Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia/Uploading guidelines/Archive 1

Commons

Currently lacking instructions for uploading to commons -SCEhardT 20:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I know that Wikipedia is trying to migrate its media over to the Commons, so it makes sense that new uploads should go there--but is it possible to upload without having to register at the Commons? I had to create an account, which was a [small] hassle.

Yes, yes, I know it's a discrete sister project, but isn't it illogical that the commons provides media to all of the wikiprojects--so images flow seamlessly out of the Commons and into Wikipedia articles---but at the same time, Wikipedia users' logins don't seem to.

I understand that the two are not the same thing on the technical level, but having the user conform to the software instead of vice-versa is never good. Ckamaeleon ((T)) 21:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not possible (yet). But it is SUCH a shame this material is not being uploaded there. :( It's so much more useful having it all centrally available. what a haven for language learners! (I am listening to a Chinese FA at the moment) pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Partitioned Articles

* In addition, if the recording is broken up into a number of parts, you need to add lines just below the "|sex=" line:

** For each part except the first, add "|first_part=file_name_of_part_1.ogg".
** For each part except the last, add "|next_part=file_name_of_next_part.ogg".

So, I'm assuming we add |last_part=file_name_of_next_part.ogg for the last part in the series?? Ckamaeleon 10:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can, but it won't do anything. When I was designing it, I figured that when listening to an article, you'd normally need to go to the next part, so I put in the link to that. I also decided that if you somehow ended up in the middle of a multi-part recording (goodness knows how, but perhaps by searching), you'd want a quick way to go to the beginning, so I put in a link to the first part. I couldn't convince myself that a link to the previous part or to the last part would be useful enough to outweigh the trouble of writing the code and instructions for it and having everyone follow them. Let me know if you disagree. T J McKenzie 04:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I was confused because the instructions said "for each part except the last". So one should just omit the second line and just include the "firstpart=" line, right? Ckamaeleon 10:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

For the final part of a multi-part article, yes. And for the first part, only the next_part line needs to be included, not the first_part line.

I did have trouble trying to figure out how to word the instructions, so I'd be quite happy if someone re-worded them to make them clearer. T J McKenzie 06:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me give it a stab. (Me? simplify instructions? That's rich! Nevertheless...) Ckamaeleon ((T)) 21:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. I hope it's less confusing now. It seemed like the best way to explain it was the way you had done right here^: by explaining the objective, THEN introducing the code. Ckamaeleon ((T)) 01:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Licensing Explanation: Why GFDL instead of GFDL-self

Why are we using the {{GFDL}} tag instead of the more specific {{GFDL-self}} tag? Just curious. Ckamaeleon 10:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

{{GFDL-self}} doesn't seem to me to fit with derivative works. (That is, because the text is licensed as GFDL, the recording must have that license. The GFDL-self tag makes it sound like you fully owned the material prior to uploading.) -SCEhardT 15:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Ckamaeleon 10:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Is |sex= optional?

Just curious. I know a bunch of folks, particularly genderqueers and transsexuals, might have a hard time knowing what to put there. I realize some listeners might possibly feel more comfortable/be more able to understand the content when they listen to a voice of a particular sex. But since there's only one spoken version of any given article (I think?) they don't have a choice between listening to male or female voices, anyway, so the selection is irrelevant. I've personally got a voice that sounds "female," and I know I'd much rather just leave the |sex= bit blank.

Do you people think |sex= should be done away with altogether, actually? I'm kind of leaning towards that, but it's a big move. Switchercat 20:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the sex field should not be required, and I have edited the template so that it will only show up if you fill it in (the whole line will not appear on the template otherwise). As for whether it should be done away with altogether, I can't think of a good reason to keep it, and you have presented a good reason to get rid of it. I'll put a link here from the main project discussion page so that others can chime in. I think we should get rid of it if nobody objects. -SCEhardT 22:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It doesn't serve any useful purpose as far as I can see. -- Macropode 02:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The sex option, from what I can tell, is intended to serve the same purpose as the accent field - to give the listener a better idea of what the voice will sound like. It seems a little out of place to get rid of one and not the other. That being said, I don't think either one should be required; as Switchercat pointed out, it's not like people would be able to select their favorite gender or accent anyway. I don't know that it's necessary to get rid of it altogether, but it definitely should not be required. -- Laura S | talk to me 13:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You know, Laura S, you're a bit of a party spoiler! :) -- Macropode 09:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah ... hmm. The argument that can be made for that one is that some people, particularly if they've only learned to understand one accent of spoken English, could decide whether they a) want to listen to the written article or b) use a screenreader with an accent they know they'll understand. (Unless for some reason they don't understand the voices of a particular sex, in which case this same argument could also apply to |sex=, but I don't think it would actually occur.) But I think that specifying a sex is almost entirely useless, and can create problems with people who don't want to be identified by their physical sex. There don't seem to be any possible problems with identifying an accent, since it's far less personal.

