Talk:Audio converter

Redirected to Transcoding

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Codename Lisa redirected this former disambig to Transcoding with edit comment, "Converted the false disambiguation page into a redirect. Per WP:DAB the target articles must explicitly contain the title "audio converter", where the claim can be contested. (I WILL contest it, by the way!)"

All of the target articles of the disambig contain convert so I don't see what the problem is or how this change is an improvement. The redirect covers only one type of audio conversion. I would like to restore the disambig and add a link to Transcoder to it. ~Kvng (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Kvng

Having the word "convert" alone is miles far from enough. This word appears in articles about image converters, video converters, religious conversion and Internet Explorer. None of these are what a person means by "audio converter". Per our policy:

Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead.

You cannot possibly expect me to believe that someone may search for "audio converter" and in reality, he or she means "sound card" or "codec". A sound card has no part in the audio conversion process whatsoever, while at least two codecs are involved in all audio conversion processes. "analog-to-digital converter" and "digital-to-analog converter" are both as distinct from an audio converter as an image converter or video converter is distinct from the former.

There are additional requirements too:

A disambiguation page is not a search index. Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion or reference.

[...]

Include articles only if the term being disambiguated is actually described in the target article.

In all the good conscience, I cannot simply ignore all these policy requirements, and the fact that what you want to restore, does not makes anything less ambiguous, but rather, sends the reader on a wild goose chase.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that disambiguating to Sound card is a stretch and that's easy to fix once we've restored the disambig page. Analog-to-digital converters and digital-to-analog converters are frequently referred to as converters or audio converters for short. Transcoding is a conversion process but is not frequently referred to as a converter because of ambiguity with the preexisting terminology.

Do you see a potential resolution here between just the two of us or should I reach out to some of the associated WikiProjects or initiate an RfC? ~Kvng (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I am all for offering a compromise, but to do that, I must know something: You are clearly violating a policy here. What's the up side to it? And while we are on the subject of violating policies, on who's authority did you usurp a whole article's text in favor of policy-violating disambiguation page, without an AfD?

Also, I quite frankly can't help but frown upon the impression you tried to give of "transcoding". According to the Transcoding article:

Transcoding is the direct analog-to-analog or digital-to-digital conversion of one encoding to another, such as for movie data files (e.g., PAL, SECAM, NTSC), audio files (e.g., MP3, WAV)

This definition satisfies both the words and the spirit of the criterion for redirection.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to be blunt here but I don't see a compromise offered and I don't see your point in quoting Transcoding when I can readily do the same for Analog-to-digital converter and Digital-to-analog converter. As far as policy goes, I thought I had a reasonable handle on what we like to see on disambig pages. You seem to be reading it differently. This is not uncommon. The way I usually improve my own alignment to policy is to get other editors involved so that's what I'll try to do. ~Kvng (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think being blunt is the part for which you should be sorry. Failing to justify yourself is. You say you want a compromise but you clearly don't want to compromise anything. —Codename Lisa (talk) 05:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC statement

Given our discussion above, should this article be restored to be a disambiguation page? Codename Lisa converted this disambig to a redirect. See discussion above for reasoning. ~Kvng (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support - I believe WP:DISAMBIG allows a disambiguation page like this. I believe it was working fine as it was and this change is not an improvement. ~Kvng (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. For three reasons:

1. Meaning: I don't think anyone has ever said "audio converter" when he or she means "sound card". Same as audio codec: an audio converter uses a pairs of audio codecs. Analog-to-digital converter are Digital-to-analog converter components of a sound card and video capture card. And let's look at a Google search result for "audio converter". I believe it is quite clear that "transcoding" is the correct meaning.
2. Policy on disambiguation: I had a full discussion about our disambiguation policy above. I will re-quote the parts that I discussed:

   Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead.

   A disambiguation page is not a search index. Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion or reference.

   Include articles only if the term being disambiguated is actually described in the target article.

