Timwi wrote:

Should Wikipedia articles, in their first paragraph, explain the pronunciation of the word that is the article title?

I have removed those on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but I've been reverted with the argument that a pronunciation guide doesn't turn an article into a dictionary definition.

My reasoning behind not wanting the pronunciations is that logically, articles should describe the concept behind a word (e.g. the planet Uranus) and not the word itself ("Uranus", which could be referring to a planet, a deity, or even a film). Also, what makes the pronunciation of Uranus more mention-worthy than that of, say, "planet"?

The idea that Wikipedia is not a dictionary does not prevent dictionary data from being included in an article along with the other information. It is meant to prevent articles from being *only* dictionary data. Pronunciation is not part of the definition, but it is dictionary data.

"Uranus" is actually a good example of a name where pronunciation *should* be discussed, given the obvious pun that is involved with the name. In general, the pronunciations should be kept.

Ec

Timwi wrote:

Should Wikipedia articles, in their first paragraph, explain the pronunciation of the word that is the article title?

Doesn't it depend on the context? Some words are difficult to pronounce, or commonly mispronounced ("Uranus"), so that it's worthwhile to include it. Other words ("United States") are not difficult to pronounce and are not commonly mispronounced.

It'll be a judgment call in most cases, right?

Also, what makes the pronunciation of Uranus more mention-worthy than that of, say, "planet"?

"Uranus" is commonly mispronounced, "planet" is not. That strikes me as being relevant to our editorial decisionmaking in cases like this.

--Jimbo