Talk:Radipole

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dorset Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dorset, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics connected with Dorset. If you would like to participate, you can visit the WikiProject Dorset project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.DorsetWikipedia:WikiProject DorsetTemplate:WikiProject DorsetDorset articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The link http://www.radipole-dorset.co.uk/ is broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djamck (talk • contribs) 14:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

I confess I can't do the whole IPA pronunciation thing on WP, but I note a lot of little 'wrongs' with local (to me) pronunciations on here. So, 'Radipole' has the 'o' pronounced as in 'coal', not as in 'code'. Pole as in 'pole', if you will. We pronounce it that way because;

A) It's easier to get one's mouth around, and;

B) That's how it's pronounced.

I noted a similar problem with the IPA for 'Weymouth' on it's WP page and there the 'ou' is shown pronounced as the 'u' in 'buff', whereas it is, in actual real fact and practice, pronounced as the 'u' in 'bull'. (Having noted that in the Talk section, I was told very politely that my real-world knowledge and intimate lifetime experience of the correct pronunciation did not apply on Wikipedia and that I might want to get some verifiable sources to back up the truth and specifically disprove the in-print falsehood).

But I am trying anyway. This is my contribution, meant to help. 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:8CB5:EA0A:C060:444B (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]