Welcome!

Hello, RoachPeter, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place ((help me)) before the question. Again, welcome! — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 17:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I take it that you are the Peter Roach who edited the EPD. If so, I need to give you some explanation for why I altered your edit. Have you changed the term from "BBC English" to "BBC Pronunciation" in a recent edition? I wrote the section originally and I used this reference.

English Pronouncing Dictionary, edited by Peter Roach, page v, Cambridge University Press, 2006

I've checked this 2006 edition and it says "BBC English". If you have changed it in a more recent edition, then you need to change the reference as well. For example, if it's in the 2012 edition, please change the year (and the page number if it's no longer page v). I hope that you understand why I've altered it.

It's good to have you on-board. I'm sure that you'll be an asset to Wikipedia. There are a lot of articles on dialects on here. Apparently there are regional accents in Australia after all! Epa101 (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up

Hello again. Thank you for clarifying. I have changed the text on the Received Pronunciation article to say "BBC Pronunciation" with the reference that you provided. I understand what you mean about the broader scope of terms such as "BBC English" and "the Queen's English".

I don't know much about Norfolk dialect unfortunately. I had a look at the page and it teaches me (as someone unfamiliar with Norfolk) a lot, so I look forward to seeing further improvements when you get started on it. The quality of dialect articles varies drastically, but then so does the research. I find it frustrating that I'd like to improve the article for Potteries dialect, but I can't legitimately when there's been no academic work done on this dialect.

I hope that you enjoy yourself on Wikipedia Epa101 (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Yes, I would be willing to put it into a suitable form for Wikipedia. I'm sure that you'll get the swing of things quite quickly on here. If you can master phonetics, you can master Wikipedia. My e-mail address is @hotmail.com

Is there any reason why you're putting it into PDF format? If it's in Word or even Notepad, I can edit things to make them suitable for a Wikipedia article, so I'd prefer it that way unless there's some reason why you want it in PDF.

I have Peter Trudgill's book on the Norfolk dialect. It's very clear and comprehensive. I'm sure that this will be a valuable contribution of three professionals. Epa101 (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Peter.

I was just altering the article for T-glottalisation and noticed that it doesn't mention Norfolk anywhere. Am I right in thinking that this feature of speech was common in Norfolk long before it spread to other parts of the country? The current article suggests that it began in Scotland, but it is quite plausible that it existed in Scotland and Norfolk but not in the area in between.

I'd be interested to hear your views on this. I make this suggestion as I recall from the Survey of English Dialects a patch of [?] for /t/ across East Anglia. Epa101 (talk) 11:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sounds like you would have a lot to add on that subject. I've added a few lines on Petyt's study of West Yorkshire, which showed the spread of t-glottalisation to areas where it had previously been unknown. Have a nice holiday! Epa101 (talk) 05:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful not to edit others' comments. I think your small fix at Wikipedia talk:IPA for English was benign, but as a general practice it's a good idea to avoid this. Take a look at our guidelines on the matter if you haven't already. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 16:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Peter,

I've noticed that you've made some comprehensive changes to the page on Norfolk dialect. Well done! I think that the phonetics on the page has been improved greatly thanks to your efforts. It always helps to have an expert on board.

I was inspired by your work to undertake a similar project to the page on Yorkshire dialect. What do you think to this page? Are there any phonetic mistakes? I know that it is quite messy in how Hull is constantly mentioned in the vowels section. The truth is that Hull is an accent in its own right, separate from the rest of Yorkshire, but, as this is not widely recognised, there should be just one page for Yorkshire dialect.

I'm going to search for some work by Joan Beal on Middlesbrough speech that I recall. I feel that the article lacks a North Yorkshire dimension at present, and Middlesbrough is probably the only recent work in this area.

Hope you're enjoying Wikipedia Epa101 (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Peter. Good to hear from you again. You are correct on the devoicing of consonants. It's not the same as German or Dutch. I didn't alter the text to that part, but just added a reference. I should've noted it, since I happen to speak German.

I have learnt that there is a whole book on the speech of Egton, North Yorkshire. I'd like to read that to see what speech in that part of Yorkshire is like. I doubt that the book will be easy to track down though. Do you know much about North Yorkshire speech? It's hard to cover the whole county in an article.

I'm sorry to hear about your problems on Reduced vowels in English. Edit wars can be frustrating, I know, and it's a shame that they've now alienated a professional. Everyone's a volunteer on Wikipedia so, if you're not having any fun, it's not worth it.

Best wishes, Ed Epa101 (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter,

I don't think the claim is that /r/ does not occur syllable-finally for any conception of "syllable", but that it only occurs before vowels. That is, it does not occur in pausa or before other consonants. That may be simplified by stating that it does not occur at the end of a syllable (under a schematic /CV.CV/ conception), but AFAIK it's not actually a claim that the /r/ in hurry cannot be a coda. Well, maybe some people do, but it's not considered incompatible in what I've seen.

Also, do people still talk about ambisyllabicity? It was s.t. I'd learned, but I thought it had since been largely abandoned. — kwami (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're right about ambisyllabicity, and yes, I think it should be covered. Someone here said no-one accepted it anymore, but your refs would seem to prove them wrong, at least in textbook coverage.

"in terms of its role in syllable structure, it is not one of the normally-occurring codas": The point I was trying to make (for non-rhotic accents) was that that is not incompatible with the /r/ in hurry being a coda, because we're dealing with different conceptions of syllable structure. If we're going for an OT-type maximization of onsets (though I've never liked OT!), then we can say that /r/ is not found in coda position, but if we're following Ladefoged, we'd presumably say instead that it only occurs before vowels. That is, I don't think non-coda /r/ is a counter-argument to L's conception of a syllable, because it assumes a different conception of a syllable. The part that's incompatible is maximization of onsets, but he's explicit about that. Not that that makes him right, of course, but I don't see how it's evidence that he's wrong. — kwami (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Professor Roach. It's good to see you back on Wikipedia. I was thinking about adding some content on Geoff Lindsey's proposed system of symbols for RP/BBC (his new name for it is "Standard Southern British"). You can read about it [here, especially at the bottom]. His article is currently very short, so I don't see any problem with expanding it with a description of his system. What I'm less sure about is whether it deserves a brief mention on the Received Pronunciation article. I am not proposing that his whole system of re-coding be described there, as it is only a fringe view for now, but it might be acceptable to write something like, "The linguist Geoff Lindsey has suggested that the system of symbolising the vowels of RP is outdated and has suggested a new system of his own devise." By providing a Wikilink to his article, those who would like to read more can click on it. Those who just want to learn the mainstream view of RP/BBC will not be distracted by a little sentence. What do you think?

In addition, I'd be interested to hear your view on his proposals. I think that he is a good analyst of pronunciations and I can understand why he is proposing this. However, the symbols used for RP/BBC have been used in describing other accents of English from all over the world. He shouldn't re-code RP/BBC in isolation. If we say that the CHOICE vowel in RP/BBC is a j-vowel, shouldn't we be writing it as a j-vowel in most other accents of English? I don't think that would catch on. Epa101 (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Peter. What you say all makes sense. It would be very difficult to get everyone behind a change in the system, no matter how well-reasoned the argument is. I didn't think that Geoff has written about his ideas in an academic sense, and your message suggests that I am right in thinking this. I think that, if his view is currently not widely known, there should only be a short note about it on the Received Pronunciation article, but we can go into more detail on the Geoff Lindsey article. I understand that you are busy with your CUP book at present. That sounds interesting, and I hope to listen to the sound files when the new book is released.

