Wikipedia

Talk:Newark-on-Trent

Latest comment: 1 year ago by SovalValtos in topic Location
Learn more about this page

Lead/lede

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

There has recently been a removal of much material from the lead; replacement and removal again. user:Haldraper and user:Peter morrell being involved. Whilst it was not ideal with all the material in place as it was not a fully balanced reflection of the article; in my opinion it makes the article much worse after the removal in bulk. I suggest it should be replaced and then some careful editing applied.SovalValtos (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Well, if you look at that guy's innumerable edits you can see he is nothing more than a drive by deletionist, deleting stuff willy-nilly all over Wikipedia, so I would say his "contribution" to this article is eminently forgettable and does not enhance the article one little bit, and should be restored again. Peter morrell 13:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
As I said above, I thought the deletion made it worse. I will leave a short while for a response from user:Haldraper and then revert.SovalValtos (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
I intend to do some step by step editing to the lead. So work in progress. SovalValtos (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Newark-on-Trent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Newark-on-Trent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Pronunciation

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago21 comments4 people in discussion

Ok, so IPA "accounts for both US and UK English. If the reader doesn't pronounce the /r/, they can simply ignore it" But shouldn't the local (or home national) variant take precedence somehow, or at least be signified? How exactly will a non-US or non-UK reader know when to "ignore it"? The guideline explicitly says: "If the pronunciation in a specific accent is desired, square brackets may be used, perhaps with a link to IPA chart for English dialects, which describes several national standards..." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC) p.s. it seems we also have WP:3RR to consider here?Reply

Without delving too deeply into symbols, I'd say the general pronunciation of Newark, Nottinghamshire, is ['nyuwək] and of Newark, New Jersey ['nyuwərk] or ['nuwark]. Other towns that spell themselves the same way have different general pronunciations. "Gillingham" Kent is [j] and "Gillingham" Dorset is [g]. Foreigners seem to cope. Bmcln1 (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I obviously should have used green ink. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
You should, Martin :D! Just so long as he doesn't start on Welsh names. Judging by his own name, Mackopeti is from Budapest, like me. Is that right, Petikém? Bmcln1 (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
But shouldn't the local (or home national) variant take precedence somehow, or at least be signified?
It is the national variant. It was simply converted into a diaphonemic notation (note the "/" brackets), which, again, covers multiple major varieties of English at once.
How exactly will a non-US or non-UK reader know when to "ignore it"?
They will pronounce it... with their own accent, maybe? I don't see British speakers pronounce f.e. New York with the [r] intact, so why should we expect Americans or other rhotic speakers to drop it?
"If the pronunciation in a specific accent is desired, square brackets may be used, perhaps with a link to IPA chart for English dialects, which describes several national standards..."
Phonetic notations (inside square brackets) are rarely used for English, and even then, it's usually placed alongside the phonemic notation, like in Melbourne.
Judging by his own name, Mac[z]kopeti is from Budapest, like me.
Kecskemét, actually.
--maczkopeti (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
So what's the criterion for using the phonetic, as in Melbourne, which explicitly says "locally"? And it has an audio sample - what's the criterion for adding that? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
A source would be useful, but again, the dropping of [r] is such a common occurence in English that a phonetic notation just for that is unneeded. You can take a look at several other articles of British locations, and see that most of them will only have a phonemic notation (with rhotics where appropriate), like Worcestershire.
--maczkopeti (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
So what's the criterion for using the phonetic, as in Melbourne, which explicitly says "locally"? And it has an audio sample - what's the criterion for adding that? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC) p.s. here's a man who knows how Newark is pronounced locally. And here's another on BBC East Midlands. Enjoy!Reply
Okay, you gave a source. Now, if you would tell them to read /ˈnjuːərk/ out loud, they would pronounce it the same way. Note that {{IPAc-en}} has a mouse-over feature, which shows the sounds for the specific phoneme. In the case of /ər/ it's "'er' in letter" which just so happens to not have the "r" sound when pronounced by a British speaker.
--maczkopeti (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
There are two sources. The mouse-over feature can tell who's mousing over? That's quite remarkable. Did you want to answer those questions or not? It'll save time if you just so "no". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
I give up. I'm not going to argue for another hour over something that's already explained clearly in WP:RHOTIC. Have a nice day.
--maczkopeti (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
I mistook it for a discussion. And I thought they were pretty simple questions. Relevant too. I guess the article will just stay as before, then. I see Newark, New Jersey also has a local pronunciation, also with that clever mouse-over feature. Sorry to keep you the full hour. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
It is a completely different case for the New Jersey pronunciation, as there's an actual phonemic difference, with the regular pronunciation having two syllables (/ˈnjuːərk/ NEW-ərk) and the local one reduced to a single syllable (/njʊərk/ NEWRK).
--maczkopeti (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
Sorry. I was having a nice day. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I thought we had reached a compromise here. The name is not typically pronounced with a rhotic, so why included one as the only pronunciation? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Again, we use a diaphonemic system, which accounts for most major varieties of English, so we don't need separate ones for each accent. /ər/ in this case represents not a "rhotic sound", but rather "the sound of "er" in letter". You can see that most articles of places, including Oxford and Melbourne, where most of the locals have non-rhotic accents, only a rhotic pronunciation is noted. This doesn't mean that "the rhotic pronunciation is the only one", but rather "in rhotic accents, the /r/ is pronounced". --maczkopeti (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
I think it's misleading. Where is the written policy that supports your change? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
WP:RHOTIC for one (Oxford is the given example there). The IPA key itself also has a note for this on the bottom of the Dialect variation section. --maczkopeti (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
Oh well, policy is policy. I still think it's use here does readers a real disservice, as both the local and RP versions are non-rhotic. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
I fully agree.Bmcln1 (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)Reply
The transcription is phonemic / /, not phonetic [ ]. The /r/ thus belongs there. Speakers whose idiolects are non-rhotic will automatically not project it phonetically. The principles are, unfortunately, obscured in the guide, where phonemic transcription is referred to simply as "broad transcription", which can leave the impression -- and apparently has -- that what is meant is broad phonetic. Example: presumably all, or the vast majority of, native speakers of English have the same phonemic representation of the word water; the phonetics of the first vowel and of /t/ differ greatly, along the usual parameters (diatopic, diastratic...), and the /r/ may or may not surface; one phonemic transcription suffices, regardless of the greatly differing local phonetics. --47.32.20.133 (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Location

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The location of the pin on the infobox map of Nottinghamshire is wrong. The pin currently appears to be marking Mansfield, not Newark, which is located ~17 miles ESE of the pin's current location. For reference Newark is on the eastern boundary of Nottinghamshire, northeast of Nottingham. I would change it myself but I have no idea how to do so, can someone please correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.65.228 (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

In fact, on further investigation the whole of the infobox's location data appears to be referring to Mansfield not Newark. Both the OS grid reference and the longitude and latitude refer to Mansfield, not Newark. 86.177.65.228 (talk) 05:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Done.SovalValtos (talk) 08:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Newark-on-Trent&oldid=1207190932"