Talk:Worcester, England/Archive 3

Why does searching for Worcester take me to Worcester England instead of the disambiguation page?

Because every attempt to move the page results in sufficient opposition so as to close as nonconsensus, resulting in the status quo of "This is 'Worcester'" to be maintained.--Loodog (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Big Faced Boy

The Landmarks section is seeing repeated attempts to add a line such as "The cathedral tower is said to have been home to the infamous Big Faced Boy of Warndon during the civil war of 1651." No source is quoted (WP:V), and I cannot find any supporting evidence through Google, so I have been deleting these edits, since they otherwise look like vandalism (name-calling references to residents of modern-day housing estates perhaps). However I do not have a thorough enough knowledge about the civil war and Worcester Cathedral to definitively declare this as false. Is the Big Faced Boy a real historical anecdote, and if so can anyone provide a source? Thanks. Andrew Oakley (talk) 12:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I have never heard anthing about Big Faced Boy! During the Civil War period Warndon was just a tiny rural hamlet. Brian426uk (talk) 12:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The word Worcester can probably have different pronunciations in different parts of the English speaking world. Bearing in mind that this is an article about a British place, if you are able to read the IPA accurately, please listen to the sound file, and comment on whether you feel:

1. The sound file fairly accurately represents the way Worcester is pronounced in England.
2. The IPA transcription accurately represents the way Worcester is pronounced in England.

Thanks,--Kudpung (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Approximate Population

The population is still unsourced, at 100k or 94k, or 94.1k. But the real question is how many significant figures? I have some sympathy with one, for such a hazy number, but I guess two is reasonable (three is silly). Whichever we choose, the infobox and article should match. GyroMagician (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd go with 100k, but I wouldn't object to 94 or 95. Gives an idea of scale, and it's a longer-term stable figure. Going from 1 1/2 figures (95) to 2 figures gets tricky over definitions of suburb boundaries. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Redevelopment

Shouldn't there be more in the history section about the catastrophic redevelopment of worcester during the 60's? I think there should be some more information about how one of the most beautiful and complete medieval city centres in Britain came to be obliterated by philistine vandals who mercilessly destroyed one of our most beautiful cities. 86.128.120.153 (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Like countless other Midlands towns, Worcester was bombed during the war in an attempt to take out it's industry (in Worcester's case, the Meco factory, amongst other targets). As with most WWII bombings, many of these missed the factories and hit residential areas or commercial centres. Just like all other bombed towns, it was rebuilt after the war without much money being available, using cheap materials such as concrete and in the block style of the time. I fail to see how this is specific to Worcester. I also fail to see how the NAZI Luftwaffe can be dismissed as merely "philistine vandals". Andrew Oakley (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I take it that you're referring to the development of Lychgate particularly? The BBC have some interesting links, and this article ('Post-war redevelopment and conservation in Britain: Ideal and reality in the historic core of Worcester') looks like an extremely useful source. I've only skimmed them, but neither source seems to give an idea of the extent of the bomb damage (or even if there was any). shellac (talk) 12:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

To the best of my recollection there was only a single occasion when bombs fell on Worcester. The archives of the Worcester News or Berrows Journal no doubt have details.Brian426uk (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I spent my early childhood in the area in the postwar years, and have no recollection whatsoever of any extensive air raid damage, or even talk of any. As far as I can remember, the only bombs that fell on the entire area were stray ones jettisoned by crippled German bombesr returning off course from raids over Coventry or Birmingham (both which suffered some of the most extensive wartime destruction in the UK).--Kudpung (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation 2

Are we sure about the IPA rendition of Worcester as given in the article? We have recently seen two versions:

1. Worcester (pronounced /ˈwʊstə/ WOOS-tə)
2. Worcester (pronounced /ˈwʊstər/ WOOS-tər)

It seems to me that the version 1 is more accurate than 2, but then I'm not an expert in IPA. The ogg file is of a local accent; most British speakers would pronounce Worcester with a more clipped final syllable. Hallucegenia (talk) 12:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You mean most English (= England) speakers, not most British speakers. And only if they don't have linking R. You're welcome to add the local pronunciation if you wish, just not at the expense of the general pronunciation. kwami (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Forgive my ignorance, but when you say "general pronunciation", do you mean specifically General American pronunciation? Thanks Hallucegenia (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I see there has ben an addition to the pronunciation. Are we sure that it represents only the local pronunciation? I would have thought it is the way that the vast majority of people in the UK would pronounce it. Please see the earlier messages on pronunication on this talk page, and if you can, do leave a comment.--Kudpung (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it does represent the national pronunciation: BBC Hereford and Worcester says it that way here. But we need to be careful about what is meant by local. By local, I mean in the City itself (not say around Pershore - 8 miles to the East - where older residents with a South Worcestershire rural accent may well say [ˈwʊrstə]; or Malvern (8 miles to the South West) where you will find many more speakers of RP, perhaps even with a linking /r/ before some vowels). On the other hand, editors with a more global perspective might consider local to include all England. Hallucegenia (talk) 11:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I mean the general English transcription that we came up with for WP, the one on the key that you've linked to with your transcriptions. Both GA and RP are predictable from that, apart from a relatively small number of words like CLOTH and BATH which alternate between two other vowels depending on the dialect and sometimes speaker. Essentially it's a rhotic and non-aitch-dropping version RP, since apart from /r/ and /h/, GA, Can., Oz, NZ, SA, etc. (but not Scotland!) are predictable from RP. The general idea is explained on the key, which was agreed upon by editors speaking several national standards, including RP and GA (thus the RP vowels).

I agree that "local" should mean in the place itself. kwami (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

:::::::Hallucegenia; which part of Worcester did you grow up in?--Kudpung (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation 3

This section is an attempt to achieve consensus on how we should describe the pronunciation of Worcester, England in the lead paragraph. Hallucegenia (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Dictionary references

I looked up the pronunciation of Worcester in several dictionaries as follows. Please feel free to cite other dictionary entries for Worcester, England (but please not any entries where the primary given definition of the word is Worcester, MA) Hallucegenia (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Collins English Dictionary: ˈwʊstə
• Concise Oxford English Dictionary: ˈwʊstə
• Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary: ˈwʊstə (but only as part of ˈwʊstə ˈsɔːs) NAmE: ˈwʊstər
• Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary: ˈwʊstə^r (US) -tɚ
• Oxford Dictionary for pronunciation of current English (2001): BR: ˈwʊstə AM: ˈwʊstər
• the Oxford English Dictionary (Second Edition, Compact version, 1987) ˈwʊstə(r)

Proposal

Feel free to add any counter proposals to this numbered list:

1. Given the dictionary pronunciations above, it seems to me that the article should not say that Worcester,England is pronounced /ˈwʊstər/, as this is in my opinion misleading. We should be able to cite a dictionary reference for all pronunciation claims. I propose that we say Worcester, pronounced ˈwʊstə ^{[note 1]} is a city and county town of Worcestershire. The footnote should/could mention the Wikipedia generalised pronunciation guidance ˈwʊstɚ (less misleading than /ˈwʊstər/); the RP pronunciation, with a linking /r/ before some but not all vowels, and the pronunciation in the rhotic accent of rural South Worcestershire (somethng like [ˈwʊrstə] - note the lack of final /r/). Hallucegenia (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• As proposer, I vote for proposal no1 Hallucegenia (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
• But it is pronounced /ˈwʊstər/. Or at least you just said as much. I'm actually doubtful that there is linking rather than intrusive /r/ in RP, but assuming that common claim is true, it's /ˈwʊstər/ in RP. If you want /ˈwʊstə/, we'd need to explain that this is not the general pronunciation, and is considered incorrect by several RP dictionaries, such as the ones you gave above. If you want /ˈwʊstɚ/ to avoid raising hackles, fine by me; it makes no real difference, and is an approach we've taken with several other cities. kwami (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

  Equally, from the examples given by Hallucegenia, /ˈwʊstər/ is considered incorrect by as many dictionaries, and needs similar explanation? Or am I misreading? GyroMagician (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibly. But we'd have to read the intro of the dict. It may be that they propose that linking /r/ does not exist. Or it may be that they transcribe citation forms, and so ignore linking /r/ even if they accept that it exists. I think local pronunciations are valuable, as are pronunciations aimed at English speakers in general. I'm not sure what purpose is served by adding a third pronunciation for a national standard that is neither, when it is predictable anyway. For example, there are two local pronunciations of New York in addition to the general (international) pronunciation. I see no particular reason to add a fourth, GA transcription as well. kwami (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree that three pronunciations would be excessive, but I don't think anyone is seriously proposing that. I'm trying to understand why you say "If you want /ˈwʊstə/, we'd need to explain that this is not the general pronunciation, and is considered incorrect by several RP dictionaries, such as the ones you gave above.", when the dictionaries quoted appear pretty balanced between /ˈwʊstə/ and /ˈwʊstər/? GyroMagician (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Because the general pronunciation is /ˈwʊstər/. Granted, many people do not have that final /r/ regardless of a following vowel, but then they know that! They're quite proficient at not pronouncing /r/ at the ends of words when they see it in print: it's automatic and predictable. However, the reverse is not the case: if we transcribe it /ˈwʊstə/, speakers who do not drop their ars, or who have linking ar, will not be able to predict that they should add one here. Okay, in this case it's pretty easy, and /r/ can be assumed from the orthography. But that's not always the case, and some place names with orthographic <r> are not pronounced with /r/ even in rhotic dialects.