This is the link that I didn't post correctly last time.

I'm interested that you said that you wanted to use a different system from the Gimson one in your "English Phonetics and Phonology" book. What would you have done differently?

Best wishes Epa101 (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Peter.

That's interesting to learn about what you wanted for your book. CUP were being quite conservative to reject those changes.

I have been pre-occupied this week and only just seen your message. Do you mean the table of diaphonemes in Help:IPA for English? I presume that you mean the vowels, since they vary so much more in English. It's been some time since I looked at this page, so I would need some more time to form an opinion. My initial thought is that finding a system that suits all English dialects is a difficult task. In addition, it can be somewhat arbitrary to decide on an international transcription for little towns with no claim to fame, yet Wikipedia articles often give such transcriptions. I shall comment more later. If I'm setting off down a blind alley with this, please let me know!

Best wishes Epa101 (talk) 11:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Peter. I've had a closer look at the Help:IPA for English article. I agree with you that this is complicated. I'm not sure what precedent there is for diaphonemes across all dialects of the English language. I know that some texts have used diaphonemes for BBC English and General American. In addition, I have a 1930s Oxford Dictionary that used something like diaphonemes for a wide range of pronunciations in Britain (including, for example, the fern-fir-fur distinction in Scotland). But I don't know of any use of diaphonemes for the whole language. Would this not then be original research [which is banned on Wikipedia]? Whether it is or not, it is certainly too complicated for volunteers to learn when using Wikipedia.

In addition, I'm not sure if the explanation of vowels with and without following /r/ is accurate. As I interpret it, this page says that the FACE vowel before /r/ becomes SQUARE. That is certainly not true in the case of the Scottish city of Perth. There is a qualitative difference between the monophthongs of FACE and SQUARE in Scotland, and the quality used in "Perth" is clearly that of FACE rather than SQUARE.

I think that it would be no easy task to alter this system wholesale. It has developed over time, and I imagine that some editors would be quite resistant to change. I would support any effort to simplify the system and make it more consistent with what is used in published sources. I fear that such efforts may be more trouble than they're worth though.

Best wishes Epa101 (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If your ears aren't burning, might I direct you to Talk:Voiceless palatal fricative#hue? I recall you recently weighed in on English wh and might also provide insight and context on this related issue. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 17:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the spectrograms, are those images right? Try the "Upload file" link on the left under "Toolbox". If you're going to use a free license, try Wikimedia Commons. If you have questions, please let me know. • Jesse V.^(talk) 16:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I haven't understood this - what spectrograms are we talking about? Thanks RoachPeter (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The ones you were talking about in your comment here. I ran across the post and thought I might be able to help. • Jesse V.^(talk) 19:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Received Pronunciation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daniel Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Spoken English Corpus.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! mabdul (public) 11:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! RoachPeter, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!

"I am completely baffled by your rejection of my article on the Spoken English Corpus. I have been working hard to improve WP's sometimes inadequate coverage of phonetics for some time now, and have always assumed that one followed the normal conventions of academic writing that I learned in a career of over 40 years as a university teacher and as a widely-read author of academic textbooks. I wrote the article on the SEC because I get so many enquiries about it from researchers around the world, and produced it as a normal piece of academic writing. Now I am told to "collect some good reliable web sources" as if I was some inadequate student trying to pass off a piece of inferior work. I am seriously thinking of giving up on WP altogether." RoachPeter (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello sir, in reply to your comment at my talk page I'm telling you that your article was only declined once by a reviewer.I just wanted to help you in your good works so I commented there how can you improve your article.A reviewer can't just decline your submission without having any reason.A reviewer can't accept your request for creation of a new article unless there're sufficient reliable references.So please calm and collect some good sources from the web and replace your references.If you need more help please follow wikipedia help desk or give your collected link for references to a experienced reviewer and ask him/er to help in your article. Arghya Roy (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! You have earned the

	Welcome to the Teahouse Badge
	Awarded to editors who have introduced themselves at the Wikipedia Teahouse. Guest editors with this badge show initiative and a great drive to learn how to edit Wikipedia. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges

Thank you for introducing yourself and contributing to Wikipedia! ~ Anastasia (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RoachPeter,

I regret that you have had a frustrating experience with this draft article. Here are my suggestions. None of them are mandatory, but in my opinion, these are the sorts of things that will overcome the objections of the reviewer:

Please identify the sources that are third-party and independent. In other words, the original research published by those who produced and analyzed the Spoken English Corpus is important and should be cited in the article, but those are primary sources and are insufficient to establish notability as Wikipedia defines it. What accomplishes that are third-party sources: the published work of others coming along later, who were not themselves involved in the research, who have described it and placed it into the context of a broader field of study; in this case, phonetics. Your article is also lacking wikilinks. In my mind, the most obvious example is that you should link to articles such as Corpus linguistics and Speech corpus. A reader who comes to your article without knowledge of modern phonetics needs to be able to understand these concepts. Other obvious choices are wikilinks to the involved universities, IBM, BBC and so on. The first mention of various researchers should include the complete name, while subsequent mentions should be surname only. If any researchers have Wikipedia biographies, those should be wikilinked.

You seem to object to being asked to provide web sources. I encourage you to reconsider. To be clear, web sources are not required, but are preferred. If an old book has not been digitized, but offers some key piece of information, it is perfectly acceptable to cite it without any web link. But in most cases, you can link to the Google Books page for the book in question, where people can see the cover, find out more about the author, and often read excerpts, reviews and search within the text. This facilitates the process of verifying facts and doing additional research for the reader. It makes the sources "more real" figuratively for the readers of an online encyclopedia.

You have structured the article with a bibliography, and then brief citations to the bibliography. Although this is acceptable, many Wikipedia articles use inline citations and a reference list, with perhaps a section for "Additional reading" and/or "External links". Reviewers may be more familiar with seeing references presented this way. At the very least, your bibliography should include ISBN numbers, which many readers use to find libraries holding the books, for example.

I also recommend that you describe the significance of the Spoken English Corpus in some way. A reader new to the topic has no way of knowing if this corpus is unique in some way, or if it is one of five similar, or if there are hundreds similar in existence at universities all over the world. Describe how this resource has been used by researchers in phonetics, and how it is superior (presumably) to previous resources. Is it comparable to the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English, or the British Academic Spoken English (BASE) project, or the London-Lund Corpus? I want to be clear that I have no topic expertise in this area, but these names pop up in a brief Google search. A good Wikipedia article will place the topic within the context of other similar topics.

I also recommend that you disclose your conflict of interest clearly on your user page, and on the talk page of the article once it is in main space. Please read WP:COI and WP:SELFCITE. Be very cautious to maintain neutrality and cite other of your colleagues as you cite yourself. If uninvolved editors perceive that you are using Wikipedia as a tool to promote your own work at the expense of the comparable published work of others, objections will be raised. I am not saying that is the case, but I am saying that caution is in order.

