Template talk:Pronounced/Archive 1

Archive 1

Usage

This template is based on {{IPA2}}, but it is designed for editors who prefer the more natural wording "{{pronounced|aɪpiːˈeɪ}}" to "{{IPA2|aɪpiːˈeɪ}}", which can sound stilted and confusing in some contexts. It also ensures the correct font is used and automatically encloses the transcription in square brackets. It should generally only be used on the first occurence of IPA in an article, typically in the lead section; further occurences should use {{IPA}} to avoid over-linking. --Blisco 19:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

variants of this template?

This edit suggests to me that we may need more than one variant of this template, or additional parameters for this one.

--Jtir (talk) 07:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that limits this template is that it forces the phonetic [brackets] as opposed to the phonemic /slashes/. If I understand correctly, English words should generally use the slashes and foreign words the brackets. We can't just edit this template so the brackets are out since there are likely thousands of articles that use this template and they would need to be edited with a bot to get it all done on time. While it's easier in the short term to make another template that forces slashes or is neutral to it, this would be two templates where it could be one, which doesn't make a lot of sense in the long run. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 07:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. It was my mistake originally, and I have corrected it here. I didn't realize there is a difference between English and non-English transcriptions. Maybe the templates should not be adding the delimiters, because they are a technical detail that is essentially part of the transcription, which I regard as the work of IPA specialists (which I am certainly not).

Another issue is that {{pronounced}} links to Help:IPA and {{pronEng}} links to Help:Pronunciation. Help:IPA provides audio clips and is oriented toward readers who are not necessarily native English speakers, while Help:Pronunciation has no audio clips and uses English examples exclusively. Since this is an international encyclopedia, ISTM that some of the features of Help:IPA would be desirable in Help:Pronunciation. --Jtir (talk) 08:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This needs immidate fixing

This template and all of its language variants violate some of our basic principles concerning licensing information. Since they link only to the actual audio files they bypass the licensing information and are effectively hiding that crucial data about who made the file and under what license it was published. This would never, ever be tolerated for other media. Just imagine a template for pictures that would take you straight to the raw picture instead of to the information page. I bet it would be deleted within days.

So how do we solve this?

Peter ^Isotalo 11:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If you click on the speaker, you go to the licensing page. However, we could also do something like this:

{{pronounced/test|test|Test.ogv}}

kwami (talk) 12:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the (help info) or (listen) links is their high level of intrusiveness in lists. A version with minimal intrusion would have (in some order):

• a superscripted ⁽ⁱ⁾ to link to the description of the sound file

• a speaker to activate the sound file

• a display text

−Woodstone (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I like the superscript and speaker suggestion. Personally, I think the speaker icon should play the file, rather than linking to the file page (which seems unintuitive), and the superscript would allow that to happen while also providing a link to the file page. There could also be a parameter added to the template to toggle how it displays (for example, there could be a long form ^(info) and a short form ⁽ⁱ⁾ or something like that) so it will work better in list. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The speaker link is how it already works, not a suggestion, though of course we can always change it.

We could have the speaker with the direct like (I don't know how to do that), followed by superscript (i) for the licensing, and do away with the other parentheses. kwami (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Damnit... The speaker link completely went me by. It did seem odd to me that there was still a problem with the licensing info being hidden! I must have forgotten the details of the last discussion about this issue.

Considering how important the license information is, it seems as if the link to it should always be the most prominent one. A superscripted word, or just a single letter, seems excessively discrete to me.

I'm wondering, though, if we should really be discussing any type of squirming away of file info linkage, or making it more or less invisable, as a workable option, even for tables. Wouldn't this all be so much easier if we just went for a single-link option, just like we already do with images? It would mean no ambiguity concerning licensing links and far less complicated templates.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's important to have direct links with these, because you can see an image without a direct link (it displays inline) but you can't hear a sound without one (it doesn't play inline if you're not using {{listen}}). And navigating to the actual sound recording can be confusing for users. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Yeah, that's what I was thinking—having the speaker directly play the file, rather than opening the file description page. I'm not familiar with this template, but I imagine this could be done with a hack like

<span class="plainlinks">{{User:Malcolm/Clickthru/3
 | link={{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>filepath:{{{2}}}|nowiki}}
 | image=Speaker Icon.svg
 | width=13px
 | height=13px
 | title=Play this sound file}}</span>