Take "New York". Many Americans are insistent that there is no /j/ in "New". But that's because they pronounce the word new without a /j/, not because this name is any different. If we left the /j/ out, people who have /j/ in new might think that it is different, and is to be pronounced "Noo York". Again, that's an obvious case, because everyone knows New York, but in general it's best not to make such assumptions for the reader. kwami (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It is definitely not generally pronounced /ˈwʊstər/. To introduce comparisons with various ways of pronouncing New York is possibly not relevant to this discussion. By the 21st century, Worcester was being pronounced /ˈwʊstə/ in the city, in Pershore, and in Malvern, and across most of the counties of England and Wales, and in the rest of the English speaking world, with the possible exception of some parts of the USA. The incidence of the linking r is rare when compared with the frequency of the utterences of the name without it. I therefore support the proposal No. 1 that the Wikipedia should give priority the majority pronunciation of /ˈwʊstə/.--Kudpung (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Kudpung, you know perfectly well that it generally *is* pronounced "wooster", and that there never has been any objection to local pronunciations, provided they are labeled as such. "The incidence of the linking r is rare when compared with the frequency of the utterences of the name without it": so you're saying that the name does have linking R. That means that a phonemic transcription would need to include an /r/ even for the local pronunciation. If you're correct, then to avoid the /r/ we'd need to go with a phonetic transcription, which is exactly what's already been done. kwami (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It is definitely not generally pronounced /ˈwʊstər/, neither locally nor generally throughout England. I live here. If you contend otherwise, please cite your source. I fail to see where Hallucegenia and GyroMagician are agreeing with you, and I suggest we allow others to air their views calmly according to the proposers statement. --Kudpung (talk) 03:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

My source is you, and you live there. You just said there's a linking /r/, at least as far as I can tell--there are the usual problems of interpreting your words. So locally, you appear to be saying that there's /r/. The /r/ is not otherwise predictable (unless we rely on English orthography, but if we could do that, there would be no reason for the IPA); however, the absence of /r/ for non-rhotic speakers who do not have linking /r/ *is* predictable, so a general transcription would have /r/, as in UK dicts such as the Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary and Oxford English Dictionary above. kwami (talk) 09:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

But strangely ignoring the Collins, Concise Oxford, Oxford Advanced Learners and the Oxford Dictionary for pronunciation of current English (which seems to identify the problem precisely by giving both forms as BR and AM). Maybe you have a good reason for ignoring these sources, but it would be nice to know what it is. From where I stand, it looks as if you are choosing sources that agree with you, ignoring others, and hoping we don't notice. In case it is not obvious from my comments, I don't think the /r/ should be there, but I don't claim to be an expert. And for the record, I am struggling to understand your explanation for why we need the /r/ - currently your argument appears to be that we need one because you think we need one. You are the only person in this thread who actually thinks it should be present, giving a 3:1 majority against. GyroMagician (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Because those two dicts transcribe linking /r/, which the others do not. Either the OED is wrong, or the others are simply not bothering with linking /r/, which AFAIK is fairly common practice. Since linking (as opposed to intrusive) /r/ is phonemic, a phonemic transcription will include it. There is, in addition, a diff tween RP and GA, but if linking /r/ is real, a phonemic transcription would be the same for the two dialects, with only the allophonic realizations differing. kwami (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Kwami, you said: My source is you, and you live there. You just said there's a linking /r/, at least as far as I can tell--there are the usual problems of interpreting your words. So locally, you appear to be saying that there's /r/.