I hope my suggestions are of value to you, and please consider asking me questions if anything I have said isn't clear. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw your question at the Teahouse and took a look at your article; I've edited it superficially to more closely fit the format people here are generally expecting. The code for it is below—if you like, you can copy and paste this into the edit box of your article for creation, replacing the old text. (You can hit the "Show changes" button to view what has changed before saving (or not) the page. Note: I've grouped all of the ((Citation)) templates at the bottom only because it's easier for me personally to work with them that way.)

((AFC submission|d|v|declinets=20130413112237|decliner=Wikignome|ts=20130322202718|u=RoachPeter|ns=5))
((afc comment|1=If I read the references correctly, the are all somehow involved. We need references described in [[WP:42]]! <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">[[User talk:wikignome|mabdul]]</font> <font color="#F00">(public)</font></small> 11:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)))

((afc comment|1=Follow the link to learn how to use references.[[Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners]]
If you have any problem talk to wikipedia live help.You can ask me personally at my talk page and before that collect some good reliable web sources.[[User:Arghya Roy|Arghya Roy]] ([[User talk:Arghya Roy|talk]]) 16:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)))



The Spoken English Corpus (SEC) is a [[speech corpus]] used in [[corpus linguistics]] consisting of a collection of recordings of spoken [[British English]] compiled during the period 1984-7 through a collaboration, funded by [[International Business Machines|IBM]], between the Unit for Computer Research on the English Language (UCREL) at the [[University of Lancaster]] and the IBM Scientific Centre in [[Winchester]].<ref name="leech" /> The corpus comprises 53 recorded passages, mainly recorded from the [[BBC]], spoken in the accent usually referred to as [[Received Pronunciation]], or RP. The corpus contains 52,637 words, in a recording time of 339 minutes. The compilation of the corpus is described by Taylor.<ref name="taylor" />

== Transcription of the recordings ==

A system was devised for transcription of the [[Intonation (linguistics)|intonation]] of the material in the recordings, and two transcribers, Gerry Knowles and Briony Williams, analysed the entire corpus. The transcription system is explained by Williams,<ref name="williams" /> and an experiment was conducted by Brian Pickering to assess the degree of [[Agreement (linguistics)|agreement]] between the two transcribers on a section of the Corpus containing around 1000 [[Tone_(linguistics)|tone]]-units which was transcribed by both transcribers.<ref name="pickering" /> Good agreement was found.

==Other analysis==

[[Part-of-speech tagging|Grammatical tagging]] of each word was added to the text of the SEC by an automatic process;<ref name="taylor2" /> the fact that this tagging was in machine-readable form made it possible to relate [[grammatical]] and [[prosodic]] information in the texts. Subsequent work used probabilistic models to develop further the grammatical tagging and to produce automatic [[parsing]] techniques.<ref name=sampson />

== Machine-Readable Spoken English Corpus (MARSEC) ==

Although the text and its associated tagging existed in machine-readable form, the recordings themselves existed only as tape-recordings. A collaboration, funded by the [[Economic and Social Research Council]] in 1992-4, between speech scientists at the Universities of Lancaster and [[University of Leeds|Leeds]] in the United Kingdom set out to produce a version of the corpus which contained the recordings in digital form, time-linked to the text. The principal researchers were Gerry Knowles and Tamas Varadi (Lancaster) and Peter Roach and Simon Arnfield (Leeds). The outline of the project is set out in Knowles,<ref name="knowles" /> and the automatic time-alignment is described by Roach and Arnfield.<ref name="roach" /> The digitized recordings were recorded on [[CD-ROM]]; it was subsequently made available for downloading for research purposes from Leeds University, though this facility is no longer supported. The corpus has subsequently been used for a wide range of experimental work on British English.

== Aix-MARSEC ==

The work on MARSEC in Lancaster and Leeds finished around 1995, but the corpus has subsequently been the object of a considerable amount of further development at the [[University of Aix-en-Provence]], France, under the direction of Daniel Hirst.<ref name="hirst" /> The database consists of two major components: the digitalized recordings from MARSEC and the annotations. Annotations have so far been undertaken at nine levels, including [[phoneme]]s, [[syllable]]s, [[word]]s, [[stress feet]], [[Rhythm#Rhythm in linguistics|rhythm]] units and minor and major [[Turn construction unit|turn units]].  Two supplementary levels, the grammatical annotation by CLAWS and a Property Grammar system developed at Aix-en-Provence, are to be integrated soon.<ref name="auron" /> The database, together with tools, is available under [[GNU GPL]] licensing at the Aix-MARSEC project site.<ref name="hirst2" />

== References ==

((reflist|refs=
<ref name="knowles">((cite book
|editor-last1=Knowles
|editor-first1=Gerard
|editor-last2=Wichmann
|editor-first2=Anne
|editor-last3=Alderson
|editor-first3=Peter
|title=Working with Speech
|year=1996
|publisher=Longman
|isbn=9780582045347
))</ref>
<ref name="leech">
[[Geoffrey Leech|Leech, Geoffrey]]. (1996). "The Spoken English Corpus in its context." Foreword. 
((cite book
|editor-last1=Knowles
|editor-first1=Gerard
|editor-last2=Wichmann
|editor-first2=Anne
|editor-last3=Alderson
|editor-first3=Peter
|title=Working with Speech
|year=1996
|publisher=Longman
|isbn=9780582045347
|page=ix
))</ref>
<ref name="taylor">Taylor, Lita. (1996). "The Compilation of the Spoken English Corpus." 
((cite book
|editor-last1=Knowles
|editor-first1=Gerard
|editor-last2=Wichmann
|editor-first2=Anne
|editor-last3=Alderson
|editor-first3=Peter
|title=Working with Speech
|year=1996
|publisher=Longman
|isbn=9780582045347
|pages=20–37
))</ref>
<ref name="taylor2">Taylor, Lita. (1996). "The Compilation of the Spoken English Corpus." 
((cite book
|editor-last1=Knowles
|editor-first1=Gerard
|editor-last2=Wichmann
|editor-first2=Anne
|editor-last3=Alderson
|editor-first3=Peter
|title=Working with Speech
|year=1996
|publisher=Longman
|isbn=9780582045347
|pages=30
))</ref>
<ref name="williams">Williams, Briony. (1996). "The formulation of an intonation transcription system for British English." 
((cite book
|editor-last1=Knowles
|editor-first1=Gerard
|editor-last2=Wichmann
|editor-first2=Anne
|editor-last3=Alderson
|editor-first3=Peter
|title=Working with Speech
|year=1996
|publisher=Longman
|isbn=9780582045347
|pages=38–57
))</ref>
<ref name="pickering">Pickering, Brian. (1996). "Analysis of transcriber differences in the SEC." 
((cite book
|editor-last1=Knowles
|editor-first1=Gerard
|editor-last2=Wichmann
|editor-first2=Anne
|editor-last3=Alderson
|editor-first3=Peter
|title=Working with Speech
|year=1996
|publisher=Longman
|isbn=9780582045347
|pages=61–86
))</ref>
<ref name="sampson">[[Geoffrey Sampson|Sampson, Geoffrey]]. (1987). "Probabilistic models of analysis." 
((cite book
|last1=Garside
|first1=Roger
|last2=Sampson
|first2=Geoffrey
|authorlink2=Geoffrey Sampson
|last3=Leech
|first3=Geoffrey
|authorlink3=Geoffrey Leech
|title=The Computational Analysis of English
|year=1987
|publisher=Longman
|isbn=9780582291492
))</ref>
<ref name="roach">Roach, Peter and Arnfield, Simon. (1995). "Linking prosodic transcription to the time dimension." 
((cite book
|last1=Geoffrey
|first1=Leech
|authorlink1=Geoffrey Leech
|last2=Myers
|first2=Greg
|last3=Thomas
|first3=Jenny
|title=Spoken English on Computer
|year=1995
|publisher=Longman
|isbn=9780582250215
|pages=149–160
))</ref>
<ref name="hirst">((cite web
|last1=Hirst
|first1=Daniel
|last2=De Looze
|first2=Céline
|last3=Auran
|first3=Cyril
|last4=Bouzon
|first4=Caroline
|title=Aix-MARSEC database
|url=http://aune.lpl.univ-aix.fr/~EPGA/en_marsec.html
|date=27 July 2010
|accessdate=15 April 2013
))</ref>
<ref name="hirst2">((cite web
|last1=Hirst
|first1=Daniel
|title=Aix-MARSEC project
|url=http://aune.lpl.univ-aix.fr/~EPGA/en_marsec.html
|accessdate=15 April 2013
))</ref>
<ref name="auron">((cite journal
|last1=Auron
|first1=Cyril
|last2=Bouzon
|first2=Caroline
|title=Phonotactique prédictive et alignement automatique : application au corpus MARSEC et perspectives
|trans_title=Predictive phonotactics and automatic alignment: application in the MARSEC corpus and prospects
|journal=Travaux interdisciplinaires du laboratoire parole et langage d'Aix-en-Provence
|volume=22
|pages=33–63
|year=2003
|language=French
|publisher=[[Publications de l'Université de Provence]]
|url=http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00285551/
|accessdate=15 April 2013
))</ref>
))

