Talk:Tucson, Arizona

Pronunciation (and more) in the first line needs repair

• Is the second phonemic transcription /tuːˈsɒn/ meant to represent English? If so, there seem to be problems: Does any anglophone Tucsonan ever stress the second syllable in English? And if so, a) would the "u" be long in the unstressed syllable, rather than the vowel of the stressed syllable, as in e.g. anon?. And b) is there really any possibility of the length of either being phonemic? Both transcriptions -- /ˈtuːsɒn, tuːˈsɒn/ -- seem to be phonetic with regard to vowel length (and mistaken in the case of /tuːˈsɒn/), yet phonemic, as / / claims, with regard to completely unaspirated /t/.

• It's not at all clear what "Spanish: Tucson" is intended to represent. If it's orthography, as the O'odham seems to suggest, one frequent variant is not written according to Spanish norms, which would be Tucsón; if it's intended to represent pronunciation, even Tucson fails to clarify what orthographic -cs- might represent. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I've removed |t|uː|ˈ|s|ɒ|n. Haven't been able to find a source corroborating stress on the second syllable. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

No discussion, so removed vowel length. The transcription is phonemic, but vowel length is purely phonetic, typical but optional, especially in unguarded fast speech Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

{{IPAc-en}} is diaphonemic. Please read there and at Help:IPA/English to see how the symbols are used. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

"Phonemic vowel length, which exists in some dialects and involves pairs such as /ɛ/ vs. /ɛər/ and /ə/ vs. /ɜːr/ is also not marked explicitly" would appear to block falsely reporting non-phonemic vowel length as phonemic vowel length for General American stressed vowels even more robustly. /tʰ/ is quite rightly not claimed for the initial consonant of Tucson, although [tʰ] is the norm in most Englishes and all but irrepressible for North American (and many other) native speakers. Phonemic representation of Tucson can claim neither aspiration of /t/ nor length for /u/. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I fail to get the point of all of this. the first two diaphonemes of Tucson are represented in our system as /t/ and /uː/. It’s very simple. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Couldn't help but smile (sorry; honestly not trying to be rude). Yes, might seem simple at first glance, but -- circularity aside (the system presented declares that /u:/ exists, but /u/ does not, ergo thus it is) -- I would think most readers who've made it through Phonology 101 might categorize the mix of phonemes and phones surrounded by phonemic slashes as something other than simple. But I'll stop bickering, at least for now. The percentage of readers who recognize that the long /u/ is not phonemic as presented can easily self-correct for the nonce. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Whatever you’re trying to discuss, it belongs at Help talk:IPA/English, not here. Readers don’t have to correct anything about their perception, they have to understand how the transcription system works, just like you. Because again, the system uses the symbol /uː/ for a diaphoneme that has various realizations (which include [u]) depending on the English dialect, and, again, the symbol /u/ for something that merges with different phonemes depending on the dialects. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I've discovered that the system adopted uses phonemic representation /u:/ for the phoneme /u/, which can have various realizations, etc. etc. Some readers steeped in phonology may grasp that rather quickly and dismiss the claim /u:/ as merely peculiar to the system chosen, others may try to improve Wikipedia by correcting it to standard phonology -- a move that would be a favor especially to non-native speakers whose first language does have phonemic vowel length. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

It’s a symbol used by countless dictionaries and as such has been adopted here. It doesn’t have to describe all the possible realizations accurately. So the readers “steeped in phonology” are invited to discuss this at the appropriate location instead of disregarding the established conventions and using the symbols as it pleases them. Regards. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Dictionary transcriptions? OMG. Okay, here are the first four encountered online that contain Tucson, two American and two Brit:

/ ˈtu sɒn, tuˈsɒn /

ˈtü-ˌsän (accompanied by stunningly inaccurate ˈtü-ˌsä-nɘn for Tucsonan)

ˈtuˌsɑn

/ˈtuˌsɑːn/

The usual méfiez-vous of dictionary transcriptions aside... Fully agree that readers "have to understand how the transcription system works". The wisdom of selecting a system requiring that readers be prepared to adjust for transcriptions presented in what those with even the most basic linguistics training recognize as customary phonemic slashes being instead diaphonemic (with all that that entails) can perhaps be gauged with that in mind. I've just checked the index of terms in three intro to Phonology texts, Goldsmith's massive The Handbook of Phonological Theory, two intro to Linguistics texts, three introductions to Sociolinguistics and two wide-ranging tomes of the dialect-variation-and-change ilk. Diaphoneme is absent. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Kindly open a discussion at the appropriate place, as I already suggested, if you want to argument your opposition to the established conventions. Thank you. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

No, thanks. If nothing else, the interchange here, the references on the Help:IPA/Conventions for English page, and 27 archives of Help talk:IPA/English suggest that at this point fruitful discussion of establishing standard conventions for transcriptions is extremely unlikely. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

You didn’t get it. The conventions are already well established. You either discuss to change them or you follow regular usage. These are the two options. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

"The conventions are already well established." They're established for English Wikipedia. And I get it that attempting to institute replacement with regular usage, i.e. standard conventions far more widely and immediately understood, thus far more reader friendly, would be a fruitless endeavor. Even the most cursory perusal of a bit of archived talk confirms that conclusion. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, in case you haven’t noticed this is the English Wikipedia. Welcome! We have our own conventions here, please follow them or refrain from editing. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

International Wildlife Museum

Closed Reference: https://thewildlifemuseum.org/closed/ Ststeve11 (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Tucson Flour Tortillas need more recognition

While Tucson is well known for its desert beauty and vibrant culture, the incredible local tortillas often don't get national attention, and I felt it was time to change that — even if only in a small way. As someone who no longer lives in Arizona but grew up only knowing the greatness that is Tucson flour tortillas, I think it is a waste to not highlight and educate others on this surprisingly hard to find version elsewhere in the country (now no longer living in Az). I found a great source from Tucson Foodie explaining how unique Tucson’s tortillas are compared to the rest. https://tucsonfoodie.com/2019/08/07/sonoran-flour-tortillas/ Dannib333 (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

The article you site literally describes them as Sonoran flour tortillas, just because you find them in Tucson doesn't make them a local variant. They are just tortillas, nothing Tucson-specific about it. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Right. Definitely not unique to Tucson. But are they common elsewhere on this (north) side of the border? I don't know the answer to that, but if they're not found much elsewhere a este lado, they might be worth mentioning as part of the general fronterizo culture of (some of) Tucson. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Source for Tucsonian as demonym?

The inhabitants of Tucson think they're Tucsonans. Whose usage is Tucsonian? Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Catalina AZ -- not a town, an unincorporated area

I live there. It's not an actual town. I think that needs to be made clear. 150.135.165.122 (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Good point. Formal (legal) usage of village or town and informal usage can be quite distinct; nicely vague "community", perhaps? Another oddity in the article, presumably official at some level, is that Green Valley is described as "outside the Tucson metropolitan area", yet, though not absolutely clear, Sahuarita seems to be within that area. Residents of the contiguous communities may be surprised to discover that crossing a road where the two meet can take them from being within to outside, or outside to within, the Tucson metropolitan area. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

"Tucson Baseball Team" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Tucson Baseball Team has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 5 § Tucson Baseball Team until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 05:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)