There are still some kinks with that (for example, right now it doesn't seem to want to display inline; if I put it on its own line it's fine but if I put it inline it appears up in the corner of the browser) but I'm sure some fiddling around would solve them. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought: is it really that bad if we link people only to the file info page without supplying a direct link to the .ogg-file? Considering how exotic this file format still must be to most users (and keeping in mind the particular nature of audio files on Wikipedia in general), is it really that much of a problem? To me it seems as if regular editors like us and the small minority of tech-savvy readers would be the only ones bothered by it.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It would rather defeat the purpose of the sound files, which is to listen to them. The primary link should be the one that plays the sound file. It is the link to info page that is of no interest to anyone except the legal eagles. −Woodstone (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

How would it be a problem? Audio files aren't immidiately available no matter what method of linking you use. Why would an additional link be such a nuisence?

As for info pages, there's really nothing more to discuss. There has to be license linkage. Period. We can complain about it, but it's part of the core policy and isn't negotiable.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The basic requirement for a useful audiolink is that by clicking on it, you hear its content. And that is exactly how it can work, e.g. a. If the legal people insist, we can add an unintrusive link to the finel info page for attribution. We can dress it up with a loudspeaker symbol to show its a soundfile. And there should be the possiblility of linking to a WP article as well. −Woodstone (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is a working example:

• ⁽ⁱ⁾ a
  • ⁽ⁱ⁾: links to description page of audio file
  • : plays the audio file
  • a: links to the WP article

This is coded as:

 [[:File:Open_front_unrounded_vowel.ogg|<sup>(i)</sup>]]<span
   class="audiolink">[[Image:Loudspeaker.svg|11px
 | link=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Open_front_unrounded_vowel.ogg
 ]]</span> [[Open_front_unrounded_vowel|a]]

Two problems remain. You need to fill in the exact link location. I have not yet found how to link by just using the logical file name Open_front_unrounded_vowel.ogg or Media:Open_front_unrounded_vowel.ogg. Secondly, there is no appropriate pop-up at the loudspeaker to invite clicking.

−Woodstone (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

After mentioning this problem at the [village pump], a work-around was pointed to. Two proposed solutions are given, of which one seems to work:

• replace "Media" by "Special:Filepath/"
• ⁽ⁱ⁾ a

which is coded as:

 [[:File:Open_front_unrounded_vowel.ogg|<sup>(i)</sup>]]<span
   class="audiolink">[[Image:Loudspeaker.svg|11px
 | link=Special:Filepath/Open_front_unrounded_vowel.ogg
 ]]</span> [[Open_front_unrounded_vowel|a]]

This could be implemented quite easily in the audio templates. −Woodstone (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Using a further refinement arising from the [village pump], we might go to the following form:

• pronounced: [test] ⁱ
  • [test] links to the IPA description page
  • plays the audio file
  • ⁱ links to the description of the audio file including copyright info

This is coded here (but can be readily in the template) as:

 pronounced: [[WP:IPA|{{IPA|[test]}}]] <span
   class="audiolink">[[Image:Loudspeaker.svg|11px
 | link={{filepath:Test.ogv}}]]</span>[[:File:Test.ogv|<sup>'''''i'''''</sup>]]

−Woodstone (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I still think this should be solved much easier by having just a link to the file info. The fact that .ogg-files are rather difficult to play means that a direct link to the file benefits only a minority. And eventhough it might seem unnecessary to link only indirectly to the media file, we're still talking about an audio template that is essentially a compromise. The "real" audio template is {{listen}} while this is just supposed to be a minimized variant of it.

And quite frankly, I'm a bit annoyed by this talk of "legal eagles" and whatnot. As already pointed out, it's a requirement that isn't even worth complaining about. It has to be there and that's that. But as a contributor of pronunciation files, I also feel that it's important that people who listen to audio files should have reasonably easy access to information about the contributor. It's important because it tells who the contributor is (sex, age, native language(s), etc) and it's alsoi important to do a little more than just the barest, legal minimum to acknowledge contributors. In this case, a tiny, italicized, barely visible, superscript "i" is not my idea of proper attribution.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we can agree that wikipedia is there for the readers in the first place. I take your word that there is a legal obligation to have an attribution to the media content, but the ability to hear the content is primary. Playing the ".ogg" files is easy (after an intial download of the appropriate plug-in). Just one click plays the file. Having to go through the description file is an unnecessary burden on the reader. A bold italic i is an international symbol standing for "information". People seeking information will recognise it, but it is useful for the reader only occasionally and should be as little disruptive as possible. Lastly, having the loudspeaker act as button to play the file is not meant only for this shortened version, but for every version, replacing the "(listen)" string. −Woodstone (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

What about placing the speaker in front of the transcription, as at {{Audio-IPA}}? Eventually we should be able to merge the two.

