- I've said this in many places and I'll say it again here. This is not AHD, it should not be called AHD. It's my fault because at the time I naively thought all American dictionaries shared a standard system and I needed a name. It should be called something like "American dictionary style" which is a mouthful. If somebody can come up with a better name that would be ideal. In reality it is a Wiktionary-specific system based on AHD and other American dictionaries so as to appear to familiar to people used to looking up pronunciations in American dictionares. WAP for Wiktionary American Pronunciation or something like that, but I think WAP is already taken (-: — Hippietrail 17:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- What's really bizarre is that the Wikipedia article doesn't have the pronunciation guide either. This had prompted me once to link externally to AHD's pronunciation guide ... in error obviously but it has been called "AHD". I'll have to hunt that one down. Jimp 00:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- It is AHD, and we need to give credit where it is due. The only difference is \i\ for the city vowel, and that is a recent addition and not consistently applied; many entries simply use AHD \ē\. kwami 06:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Could someone identify and fix the css error being generated by this template?
- Expected ':' but found ''. Declaration dropped. Line 0.
Thanks in advance. --Connel MacKenzie 16:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
No diagonal strokes
I have recommended against using diagonal strokes (/.../) with enPR, based on observed use (both on WT and in American dictionaries) and the cited reasons, viz, that they are redundant and confusing, since it is a phonemic system, and the intended naive audience won't understand the difference between a phonemic and phonetic transcription.
Does this seem reasonable?
- Yes, it's reasonable. Many dictionaries have the strokes \going the other way\, but that's also probably a bad idea here, where we mix systems. kwami 06:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
enPR → AHD ?
This is AHD: there is only one minor and sporadic difference from published AHD (the city vowel), which if this is meant to be an American English key (as suggested above) is unnecessary anyway. I suggest we change the displayed text from enPR: to AHD:, to accurately and responsibly give credit where it is due. Whatever the original motives for a universal American-dictionary transcription, what we ended up with was just AHD. kwami 06:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- You'd have to start a vote. We voted to adopt this name. --EncycloPetey 12:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- You're also proposing changes to the existing system, such as dh, not just additions. While I personally approve of dh, the transition problems involved with modifying a system once it's in use are substantial. Many WT entries are a mess as it is. IMO it would be better to leave the existing enPR alone, at a name such as AHD, and then work on developing a new system incorporating your proposals. Once that system is stable (i.e., once people are happy with the conventions and we verify that public computers such as those at UC libraries display it properly), we could resurrect a new enPR to implement it without compatibility issues. kwami 23:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
enPR is a poor name choice
The first time I saw this template, I thought it was en_PR, i.e., the BCP 47 tag for Puerto Rican English. PR isn't really a standard way to abbreviate pronunciation. Couldn't a better name be found? - Bramerth 17:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Regardless of what the template is called, we definitely shouldn't display "enPR" to readers. This isn't a standard dictionary abbreviation (like "vt." or "OE"), is it? I figured out that it meant "English pronunciation" when I first saw it because I'm a native English speaker. I'd imagine many non-native speakers (/readers) will be confused by it. — And don't just say they can click on the link to get an explanation. The same could be said if we labeled it "WPG" (for "Wiktionary Pronunciation Guide"). That wouldn't be a good label either. - dcljr 19:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
- Delete —CodeCat 21:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Delete —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)