*Knowles, Gerard. (1995) "Converting a corpus into a relational database: SEC becomes MARSEC." ((cite book
|last1=Geoffrey
|first1=Leech
|authorlink1=Geoffrey Leech
|last2=Myers
|first2=Greg
|last3=Thomas
|first3=Jenny
|title=Spoken English on Computer
|year=1995
|publisher=Longman
|isbn=9780582250215
|pages=208–219
))
*((cite journal
|last1=Roach
|first1=Peter
|last2=Knowles
|first2=Gerard
|last3=Váradi
|first3=Tamás
|last4=Arnfield
|first4=Simon
|title=MARSEC: A Machine-Readable Spoken English Corpus
|journal=[[Journal of the International Phonetic Association]]
|volume=23
|issue=2
|year=1994
|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]
|pages=47–54
))

One thing I would say is that you may want to go into more detail with statements such as "The compilation of the corpus is described by Taylor" or "The outline of the project is set out in Knowles" so that readers can better understand what that means. Another is that people will probably be looking for citations for statements such as "The corpus has subsequently been used for a wide range of experimental work on British English." – 29611670.x (talk) 04:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources

These might be useful as sources:

– 29611670.x (talk) 07:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your message on my talk—no problem! Wikipedia's workings can be rather arcane. I'm glad to hear you'll re-submit it. – 29611670.x (talk) 08:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir,

In academia, there is the concept of "peer review". Wikipedia operates differently. In the area of phonetics, I am not your peer; instead, I am indisputably your inferior. I know nothing more than the average layperson of your area of specialization. The area where I have some expertise is the "behind the scenes" social interactions and social norms of the dedicated volunteers who have created a freely-available encyclopedia that is the #6 website in the world, and #1 by far in original content.

In the context of Wikipedia, I have, I believe, something to offer to you. That is despite the fact that I have only a bachelor's degree from a middle ranking U.S. university, namely the University of San Francisco. What I do have is the experience of writing about 60 articles for this encyclopedia, and improving and expanding hundreds more. No article I've written or expanded has ever been deleted. I understand what goes into a decent article here. This is an online encyclopedia, free for the masses. Although our style bears some resemblance to academic writing, it also differs significantly. We must always assume that the reader, the target audience, knows very little about the topic before reading the article. The target reader is not a third year university student majoring in the field. Think, instead, of the reader as a voraciously curious high school student or an autodidact.

There are tools that we use to help this type of reader. First, the lead (or lede) of the article should be a simply written summary of all the main points of the article. Many readers will not read the entire article, but we can assume that they will read the lead. The second important tool is wikilinking. Casual readers constantly click on links, and then click back, to develop a deeper understanding of various unfamiliar concepts in the article. Or, even if the concept isn't totally unfamiliar, the reader may wish to develop a deeper understanding, or simply verify that their perceived understanding is accurate.

I have just begun to explain my thoughts on how a good Wikipedia article differs from, and resembles, a good academic article. Perhaps you are uninterested. Perhaps you will consider me presumptuous. But if you want to contribute to Wikipedia on an ongoing basis, then perhaps my observations may be of use you. Let me know. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RoachPeter. You have new messages at Mabdul's talk page.
Message added 23:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

mabdul 23:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Peter, I've moved your draft to article space where you can continue working on it. It's on a notable subject, clearly written, and well referenced. You'll need to add links to it from other articles. I haven't got time to that tonight. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for sorting this out. I will put in links from other articles.

Keating, Patricia

Nov 26 at 10:09 PM

To Peter Roach

Dear Peter,

The International Phonetic Association grants permission for you to post on Wikipedia the audio recording and wordlist that are part of your article “British English: Received Pronunciation”, published as an Illustration of the IPA in the December 2004 issue of the Journal of the IPA.

Sincerely,

  Patricia Keating 

Professor of Linguistics, UCLA

Director of the Phonetics Lab

310-794-6316 
UCLA personal website: http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/keating/keating.htm 

Phonetics Lab website: http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/faciliti/uclaplab.html

Secretary of the International Phonetic Association

IPA website: http://www.langsci.ucl.ac.uk/ipa/

From: Peter Roach 

Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 11:50 AM

To: Keating, Patricia
Cc: John Esling; knicol; Simpson, Adrian P.
Subject: Re: IPA soundfile

Dear all,

Thanks to Pat for the reply. I don't know how to apply to the Association for explicit permission, but I would like to do so right away. This is just so that I can put the recording and the transcriptions into the Wikipedia article on Received Pronunciation. I don't want to put the whole JIPA piece in the public domain.

Best wishes,

Peter

On 25 Nov 2013, at 18:21, "Keating, Patricia" wrote:

Since the Association owns the copyrights to the materials in the Journal and Handbook, I see no reason that we shouldn’t agree to let the author use them for this or any other educational purpose. Especially older ones like this.  CUP would not need to be involved.

I’m cc’ing Adrian because I know that he is working on the larger/related question of automatically giving authors of Illustrations the right to use their materials with the speech communities of their Illustrations. Here I think the idea is to involve CUP as a sort of courtesy, since this would be a standing policy (if it is indeed adopted).

In Peter’s particular case, i.e. posting on Wikipedia, there would have to be explicit permission given by the Association and Peter would have to jump through some hoops at WP to establish that permission, but he says he’s willing to do that.

