266:notifying those who commented on 9 July 2024 3074:. This conversation needs a healthy dose of 3054:Knowledge talk:Manual of Style/Pronunciation 2217: 1997: 1959: 1888: 1846: 1779:Knowledge talk:Manual of Style/Pronunciation 1528: 1308: 2836:is in fact verging on being uncivil, which 2086: 2080: 2003: 1971: 1968: 1701:, while rhotic accents will pronounce it . 1520: 854:system that broadly represents both RP and 4299:Arts and entertainment work group articles 3860:, which have been repeatedly recommended. 2862:feel a special exception should exist for 2459:Please focus on the issue and engage in a 2364:Any editor with any sense of decency would 2203: 2133: 2116: 1930: 1111:Also, see the very first two sentences of 437:Knowledge:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan 2463:. Further poking will result in a block. 2071: 2036: 2027: 1965: 440:Template:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan 4097:Note to responder: this can be added as 2775:article”: if the only reason not to use 2771:Alright, then here are my two cents on “ 2494:), I have opened a request for comment: 2356:Why did you falsely claim it is a policy 1649:both English and American pronunciations 987:. So it's not really about our personal 3735:NOTE after edit conflict with SchroCat: 2341:you archived this thread only yesterday 1362:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Pronunciation 1103:. So long as we're using IPAc-en, then 760:This article falls within the scope of 4274:GA-Class Gilbert and Sullivan articles 4256: 4102: 4040:Protected edit request on 13 July 2024 2141:phoneme, and pronounces the sequence 2119: 2113: 2083: 2077: 2039: 2030: 1938:made in RP but not General American. 1607:I suppose ideally we could do as the 1551: 1525: 1305: 1277: 976: 581:the arts and entertainment work group 2107: 2042: 2000: 1994: 1956: 1557: 1531: 1517: 1511: 1478:, I strongly believe that including 1311: 1283: 530:This article is within the scope of 417:This article is within the scope of 359: 357: 353: 2056:But, here's the thing, look at how 2024: 1974: 1962: 1685:Yes, it absolutely does. Its whole 376:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 13: 569: 14: 4340: 3802:Let's be clear. The way that you 2290:, flexible and not compulsory. - 1719:unless you'd rather pronounce it 261:. If you can improve it further, 4047: 3806:is when you said the following: 2259: 2245: 2231: 2213: 2199: 2185: 2171: 2157: 2143: 2129: 2100: 2061: 2017: 1987: 1949: 1926: 1912: 1898: 1884: 1842: 1547: 1504: 1301: 1273: 972: 810:Americanisation of pronunciation 747: 737: 719: 632: 622: 601: 517: 507: 483: 448: 420:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan 410: 389: 358: 325: 239: 209: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 4314:Mid-importance Theatre articles 3357:is pronounced with the phoneme 2955:is sharp, uncollegial language. 2840:has already warned us against. 698:This article has been rated as 554:Knowledge:WikiProject Biography 462:This article has been rated as 4304:WikiProject Biography articles 2354:. This includes comments like 557:Template:WikiProject Biography 249:has been listed as one of the 1: 4269:Media and drama good articles 2944:The question on the floor is 1769:15:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC) 1492:15:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC) 1469:15:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC) 1454:15:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC) 1421:14:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC) 1352:14:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC) 1330:14:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC) 678:Knowledge:WikiProject Theatre 578:This article is supported by 443:Gilbert and Sullivan articles 431:and see a list of open tasks. 253:Media and drama good articles 42:Put new text under old text. 4319:WikiProject Theatre articles 2900:Ah, yes, I see now that the 681:Template:WikiProject Theatre 542:contribute to the discussion 7: 4284:GA-Class biography articles 4070:to reactivate your request. 