Please read again what I wrote. There is no problem in interpreting my words - I said quite clearly that a linking r is rare . Furthermore, if used at all, it will only be uttered in a spoken context. I am certainly not the source of what you contend; indeed to the contrary, I am one of the sources of opposition to your policy of renaming our English towns and counties. You cannot quote me as a source if you do not accurately understand and report what I have said. You may prefer instead to come up with a serious rationale for insisting that the Wikipedia uses IPA transcriptions throughout British articles that do not reflect the commonly used pronunciation. Discussing here the linguistic technicalities of phonetics, phonemics, and allophonics serves to confuse and detract from the object of this discussion in which we seek to provide the readers who may not be professionsl lingusts, with information on the names of English settlements. And any comparison with GA or local American pronunciations of US cities is therefore most definitely not part of this discussion that concerns a British article about Britain, written by British editors.--Kudpung (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem was understanding what you meant by "rare". I see now you meant that linking R is rare; I thought perhaps you meant that the context for the realization of linking R was the exception, not that linking R was itself limited to a small number of people. So, we're back to /r/ for those with linking R, no /r/ for those without, but the latter predictable from the former, so the former is the more general transcription even within a walled garden of a WP-uk for UK-related articles. kwami (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

My explanation was perfectly clear. Perhaps, as a linguist, you should be already aware of the defintion of rare. You are again putting yet another interpretation on my words to suit your own ends. FYI: A linking r can never appear in written text; the incidence of a spoken linking r is rare, can only happen when the following word begins with a vowel, and even then, is not used by many RP speakers. It has nothing whatsover to do with either local, regional, or national pronunciation. I will suggest again that clouding the issue with the introduction of linguistic technicalities is counter productive, and does not interest the average reader who wants to know how to pronounce British place names correctly and in the way they are generally pronounced. The only walled garden in this, and the other numerous discussions on the subject, come from the IPA Wikipedians who practically force, through a system of disruptive editing, their own interpretation of its implementation. Can we now please be objective and try to obtain a consensus on Hallucegenia's proposal?--Kudpung (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You are perhaps the most unhelpful editor I have ever come across. It's hard to believe we even speak the same language. kwami (talk)

I don't think this is a walled garden, and certainly don't intend it to be. I am happy for new editors to join the discussion - indeed, that would be helpful. I was merely trying to point out that you, kwami, appear to be selectively focusing on parts of the discussion that support your view, while ignoring the rest. When I try to pin you down on this, you start flinging confusion and accusations. I thank Kudpung for trying to steer us away from a jargon-heavy discussion of linguistic technicalities. I, with the majority of wikipedians, am no linguistic expert, but I see something here that doesn't make sense to me. There may be a good reason why this mystery /r/ should be present, but I have not seen an explanation for it that I understand yet. Maybe we can rewind a bit, to the point where you (kwami) said:

Because the general pronunciation is /ˈwʊstər/. Granted, many people do not have that final /r/ regardless of a following vowel, but then they know that! They're quite proficient at not pronouncing /r/ at the ends of words when they see it in print: it's automatic and predictable. However, the reverse is not the case: if we transcribe it /ˈwʊstə/, speakers who do not drop their ars, or who have linking ar, will not be able to predict that they should add one here. Okay, in this case it's pretty easy, and /r/ can be assumed from the orthography. But that's not always the case, and some place names with orthographic <r> are not pronounced with /r/ even in rhotic dialects.

Ignoring your first sentence, that's a helpful answer. It is true that I drop the final /r/ without a thought. But then, so does every other British English speaker I know, with the odd exception for the local pronunciation (what might be called a farmers accent). I think we are aiming for RP here, correct? To say that the trailing /r/ is present in RP seems to be using RP from the 30s, rather than it's current form. Doesn't it make more sense to use the modern spoken form, which certainly would not include the /r/? GyroMagician (talk) 11:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

What have you tried pinning me down on that I've avoided? I'll try to honestly answer anything you ask. If I make accusations, it's not aimed at you. It may be because Kudpung & I have a long history where he appears to be purposefully obtuse, adamantly refuses to answer the most basic questions about what he means, saying that it's for me to figure out and that one can hardly expect him to take the time to clarify anything, and then spends pages bitterly complaining that I don't accept what he says. I can no longer assume that he edits in good faith. If I were a bit more mature, I would simply ignore him.

Okay, first of all, we're not aiming for RP. My argument for Kudpung was only that if we assume linking /r/, it would make no difference if we did. The British Library still describes linking /r/ as a part of RP, but I have also read accounts that this is a fantasy, that what people really have, apart from a few words or reading formal written speeches, is intrusive [r]. If so, then there would no longer be an /r/ at the ends of some words in RP which is sometimes pronounced, and sometimes not, but is not predictable and so must be provided by a dictionary; rather, there'd be an [r] that's always added as phonetic detail to any word in the proper context, that is predictable, and therefore does not need to be provided by a dictionary. So if we were transcribing words in RP, you're correct, that if linking /r/ is no longer a part of RP, then it should be dropped from names like Worcester.