From: Peter Roach Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 8:04 AM

To: John Esling
Cc: Keating, Patricia; knicol
Subject: Re: IPA soundfile

Hello John,

I didn't pursue this matter before, having rather a lot of other things going on, but I would now like to see if I can get the recording of the British English (RP) specimen plus the two transcriptions I put in the text in to the 'Received Pronunciation' article on Wikipedia. I'm copying this to Pat Keating and Katerina Nicolaidis so that they can express an opinion.

If the principle is accepted, I can do the necessary work.

Best wishes,

Peter

On Tuesday, 26 February 2013, 21:43, John Esling wrote:

Peter,

Why not? The only reason would be to protect the audio files for IPA members only – but that just isn’t doable, realistically. And you are the author after all.
Pat K could pronounce on this, making sure that CUP are aware.
I am trying to get a special JIPA page set up on the CJO/JIPA site, for members to log in, update their membership status, and get access to a whole bunch of neat stuff, including the JIPA Index and all audio files of all illustrations. Members can get the illustrations now, if they ask; and many people can just log on to CJO/JIPA and get them, but only one by one, not all together.
Maybe it would be a good idea to use WP as an incentive to get people directed to the CJO/JIPA site. Should we perhaps coordinate and pass it by Melissa Good at CUP?
Best, John.

On 26/02/13 1:34 AM, "Peter Roach" wrote:

Dear John,

You may remember that the IPA "specimen" of RP was written by me, and a copy of the recording I made is part of the members-only IPA archive. I have read several requests on Wikipedia pages for a sample of RP that WP readers could listen to, and I wonder if it might be possible to put this recording in the public domain (i.e. on WP). If we don't do that, I imagine that quite soon somebody will put a spurious recording in the WP article on RP, or elsewhere on WP, and it will be difficult to do anything about it.

I'd be glad of your opinion.

Thanks,

Peter

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically User talk:RoachPeter/sandbox, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Recording of speaker of British English (Received Pronunciation).ogg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text ((di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>)) below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, would it be possible to change the license of File:Recording of speaker of British English (Received Pronunciation).ogg and allow this sound file to be used without restriction — you obviously have the speaker’s consent to do so. —LiliCharlie (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Werieth, you wrote that File:Recording of speaker of British English (Received Pronunciation).ogg was “being used under a claim of fair use.” This is not so. It is used by its copyright holder. —LiliCharlie (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LiliCharlie Actually it is, take a look at File:Recording of speaker of British English (Received Pronunciation).ogg#Licensing It is believed that the use of this work qualifies as fair use. If a copyright holder wishes to upload and use material to wikipedia we strongly suggest using a free license (aka a copyleft) license. In this case the ((Non-free with NC)) places the sample under our Wikipedia:Non-free content policy, and as such means that for wikipedia's sake that we treat it the same way as fair use. Werieth (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Werieth, considering the facts 1. that Professor Roach who uploaded this file is its legal copyright holder who obviously intended the recording to be used on Wikipedia; 2. that this file is not easily replaceable — 2.a. phoneticians have good reason to use this standardised text; 2.b. several levels of transcription are required, which laymen can’t possibly provide; 2.c. few British people actually use Received Pronunciation —; 3. that Professor Emeritus Roach is an elderly person who is not acquainted with technical and copyright issues, and probably not on-line every day, but willing to support Wikipedia with high quality material that has a reputation among professional phoneticians: Would you be able to allow him a fortnight to either change the file’s license or argue for its irreplaceability? —LiliCharlie (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Werieth, LiliCharlie, I hope that writing on my Talk page is a workable way to send you a reply. I am sorry that the way I submitted my sample of Received Pronunciation has caused problems. I do understand what a minefield the copyright business is and how careful one has to be when using recorded material - I learned this when working with speech corpora. I would be quite happy if the status of the recording and transcriptions were to be changed, and I really don't think the International Phonetic Association would mind either, judging by the correspondence that I pasted higher up on this page. Unfortunately this comes at a very busy time for me, and if it is necessary for me to make the required changes myself it will have to wait until I have a little time to understand what, for me, is a rather complicated set of rules and procedures. I would be grateful for your advice on how I should proceeed. RoachPeter (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter!

If you're no longer the copyright holder, then another avenue is to get an "OTRS" ticket. Ask Commons:OTRS how to obtain one. Even if we list the file with the preferred copy-release of Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 + GFDL, as long as the copyright status is unclear, someone could always challenge it and delete the file, perhaps months or years from now when you think it's all behind you. Once you get an OTRS ticket, you shouldn't have any more problems. You copy them on Pat's email, or they confirm with Pat that you're legit, and they'll issue the ticket. An example of a file I got a ticket for is File:Rongorongo A-b Tahua right.jpg – legally I probably didn't need it, but people were starting to get uptight, and it wasn't worth arguing about. You can get an OTRS for something here on English WP, and eventually someone will probably transfer it to Commons. Or you can upload it to Commons or ask someone to transfer it for you; this will allow editors at French-or-whatever Wikipedia as well as us here on English WP to use it.

I extended the deletion date by a week, though someone might change it back.

On an unrelated concern, the recording sounds like it was edited, with extraneous material between clauses deleted. That would make it difficult for anyone interested in intonation to make use of it. Or am I just hearing things?

BTW, I edited or deleted the email addresses on your user and talk pages so that people hopefully won't get more junk mail than they already do. Just revert me if I was out of line. (There are bots that patrol the web for addresses, which are then sold to junk-mailers.) — kwami (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll notify the WP language and linguistic projects about this; maybe someone there will be more up-to-speed than I am. — kwami (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Peter,

I apologise for the late response. I'm moving roles at work, so I've had a busy week and have not been on Wikipedia for a few days.

Unfortunately, I don't know much about Wikipedia practice on uploading copyrighted files. I agree that the rules are very complicated, and it would take me a while to understand how they are applied (as you might have noticed, Wikipedia rules are not always followed to the letter). Sorry! Nevertheless, I think that you're doing everyone a service by providing this recording for everyone to use, and I don't think that deleting it would be in the spirit of the rules. It seems as if some other Wikipedia users agree with me on this.

Best of luck! Epa101 (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you please do me a favor and forward the email from Patricia Keating to OTRS, as described on the talk page? You might want to make a reference in the email to this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Recording_of_speaker_of_British_English_(Received_Pronunciation).ogg. Once you send it, ping me on my talk page and I'll try to get it approved within a day or two. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Solution (dinghy), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

~KvnG 00:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tempo of speech may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• self-corrections of speech errors, and in citing embedded material in the form of titles and names (e.g. "I'm sorry, but we won't be able to to start ''So you think you know what's happening'' for a

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tempo of speech, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prosody. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting that link on the IPA-en talk page.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Estuary English, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RP. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you join our discussion? I don't know what to think anymore. — Peter238 (v̥ɪˑzɪʔ mɑˑɪ̯ tˢʰoˑk̚ pʰɛˑɪ̯d̥ʒ̊) 19:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Isochrony, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Abercrombie. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Spinningspark was:

This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The BABEL Speech Corpus and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SpinningSpark 14:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prof. Roach,

While doing something else, I happened to notice the problems you've been having at Articles for Creation. I'm really sorry about this. Lacking the expertise to evaluate articles like this one, we have to rely on simple rules, one of which is that every article needs independent references about its notability. So, and I hope this is OK, I added a paragraph and few references to the end of the BABEL draft. I really don't know how appropriate they are, so please feel free to delete any of them. But I think that this should be enough to pass if you submit the article again to Articles for Creation. So at least it will be posted in the main article space where editors who know more about the topic can see it.