4058:has been answered. Set the 2197:and what it transcribed as 1233:20:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC) 1213:08:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC) 1199:23:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC) 1184:22:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC) 1165:22:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC) 1151:22:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC) 1130:22:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC) 1091:21:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC) 1076:21:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC) 1055:21:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC) 1029:21:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC) 1015:20:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC) 1001:20:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC) 954:19:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC) 934:20:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC) 920:19:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC) 905:18:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC) 885:18:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC) 839:18:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC) 783:Knowledge:WikiProject Opera 50:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 10: 4345: 4329:WikiProject Opera articles 1739:14:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC) 1711:13:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC) 1681:18:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC) 1661:18:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC) 1627:18:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC) 1591:00:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC) 1576:16:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC) 786:Template:WikiProject Opera 704:project's importance scale 468:project's importance scale 4309:GA-Class Theatre articles 4249:18:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC) 4222:17:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC) 4203:09:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC) 4189:09:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC) 4143:07:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC) 4124:07:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC) 4092:06:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC) 4030:16:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC) 4012:16:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC) 3991:16:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC) 3973:15:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC) 3958:15:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC) 3900:04:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC) 3885:16:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC) 3870:16:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC) 3848:As for your comment that 3842:16:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC) 3821:16:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC) 3798:16:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC) 3767:16:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC) 3729:15:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC) 3697:15:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC) 3674:15:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC) 3654:15:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC) 3616:15:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC) 3589:15:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC) 3567:15:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC) 3545:14:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC) 3527:14:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC) 3505:14:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC) 3485:14:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC) 3463:14:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC) 3438:14:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC) 3397:08:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC) 3382:13:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC) 3351:, a subsection of ENGVAR. 