But we're not aiming for RP. A little history: Several years ago, when we provided the pronunciation of a word we would do it twice: once in RP, and once in GA. Then the Australians started adding a third pronunciation. The differences are so minor that it seemed silly to have three (and perhaps soon more?) transcriptions for every word, yet people were upset if their dialect was marginalized as not important enough to include. So we decided to combine things: a single transcription so that anyone could read it in their dialect. Basically what we ended up with was a rhotic and aitch-retaining version of RP. So, if you want the RP pronunciation, just drop the ars and aitches from the transcription; if you want the American, conflate the RP vowels that you don't distinguish and the /j/ from "new", etc. There's a bit more processing, but it's fairly simple, and saves a lot of space, effort, and maintenance problems with the ledes of articles. Of course, if a local or personal pronunciation is not easily predictable, or surprising in any way, we can always add it too, and some words like vase have two pronunciations regardless. (We do get sometimes odd objections, like the /r/ in Worcester but being okay with the /r/ in York, or objecting to the /r/s in Hartford but not to the /h/.)

As for place names specifically, there was a movement for a while to transcribe all Australian place names in Australian English, using a system that seemed designed to be maximally distinct from RP. This meant that non-Australians had difficulty reading the transcriptions even if they were at home with the IPA. /ɔ/, for example, was the vowel of cot, not of caught, so for example the transcription of Launceston, Tasmania (with an RP /ɒ/ but written with an <ɔ>) encouraged the very mispronunciation that providing the IPA was meant to avoid! Unless you knew AusEng, you would have to visit the Australian English phonology article to figure it out. The Australian editors eventually decided that this was a bit ridiculous, and so came to consensus that Australian place names should be transcribed according to our generic English IPA key, with the Australian or local pronunciation provided when outsiders find it unexpected.

Now, that had been a wide enough debate, with most Australian editors taking one side and most others taking the other, that the Australian Wikiproject addressed it. But in the case of US and UK place names there hasn't been the same problem, because there's been consensus from the beginning. (Though there has been a minor effort to create a new IPA transcription system specifically for British Columbia!) There were both GA and RP speakers who designed the English IPA key, and there's been general agreement with it in the years since, though not infrequently we get someone like Kudpung who insists we go back to where we were, or someone who argues that "New York" only has one /j/, etc. I also find it interesting that people who object to a final <r> in the IPA transcription of a name like Worcester typically don't object to respelling it as WOOS-ter, which also has a final <r>! kwami (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

GyroMagician - "I see something here that doesn't make sense to me. There may be a good reason why this mystery /r/ should be present, but I have not seen an explanation for it that I understand yet." The basic reason /r/ is included is that people with rhotic accents do pronounce it - and the key at WP:IPAEN is meant to cover several dialects at once, including American. The inclusion of /r/ is not meant to imply that locals pronounce it that way; it comes about because Wikipedia's IPA project tries to accommodate British, American, and a few other accents simultaneously. "Linking R" is not really the fundamental reason - the current IPA system would include an /r/ in "Derby" as well, which obviously can't have linking R.

(You might totally disagree with this multi-dialect system - I know Kudpung does, for one - but there you have it, in brief.) Lfh (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Gyro, there is no good reason why the mystery r should be included. That is why there is still no clear explanation, and why we are only provided with intellectual linguistic diatribes and incivility.--Kudpung (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Lfh, would you also please read what I have previously stated many times over - what I disagree with, is the notion that because the folk from the Wikipedia's IPA private garden have decided to impose an erroneous IPA transcription for British place names, that all English people are going to change their accent.--Kudpung (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Kwami, an articletalk page is for discussing the content, not the author. I have told you before that I was originally drawn into this topic at the behest of several other editors who raised the same query/complaint, and independently of the existing discussions, other queries of a similar nature continue to be posted. --Kudpung (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I should leave our history out of it. Would you mind then not making any more spurious arguments, such as that you disagree with "all English people are going to change their accent", when no-one ever made that claim for you to disagree with? kwami (talk) 01:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Again you have not read what I wrote. Instead you revert to yet further personal attacks (with 'spurious) as you do in every post you address in my direction. I stated that all English people are not going to change the way they pronounce their place names just because the IPA Wikipedians say so. The 'system' is not a multi-dialect system, it is a wishy-washy construct. There is not one single argument, neither a short one, nor a long-winded diatribe that can sensibly justify, for the average, non linguist reader, why that final r should be included. Ever since the beginning, I have only discussed this final r, and not any other r's that may be pronounced in the middle of words in the USA and not in England, nor r's in York, nor aitches, or any other allophones. To enter them into the discussion may justify your elaboration of Wikipeda's rather singular IPA key, but it does not help us or our readers to pronounce Worcester correctly. --Kudpung (talk) 02:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Kudpung, but I thought you had said on my talk page that you disagree with the multi-dialect system. This is why I mentioned you in my last comment - I was trying to summarise, very briefly, why the present system calls for a final /r/, but also explain to GyroMagician that not everyone likes this system. And it seems that you do disagree with it, like I said. You also dislike the notion that English people are going to "change their accents", but I confess I don't know how you arrived at that interpretation. Do you really think that someone is using Wikipedia as a medium for effecting language change in England? I live in England as well, and I don't feel that anyone is telling me to change how I speak. Lfh (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry too Lfh, but if you read my post above once again, and also this one which you missed:

Lfh, would you also please read what I have previously stated many times over - what I disagree with, is the notion that because the folk from the Wikipedia's IPA private garden have decided to impose an erroneous IPA transcription for British place names, that all English people are going to change their accent.

- you will easily see that your multi-dialect system is not a system at all, and to use a correct term, it is not a multi-accent system either. It is a construct based on OR - a key fabricated possibly in GF for use in the Wikipedia, but one that has gone horribly wrong in its implementation and is now attracting flak. I have not arrived at a conclusion that the English will change their accents, I have stated again the opposite: they most certainly will not change, in order to comply with your incorrectly reported pronunciation of the English place and county names. Why don't you people from the IPA simply listen to the sound file, or go on the streets of British counties and listen to the people speak? I beg you also yet once more to take note that my participation reflects questions raised by numerous editors, of whom some have asked for my support, and I will not allow myself therefore, to become the personal target of insults and abuse from errant sysops for having supported those views.--Kudpung (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe I've missed any of your posts. Yes, you are right, the system at WP:IPAEN is a construct - an abstraction from several varieties of English - though that doesn't mean it's not a system. It's a constructed system. I have listened to the sound file. It is an accurate English pronunciation of Worcester: [ˈwʊstə], as recently transcribed and added to the article by another editor. I know most English people don't pronounce r at the end of words - I am one of them. The transcription that you object to, /ˈwʊstər/, is not meant to be local, or England - it's meant to allow the possibility of a rhotic, non-local pronunciation. Since we agree that most English people have a non-rhotic accent, and we agree that they should not and will not change that because of Wikipedia, and we agree that the present sound file is accurate and that it matches the IPA [ˈwʊstə] that you have marked as local, and we agree that WP:IPAEN is an invented system that isn't British, I'm struggling to see what we disagree about. Lfh (talk) 11:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Based on several months of trying to figure out what Kudpung is saying, I think his actual objection is that our convention is not sufficiently accessible to students of English, who may not know that final ars are dropped in non-rhotic dialects. But our local pronunciation should handle that problem. kwami (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. Kudpung, I remember you telling Kwami at one point that the ESL issue was not the major concern for you, just a side point. Am I right? Unfortunately, I can't find the actual quote anymore within the vast labyrinth of this discussion. Lfh (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

That is perfectly correct Lfh. Thank you for being oneof the many other editors who have no difficulty in following what I post, and understands it.--Kudpung (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Setting dictionary debates aside, on the grounds that I have lived just outside the locality for 40+ years, work in a regional (West Midlands) context where the city is discussed regularly among peers from a broad range of locations, and regularly interact with residents, I vote for proposal no. 1 Metabaronic (talk) 06:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

One problem here is that our conventions are pedia-wide. Can you imagine the mess if we were to debate them article by article, with the reams of argumentation you see here and potentially different conclusions on each one? IMO we shouldn't drop the /r/ for Worcester only to keep it for York. If we decide to set up a special convention for England, such as an opt-out for English place names, then IMO we should do that at IPA for English or at MOS pronunciation. kwami (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Kwami, an article talk page is for discussing the content, not the author as I have reminded you before. I have told you and your IPA colleagues also many times before, that I was originally drawn into this topic at the behest of several other editors who raised the same query/complaint, and independently of the existing discussions, and therefore do not deserve your systematic personal attacks and insults. Further queries of a similar nature continue to be posted.

Side tracking: We are not discussing the r in York, which might be pronounced by Americans; we are discussing the final r in Worester which is practically never pronounced by Brits whoever they are and wherever they come from. Please keep to the facts and kindly desist from pretending that you don't understand my postings as a defence for your own system of pretending that there is no issue at stake here. The IPA key system as currently practised in the Wikipedia is OR and a singular construct, while pronunciation in British English of (Worcester' is a fact of life and requires no debate.

