Wikipedia talk:Spoken articles

Note: The primary discussion page for this project is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia

Marking of articles

Currently it reads:

• Bolded article titles refer to featured articles.
• Articles also marked with have been featured, with an audio link, on the Main Page.

But for consistency with existing practice, shouldn't it be the other way around? The Featured articles page has an image for spoken articles, and bold for appearance on the main page. I think this page should follow the established tradition, or else it can get kind of confusing. — Timwi 13:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • I agree, and was considering implementing the change last week, but decided it was too much effort at the time. Joe D (t) 08:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Collaspable Template

Hi, iv been thinking, cant we put these pages in collasping templates?

it would make it a lot easier to browse the page

and different versions could be added to the articles themselfs

let me know your thoughts

Sghfdhdfghdfgfd (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Redundant Info

So is there a good reason to have the same information listed "three" times on the page? --CGP 22:05, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, the information in the table should be merged into the sections. That leaves the info listed just twice (once by topic, and once automatically and alphabetically). — Chameleon 00:27, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is practically a farce

Spoken articles should only be used for disabled individuals such as blind people etc... However I would really, and I mean really reconsider the people who are chosen to record and used to read out the articles, because so far they are all below average, with slurring, mis-reads and weird accents. You can't expect just anyone to do these with their computer mics (resulting in reverb and irritating interference), but I would strongly advise using professionals in audio-visual or audio-engineering instead. Piecraft 00:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Low-quality work is better than none at all. Once all our featured articles are recorded, professional readers with professional equipment can re-record things for improvement. If any volunteer, that is. — Timwi 19:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well going by current wikipedia standards, there is suuposedly no room for low-quality work. Therefore I still see no purpose for this at all, unless real professionals or individuals who know what they're doing are contributing or wrking alongside this project - which at the moment I do not see. But then again, this is typical to expect such a hypocritical system in Wikipedia. Piecraft 20:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I would think Wikipedia must have started with a "Low-quality work is better than none at all" philosophy. But it's only due to the massive amount of contributions and edits from enthusiastic users that the quality and quantity of organization and content has come to the point where someone would say that the "current wikipedia standards" demand high-quality. I think read that the people in charge of Encyclopedia Britannica believe Wikipedia is doomed in the end because its peer review system is too random and free. I think it's exactly because Wikipedia trusts in its users' ability to spread, add, and improve, that Wikipedia has come to this point. Thus, I agree that low quality is better than none at all. If you find something that's low quality, hopefully that means you or someone else will decide to improve it one day.

Low quality recordings are inevitable. Equipment aside, not that many people have sufficient control over their voice and/or some accents make it sound low quality no matter what! I think that low quality is better than nothing - as long as people label their accents correctly. Why does the majority of US recordings have a "General American" label? Because most Americans believe that they and the people around them don't have an accent. Wouldn't it be better to get people to say where they have lived if they were to write General American? Temporal Fugitive (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Which brings me to this suggestion or request - is there a page that could collect and award the spoken files for their high quality? And when I say high quality, I don't just mean sound quality, but I am talking about the quality of the speaker (so maybe it should collect names of users who are highly regarded for their spoken files). I'll go right ahead and give props to the spoken file for Rachel Green. I think the person who recorded this is a podcaster that has his own site at http://www.techonthefly.com/techonthefly/drupal/, but isn't particularly involved with Wikipedia. The first file he uploaded advertised his "techonthefly" site within the file, so someone (User:MarkSweep) cut that part out. In any case, the quality of the speech is very good. Kenumay 20:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering about that myself, what spoken files are particularly well-read. I see that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia links to an attempt in that direction, User:Macropode/Spoken article review Шизомби 14:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"...real professionals or individuals who know what they're doing are contributing or wrking alongside this project - which at the moment I do not see." — Semi-professional audio engineer and professional voiceover actor/announcer here. :D tgies 06:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Directlinking for directdownload

Hi,

i added the hear it links because im from germany and would like to use this files to learn speaking and hearing english but my downloadmanager can only catch directlinking files and noone who have a site before. For the actually status i must write an extra ripper :| I hope the use of this file is ok for wikipedia?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.146.210.136 (talk • contribs) .

I've reverted the new format because it would make the page too unwieldy if it was applied to all the spoken articles. If you need special formatting for your download manager, I'd suggest registering an account and using your User Page to make the formatted list. Thanks -SCEhardT 03:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

look at the german page. You have there a more better overview as here! It likes bad is uninformativ and stupid for downloadmanager or people who want not have a second page to hear it. You must click 2 Links to hear it!