3342:06:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC) 3299:05:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC) 3195:22:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC) 3164:22:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC) 3137:21:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC) 3107:14:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC) 3092:14:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC) 1381:09:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC) 821:Dame Bridget D'Oyly Carte 732: 697: 655:dedicated to coverage of 617: 577: 502: 461: 405: 384: 285: 281: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 3236:05:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 3220:05:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 3066:18:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 3040:18:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 3012:18:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2969:19:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2940:18:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2925:18:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2896:18:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2877:17:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2812:17:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2767:17:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2748:16:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2709:16:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2694:16:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2654:16:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2639:16:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2621:15:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2604:14:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2552:14:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC) 2513:21:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 2473:05:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 2455:01:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC) 2437:04:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC) 2422:23:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC) 2330:19:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC) 2315:18:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC) 2300:18:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC) 2281:17:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC) 1827:16:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC) 1810:21:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC) 1795:00:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC) 1291:then we are saying that 846:English IPA on Knowledge 776:New members are welcome! 645:This article is part of 4324:GA-Class Opera articles 4264:Knowledge good articles 3680:another reliable source 970:to use the r-including 668:, or contribute to the 3638:And BTW, it's not OR: 2443:the new prime minister 2211:will be pronounced as 2183:will be pronounced as 1474:As I indicated above, 574: 496:Arts and Entertainment 366:This article is rated 75:avoid personal attacks 3854:Help talk:IPA/English 3171:Help talk:IPA/English 3050:Help talk:IPA/English 2831:spewing forth diktats 1878:and some speakers of 1783:Help talk:IPA/English 573: 533:WikiProject Biography 259:good article criteria 203:Auto-archiving period 100:Neutral point of view 3788:actually be said. - 3080:WP:Original Research 2371:WP:Assume good faith 1876:West Country English 1105:This key represents 434:Gilbert and Sullivan 425:Gilbert and Sullivan 397:Gilbert and Sullivan 311:Good article nominee 247:Richard D'Oyly Carte 105:No original research 25:Richard D'Oyly Carte 3531:And remember, that 3152:repeating ourselves 2823:an entire guideline 1874:, many speakers of 1245:they pronounce the 817:Rupert D'Oyly Carte 648:WikiProject Theatre 4016:WMF is to develop 3315:letter over spirit 2844:even provided you 2447:Célestine-Edelweiß 1880:Lancashire English 1253:. The tooltips of 819:and granddaughter 670:project discussion 575: 560:biography articles 372:content assessment 286:Article milestones 86:dispute resolution 47: 4074: 4073: 3831: 3777: 3750:the administrator 3707: 3635: 3555: 3267: 805: 804: 801: 800: 797: 796: 764:WikiProject Opera 714: 713: 710: 709: 596: 595: 592: 591: 478: 477: 474: 473: 352: 351: 320: 319: 277: 234: 233: 66:Assume good faith 43: 4336: 4245: 4238: 4235: 4232: 4185: 4178: 4175: 4172: 4166: 4160: 4156: 4150: 4113: 4112: 4111: 4105: 4100: 4089: 4087: 4082: 4065: 4061: 4051: 4050: 4044: 4009: 4007: 4002: 3955: 3953: 3948: 3825: 3771: 3701: 3633: 3626: 3577: 3549: 3515: 3502: 3500: 3495: 3473: 3460: 3458: 3453: 3411: 3364: 3360: 3327: 3265: 3263: 3191: 3184: 