3. Policy on primary topics: Per MOS:DABPRIMARY, "transcoding" is the primary target. Even if all the arguments that I made above were invalid, per MOS:DABPRIMARY, we still have to redirect to "transcoding" but also have an Audio converter (disambiguation) page.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support - In my professional experience, transcoding is the transformation of one compressed digital format to another (e.g., mp3 <--> AAC) -- which has nothing to do with analog audio, let alone "analog-to-analog" conversion (a dubious claim). Transcoding is just one type of audio conversion, and there is no evidence it is more prevalent than other types such as analog audio capture (e.g., analog to I2S), digital audio compression/decompression (uncompressed digital <--> compressed digital) and "audio decoding" (digital-to-analog conversion; e.g., for audio playback). I agree that "audio converter" is an unlikely search term for "sound card", but nevertheless, any device that performs an audio conversion function is clearly an "audio converter". Lambtron (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Kvng and Lambtron. Transcoding is not limited to audio codes, it encompass at least still and motion picture codes as well. Strictly speaking, "audio converter" could include speakers, earphones, and microphones as well, although a person searching for an article is unlikely to enter "audio converter" when thinking of one of those transducers. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
• Restore. As someone with little understanding of the field, I would find the former db page more useful than a redirect to a page which is mostly about image and video formats. Maproom (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• So are codec, analog-to-digital converter and digital-to-analog converter. They are about video and images too. And we have a policy. A simple lopsided poll that doesn't adhere to RfC standard is not allowed to violate a policy. —Codename Lisa (talk) 07:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support Restore this to the disambiguation page or redirect it somewhere else, but "audio converter" and "transcoding" are not at all synonyms. Transcoding is changing from one digital format to another, while "audio converter" most frequently refers to a device that encodes or decodes digital audio from or to analog respectively. Also transcoding applies to a broad range of types of encodings not just audio, so it seems a bit misleading to send someone there who is specifically looking for an audio technology. Klaun (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Comment Only here for the RfC. This is outside my competence even though I understand the concepts; I am not inured to the popular terminology among initiates. I checked back to the (deleted) disambiguation item and it seemed harmless to me, but Lisa's points otherwise were persuasive. The earlier version of the full article seemed better merged and replaced as it was, but I am not persuaded that the remaining dispute is more impressive than a storm in the teacup. Please let's not turn it into a wall-of-text war. Loss of the disambig would not frustrate many users, but then it might help some. If it were up to me I'd flip a coin. JonRichfield (talk) 05:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
• Okay, this is strange. We have no RfC question, no policy-based justification, complete disregard for the policies I cited, and supporting editors neither of whom have are a Wikipedia veteran. I am trying to fight the feeling that this RfC is rigged. Nevertheless, I do not accept a fake RfC as consensus for a fake disambiguation page. Policies represent greater consensus and I will not hesitate taking this page to ANI if this fake RfC does not correct its course. —Wishing for it to end well, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Codename Lisa: The RfC topic seems very clear to me: Should this article be restored to a DAB? IMO, the answer is also clear: Yes. There is no article titled "Audio converter", and there is no evidence (or any reason I can think of) why transcoder -- one of many types of audio converter -- should be considered the primary topic for "audio converter". IMO, these are compelling reasons to restore the article to a DAB, and it seems that most of the other editors who commented agree. In fact, this conforms quite well to DAB policy. Please don't take this personally, and please also assume we are all working together here in good faith, on an issue that is neither "fake" nor "rigged". Lambtron (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Lambtron:

Let's follow up your "yes" with a question: "Why yes?" The answer would be "I just like it" or one of its variants like "it is useful" and so forth. This one of the most hated excuses for violating Wikipedia policies with one or two votes. Policies are the grandest form of consensus in Wikipedia and may not be ignored by just the liking of one person.

"and there is no evidence [...] why transcoder [...] should be considered the primary topic for 'audio converter'." I have already posted the evidence twice: [1] This the third time. So, when you say such a thing, it takes a great deal of the force of will to assume good faith in you. (Even when I do, you don't come out good: Maybe your failure to see the evidence, let alone discuss it, was not out of malice but it certainly does not indicate good judgment and observation, and undermines your merit for ignoring the policy.)

"The RfC topic seems very clear to me". It has never been a question of clarity. The RFC question must have a certain format described in WP:RFC. It must be neutral. This one actually encourages policy violation.

Codename Lisa (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how to be any clearer: Transcoder is obviously not the primary topic. It's been pointed out several times that "audio converter" is a generic term that applies to transducers, A/D and D/A converters, and transcoders, and it encompasses a plethora of hardware devices and software implementations. If you need further proof, please google "audio converter" (in quotes) and you will see that Transcoder is just one of many relevant topics.

The DAB was a placeholder for what could eventually become a broad-concept article. This does not "violate" any policies; in fact it fully conforms to the policies of both DABs and broad-concept articles. Furthermore, it is useful -- or was, until you erased it. IMO, your edit was a controversial one that should have been discussed beforehand. BTW, you are not helping your cause with tangential references to RfC formats, suspected malice, and failures of judgement in other editors. I hope you will reconsider your stand in light of these compelling facts and the overwhelming support for DAB restoration. Lambtron (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, at least you are paying attention to what Jc3s5h and I say, even though your reaction to my evidence is refusal to get the point. (You even advise me to google "audio converter" (in quotes), not realizing that when I do that no other result besides transcoding apps come up in the first four pages.)

As for the placeholder claim, first, you don't need a placeholder, just write the thing. Second, according to the revision history stats and history search, you would have no way of knowing whether it is supposed to be a placeholder or not. Your first involvement with this article was three days ago. Editor Interaction Analyzer also shows that Kvng has never told you of any plan for this page to become a placeholder.

Anyway, regardless of what you said or did, I am willing to back your broad-concept notion up as a compromise. Codename Lisa (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm very glad to hear that you're willing to compromise! Accordingly, I've converted the redirect to a stub. Lambtron (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Codename Lisa:, you appear to be contending that the articles named in the article when it was a disambiguation page, Audio codec, Analog-to-digital converter, Digital-to-analog converter, and Sound card, merely contain the word "audio" or the synonym "sound" and thus the disambiguation page was serving as a search index, rather than things that might be described as audio converters. I disagree.