That seems like kind of a weak argument to me, (and it's probably flawed), but it's what I have. :P // Switchercat {talk} {contribs} 12:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a weak argument, it makes sense. Maybe it's the mergist in me, but I don't see the harm in leaving it in as an optional component for those who wish to provide the information. But I don't feel all that strongly about it one way or the other, so if I am in the minority (as it seems), I'm not going to put up a big fight about it. -- Laura S | talk to me 13:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

In this context, an absolute 3:1 can't be considered a definitive majority. I'll clarify my point-of-view here. It looks like everyone here pretty much agrees that the sex field is not actually necessary. Personally, I don't think the accent field is necessary either (but I like it because I like to annoy accent-intolerant people with a bit of blardystrayianmate). The sex field, however, may be providing a dis-incentive to some people getting involved in the Spoken project, and as such, an argument exists for removing it, rather than simply making it optional. Also, I think that all the fields that are included in this template should be required, to make it as simple as possible for newcomers to this project to complete the various steps necessary to upload their recording, without having to work out what the "right way" to do it is. I think the whole process is a bit too "manual" and complex now, let's try to keep it as simple as possible, while still providing the necessary information. -- Macropode 02:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll note that I've actually used the sex field before, when looking for recordings to compare mine with (to see how others' sounded). Since most are done by males, the sex field was actually really helpful - I could find the other female recordings without downloading extra files. But that may be a very limited use. The last thing I would want is people not contributing because of something like the sex field which (you are correct) we all agree isn't even absolutely necessary.

Um, I have to ask - what is a blardystrayianmate?? -- Laura S | talk to me 10:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Blast! Another carefully crafted argument destroyed by my nemesis, Laura S. :)

Blardystrayianmate refers to the fact that I live in blardy strayia, and I talk like a blardy strayian, orright mate? Speakers of colloquial Australian have a proud tradition of peppering our speech with expletives and running our words together, whilst never opening our mouths more than a few millimetres (keeps the flies out) while conversing, making anything we say almost unintelligible to anyone without a trained ear in the art. I, of course, like to practise this in the spoken articles I do for Wikipedia.

Now, where does this all leave Switchercat? -- Macropode 13:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Where does it leave him, indeed?

I think that the sex field should definitely be removed altogether (despite what Laura S said, and I'll get back to that in a bit) but, although I agree with Macropode that the accent field isn't that necessary, I don't think that it should be removed, only perhaps made optional. As I wrote before, I can think of a pretty good use for it. And - sorry, Laura S - I don't think your use for the sex field is a common enough one to justify keeping it. :/

SCEhardt, by the way, do you have an opinion on this as well? If you're watching this? »»» Switchercat ^talk_contribs 03:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have been watching :-) Based on what I've read here (and my own opinions), I still think that the 'sex' field should be removed altogether because the potential detriment to the project of discouraging submission is greater than the potential benefits. I also think the 'accent' field should be left in place. Although I would be fine in principal with making it optional, I agree with Macropede Macropode that we should avoid any unnecessary complication that could deter new contributors. -SCEhardT 11:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Macropode, if you please. I have two legs, and they each have a dirty big foot on the end of 'em. -- Macropode 12:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops!!! Sorry about that! -SCEhardT 12:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't a threat, SCEhardt, it was a reference to the origin of my user-name. Get rid of that "sex" field, quick, before Laura S comes back! :) -- Macropode 13:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, SCEHardt. Let's remove the sex field and keep the accent field (for now), then. I don't really think it needs to be made optional, and if you guys think that that might cause confusion, I wouldn't mind just keeping the accent field as it is.

(I'm starting to record my first spoken article today, btw! Progress! :D) »»» Switchercat ^talk_contribs 20:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait... What? I don't understand the big deal here, because (and I know this is going to sound insensitive but) if you can't decide one way or another for the purposes of what you sound like, or have such an androgynous-sounding voice that I'm going to be thinking "Is that a guy or girl???" anyway, maybe you'd best not bother. I know something is better than nothing and I have no room to criticize anyone's speaking abilities but this just sounds a bit too PC for me. And this is coming from a card-carrying socialist for whatever that's worth.

Wouldn't you rather choose a side than get annoying messages going "OMG LOL WTF R U DUDE" or something stupid like that?