3181: 3178: 3133: 3126: 3123: 3120: 3036: 3029: 3026: 3023: 3009: 3007: 3002: 2808: 2801: 2798: 2795: 2788: 2784: 2778: 2744: 2737: 2734: 2731: 2724:Help:IPA/English 2720: 2716: 2690: 2683: 2680: 2677: 2667: 2661: 2600: 2593: 2590: 2587: 2576: 2570: 2566: 2560: 2526:point in saying 2270: 2269: 2266: 2265: 2256: 2255: 2252: 2251: 2242: 2241: 2238: 2237: 2224: 2223: 2220: 2219: 2210: 2209: 2206: 2205: 2196: 2195: 2192: 2191: 2182: 2181: 2178: 2177: 2168: 2167: 2164: 2163: 2154: 2153: 2150: 2149: 2140: 2139: 2136: 2135: 2126: 2125: 2122: 2121: 2118: 2115: 2112: 2109: 2106: 2093: 2092: 2089: 2088: 2085: 2082: 2079: 2076: 2073: 2070: 2067: 2052: 2051: 2048: 2047: 2044: 2041: 2038: 2035: 2032: 2029: 2026: 2023: 2010: 2009: 2006: 2005: 2002: 1999: 1996: 1993: 1981: 1980: 1977: 1976: 1973: 1970: 1967: 1964: 1961: 1958: 1955: 1937: 1936: 1933: 1932: 1923: 1922: 1919: 1918: 1909: 1908: 1905: 1904: 1895: 1894: 1891: 1890: 1868:Scottish English 1861: 1853: 1852: 1849: 1848: 1838:Help:IPA/English 1736: 1734: 1729: 1678: 1676: 1671: 1624: 1622: 1617: 1564: 1563: 1560: 1559: 1556: 1553: 1546: 1538: 1537: 1534: 1533: 1530: 1527: 1523: 1522: 1519: 1516: 1513: 1510: 1451: 1449: 1444: 1358:Help:IPA/English 1339: 1338: 1318: 1317: 1314: 1313: 1310: 1307: 1290: 1289: 1286: 1285: 1282: 1279: 1262: 1256: 1242:Help:IPA/English 1230: 1228: 1223: 1148: 1146: 1141: 1101:Help:IPA/English 1073: 1071: 1066: 1043:Help:IPA/English 1035:Chiwetel Ejiofor 986: 985: 982: 981: 978: 902: 900: 895: 836: 834: 829: 791: 790: 787: 784: 781: 757: 752: 751: 741: 734: 733: 723: 716: 715: 686: 685: 684:Theatre articles 682: 679: 676: 642: 637: 636: 626: 619: 618: 613: 605: 598: 597: 562: 561: 558: 555: 552: 538:join the project 527: 525:Biography portal 522: 521: 520: 511: 504: 503: 498: 487: 480: 479: 452: 445: 444: 441: 438: 435: 414: 407: 406: 401: 393: 386: 385: 369: 363: 362: 361: 354: 329: 306: 304:November 2, 2009 283: 282: 266: 243: 236: 235: 228: 214: 213: 204: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 4344: 4343: 4339: 4338: 4337: 4335: 4334: 4333: 4254: 4253: 4243: 4236: 4233: 4230: 4183: 4176: 4173: 4170: 4164: 4158: 4154: 4148: 4147:I second this. 4107: 4106: 4098: 4085: 4080: 4078: 4063: 4059: 4048: 4042: 4005: 4000: 3998: 3951: 3946: 3944: 3620: 3571: 3509: 3498: 3493: 3491: 3467: 3456: 3451: 3449: 3401: 3349:MOS:COMMONALITY 3325: 3306:MOS:COMMONALITY 3241: 3207: 3189: 3182: 3179: 3176: 3131: 3124: 3121: 3118: 3034: 3027: 3024: 3021: 3005: 3000: 2998: 2953:spewing diktats 2806: 2799: 2796: 2793: 2782: 2776: 2742: 2735: 2732: 2729: 2688: 2681: 2678: 2675: 2665: 2659: 2598: 2591: 2588: 2585: 2574: 2568: 2564: 2558: 2262: 2258: 2248: 2244: 2234: 2230: 2216: 2212: 2202: 2198: 2188: 2184: 2174: 2170: 2160: 2156: 2146: 2142: 2132: 2128: 2103: 2099: 2064: 2060: 2020: 2016: 1990: 1986: 1952: 1948: 1929: 1925: 1915: 1911: 1901: 1897: 1887: 1883: 1855: 1845: 1841: 1834:MOS:DIAPHONEMIC 1775:MOS:DIAPHONEMIC 1732: 1727: 1725: 1691:this MoS policy 1674: 1669: 1667: 1620: 1615: 1613: 1550: 1541: 1540: 1524: 1507: 1503: 1476:User:Bkesselman 1447: 1442: 1440: 1336: 1335: 1304: 1300: 1276: 1272: 1260: 1254: 1226: 1221: 1219: 1144: 1139: 1137: 1113:this MoS policy 1069: 1064: 1062: 975: 971: 898: 893: 891: 832: 827: 825: 823:pronounced it. 812: 788: 785: 782: 779: 778: 771:discussion page 753: 746: 683: 680: 677: 674: 673: 662:To participate: 638: 631: 611: 559: 556: 553: 550: 549: 523: 518: 516: 493: 464:High-importance 442: 439: 436: 433: 432: 400:High‑importance 399: 370:on Knowledge's 367: 302: 230: 229: 224: 201: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 4342: 4332: 4331: 4326: 4321: 4316: 4311: 4306: 4301: 4296: 4291: 4286: 4281: 4276: 4271: 4266: 4252: 4251: 4210: 4209: 4208: 4207: 4206: 4205: 4127: 4126: 4072: 4071: 4052: 4041: 4038: 4037: 4036: 4035: 4034: 4033: 4032: 3975: 3939: 3938: 3937: 3936: 3935: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3930: 3929: 3928: 3927: 3926: 3925: 3924: 3923: 3922: 3921: 3920: 3919: 3918: 3917: 3916: 3915: 3914: 3913: 3912: 3911: 3910: 3909: 3908: 3907: 3906: 3905: 3904: 3903: 3902: 3846: 3845: 3844: 3731: 3658:Which page of 3636: 3529: 3318: 3248:J. 