Talk:Extensions to the International Phonetic Alphabet

message: I can't view some of the symbols. Is there any program or a patch to my Windows XP to solve this problem? --Acepectif 04:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good browser should have them. Switch to Firefox if you are still using Internet Explorer. — Paul G 06:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unviewable symbols

message: What are Bilabial and Bidental percussives? Are they used in any languages? Could anyone who knows what they are create the articles about them? 68.76.105.196 17:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Percussive consonants 

message: Hi, where does the name "Extended IPA" come from? Is it widely used in phonetics/speech pathology circles? I'm asking because the Handbook uses "Extensions to the IPA", not "Extended IPA". --Kjoonlee 00:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No sources? Is the title of this article OR? --Kjoonlee 10:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably a mix up. The Handbook refers to "extended IPA symbols" and the "extended IPA character set". I wouldn't call it OR, though: We have thousands of articles with de novo names due to one compromise or another. (Right now I'm looking at Brāhmī script, which was so named to avoid edit wars over whether or not it's an "alphabet". I would hardly call that OR.) It doesn't matter to me which title we choose for this article, and I seriously doubt anyone will object if you just go ahead and move it. kwami 05:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I support the move.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 07:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extensions to the IPA 

message: Disordered speech is always bound to a language. That has nothing to do with denoting general symbols, which is the purpose of IPA. A sound that is considered a disorder in one language can be totally fine in another language. --2.245.110.98 (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The IPA has the "phonemic principle", meaning it would only adopt symbols and diacritics whose phonetic values are known to be distinctive in some language or another―hence the name of the extensions. That doesn't mean, of course, the features symbolized by these extensions are not found in any "ordered" speech―they can be employed to denote differences among speakers and languages―it's just that they are not confirmed to be solely responsible for creating difference in meaning in any language, or at least so they say. Nardog (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disordered speech 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Please stop reversinɡ my textifiyinɡ. Thank you.- Tɦe Textifier UniformMilk192 (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: For what reason? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop 

message: Why the symbol of voiceless upper pharyngeal plosive has brackets? Blockman9000 (talk) 11:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The brackets are not part of the extIPA symbol but indicate that  (the ordinary Latin letter  CSS-transformed to a small capital letter) is an alternative way of representing  (the Unicode character U+A7AF ). Ideally they should look the same, but U+A7AF was introduced in Unicode version 11.0 of June 2018, so many users still use devices with operating systems that shipped without font support for that character. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voiceless upper pharyngeal plosive has brackets 

message: I removed this symbol just because there is labiodental nasal ɱ that appears in the standard IPA chart. Blockman9000 (talk) 11:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  I removed symbol labiodental nasal m̪ 

message: It feels like the name of this article is too long. I think a shorter article name like "extIPA" would be better and easier to handle. 2601:C6:D281:6710:AC69:E1CE:8B4C:82C7 (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That's already a redirect. You can use it whenever you like. — kwami (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: An argument could be made based on WP:CONCISE. If the abbreviation is indeed the WP:COMMONNAME in literature I'd support the move. Nardog (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We do have NASA and DNA, so unambiguous acronyms and initialisms are used for other articles. What I meant by my comment above is that wanting to use the abbreviation in other articles is not a reason to move this one, as we have the rd to handle that. I suspect 'extIPA' may be more common than the full name, but it will usually be explained with the full name, unlike NASA or DNA which are commonly used without explanation. — kwami (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move