A more detailed discussion with the relevant references in published literature can be found at:w:lv:Lībiešu valoda § Patskaņi (in the Latvian Wikipedia). Following is an outline of said discussion.
Terms "high" and "low" will be used instead of "close" and "open". Slashes/…/ will be used for a more general, phonemic representation, brackets[…] for a more phonetic representation.
{{liv-p}} should be used for pronunciations unless there is some reason it cannot be used.
{{R:liv:LEL}}) with an ogonek⟨ǭ⟩ –mǭ formō. This additional diacritical sign is not part of standard Livonian orthography but should be indicated in IPA and the headword line.An apostrophe⟨'⟩ marks a broken tone in word-initial (or root-initial) syllables.
Only{{liv-p}} should be used for words with broken tone. It should also be indicated in the headword line as it can be unclear which word has broken tone in the case of compounds, e.g.,{{head|liv|proper noun|head=Pū'ojme'r}} forPūojmer.
{{liv-p}} takes the respelling in the same format as the{{head}} template.
Livonian consonants (those whose IPA values are different from their orthographic value) should be transcribedthusly (see below for considerations):
As with many other languages the usage of the terms "palatal" and "palatalized" in the pertaining literature is very ambiguous. Particularly in transcriptions that originate from Russia it is not uncommon to see "soft" Livonian consonants represented as, e.g.,/lʲ nʲ/ etc. However, "soft" Livonian consonants are markedly phonemicvel(“yet; more”),veļ(“brother”) etc. The so-called assimilative palatalization as it's called in Lithuanian or the similar process in Russian and some varieties of Portuguese etc. is not present in Livonian thus while there might not necessarily be practical difference in the quality of, e.g.,/lʲ/ and/ʎ/ the former is universally used for some type of an assimilatory "softening" while the latter for a strictly phonemic sound.
The character of⟨ț⟩ and⟨ḑ⟩ is yet more ambiguous. They are often transcribed as/tʲ dʲ/ although to a Latvian interlocutor they might sound identical to Latvian⟨ķ⟩ and⟨ģ⟩ (or Hungarian⟨ty⟩ and⟨gy⟩) thus/c ɟ/. Šuvcāne and Ernštreite in their book{{R:liv:LPB}} simply remark that they are identical to Latvian⟨ķ⟩ and⟨ģ⟩. This is perhaps one of the only instances where these Livonian sounds are expressly compared to an equivalent in another language thus they should be transcribed as/c ɟ/.
The only consonant where this ambiguity is not a concern is the soft⟨ŗ⟩. It is believed that apalatal vibrant is a sound that is impossible to produce and it doesn't have its own discrete IPA symbol, thus both in Latvian and Livonian it is transcribed as apalatalized⟨r⟩ –/rʲ/.