'mach' wust 3239: 3238: 3206: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3140: 3139: 3109: 3076:WP:COMMONSENSE 3069: 3068: 3042: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2956: 2949: 2858: 2814: 2607: 2606: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2409: 2407: 2403: 2401: 2394: 2392: 2389: 2387: 2384: 2382: 2378: 2374: 2367: 2344: 2337: 2335: 1872:Ulster English 1830: 1829: 1813: 1812: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1457: 1456: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1332: 1172: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1017: 942: 941: 940: 939: 938: 937: 936: 844:Hi, regarding 811: 808: 803: 802: 799: 798: 795: 794: 792: 789:Opera articles 759: 758: 742: 730: 729: 724: 712: 711: 708: 707: 700:Mid-importance 696: 690: 689: 687: 660: 659:on Knowledge. 644: 643: 640:Theatre portal 627: 615: 614: 612:Mid‑importance 606: 594: 593: 590: 589: 586:Mid-importance 576: 566: 565: 563: 529: 528: 512: 500: 499: 488: 476: 475: 472: 471: 460: 454: 453: 446: 429:the discussion 415: 403: 402: 394: 382: 381: 375: 364: 350: 349: 340:On this day... 330: 322: 321: 318: 317: 314: 307: 299: 298: 295: 292: 288: 287: 279: 278: 244: 232: 231: 222: 220: 219: 216: 215: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4341: 4330: 4327: 4325: 4322: 4320: 4317: 4315: 4312: 4310: 4307: 4305: 4302: 4300: 4297: 4295: 4292: 4290: 4287: 4285: 4282: 4280: 4277: 4275: 4272: 4270: 4267: 4265: 4262: 4261: 4259: 4250: 4246: 4240: 4239: 4226: 4225: 4224: 4223: 4219: 4215: 4204: 4200: 4196: 4192: 4191: 4190: 4186: 4180: 4179: 4163: 4153: 4152:pronunciation 4146: 4145: 4144: 4140: 4136: 4132: 4129: 4128: 4125: 4121: 4117: 4110: 4104: 4096: 4095: 4094: 4093: 4090: 4088: 4083: 4069: 4066:parameter to 4057: 4053: 4046: 4045: 4031: 4027: 4023: 4019: 4015: 4014: 4013: 4010: 4008: 4003: 3994: 3993: 3992: 3988: 3984: 3980: 3979:ˈdɔɪli ˈkɑːrt 3976: 3974: 3970: 3966: 3962: 3961: 3960: 3959: 3956: 3954: 3949: 3901: 3897: 3893: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3882: 3878: 3873: 3872: 3871: 3867: 3863: 3859: 3855: 3851: 3847: 3843: 3839: 3835: 3829: 3828:edit conflict 3824: 3823: 3822: 3818: 3814: 3809: 3805: 3801: 3800: 3799: 3795: 3791: 3786: 3781: 3775: 3774:edit conflict 3770: 3769: 3768: 3764: 3760: 3756: 3751: 3747: 3743: 3739: 3736: 3732: 3730: 3726: 3722: 3718: 3713: 3712: 3705: 3704:edit conflict 3700: 3699: 3698: 3694: 3690: 3685: 3681: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3671: 3667: 3663: 3662: 3657: 3656: 3655: 3651: 3647: 3643: 3642: 3637: 3631: 3624: 3619: 3618: 3617: 3613: 3609: 3605: 3601: 3597: 3592: 3591: 3590: 3586: 3582: 3575: 3570: 3569: 3568: 3564: 3560: 3553: 3552:edit conflict 3548: 3547: 3546: 3542: 3538: 3534: 3530: 3528: 3524: 3520: 3513: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3503: 3501: 3496: 3488: 3487: 3486: 3482: 3478: 3471: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3461: 3459: 3454: 3446: 3441: 3440: 3439: 3435: 3431: 3427: 3423: 3419: 3415: 3409: 3405: 3400: 3399: 3398: 3394: 3390: 3385: 3384: 3383: 3380: 3377: 3372: 3368: 3356: 3352: 3350: 3345: 3344: 3343: 3339: 3335: 3331: 3330:44K+ articles 3323: 3319: 3316: 3311: 3307: 3303: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3296: 3292: 3288: 3283: 3279: 3275: 3274:WP:ARBINFOBOX 3271: 3261: 3257: 3253: 3249: 3245: 3244:IvanScrooge98 3237: 3233: 3229: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3221: 3217: 3213: 3196: 3192: 3186: 3185: 3172: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3161: 3157: 3153: 3149: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3138: 3134: 3128: 3127: 3114: 3110: 3108: 3104: 3100: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3089: 3085: 3081: 3077: 3073: 3067: 3063: 3059: 3055: 3051: 3047: 3043: 3041: 3037: 3031: 3030: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3010: 3008: 3003: 2970: 2966: 2962: 2957: 2954: 2950: 2947: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2937: 2933: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2922: 2918: 2914: 2910: 2909: 2903: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2893: 2889: 2885: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2874: 2870: 2866: 2865: 2859: 2856: 2852: 2848: 2843: 2839: 2835: 2832: 2828: 2827:not listening 2824: 2819: 2815: 2813: 2809: 2803: 2802: 2781: 2774: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2764: 2760: 2755: 2751: 2750: 2749: 2745: 2739: 2738: 2725: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2706: 2702: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2691: 