Who makes these?

Who makes these recordings, and how can we request that an article is spoken? -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 21:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi - check out Category:Spoken Wikipedia requests; there is a request template there. Also, the main project page is Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia -SCEhardT 17:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Where

The new icon for oggs is acquard, fussy, and dreadful. Where is the forum for discussing this. Thanks. Ceoil 19:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This isn't really an issue specific to this project (see uses of the multi-listen template, and I'm sure there are others). I'd suggest bringing up the issue at the village pump. -SCEhardT 22:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

podcast of articles

how can i add these spoken articles to podcast of iTunes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.151.182 (talk) 11:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sports together with video games

That's a bit disrespectful to Sports. Or plain overgeneralization. --AaThinker (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Many of the categories are awkward. Many categories are missing. Am I correct that anyone can edit the categories to make better sense? Alanasings (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Podcasting Spoken Articles

I have been listening to a few of these on my MP3 player and really enjoy them. I wanted to suggest that it would be would a really great idea to start a spoken article podcast. Each week a spoken article can be chosen, one that is well written, and spoken and recorded, or may be just relevant to that weeks events. May be chosen by a vote or something. Then that article could be podcasted out. I don't know all the technical aspects that would be required, or weather it would need to be done some where else other than on Wikipedia. I just think it would be a cool idea and I'd love to help make it happen. --The_stuart (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the best way to manage that would be to set up a page where spoken articles could be nominated for this and then some kind of voting system perhaps? The seraphim (talk) 02:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I would love to do this. Is there a way to do it within Wikipedia and have an RSS feed? Or would we need to set up a whole new site? --The_stuart (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This is NOT only for blind people

They can be used to jog while listening on an mp3 device. (Referring to a comment above saying this is "only" for the disabled). --94.71.106.211 (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's not! Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spoken_Wikipedia#Benefits —Preceding unsigned comment added by Temporal Fugitive (talk • contribs) 15:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

How about Text To Speech?

Just listen to the example of Portal Prelude voices: http://www.portalprelude.com/2008/09/day-sixteen-about-voices.php Three male voices used in the game sound prefect. http://www.acapela-group.com was used there. GrayFace (talk)

i used a text to speech program to make Syston & rearsby and will be using them on the other pages i am making. even though it takes a long time to ajust the timings for them, the output is very clear and understandable. also, having a voice what sounds like they know what they are talking about goes into your mind better.

also, in the software licence, the output is not under any copyright restrictions.

I think that there is a need in a special category for automatically created audio files., e.g. Category:Text to speech spoken articles. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 05:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I just tried listening to "Syston". I don't like this artificial voice at all. It grates on the ears, unpleasant. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This sounds just like every other text to speech software. Halting, grating and terrible. Wait 5 years and maybe google will finally get it right.--RaptorHunter (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

'versity?

I think that this project would be useful at Wikiversity. It's sometimes easier to learn when listening to stuff, and it will be a great aid for visually impaired students, as many coursebooks aren't in braille. Thoughts? ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 05:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Computer Generated

T2S and all other computer generated articles should either have their own section or their entries should be distinct enough to be able to tell that that's what they are without having to open them. If no objections arise, I shall proceed with making their entries distinct (I'm thinking underlined gray). Temporal Fugitive (talk) 07:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Done. Hope I didn't miss anything! Temporal Fugitive (talk) 10:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Indications of substantial change

There are many spoken articles that no longer bear even the slightest resemblance to the current text version. I think those articles (eg dinosaur) should be indicated in the list. Serendi^podous 20:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Goog idea. It may be the number as superscript which indicates number of years passed after the recording. E.g. the article Wikipedia³ was recorded 3 years ago. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Spoken articles missed in the list

There are spoken articles, which are not listed in this list:

• Royal Maundy - audio files: File:Royal Maundy 1.ogg, File:Royal Maundy 2.ogg;

• YouTube - audio file: File:Youtube spoken word.ogg;

• Alexi Salamone - audio file: File:En-Alexi Salamone.ogg.

Please, add to appropriate section. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Y Done Derfel73 (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 08:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"Culture and society" section and "Erotic" spoken articles

This section contains too many "Erotic" spoken articles. I propose to make a separate subsection titled "Sexuality". -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 08:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Computer generated audio?

The audio File:Acharya Jagadish Chandra Bose College.ogg is very similar to the computer generated audio. If it is true, then it should be Grayed out.

English native speakers, please, check it. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 06:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely computer generated; thanks for pointing that out.Derfel73 (talk) 10:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)