There is no need to debate this issue article by article. There is a need to accept that readers want an accurate IPA transcription. All that requires is common sense and not another RfC where the IPAists can cloud the issues again by more sidetracking. We saw what happened in the last debate.--Kudpung (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, an utterly irrational argument. Sorry, but your argument deserves no better a response than that.

First, if I don't understand you because you refuse to explain yourself despite numerous requests to do so, then I am "pretending" not to understand you. What was that about "civility" again? Oh, right, because you are responding to others' complaints, you are not required to explain yourself, but I am required to obey regardless. How convenient.

Secondly, you know the statement "practically never pronounced by Brits whoever they are and wherever they come from" to be false, so why do you keep repeating it? The /r/ would be pronounced in Scotland and even in parts of England. (I take it you are not one of those ignorant Americans who doesn't know the difference between Britain and England.)

Thirdly, we can't compare the situation to that of York why exactly? Because we have to have a separate debate for every town in England?

And finally, it's okay to have an /r/ in York as it might be pronounced by Americans, but not in Worcester, despite the fact that it might also be pronounced by Americans. We shouldn't have an /r/ in Worcester because it is practically never pronounced by "Brits", but it's okay to have an /r/ in York despite the fact that it is also practically never pronounced by "Brits", including the Yorkies themselves. kwami (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Kwami, isn't it easier to just vote and abide by consensus? The Scots I know pronounce it "War"stə with the /r/ emphasis up front, but that doesn't mean it should be advocated as the right way to pronounce the word. Likewise if the pronunciation of a town called Worcester in the US is different, it doesn't automatically follow that pronunciation for the English city should be applied to it.Metabaronic (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No, actually, it isn't. We have an established consensus, which the article currently follows. (And BTW, we could always change /ər/ to /ɚ/ if that helps any.) If we want to change that consensus, fine, but IMO we should address the issue, not just its symptoms with separate debates on each article. Should the solution at York really have no connection to the solution here? Either English place names should get an opt-out of the consensus which US, Canadian, Australian, NZ, and South African place name articles follow (a consensus which English editors were central in draughting), or they shouldn't, but it makes no sense to me to have different conventions for different place names within England depending solely on voter turnout at each article. kwami (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The statement "...practically never pronounced by Brits whoever they are and wherever they come from" is not false .

• The local, regional, and national pronunciation of Worcester (ˈwʊstə) is a fact of life and requires no more sourced reference, than a statement such as 'the sky is blue'. However, to insist that Worcester is pronounced ˈwʊstər when in fact it is not (or only very rarely), requires some WP:V.
• I have never discussed the r in the middle of either York or Worcester, it is not the subject of this discussion, and I don't intend to cloud the issue by doing so now.
• Whatever consensus was reached to suggest that the IPA for English place names should provide a fictive pronunciation in order to satisfy a cross-section of readers, please show the diff.
• In view of the number of people who have queried this of late, there is probably every just cause to iron out the wrinkles, but to do so on an article-by-article basis would probably be counter productive. --Kudpung (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC).

"The local, regional, and national pronunciation of Worcester (ˈwʊstə) is a fact of life". But no-one ever denied that. Another straw-man argument.

The consensus was that all English words and names should be treated the same. That discussion is years old, and I'm not going to hunt for it now. Bring this up if you want it reconsidered.

"article-by-article": I'm glad we agree on that, that this is not the proper venue for this discussion. Of course, that would drag York etc. into the picture. kwami (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't quite understand what is meant by 'straw-man argument' in this context, but please don't feel obliged to explain; I'll admit that it is OR, but it is OR of the kind that is a fact of life and needs no proving here. An RfC would not drag York into the discussion because the only concern is about the use of the final /r/ in English place names in the Wikipedia IPA transcriptions. Let us perhaps leave it at that now and WP:TPG, and allow the original proposer's debate to continue.--Kudpung (talk) 08:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, having revisited this article after a week or two, it seems riduculous that the most used pronunciation should not be given primacy over the leading pronunciation. However this debate resolves itself, and at whatever level, /ˈwʊstə/ should come first, and should be associated with a sound file, while /ˈwʊstər/, if mentioned, should be what is clarified.Metabaronic (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to change the MOS, which would affect hundreds of articles, you should take it up at WP:pronunciation. kwami (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really, its covered already without the need for change: "If the pronunciation in a specific accent is desired, square brackets may be used, perhaps with a link to IPA chart for English dialects, which describes several national standards, or with a comment that the pronunciation is General American, Received Pronunciation, Australian English, etc. Local pronunciations are of particular interest in the case of place names. If there are both local and national or international standards, it may be beneficial to list both." So we just put it in square brackets.Metabaronic (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