2685: 2684: 2671: 2664: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2651: 2647: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2636: 2632: 2628: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2618: 2614: 2609: 2608: 2605: 2601: 2595: 2594: 2581: 2573: 2563: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2549: 2545: 2541: 2537: 2533: 2529: 2524: 2520: 2515: 2514: 2511: 2508: 2504: 2503: 2499: 2498: 2493: 2474: 2470: 2466: 2462: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2452: 2448: 2444: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2434: 2430: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2419: 2415: 2410: 2408: 2404: 2402: 2399: 2395: 2393: 2390: 2388: 2385: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2372: 2368: 2365: 2361: 2357: 2355: 2353: 2345: 2342: 2338: 2336: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2327: 2323: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2312: 2308: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2278: 2274: 2268: 2254: 2240: 2226: 2222: 2208: 2194: 2180: 2166: 2152: 2138: 2124: 2097: 2091: 2059: 2054: 2050: 2014: 2008: 1985: 1979: 1947: 1942: 1939: 1935: 1921: 1907: 1893: 1881: 1877: 1873: 1869: 1865: 1859: 1851: 1839: 1835: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1815: 1814: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1792: 1788: 1784: 1780: 1776: 1771: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1740: 1737: 1735: 1730: 1722: 1718: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1708: 1704: 1700: 1698: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1679: 1677: 1672: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1650: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1628: 1625: 1623: 1618: 1610: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1562: 1544: 1536: 1499: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1489: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1466: 1462: 1455: 1452: 1450: 1445: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1418: 1414: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1363: 1359: 1356:And although 1355: 1354: 1353: 1350: 1349: 1344: 1333: 1331: 1328: 1327: 1322: 1316: 1298: 1294: 1288: 1270: 1266: 1259: 1252: 1248: 1243: 1239: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1231: 1229: 1224: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1196: 1192: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1173: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1149: 1147: 1142: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1127: 1123: 1119: 1114: 1110: 1108: 1102: 1098: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1088: 1084: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1074: 1072: 1067: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1026: 1022: 1018: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1004: 1003: 1002: 998: 994: 990: 984: 969: 965: 961: 957: 956: 955: 951: 947: 943: 935: 931: 927: 923: 922: 921: 917: 913: 908: 907: 906: 903: 901: 896: 888: 887: 886: 882: 878: 874: 870: 866: 862: 857: 853: 852: 847: 843: 842: 841: 840: 837: 835: 830: 822: 818: 807: 793: 777: 773: 772: 767: 766: 765: 756: 750: 745: 743: 740: 736: 735: 731: 728: 725: 722: 718: 717: 705: 701: 695: 692: 691: 688: 671: 667: 663: 658: 654: 650: 649: 641: 635: 630: 628: 625: 621: 620: 616: 610: 607: 604: 600: 599: 587: 584:(assessed as 583: 582: 572: 568: 567: 564: 547: 546:documentation 543: 539: 535: 534: 526: 515: 513: 510: 506: 505: 501: 497: 492: 489: 486: 482: 481: 469: 465: 459: 456: 455: 451: 447: 430: 426: 422: 421: 416: 413: 409: 408: 404: 398: 395: 392: 388: 387: 383: 379: 373: 365: 356: 355: 347: 343: 341: 335: 331: 328: 324: 323: 315: 313: 312: 308: 305: 301: 300: 296: 293: 290: 289: 284: 280: 275: 273: 272: 264: 260: 256: 255: 254: 248: 245: 242: 238: 237: 218: 217: 212: 208: 200: 196: 192: 189: 187: 183: 182: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 4229: 4211: 4169: 4130: 4077: 4075: 4067: 4056:edit request 4018:an extension 3997: 3978: 3943: 3940: 3892:Double sharp 3849: 3807: 3803: 3784: 3779: 3745: 3741: 3734: 3716: 3710: 3709: 3689:Double sharp 3683: 3659: 3646:Double sharp 3639: 3629: 3603: 3599: 3581:Double sharp 3532: 3519:Double sharp 3490: 3477:Double sharp 3448: 3425: 3417: 3413: 3389:Double sharp 3370: 