I also agree that the immediate access needs to be to the sound, not its attribution. We don't sign our contributions in Wikipedia articles, but leave that to the page history; likewise, citations are relegated to footnotes to the quotations, not quotations relegated to footnotes of the citations.

But Peter is right, per the WP legal team we'd be obligated to provide this information, just as we do with images, even if there were no immediately relevant material such as speaker demographics. kwami (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

In the above proposed layout, the speaker was placed after the transcription, so there would be no break between the lead string "pronounced" and the pronunciation string. The speaker follows similar to the link symbol in external web sites. The information symbol follows similar to a footnote.

If the speaker is placed between the lead and transcription, where does the i go? Compare:

• pronounced: [test] ⁱ
• pronounced: ⁱ [test]
• pronounced: ⁱ [test]

−Woodstone (talk) 08:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

IMO the i should go after the speaker regardless.

Yes, for 'pronounced' the speaker looks better after the IPA. However, for 'Swedish pronunciation' it might look better before. Or else we might want to add a switch to put the speaker in front if we cancel the lead text.

Compare

kwami (talk) 08:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at links like wikipedia, where the link symbol comes after the string. Actually, I would prefer the loudspeaker symbol to be the same blue as all links. −Woodstone (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Part of my argument is that .ogg is a file format which is not universally viewable in the same way that images are. The "main" audio template {{listen}} provides a play button that at least brings up a helpful link with tips of how to download apps if there's no functional playback. However, this and most of the other smaller in-text templates don't do that, since help page links are seen as clutter. But we're still left with three links, attribution, IPA and file link, which put together are somewhat of a graphical burden. Now, the file link is probably the least relevant one, since it provides nothing but a shortcut for those who have the .ogg-problem definitively solved. Even if it looks neat on paper, it's rather pointless to make the file link the most prominent, or even to include it at all, as long as .ogg is a relatively obscure format. We could just as well make the loudspeaker symbol a link to the attribution page, which provides access to both the playable file as well as attribution. It's unfortunate that this doesn't provide us with instant playback, but as long as integration of our media files is not as good as that of images, it seems to me as somewhat of a luxury complaint. I'm sure that the minority of experienced editors and readers familiar with .ogg can put up with the hassle of an extra click if it helps those who aren't as technically savvy.

Either way, though, I would much rather prefer the "(help·info)"-layout, with or without the help link, over the awkward superscript "i".

Peter ^Isotalo 11:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(lose indent) The .ogg format is the one chosen by WP for legal reasons, not having any rights issues. Regular readers of WP will install a compatible driver. In many language related articles many sound files are used. It is really cumbersome to have to click twice on each sound bite. Readers that have not installed a driver cannot play the file anyway via the attribution page. Those can find out how to install a driver via the description file. I made the speaker blue, to support the notion of a link. Do you think a ? is less cryptic than i:

• pronounced: [test] ^?

−Woodstone (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I would expect "?" to link to a help page. kwami (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(this discussion wasn't on my watchlist and I went AWOL for a while, back now) I like your new version, Woodstone, it's basically what I was trying to describe above but implemented much more elegantly. As for the link to the file page, I agree with kwami that ^? looks like a link to a help page (for example, in the {{nihongo}} template it links to a page about installing CJK characters)... it might be impossible to have a file page link that is both intuitive (for readers who don't know the behind-the-scenes of Wikipedia and wouldn't know what "i" stands for) and brief. Personally, I think intuitiveness is more valuable than brevity here, and would suggest something like

• pronounced: [test] ^{(file info)}

which is still not that long, all things considered. (Although it might be long when used in tables and such.)

The only issue then, I guess, is that the file info link almost becomes more prominent than the direct link to play the file, which isn't what we want. Perhaps we could have a little redundancy and give two links to play the file, for readers who don't realize they can click the speaker:

• pronounced: [test] ^{(listen·info)}

And if intrusiveness is a problem, we could always code an extra short form, with a parameter like |short=yes, which would cause it to display more like your ⁱ suggestion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

External links

External links are no longer supported. The used to be red-linked but still work, and with an icon for the link that wouldn't be noticeable. Now, however, they just take you to an upload page. Any idea what's changed? kwami (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Accessibility problem

(moved to main talk, linked at top of page)