So, thank you very much for contributing this. If there is anything else I can do, please feel free to contact me any time on my talk page. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mr. Guye was:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Practical phonetic training and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Mr. Guye (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Professor Roach. I saw your note and looked at the draft. I agree with the reviewer that it reads like an essay. By "essay" we mean an article based on the author's own knowledge or opinions. The problem is that you know the subject matter so well that you can write the article yourself. That's fine for the Encyclopedia Britannica, but at Wikipedia we like for more or less every sentence to be based on what someone else has written. I made a couple of adjustments to the draft. One was (a very rough version of) the first sentence, which should jump right in with an "XXX is..." definition. The other was the handling of the Jones quote. (We should also explain who Jones was, assuming that the reader knows nothing about phonetics.) The new version makes a statement and attributes it to Jones. That's OK. The old version said "It is thus implied that...", which is not OK because it is the author making an interpretive statement instead of the source. This is basically just a matter of style. I think the structure and content of article are fine, but the reviewer would like to see more of the statements attributed to a source. Even very simple ones, like the distinction between ear-training and production. Perhaps that could be found somewhere in the first pages of a textbook. With a few more attributions like that, I think it will be ready to go. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a suggestion on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Practical phonetic training. I recognize your expertise, but I think I may be able to clarify a little on our less expert ways of doing things here: it is never a good idea to rely on the statement of expertise alone. Thanks! DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, RoachPeter,

I'm glad to see your contributions as the major clean-up and rewriting of English language is underway. I see from your Wikipedia contribution history that you have a strong background in phonetics and phonology, and I'm especially glad to have other editors looking at the phonology section of the article, as I consider that my weakest area of understanding in linguistics, even though I have learned several modern and ancient languages from several language families. Keep up the good work. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I found a template similar to this one (at the right). I used it to make the Standard Eastern Norwegian vowel chart out of it. I based it on the formant values from Gjert Kristoffersen - The phonology of Norwegian. Could you take a look at the vowel chart I made and see if it's in agreement with the formant values from Kristoffersen (2000)? I'm sure that /øː/ is more or less where it should be, as Kristoffersen himself sometimes uses ⟨ɵː⟩ to transcribe it. The formant values are here and my vowel chart is here (the values at the top are F2-F1.) Peter238 (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I'm aware that you have expertise in English phonetics, rather than in Norwegian or Scandinavian in general. That said, could you take a look at these images anyway? As far as I know, you're a trained phonetician, so your opinion would be helpful anyway. Peter238 (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. If you want to move the vowel targets and what not, I can send you the SVG file. Peter238 (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is in Kristoffersen (2000:17), so I saw no point in doing so. You can see his formant chart here. I was rather hoping for a way to convert the formant values to a "normal" vowel trapezium, in order to replace the (rather outdated) vowel chart from Vanvik (1979). You said that it's not really possible. What would be the obstacle? Peter238 (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I understand now, more or less. So, do you think that replacing the current Norwegian vowel chart from Vanvik (1979) with the one I made would be appropriate? I'd remove the red lines and formant values, and mention the latter somewhere in the article (e.g. right under the vowel chart.) The diphthong chart at the left can be replaced too, as the only thing I need to do is to edit the monophthong chart: leave starting points of diphthongs (they are the same as the corresponding monophthongs) and draw arrows pointing to the offsets ([j, w] on Kristoffersen's chart). Peter238 (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The truth is, these numbers are taken from some other chart (it was probably this one, and I changed the vertical values), and I just tried my best to place Kristoffersen's vowels on it. The red lines were drawn by me. Peter238 (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, have a good time. I don't think the red lines are an issue, there are probably thousands of polychrome images here (not to mention photos). They also contrast better with the vowel trapezium. Peter238 (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again and sorry for the late response. I was working on Slovak phonology (still am actually), and then I just forgot about this. Anyway, I'll make final adjustments and upload these charts in the next few days. Peter238 (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we forgot about one thing: laymen. Even if they have a rough idea about what a vowel chart is, presenting a formant chart as an auditory vowel chart (without really knowing its accuracy as such) is not the best idea, and may also be an instance of OR. After reading your recent blogpost, I'm even more convinced that it's better to post an 'ordinary' formant chart, which is what I've just done (see Norwegian phonology). Thank you for the help anyway, it's always nice to learn something new. Peter238 (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this, right after I typed "none" I realized I could have worded that differently. I skimmed the article and had missed that paragraph, in part, I suppose, because of its less than prominent placing. So yeah, apparently there's some linguist named "Peter Roach" who published a book in which he argued that point, but since I'm in literature "4th edition" is an unknown quantity to me. The "claimed to be" is, of course, highly prominent, right there in the first sentence of the lead. My suggestion is to take the general note ("it's not really a separate accent" or words to that effect) and place it not at the end of "Features", but to give it a separate paragraph, "Status" or something like that. After all, if it's really not a separate accent, that fact should be given more prominence than the somewhat weak "claimed to be", and so should the evidence for it. I think that in general the lead could do with some sharpening. Anyway, thanks for the revert and the edit summary. Best, Drmies (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RoachPeter. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Practical phonetic training".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the ((db-afc)) or ((db-g13)) code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		A big thanks for your work in providing freely licensed images to illustrate the electropalatography page. Freely licensed images on technical tools in linguistics can be hard to find, and your work has improved the article a lot! Wugapodes (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RoachPeter. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sir. I just wish to thank for your edit on the page Rhotacism (sound change). You reworded the claim better than I could have done. And your wording is definitely clearer than the original wording I found. Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

English Pronouncing Dictionary, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines for academics and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jane Setter and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 18:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Lewis (phonetician), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 11:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RoachPeter. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Voice quality".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the ((db-afc)) or ((db-g13)) code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Though this might be a rather minute point, I figured you didn't quite succeed in notifying the user Sweyn78 at Talk:International Phonetic Alphabet#New Changes. As explained in the documentation of Template:Reply to, simply adding an @ in front of an user name wouldn't notify the user. Instead, when you wish to notify a user of your comment, you have to either put a link to the user's page in your comment (i.e. [[User:USERNAME|]]) or type ((Reply to|USERNAME)) (((ping|USERNAME)) or ((re|USERNAME)) would yield the same result). Hope this is of help. Thank you. Nardog (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have written on this topic's Talk page, as I am concerned about what your changes to the article have achieved. It may be that the editing you have done has improved the article, but it's impossible for me to tell from looking at the edits. It would have been helpful if you had first written on the Talk page about what you proposed to do. I'm afraid that, not being very adept at WP editing, my attempt to copy you into my comment didn't work. I should make it clear, as a sort of declaration of interest, that I have been closely connected with the International Phonetic Association for fifty years, and I care very much about preserving the integrity of the IPA system. RoachPeter (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I haven't caused any trouble. This was my first major edit to Wikipedia (although I have been using MediaWiki markup for 7 years now, and am also a junior web developer), and I spent two entire days trying to get everything just right. Maybe I don't understand how things are done here; I figured you just rolled up your sleeves and got to work improving things.