3355:D’Oyly Carte 3354: 3346: 3322:just drop it 3309: 3240: 3208: 3175: 3148:User:4meter4 3117: 3112: 3071: 3070: 3045: 3020: 2997: 2995: 2952: 2945: 2912: 2907: 2905: 2901: 2883: 2863: 2861: 2855:from England 2854: 2850: 2845: 2833: 2830: 2826: 2822: 2817: 2792: 2772: 2753: 2728: 2674: 2669: 2626: 2584: 2579: 2539: 2535: 2531: 2527: 2522: 2516: 2500: 2495: 2489: 2461:civil manner 2397: 2363: 2359: 2349: 2347: 2340: 2339:I note that 2287: 2227: 2055: 1943: 1940: 1863: 1857: 1831: 1772: 1757: 1724: 1720: 1716: 1696: 1694: 1686: 1666: 1648: 1612: 1502: 1497: 1479: 1458: 1439: 1435: 1427: 1409: 1364: 1347: 1325: 1296: 1292: 1268: 1264: 1250: 1246: 1218: 1136: 1116: 1104: 1096: 1061: 1039:Piers Morgan 988: 967: 963: 959: 890: 875:, etc. etc. 849: 824: 813: 806: 775: 769: 762: 761: 755:Opera portal 699: 666:project page 661: 646: 579: 531: 463: 418: 378:WikiProjects 337: 309: 269: 267: 263:please do so 251: 250: 246: 206: 184: 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 3445:Cole Porter 3052:or perhaps 2377:discussion. 1369:WP:CONLEVEL 1107:diaphonemes 851:diaphonemic 848:, we use a 653:WikiProject 346:May 3, 2018 148:free images 31:not a forum 4258:Categories 4157:replacing 4060:|answered= 3367:MOS:RHOTIC 3282:MOS:RHOTIC 2519:MOS:RHOTIC 2013:Manchester 1946:Birmingham 1761:Bkesselman 1461:Bkesselman 1413:Bkesselman 1205:Bkesselman 1176:Bkesselman 1083:Bkesselman 1007:Bkesselman 926:Bkesselman 344:column on 257:under the 4081:Tim riley 4001:Tim riley 3947:Tim riley 3780:situation 3512:Tim riley 3494:Tim riley 3470:Tim riley 3452:Tim riley 3408:Tim riley 3278:WP:ENGVAR 3256:Tim riley 3205:Protected 3001:Tim riley 2908:this page 2864:this page 2818:two of us 2288:guideline 1787:Sol505000 1728:Tim riley 1670:Tim riley 1616:Tim riley 1443:Tim riley 1432:Aristotle 1222:Tim riley 1140:Tim riley 1097:Knowledge 1065:Tim riley 894:Tim riley 828:Tim riley 551:Biography 491:Biography 334:Main Page 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 4214:Ssilvers 4195:Johnuniq 4135:Ssilvers 3877:SchroCat 3834:SchroCat 3790:SchroCat 3738:SchroCat 3721:SchroCat 3717:policies 3666:SchroCat 3623:SchroCat 3608:SchroCat 3574:SchroCat 3559:SchroCat 3404:SchroCat 3310:national 3291:Johnuniq 3252:SchroCat 3228:SchroCat 3212:Johnuniq 3156:Ssilvers 3046:theology 2932:SchroCat 2888:SchroCat 2838:Johnuniq 2759:SchroCat 2701:SchroCat 2646:SchroCat 2613:SchroCat 2465:Johnuniq 2429:SchroCat 2406:forward. 2352:WP:CIVIL 2322:SchroCat 2292:SchroCat 1819:SchroCat 1802:SchroCat 1583:Ssilvers 1484:Ssilvers 1360:is not, 1343:Mahāgaja 1321:Mahāgaja 1293:everyone 1157:SchroCat 1021:SchroCat 989:feelings 946:SchroCat 912:Ssilvers 869:Hertford 865:Carlisle 815:his son 368:GA-class 271:reassess 186:Archives 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 4234:Scrooge 4174:Scrooge 4162:IPA-all 4131:Support 3983:Wolfdog 3862:Wolfdog 3813:Wolfdog 3759:Wolfdog 3537:Wolfdog 3430:Wolfdog 3371:Oxford, 3260:Wolfdog 3258:, and 3180:Scrooge 3122:Scrooge 3099:Wolfdog 3084:4meter4 3072:Comment 3058:Wolfdog 3025:Scrooge 2961:Wolfdog 2917:Wolfdog 2902:spewing 2869:Wolfdog 2847:accent. 2797:Scrooge 2780:IPAc-en 2733:Scrooge 2679:Scrooge 2670:readers 2663:IPAc-en 2631:Wolfdog 2589:Scrooge 2582:as . ~ 2572:respell 2562:IPAc-en 2544:Wolfdog 2398:a break 2058:Arizona 1703:Wolfdog 1687:purpose 1653:Wolfdog 1647:Giving 1568:Wolfdog 1319:says. — 1258:IPAc-en 1238:Wolfdog 1191:Wolfdog 1122:Wolfdog 1047:Wolfdog 993:Wolfdog 877:Wolfdog 861:Cardiff 702:on the 675:Theatre 657:theatre 609:Theatre 466:on the 336:in the 294:Process 207:90 days 154:WP refs 142:scholar 4116:Nardog 4022:Nardog 3965:Nardog 3379:🙈🙉🙊 3334:Nardog 3287:WP:RFC 3270:WP:ANI 3113:reader 2842:Offa29 2540:had to 2510:🙈🙉🙊 2414:Offa29 2307:Offa29 2273:Offa29 2096:Tucson 1373:Nardog 374:scale. 