Talk:The New International Encyclopædia/Key to pronunciation

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I hope, as well as being a guide for pronunciation for readers, this will be a guide to coding the pronunciation respellings for editors. NSRW's guide seems to be using compositions of two characters for some substitutions; this doesn't seem to work very well in my environment. I think single-character substitutions are to be preferred, strained as some of them are. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But see v. 11, p. v which is implemented with overstrike characters. These look better I think, but I find in edit mode the overstriking seems to be disabled which makes them a little more difficult to use. I imagine eventually we should go with the overstrike versions. Library Guy (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also note that the overstrike rendering for the dotted e-macron doesn't work in one of the "layouts". But nonetheless more and more I favor the overstrikes to the substitutions. Library Guy (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unclear handling of varying syllabic stress[edit]

The "notes" field in the header of the key page seems to suggest using a bolded and unbolded apostrophe to indicate syllabic stress. However, in the encyclopedia, it is clear that what are used are prime symbols (′).

However, still more complicated is the apparent use of varying levels of font weight. I've come across a couple examples so far of apparent three-level stress.ex1(hires scan)ex2(hires scan) There are certainly more.

We have templates here for modifying font weight, although such subtle control over weight is seldom implemented in browsers: {{lighter}}, {{font-weight-normal}}, {{bold}}, and {{bolder}}. EG: '''' or ; we could easily achieve four levels by combining only functional options: ''.

There also exist two IPA stress symbols, primary (ˈ) and secondary (ˌ).

What option would be fitting? I don't think bolded and unbolded apostrophes are enough. djr13 (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe we could go with changing the size of the mark, which seems to be how NIE handles it. Like you say, browsers can't be made to show various levels of bolding with sensitivity at this point. Perhaps smaller: normal:′ larger: x-larger: will work. When two levels are used, I would just stick with smaller and normal. Your accent mark makes more sense than my apostrophe. I just use the latter because I am familiar with where it is on my keyboard. This would be a good thing to comment on in the header notes for the pronunciation key when we decide on something. NIE doesn't seem to mention emphasis at all, which seems like an omission. Library Guy (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Brilliant! :) It's probably not worth going back and changing these in pages which are transcribed directly to mainspace (the vast majority), it would probably be more effective doing this as part of transcribing to Page: or manual match and split. I'll try this on the pages I've done so far. djr13 (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Glad you like it. I will be conscientious about using it. I didn't start linking to the pronunciation key using {{NIE key}} until later in things, and I just retrofit old articles as I run across them, and I will do the same with this. I will rewrite the header notes for the key at some point, and I will apply this to Americana as well. Is "prime symbol" the official name for this character? Library Guy (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, for a lot of these symbols you can just search them in Wiktionary or Wikipedia (examples linked) and find out what they are, and sometimes related symbols. djr13 (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have changed the descriptions for this key and Americana. With Americana I think I will continue to use bolding since it only admits to indicating two levels of stress. I will go to the NIE method if I run into an example with tertiary stress in Americana. Library Guy (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or maybe normal:′ larger: x-larger: and xx-larger:. I think this might track NIE usage better, since I don't think it uses smaller, and I've found normal/larger is clearer than smaller/normal for two levels of stress. Library Guy (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They're both unfortunately very ambiguous. Maybe the best solution would be to prefer larger, clearer variations, and have the character better vertically aligned with the text. In any case, maybe instead of directly resizing prime symbols there should be a template where the type of prime can just be defined with a number, allowing all such primes to be changed and reformatted as necessary in one central place. djr13 (talk) 07:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help for Proofreaders[edit]

@Library Guy:, @Bob Burkhardt:, @Djr13: I'm working on the U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual and a Proofreaders guide (derived from Distributed Proofreaders guide; a bit of mess still) and would really appreciate some help with conveying non-keyboard characters.

I have been gradually finding Unicode charts on Wikipedia. It would have been good to know about this page… There should be a help page on Wikisource with this page referenced (with an introduction to "other" characters), where proofreaders can cut and paste characters from, how Unicode works, and some guidelines of what to do when there isn't a unicode for a character. I've been working on the premise it is best to 1. Insert from the pull-down edit menu, 2. cut and paste from Unicode charts, 3. Insert an image of the character cut from the page. Some sort of rationale is needed.

I have become aware there is a way to combine Unicode characters. Can anyone give me a How to?

I have made tentative enquiries about rejigging the pull-down edit bars but it sounds too hard for me. I am working on the theory that there are probably other ways to do things I haven't found yet so haven't asked for any changes, but basically things are not set up well for proofreaders, hence, I think, the dearth at WS. A comprehensive explanation of non-keyboard characters would be a good place to start.

Cheers, Zoe — Zoeannl (talk) 05:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Zoe — @Zoeannl:,
Prosfilaes helped me with a Unicode problem. You might try putting a message on that user's page if you have a question on a specific character, and perhaps the user would be forthcoming on the general questions you mention here.
Many non-keyboard characters are available in the pulldown menu which appears when you go to edit a page. It is organized in sections. Instead of typing a character at a keyboard, you just click on the character you need. Also if you know a page or somewhere that has the character you need you can just copy and paste.
The best way to learn about combining characters in Unicode is to read Combining character and work from there. I find some combining characters don't combine so well sometimes when I am editing, but look OK when previewed, or when the page is saved. This is a little confusing, but I manage to live with it. I also find that some combined characters don't render so well on at least one of Wikisource's alternative display modes for transcluded articles.
Library Guy (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]