Wikipedia was a huge help to me when I first started getting into Linguistics 7 years ago. I wanted to give something back to it. I love phonetics, but the phonetics templates were poorly written, visually inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia, and some even had incorrect information (Template:IPA chart/table co-articulated consonants, for example, had the alveolo-palatal fricatives listed as co-articulated; Template:Consonants, on the other hand, not only had a more complete listing, but did not have this error (although it *did* have an error of its own: /ɧ/ was listed as an occlusive).). I saw also that there was an enormous reduplication of effort, with every table at Template:IPA chart being separately implemented at Template:Consonants.

So, I got to work. I rewrote everything from scratch, making sure to preserve the template variables, such as making it possible to hide non-IPA. I went through the articles of every sound in the various tables, and verified that it was phonemic in at least one language (or that it at least had significant para/extra-linguistic use), and that it was correctly written. The retroflex clicks, for example, were unnecessarily using a non-IPA symbol in Template:IPA chart/table non-pulmonic consonants. And now, instead of having to edit two completely different templates whenever something needs changing, everything can be changed at one place, and propogated throughout the site.

The templates I made are a huge improvement over the originals in design and coding, and are far more easily extensible. The originals were littered with invalid CSS (such as "width" parameters being placed in "style=" instead of on their own). The vowel chart didn't even line up with the heights! The originals were also unminified, and Template:Consonants wasn't even using Template:IPA link.

I'm happy to fix whatever problems there may be with the templates I wrote, but they are absolutely an improvement, and the user-facing changes are almost entirely cosmetic.

/ˈswɛ̹͡yn/78 20:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, and thanks for your reply. I seem to have lost my first attempt at writing back to you. I want to stress that I did not say that your changes were incorrect, and accepted that they may well have improved things in this article. My objection (shared by some other editors, it seems) is that you made some major changes to the article without first using the Talk page to let users know what you were proposing to do. For someone as unskilled as me, looking at the raw WP editing record gives no possibility of understanding what the changes amount to. Please note that I did not revert your work. That was what I proposed to do if it was not possible to get a summary of the proposed changes on the Talk page so that users could decide if they were happy with the proposals.

Unfortunately I am going away on holiday tomorrow and will only have a mobile phone to access WP. I hope that while I am away this can be resolved: an explanation of your work (along the lines of what you just wrote to me) for readers to understand what you are changing, and hopefully a reinstatement of the changes you made if nobody has any reservations. RoachPeter (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope your holiday goes well. I'm sorry if I offended with my comment. I did not realize the importance of the Talk Page on Wikipedia. I'd be happy to show you how the View History section works, if you'd like. A good way to compare the edits, is to click on the dates; it will bring you to the page as it was at that time. You can then compare the code (it even has a proper diff tool) and visuals of the different versions. Here are links to the comparisons:

• Pulmonic consonants | Original | Revised
• Non-pulmonic consonants | Original | Revised
• Co-articulated consonants | Original | Revised
• Vowels | Original | Revised

Also, you can see several edits listed in the View History page. I had several more edits with several more descriptions than just "Many section had the wrong charts" (which unfortunately had a typo in it).

/ˈswɛ̹͡yn/78 21:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any further discussion of this topic should be placed under Talk:International Phonetic Alphabet#New Changes so that more people can see and participate. Thanks. Nardog (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RoachPeter. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Estuary English, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Roach (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vowel, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tone, Intonation and Rhotic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vowel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Intensity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...for your attempt at revising Syllable. Good to see you back! Nardog (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RoachPeter. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I bet you have been here long enough to have heard of this idea, but after seeing your comment at Talk:Phonetic transcription#Versus orthography, I figured I'd remind you: On Wikipedia, users are encouraged to make edits to articles without prior consultation with others, or to "be bold". In other words, you don't have to engage in a conversation until someone disagrees with you. You may be doing it to avoid confrontations, but whenever you think it's fairly unlikely that people would disapprove of the changes you are trying to make, I suggest you go ahead and make them. And should someone disagree, be calm and reason with them or try to find a compromise. We call this process the BRD (BOLD, revert, discuss) cycle. I think a lot of editors prefer this way because it's smoother. Anyway, have a happy new year! Nardog (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Phonetic transcription, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tap (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work. I do not think the Priory Girls should be a separate article, but a section in the article on the present school. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Received Pronunciation, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Flap and Tap (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RoachPeter. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "The Priory Grammar School for Boys".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Priory Grammar School for Boys, Shrewsbury, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir! I have the honour to acquaint you with the following: being fond of phonetics, I think articulatory setting to be exceedingly controversial, for my instructors genuinely believe that to be useless. But the instructor of my colleague supposes this concept to be necessary. Moreover, he thinks that it is quite impossible to master English without the above-mentioned concept. Is he right? Is it a conventional conception? Федор Амфитеатров (talk) 07:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir! I am about to study phonetics. After having studied phonetics, I am going to edit articles which treat of phonetics. You know me not to be able to edit them without having studied the subject. But there are not books which treat of reading spectrograms. Could you help me? Is your Practical Course (English Phonetics and Phonology) intended for a novice? Is it possible to master RP or GA for a foreigner?

The description of sounds being enormous in a way, It seems to be evident that I do not have an opportunity to edit. Your Humble Servant,Роман Сидоров (г. Смоленск) (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, sir! But is it possible to read spectrograms? Is it possible to read them correctly? You have written that reading appears to be difficult. So far as I understand, it is diffult for its complexity.Роман Сидоров (г. Смоленск) (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to say that I think it is impossible to learn to read spectrograms unless you first study phonetics to an advanced level, then take a practical course with a teacher. But you could try studying some material on the internet such as this one

https://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~robh/howto.html RoachPeter (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir! You having written in English Phonetics and Phonology that it is difficult to confirm these settings scientifically and etc, I do not understand why there is no information about lack of scientific proofs. I am a reader of EnWiki, and, to tell you the exact truth, I think it to be very important to describe all points of views on that. You having edited the article on that, I do not understand why you have not added this point. I know you to think this conception to be doubtful, therefore there is a controversy. That's why it is evident that the afore-said article is not completely correct. The article being incomplete, I cannot transcribe it.

In a word, I pray you to lay down the conventional point of view in the following article. The phrase Non-native speakers typically find the basis of articulation one of the greatest challenges in acquiring a foreign language's pronunciation. Speaking with the basis of articulation of their own native language results in a foreign accent, even if the individual sounds of the target language are produced correctly. seems not to be conventional.Роман Сидоров (г. Смоленск) (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir! I have the honour to acquaint you with following: having downloaded your SB which treats of elementary phonetics, I have not search the epitome which treats the conventional. Is the point on the articulatory setting laid down in your book conventional? Is the material ( in general) conventional? My instructor thinks the practical usage of the above conception to be useless. Is my instructor right? Sir! Please, help me, for I am fond of phonetics but I do not know what is the convention.