Oh god, I've done it. Here comes the can of worms. :P Moulder 22:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

OK - you've kind of lost me here. Could you clarify: What value do you feel the 'sex' parameter adds to the project that counteracts the negative aspect of deterring some contributors? Are you saying it would be difficult to understand a spoken article created by a womanly sounding man or manly sounding woman? I don't think this conversation was revolving around how to be PC, but rather how to address genuine concerns for the benefit of the project. -SCEhardT 22:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I probably should have left out things like political views and rhetoric. My point is that, rather than asking what the benefit is (we know the benefit... it tells you whether it's a man or woman) but what the detriment is. And honestly, I can't see much of the latter. I'm saying that, if the person's in that position (not knowing if they're a man or woman), they probably aren't in a position where they'll put their voice up for all to hear. I have no problem with a manly sounding woman, womanly sounding man, or androgynous sounding rabbit, but inquiring minds will want to know regardless. If anything, a transgendered person with a strange-sounding voice would get messages from idiots asking what they are if there's no indication. Moulder 22:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

...if you can't decide one way or another for the purposes of what you sound like, or have such an androgynous-sounding voice that I'm going to be thinking "Is that a guy or girl???" anyway, maybe you'd best not bother. Some people "sound like" men, and are physically male, but consider themselves to be female or androgynous. And vice versa. It's not that they don't know whether or not they sound male or female, but that they don't want to specify a sex that they don't identify with. Since the sex field is, it seems, not that useful anyway, it's pointless to alienate people from recording articles by making them fill it in. Are you saying that, if you don't happen to want to fill in your biological sex on a form, you just shouldn't record an article? I don't really understand the reasoning behind that.

Wouldn't you rather choose a side than get annoying messages going "OMG LOL WTF R U DUDE" or something stupid like that? Uh, no. :P If you don't identify with that side at all, and would literally be deterred from contributing by the thought that you had to specify 'female' or 'male' depending only on your voice, then stupid messages are a small price to pay.

Replying to another point made: I'm saying that, if the person's in that position (not knowing if they're a man or woman)... Eh? People know what their genders are. »»» Switchercat ^talk_contribs 23:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, those posts were not one of my finer hours as I was hung over. Essentially, my take is that for a transsexual/transgender person this is a bit like the question of which restroom to use in a public place: they can use the one they feel most comfortable with, or not use one at all (i.e. the field can be optional if it's that important). My other ramblings arose from a feeling that the disincentive presented by a sex/gender parameter - especially if it's made optional - is inconsequential and rather silly compared to, say, the 104kb (so far, this time around) debate over the disincentive presented by compulsory registration. But if it's that important to people, it's not worth arguing about. Moulder 02:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It sounds to me like the general consensus is to remove the sex parameter from the {{Spoken article entry}} template, so I have done so. -SCEhardT 11:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. »»» Switchercat ^talk_contribs 21:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Instructions for partitioned articles

The instructions for uploading sound files divided into several parts still contain the direction to place something below the "|sex=" line...which appears to have been removed from the template (and for good reason). Perhaps someone who helped create the instructions for this part (or at least simplifed them...Ckameleon, perhaps?) could clarify this. --Chadley99 05:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops - missed that one when I was taking them out. Thanks for pointing it out! -SCEhardT 07:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

New field: link_to_recorded_version

The advice that the date written in the date field should be a link to the version of the article from which the recording was made is being ignored (I looked at the first 6 articles in the "Biology and medicine" section of Wikipedia:Spoken articles and found no dates linking to corresponding article versions). I think this is because people are reading the field name, but not the guidelines (or some are doing that, and the rest are learning by [bad] example).

Fixing this is a trivial matter of adding a field with a self-explanatory name such as "link_to_recorded_version".

Setting the system up so that the people who make recordings get the data right is the only practical way to get this information right. The usualy wiki-style "plan B" of letting subsequent editors fill in the blanks is insufficient because if the recording maker gives a date, and there is an edit on that date, the subsequent editor might not know if the recording was made before or after the edit - and the problem becomes obviously too complex when there are multiple edits on the given date. ...and listening the the whole recording and comparing it to each version of the page is very time consuming for a problem that could have been avoided by 3 seconds of work if the recording maker knew what to do.

One example for why having the links to the corresponding text available for each audio is important is for learners of English. Being able to listen to the pronunciation while reading the words is an amazing tool for language learning wikipedians.

So, given that it will create only a minute amount of work for recording makers, and given that it would otherwise take a very large amount of work for anyone but the recording maker, and given that the current system is demonstrably insufficient, and given that this is an important feature, I'm seeking input on the suggestion of adding a non-optional field with a name such as "link_to_recorded_version". (or if the template can include html comments, the name could be "recorded_version" and a comment could explain exactly what should be in the field). Gronky 13:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)