316:Listed 297:Result 126:Google 4064:|ans= 4054:This 3755:WP:AN 3630:start 3600:ɔː(r) 3596:WP:OR 3420:. At 3418:ɔː(r) 3363://r// 3173:). ~ 3154:. -- 2717:over 2715:/ɑːr/ 2580:Carte 1984:Derby 1498:worst 1269:start 964:Caire 960:could 873:Derby 856:GenAm 780:Opera 727:Opera 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 4244:talk 4231:Ivan 4218:talk 4199:talk 4184:talk 4171:Ivan 4167:. ~ 4139:talk 4120:talk 4086:talk 4026:talk 4006:talk 3987:talk 3969:talk 3952:talk 3896:talk 3881:talk 3866:talk 3838:talk 3817:talk 3794:talk 3763:talk 3746:crap 3742:crap 3725:talk 3693:talk 3670:talk 3650:talk 3612:talk 3585:talk 3563:talk 3541:talk 3523:talk 3499:talk 3481:talk 3457:talk 3434:talk 3406:and 3393:talk 3376:mach 3338:talk 3295:talk 3232:talk 3216:talk 3190:talk 3177:Ivan 3160:talk 3132:talk 3119:Ivan 3103:talk 3088:talk 3062:talk 3035:talk 3022:Ivan 3006:talk 2965:talk 2936:talk 2921:talk 2892:talk 2873:talk 2816:But 2807:talk 2794:Ivan 2773:this 2763:talk 2754:this 2743:talk 2730:Ivan 2719:/ɑː/ 2705:talk 2689:talk 2676:Ivan 2650:talk 2635:talk 2617:talk 2599:talk 2586:Ivan 2567:and 2548:talk 2532:have 2507:mach 2469:talk 2451:talk 2433:talk 2418:talk 2362:", " 2358:", " 2326:talk 2311:talk 2296:talk 2277:talk 2257:and 2094:and 1924:and 1896:and 1823:talk 1806:talk 1791:talk 1765:talk 1733:talk 1721:that 1717:this 1707:talk 1675:talk 1657:talk 1621:talk 1587:talk 1572:talk 1488:talk 1465:talk 1448:talk 1436:must 1428:must 1417:talk 1377:talk 1348:talk 1337:GOAT 1326:talk 1297:cart 1227:talk 1209:talk 1195:talk 1180:talk 1161:talk 1145:talk 1126:talk 1087:talk 1070:talk 1051:talk 1025:talk 1011:talk 997:talk 968:have 950:talk 930:talk 916:talk 899:talk 881:talk 833:talk 651:, a 540:and 458:High 291:Date 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 4062:or 3856:or 3785:not 3711:any 3604:ɔːʳ 3602:or 3426:ɔːʳ 3416:as 3414:ore 3359:/r/ 2946:why 2884:not 2867:. 2787:/r/ 2264:ʊər 2250:ɪər 2236:ɛər 2218:ɑːr 2155:as 1998:ɑːr 1960:ɜːr 1889:ɑːr 1847:ɑːr 1781:or 1609:OED 1529:ɑːr 1480:two 1309:ɑːr 1267:in 980:ɛər 910:-- 694:Mid 176:TWL 4260:: 4247:) 4237:98 4220:) 4201:) 4187:) 4177:98 4165:}} 4159:{{ 4155:}} 4149:{{ 4141:) 4122:) 4101:: 4068:no 4028:) 3989:) 3981:! 3971:) 3898:) 3883:) 3868:) 3840:) 3819:) 3796:) 3765:) 3757:. 3727:) 3695:) 3672:) 3652:) 3614:) 3587:) 3565:) 3543:) 3525:) 3483:) 3436:) 3395:) 3374:-- 3340:) 3332:. 3317:.) 3297:) 3254:, 3250:, 3246:, 3234:) 3218:) 3193:) 3183:98 3162:) 3135:) 3125:98 3105:) 3090:) 3064:) 3038:) 3028:98 2967:) 2938:) 2923:) 2915:? 2894:) 2875:) 2810:) 2800:98 2783:}} 2777:{{ 2765:) 2746:) 2736:98 2707:) 2692:) 2682:98 2666:}} 2660:{{ 2652:) 2637:) 2619:) 2602:) 2592:98 2575:}} 2569:{{ 2565:}} 2559:{{ 2550:) 2536:my 2505:-- 2471:) 2453:) 2435:) 2420:) 2366:". 2328:) 2313:) 2298:) 2279:) 2271:. 2243:, 2225:. 2190:ɛr 2176:ær 2162:ɛr 2148:ær 2111:uː 2081:oʊ 2069:ær 2046:ər 2034:tʃ 2011:, 1982:, 1917:ɑː 1903:ɑː 1870:, 1858:AR 1856:ST 1825:) 1808:) 1793:) 1785:. 1767:) 1709:) 1693:: 1659:) 1589:) 1574:) 1566:. 1555:ɑː 1545:: 1543:UK 1539:, 1515:ɔɪ 1490:) 1467:) 1419:) 1379:) 1371:. 1365:is 1345:· 1323:· 1281:ɑː 1265:ar 1261:}} 1255:{{ 1211:) 1197:) 1182:) 1163:) 1128:) 1089:) 1053:) 1045:. 1027:) 1013:) 999:) 952:) 932:) 918:) 883:) 871:, 867:, 863:, 588:). 494:: 274:it 265:. 205:: 197:, 193:, 156:) 54:; 4241:( 4216:( 4197:( 4181:( 4137:( 4118:( 4024:( 3985:( 3967:( 3894:( 3879:( 3864:( 3836:( 3830:) 3826:( 3815:( 3792:( 3776:) 3772:( 3761:( 3723:( 3706:) 3702:( 3691:( 3668:( 3648:( 3625:: 3621:@ 3610:( 3583:( 3576:: 3572:@ 3561:( 3554:) 3550:( 3539:( 3533:r 3521:( 3514:: 3510:@ 3479:( 3472:: 3468:@ 3432:( 3410:: 3402:@ 3391:( 3336:( 3293:( 3264:( 3262:: 3242:@ 3230:( 3214:( 3187:( 3158:( 3129:( 3101:( 3086:( 3082:. 3060:( 3032:( 2963:( 2934:( 2919:( 2890:( 2871:( 2804:( 2761:( 2740:( 2703:( 2686:( 2648:( 2633:( 2615:( 2596:( 2546:( 2467:( 2449:( 2431:( 2416:( 2346:' 2324:( 2309:( 2294:( 2275:( 2267:/ 2261:/ 2253:/ 2247:/ 2239:/ 2233:/ 2221:/ 2215:/ 2207:/ 2204:ɒ 2201:/ 2193:/ 2187:/ 2179:/ 2173:/ 2165:/ 2159:/ 2151:/ 2145:/ 2137:/ 2134:ɒ 2131:/ 2123:/ 2120:n 2117:ɒ 2114:s 2108:t 2105:ˈ 2102:/ 2098:( 2090:/ 2087:ə 2084:n 2078:z 2075:ˈ 2072:ɪ 2066:ˌ 2063:/ 2049:/ 2043:t 2040:s 2037:ɪ 2031:n 2028:æ 2025:m 2022:ˈ 2019:/ 2015:( 2007:/ 2004:i 2001:b 1995:d 1992:ˈ 1989:/ 1978:/ 1975:m 1972:ə 1969:ŋ 1966:ɪ 1963:m 1957:b 1954:ˈ 1951:/ 1934:/ 1931:ɒ 1928:/ 1920:/ 1914:/ 1906:/ 1900:/ 1892:/ 1886:/ 1860:T 1850:/ 1844:/ 1821:( 1804:( 1789:( 1763:( 1705:( 1655:( 1585:( 1570:( 1561:/ 1558:t 1552:k 1549:/ 1535:/ 1532:t 1526:k 1521:i 1518:l 1512:d 1509:ˈ 1506:/ 1486:( 1463:( 1415:( 1375:( 1315:/ 1312:t 1306:k 1303:/ 1287:/ 1284:t 1278:k 1275:/ 1251:r 1247:r 1207:( 1193:( 1178:( 1159:( 1124:( 1118:. 1085:( 1049:( 1023:( 1009:( 995:( 983:/ 977:k 974:/ 948:( 928:( 914:( 879:( 706:. 672:. 548:. 470:. 380:: 348:. 342:" 338:" 276:. 199:3 195:2 191:1 188:: 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index