Your Humble Servant,Роман Сидоров (г. Смоленск) (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photoglottography, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Gpkp [u • t • c] 07:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir! Unfortunately, there is no article on that, although this is very important question, because nobody can help me. Do you know the conventional methods of self-controlling and self-checking in English Phonetics? To speak frankly, I suppose that to be spectrograms for they would show what is incorrect in my speech. I genuinely believe me to right in that case, for Peter Ladefoged, your colleague thinks that the spectrograms to be very good visualization of human speech, therefore, if I have an opportunity to analyze the spectrograms, I have an opportunity to self-check. Роман Сидоров (г. Смоленск) (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd draw your attention to this reference which might be useful for citing some biographic details in Draft:Beatrice Honikman, in case it had escaped your notice:

• H[onikman], B[eatrice] (1977). "Honikman, Beatrice". In Bronstein, Arthur J.; Raphael, Lawrence J.; Stevens, CJ (eds.). A Biographical Dictionary of the Phonetic Sciences. New York: Lehman College. pp. 96–97.

It's only two paragraphs, and written by "BH" herself (see p. xv for clarification that bh is "Beatrice Honikman, The University of Leeds, Emerita"), but perhaps it might be of interest regardless. As the text is only a few sentences long I'll just retype it below for your convenience:

HONIKMAN, BEATRICE, b Cape Town, S Afr, 28 Sept 1905. Phonet, mod lang teaching, Bantu langs. BA, MA, Univ of Cape Town, 1926, 1928; Univ Col, London; Univ of Hamburg. Asst lect and lect in phonet, Univ of Cape Town, Sch of Orient & Afr Stud, Univ of London, Univ of Leeds, Belgium and Luxembourg. Retired 1971.
Beatrice Honikman's publications include "Articulatory Settings," In Honour of Daniel Jones (London, 1964). She is the editor of Phonetic and Tonal Structure of Kikuyu, by L. E. Armstrong. She is presently engaged in an analysis of Xlosa. She reports that the major scholarly influences on her work were Daniel Jones and Lilias Armstrong. bh

The page division between 96 and 97 is between the "She is" and the "the editor of" in the third-to-last sentence. I'm not sure what the etiquette is for other editors to change a draft someone else has submitted so I figured this would be the best option so you could choose if you wanted to make use of this entry and if so, how. Best, Umimmak (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Responding to the message on my talk page) Yeah I'm not quite sure as to how WP:INDEPENDENT this is, obviously it would be more ideal if someone else had written the entry and it were more in-depth. If you care to see more about this work, reviews can be found at doi:10.1075/hl.5.3.13abe, doi:10.1177/007542427901300106, JSTOR 454702, JSTOR 412538. It's not without its faults, but hopefully it's still of some use. Umimmak (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RoachPeter. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Priory Grammar School for Boys, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article was accepted, and published in April 2020, thank you. RoachPeter (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beatrice Honikman, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Modussiccandi (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a neutral notice sent to all non-bot/non-blocked registered users who edited Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics in the past year that there is a new request for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics § RfC: Where should so-called voiceless approximants be covered?. Nardog (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RoachPeter! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Use of sandbox, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing ((bots|deny=Muninnbot)) here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Buidhe were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines for academics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Needs to be based on WP:Independent sourcing

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sidney Wood (phonetician) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Sidney Wood (phonetician), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "((Db-g7))" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

(t · c) buidhe 08:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

needs independent sources not his own works.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sidney Wood (phonetician) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Sidney Wood (phonetician), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "((Db-g7))" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is extremely disappointing. I have never met Wood but have the highest regard for his scientific work in my field. I could cite many Wikipedia articles on phonetics specialists which do not quote what independent sources say about the subject, but have been accepted. I feel that demands are being made in the case of Wood that are not made for other scientists of comparable repute. RoachPeter (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Greenman was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

First two sections are entirely unsourced.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sidney Wood (phonetician) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Sidney Wood (phonetician), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "((Db-g7))" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Greenman (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Wood (phonetician), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

SL93 (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this RoachPeter (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MurielMary was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Gwen Beachcroft and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MurielMary (talk) 10:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Gwen Beachcroft. Thanks! MurielMary (talk) 10:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have been reading the scientific description of RP written by N. B. Tsybulya, a Russian phonetician, for several weeks. In accordance with her opinion, sometimes voiced alveolar approximants in RP can bit a bit retroflex, a bit close to the so-called retroflex approximant. It would appear that I'm mistaken in a way, for I forgot Tsybulya's textbook in my country house, in my dacha, but I'm in Smolensk right now, so I'm very sorry for being quite unable to give you a quote. Do you consider her opinion to be correct?

If Tsybulya is right, I'll edit the Wikipedian page "RP" in order to add the above judgement". Роман Сергеевич Сидоров (talk) 09:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Роман Сергеевич Сидоров As I've said to you before, it's not a good idea to use Wikipedia talk pages for person-to-person communication. If your message is for me only, please use email. If it's for all WP users but with special importance to me, start the message with "@RoachPeter". In answer to your question, I think you are asking about the /r/ consonant. It is correct to say that it is sometimes similar to a retroflex consonant, but it is not usually classed as fully retroflexed, so I do not think it is necessary to add anything to WP. The description of /r/ in the Received pronunciation article is quite detailed and there is even more information in Voiced alveolar and postalveolar approximants. RoachPeter (talk) 10:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RoachPeter, first of all, I must argue that it is quite impossible to talk to you in the talk pages, for you just ignored an invitation concerning the Mid-Atlantic accent, therefore it is blatantly obvious that I had no choice. Secondly, the present discussion doesn't concern your personality, therefore the above problem is certain not to be personal. It's evident that the present discussion deals with the contents of the afore-mentioned articles and the would-be addition.

All in all, I must ask about the meaning of your sentence. What sort of RP are you talking about? Even according to your own words, it is not clear whether you are talking about RP or GA. Could you explain what you have attempted to say in your message. Роман Сергеевич Сидоров (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TheChunky was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Gwen Beachcroft and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 03:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

possibly notable but rather lacking in independent sources?

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Edward Vernon Arnold and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment concerning the rejection of my draft of Edward Vernon Arnold. I am happy to wait for the resubmitted article to be reviewed in due course, but would be grateful for your opinion on whether the external sources I have added are likely to be sufficient to establish Arnold's notability. RoachPeter (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Three of the give sections are entirely unreferenced – where is that information coming from?

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:RoachPeter/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RoachPeter. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Gwen Beachcroft, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Vernon Arnold, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Hoary (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for approving this. It's good to know a neglected scholar now has recognition for his work! RoachPeter (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to have helped. Unfortunately I have only the haziest understanding of what it is for which Arnold was and is notable. I haven't deliberately made any major alterations to the draft as I found it, but I may have made some unknowingly. Please don't hesitate to correct my little "improvements". I was always particularly weak in phonetics (and know next to nothing about Sanscrit or prosody); but in other areas of linguistics too, notable figures can too easily get the chop. As an example, Hans Marchand currently gets an article that's uninformative, feeble, and unsatisfactory, but for now may be safe from deletion. It hasn't always been. -- Hoary (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm grateful for your work on tidying up the Arnold article. See what you mean about the Marchand piece! RoachPeter (talk) 07:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Qcne was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Sorry, not quite enough here for it's own separate article. You could add to Cyclecar instead?

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Lington cyclecar and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Qcne (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AntientNestor was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Additional material since last review doesn't bring it over the line. Sorry.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Lington cyclecar and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AntientNestor (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]