With the comment that it's local/RP. The point is not to confuse readers that this is how it's generally pronounced, since our readers in general are not necessarily RP speakers. In practice, the more general pronunciation has always come first, unless it's s.t. like "York" were it's so obvious that it's simply omitted. 20:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Unsigned statement posted by kwami (talk

It's Standard English rather than RP, because it is how its generally pronounced, both nationally (within England) and locally.Metabaronic (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

/ˈwʊstər/ is also Standard English. There's more than just one English standard. kwami (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Kwami,

Standard English is a form of the English language that is accepted as a national norm... it is often associated with the RP accent...

In your own words: In practice, the more general pronunciation has always come first. It is now clear to most of us that /ˈwʊstər/ is definitely neither Standard British English, nor RP, nor otherwise local, regional, or national; In short, it just ain't used, while /ˈwʊstər/ is the more general pronunciation as has been explained many times in this and other discussions. Thus many of us are confused as to why you make such statements, and make links to articles that make similar statements, yet personally disapprove of the correct pronunciation being used in articles about British places. --Kudpung

"/ˈwʊstər/ is the more general pronunciation as has been explained many times in this and other discussions". Yes. Exactly my point.

"/ˈwʊstər/ is definitely neither Standard British English, nor RP, nor otherwise local, regional, or national". Yes, of course. We have all agreed on that since the beginning of this discussion, yet you keep bringing it up as if we haven't.

As for Standard English, GA is Standard English, as are several other national standards. You omitted that from your quote. Metabaronic said it is not RP, though I fail to see his point.

"[You] personally disapprove of the correct pronunciation being used in articles about British places". I have never disapproved of that, as you know full well. The correct pronunciations, including the local/regional one, are currently in the article. A little honesty, please. kwami (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused here, Kwami. Has someone's identity been edited out here, are you quoting without referencing, or are you having a conversation with yourself?

One question, are you saying /ˈwʊstər/ is the general pronunciation for the word worcester, or the general pronunciation for the town of Worcester in Worcestershire, England? The former may be true, but is the latter?Metabaronic (talk) 07:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Kudpung forgot to sign. Sorry, I hadn't noticed.

/ˈwʊstər/ is the general pronunciation in the sense that, while both /ˈwʊstər/ and /ˈwʊstə/ are found, both in Britain and abroad, the latter can be predicted from the former, but not vice versa. For the same reason, the general pronunciation of the New in New Mexico is /nju:/, even though locals (and I) do not have a /j/. I presume that Kudpung is correct when he says that the local pronunciation is /ˈwʊstə/. Whether the RP pronunciation is /ˈwʊstər/ or /ˈwʊstə/ would depend on whether the British Library is correct when it says that RP has linking ar, or Kudpung is correct when he says that it does not. From what I've seen, it seems that RP only has linking ar in formal and old-fashioned registers. Thus a transcription of the national pronunciation would depend on how formal we wish Wikipedia to be. But personally I don't see the need for national standards, whether English, Welsh, Usonian, or Australian. In most cases, at least, they don't add anything if we already have a local and generic pronunciation. I'm sure there are exceptions, but this doesn't seem to be one of them. kwami (talk) 08:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Kwami, would you please refrain from your tactics at deliberately taking peoples' statements out of context, changing the syntax and the semantics, and adding a bit of straw. It's getting rather obvious that you are pretending not to understand what is being discussed. This statement as you perfectly well know, is completely correct: "/ˈwʊstər/ is definitely neither Standard British English, nor RP, nor otherwise local, regional, or national". Although several editors have told you, you have not agreed that With/ˈwʊstə/ is by far the most common and most widespread pronunciation worldwide irrespective of local, national, or international, and that is in fact what we have all agreed on that since the beginning of this discussion, yet you, Kwami keep bringing it up as if we haven't. A bit of honesty please, and less of the continued sniping and PA. I've asked you before to keep such stuff off article talk space - and anywhere else for that matter - it's inapropriate behaviour for a sysop (or indeed anyone else), for a start.--Kudpung (talk) 12:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

So our argument has degenerated to hypocritical elementary-school taunting. Lovely. I stand by what I've said, and you're obviously intelligent enough to understand it. If you don't like the MOS, bring up a motion to change at the MOS. But this is a waste of everyone's time. kwami (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

More abuse. You've obviously been reading up on WP:TLW and for the moment it appears to be working. - thank you.--Kudpung (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)