Template talk:Audio/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Use

Template:Audio links to an audio file for quick listening. It is meant to be used inline with text, for pronunciations and the like. Usage instructions are on the template page.

The other major template is Template:Listen (documentation), which is meant more for audio files set apart from the text.

For an overview of audio templates in all language Wikipedias see: commons:List of the different audio-templates for the Wikipedias

See also Template:Audio-nohelp, for uses where the help link is not needed. See Morse code for an example.

Discussion

Now this is a template that needs to used more often. Wonderful potential.

One things puzzles me, though. Why not make the link part of {{{1}}} into the actual file link and make {{{2}}} the word or term that is pronounced. Have a look at how I've implemented over at Swedish wikipedia for sv:Beijing, sv:Shanghai and sv:Mao Zedong. "Uttal" means "proununciation" and links directly to the file for download, and the pinyin word in this case is just the image of the file.

What do you think? - karmosin 00:00, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

hmm but then you have 2 times the word you want to say (e.g. Beijing (北京 Běijīng^uttal ) .. and you dont see why to klick what?! i mean uttal is "obvious" (lol ;o) ) but why to klick the word? .... in the "old" version you have clearly stated "file" and "listen" ?! ...Sicherlich ^talk 14:03, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that last night too after fiddling around with it, actually, so never mind. I was just tired, yet excited about finding such a nifty and useful template. Not really the proper time for brainstorming, huh?

The page where I found the template has a very interesting suggestion, though. The little speaker image could link to a page about the .ogg-format and what you need to play it. Is that possible while still keeping the template as descrete as it is now? I'm not familiar enough with the wikicode to know how to go about doing it. I have a feeling that if it can be done, this might be one of our best templates ever.

Boy am I excited. :-D - karmosin 15:12, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

The current layout is really ugly and distracting, IMO, mostly due to too much meta-information. In addition to the link itself, there's an "audio" icon, an "external link" icon if it's on Commons, and a superscript "file". The superscript word "file" in particular is pretty annoying. Would it be possible to make the audio icon a link to a help page instead, and get rid of the superscript? --Delirium 07:54, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make it much too hard to locate the file image if we removed that link? The file images can have a lot of vital information attached to them. karmosin 08:37, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

What is missing in this template is "help"-information. Because this is a ogg-file a help link to page that explains that Wikipedia is using ogg for audio and that info about how to play it is not a luxury. I propose to remove the "file" link and make a "?" of it and link that to a page whit help info. --Walter 13:31, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not totally against it, but I'm still not sure about the idea of removing the link to the file image. Won't it make it a lot harder to find the file over att Commons? I've tried to suggest making the little speaker image into a help link, but have so far received no answer whether this is technically possible or not. Is there really no one who can knows anything about this? Peter Isotalo 13:43, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

To play the file you need a direct link to the file. But the link to the description page of that file is useful to find the file on meta but is not much necessary. An idea is to hide it. You can use a hyper linked dot. Listen ^?.

The hard core Wikipedians will know that the can click on the dot to go to the description page but normal readers will not notice it and click on the wrong link and get confused. --Walter 15:03, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, let's try it, then. I made the "link" into a dot. Let's see what others think of it.

I still want the speaker to be a link to a help page, though. We need to spread the word on how to play .ogg-files to more people if this is going to be at all useful. Peter Isotalo 16:21, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

You can make a redirect of the discription page of the speaker off cource. But that is not the way we do it on wikipedia. A parcial solution whould be to put a notice on the discription page like "To play the sound file click on the back button and click on listen"

I have added the ?-link to it. I think it is better now, at least form the point for the reader who now can find a page whit information about how to play the audio and will not so fast click on the wrong link and go the the discription page of the file. But it is far form perfect. I do not like the _ under the ? but do not know how tho remove it --Walter 16:57, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

IMO the dot which leeds to the descriptionpage is not usefull --> you have to know that it is there to get it! IMO the help-page-info is not that important and i would prefer to leave that but have a better link to the descriptionpage (what is by the way important if someone wants to use the file he needs the information for GNUFDL --> what can he do if it is detective work to find the link?! ...Sicherlich ^talk 06:49, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The help link is vital. There are enough fairly experienced wikipedians who complain about not being able to play .ogg to suggest that ordinary users probably are even more perplexed. The file format is simply perceived at too exotic. We could, however, make it link to a help page that is more specific to the template, and explain the dot-link that way. Peter Isotalo 08:53, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

The idea for using a dot to link to the description page is because it is confusing to use a normal link. You have the icon, the link to file, the link to the help page. For the icon there is no good solution. You need the icon to make it clear that there is a audio recording. The ? should be clear for most users. The link to the description page is problem. If you remove it is difficult to find it. But not impossible for hard core wikipedians. If you use a normal link like "file" or "discrp" it takes much room and you have a good change that a reader will click on the wrong link. Or you can do this; Listen ^? (description page of this file)

But this takes much room and is ugly --Walter 09:54, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

what about making the as "listen" link, the ? is clear anyway and as name we put "file" .. if someone clicks there to listen it is not a problem as he then finds the file to play as well ...Sicherlich ^talk 15:35, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On a normal website the whould use the icon. But so far I know it is still not done on wikipedia to use a icon or picture to link to a file. The link of a image is for the discription page of the image. Besides that I do not think we can do this technical --Walter 11:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Overloaded interface

This template puts five mouse targets on the page! In most cases, only one of them is self-explanatory. It's way too confusing; how does a user even decide what to click on?