Of course, the only true audio is vibrations carried through the air, water, or solid objects, which can be perceived directly with the ear. But in the world of electronics, the electronics rarely manipulate vibrations directly, except with speakers, earphones, and microphones. The closest electronic analog to this is a voltage that changes in proportion to the pressure changes in the air that existed/will exist when the signal is converted to a real sound. Digital numbers that correspond to the air pressures are one generation more abstract than the analog electrical signal, and digital codes created by a codec, such as MP3, is one further generation more abstract. All of the articles that appeared on the disambiguation page converted between something "closer" to true sounds and something "further" from true sounds, and thus the phrase "audio converter" might very well pop into the mind of a reader who wants to read about one of these devices, but isn't quite sure what title we gave to the article about them. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h: "...merely contain the word "audio" or the synonym "sound" and thus the disambiguation page was serving as a search index, rather than things that might be described as audio converters." No, I am not contending such a thing. Doing so would be unjustly dignifying these articles and a bit of misinformation too. An audio converter is this: a Google search result for "audio converter". The dab page was merely a standalone "See also" section, and a poor way of saying: "We don't have an article about 'audio converters' in Wikipedia." —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

You can think of my view this way: Pretend you go to WikiData and want to describe a piece of app. You add the field "instance of" and proceed to add "audio converter app", only to find out you cannot insert it: It is a DAB page. You can insert one of the disambiguation page's targets instead: Except "audio codec" every other choice is blatantly wrong, because they are hardware, not software. A codec can be software, but again, an audio converter app uses a codec; it isn't one. —Codename Lisa (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

By having "Audio converter" as a DAB rather than an article, we are correctly declaring that we don't have an article about audio converters. There are many devices, programs, and subroutines that could be reasonably described as audio converters, and we do not have an overview article that puts all or most of these things in perspective. Consider our article Transistor, which gives an overview of the various kinds of transistors. Of course, anyone who wants to use a transistor would have to read the article about the specific kind of transistor, such as Bipolar junction transistor or MOSFET, and then more specific books or datasheets, before a transistor could be selected and used. Likewise, "audio converter" is a broad concept, and a reader would have to identify what kind of audio converter they are interested and go to the relevant article in order to obtain actionable information.

As for Google search results, that has more to do with shopping that sorting through concepts. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you realize that you are describing a broad concept article? Codename Lisa (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if you mean Transcoding is a broad concept articke, or if you mean that the DAB version of "Audio converter" should be expanded into a broad concept article.

Going back to search results, if you search Google Scholar for "audio converter" (with the quote marks, and with the patents box unchecked) the first page of results are, or discuss, digital-to-analog converters or analog-to-digital converters. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h: No. That's not what I meant. You explicitly said "'audio converter' is a broad concept, and a reader would have to identify what kind of audio converter they are interested and go to the relevant article in order to obtain actionable information." That's the exact definition of a broad concept article. So, yes, I am saying that I am open to the conversion of this page to a broad concept article as a compromise.

As for your search in Google Scholar, that was a terrible mistake that you made, for two reasons:

1. Doing that is for verifying notability or looking reliable sources written by experts, not for deciding whether a topic is a primary meaning. Primary meaning comes exclusively from head count.

2. Nature of Google Scholars suggests that certain topics will never appear on it in abundance. Examples: Celebrity love affairs, video gaming know-how, business politics and any topic that cannot be plausibly a doctoral dissertation. (Sure, scholars definitely write about the social impacts of celebrities, various scientific analysis of video gaming and their trends, and various aspects of business as a social science, but there things that you can only find in Vogue, PC Gamers or Gardener only.) Yet we write about those subjects in Wikipedia.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully I haven't been too bold: I converted Audio converter to a stub per the compromise offered by Codename Lisa, which I hope will satisfy all parties. Lambtron (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-discussion

Thanks everyone for taking care of this. I got busy and was not able to follow the discussion. It looks like there was strong enough consensus to just do the restore as proposed in the RfC but I fear that would not have been the end of it. The outcome looks like a workable compromise. ~Kvng (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

You were absent too? Well. It seems the principal movers of this dispute where absent when it came to a natural conclusion.

Normally, it shouldn't be me who inserts the {{Archive top}} and {{Archive bottom}} but things were pretty much cut and dried when I did it. Hence, WP:SNOW. –Codename Lisa (talk) 19:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit reversion

@Lambtron: re [2]. Please explain why Audio converter ("a device or software that converts an audio signal from one format to another") should not have a See also entry to Transcoding "the direct digital-to-digital conversion of one encoding to another, such as for ... audio files". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

The article already links to transcoding: "... an audio transcoder converts ...". Lambtron talk 17:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@Lambtron: Yes, you're right, sorry! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)