1. The speaker icon is a big prominent dot, inviting a click. It goes to an unrelated image page, totally confusing a novice user.
2. The linked text can be anything an editor chooses (apparently 10 out of 10 say "listen"). But in many browsers it will either put up a dialogue box asking what to do, or start a download. I'm betting that for most users, clicking "listen" won't let them start listening, totally confusing a novice user.
3. The external link icon has no real significance, totally confusing a novice user.
4. The superscript question mark takes you to the help text. Well, that's something. But it increases the line spacing, causing a glaring horizontal gap on the page.
5. The full stop is punctuation. It makes this template inflexible for editors to use in their writing, and carries meaning contrary to what it does, which is to go to the sound file's embed page. If a novice user misses clicking on the question mark by a couple of pixels, they will be totally confused.

Please, let's just make this a single link to the media's embed page on Wikipedia (not on Wikimedia, to avoid the external link icon), and put the help link there. Sure, everyone will have to click at least twice to actually listen, but then a user won't have to choose between a dazzling array of five click targets, four of which are absolutely baffling.

In the long run, how about creating a new namespace called Audio:, or Media:? The word "Image:" in the page title is confusing. A custom namespace could have a standard page layout that include audio help links, etc. Based on user's choice, it could have the sound embedded on the page, using the user's choice of plugin.

For example, I could set a user preference for QuickTime plugin-embedding ogg files, with a media controller, which I could click to play, pause, scrub, etc. As it stands, on my platform (Safari/Mac) I have to download the file, find it in the file manager, double-click it to open in a player program, and click the play button. And that's after installing the OGG codec for QuickTime. Other users could have the media embedded using Windows Media, Real, or whatever plugin they want. —Michael Z. 2005-03-27 00:24 Z

The speaker icon could be displayed on the template with clever use of the CSSbackground-image or content:before property, without linking to the speaker image page. I'd still rather see it gone, or optional, though. —Michael Z. 2005-03-27 05:10 Z

Since no one is objecting, I'll simplify this template. —Michael Z. 2005-04-10 21:52 Z

Hey! It doesn't work so nicely as before. Instead of hearing the desired sound after clicking, I'm forwarded to a "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Please see its description page there. Wikipedia does not yet have an article with this exact name..." page. In other words, I need one more mouseclick. Would you be so kind and make something about it. Miaow Miaow 22:24, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, as for me, the problem has been fixed. I have put "media:" instead of ":image:" into the template and it does work again as before... :-) Miaow Miaow 22:43, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you have to click twice. But as I wrote above, this is a small price to pay for making this slightly less confusing for new users. On a stock Windows or Macintosh computer, the media link starts the download an ogg file to the user's disk, which cannot be played. At least the image page has a file link on it. Let's put links to Wikipedia:Audio help on all of the audio image pages. —Michael Z. 2005-04-10 23:21 Z

This doesn't seem like an ideal solution to me. The files are for the most part at Commons. You should try discussing this with developers and see if they can somehow make automatic links for all sound files images (or at least .oggs'). Making the template som much more impractical before actually setting up those links doesn't seem reasonable. There's no reason to make it harder to use for people who can play the files if it doesn't actually help the ones who can't. Peter Isotalo 00:46, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Do not forget that the ".ogg"-file extension is not only Ogg Vorbis (audio) but also Ogg Theora (video). There is almost no video yet but it will come and whit the same problems like now whit the audio. --Walter 09:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia should have better support for audio files; I've already outlined some suggestions here and elsewhere.

Anyway, I totally disagree that you should save yourself one click, in return for novice users being presented with an opaque, broken interface. Littering their hard drive with useless .ogg files when they try to make a link work is inexcusable. The link should go to the media page, until some developer has improved this situation. —Michael Z. 2005-04-11 18:14 Z

I disagree with the current interface that opens another page and does not play the sound directly. When I'm on a page and I hit the "pronunciation" button, I expect the sound to play, not my current page being replaced by another, mysterious page about audio files.

If some users have their browser set to automatically download and store any file that it does not know how to play directly, I think that's their problem. This is not, as far as I know, the default behavior on Windows nor on Linux — you are prompted and ask what to do about the files.

As for all the quarrel on .ogg: this format is played by default on all Linux installations, as well as Winamp (which many people interested in playing stuff found on the Net will have installed). (I begin to wonder whether some JavaScript code could test what the browser can or cannot do..) David.Monniaux 18:44, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Michael, please don't revert when there are several people here that are opposing your solution to the problem. If you want to fix the problem, you need to make the help link happen first and then change the template, not the other way around. Right now you're forcing people to make two clicks to get to the Commons image, which is really the relevant one. Since this template is used on at least two other wikis (Swedish and German), the help link should be at Commons.

The current edit makes it harder for everyone; those who know how to play the files need three clicks (en:image, Commons:image, file) to get to it and those who don't know how aren't refered to any help page. I just don't see how that is practical. Peter Isotalo 19:52, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I just did some tests and paid a little more attention. When you click on an .ogg file link:

• On a stock windows machine, it gives the ominous "suspicious file" warning, and asks what to do (unless you or someone else has unchecked the "always ask" box; then it just downloads). After you download it, you still can't play it.
• On a Mac with the OGG QuickTime Plugin installed, Safari displays the Download Window and downloads the file to disk. Opening the file doesn't automatically start QuickTime Player, but asks which application to use. In the open dialogue you have to select Open with: "All Applications" before you can tell it to open with QuickTime Player. You can use File:Open in QuickTime Player, but you cannot drag it onto the application icon.
• Not sure what it will do on a stock Mac, but you won't be able to play it.

The commons image is not the relevant one. The English image page is where the English-language help link should go. If you're set up, you can just click again on the ogg link on the English image page to play it. Two clicks, not three.

I know, the help links are not there yet. But at least an image page with a link like Ru Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev.ogg gives some that it's a file download, of type ".ogg".

The way it's set up now a link on the page will be totally confusing to many novice users. This is not acceptable. The other way, savvy users have to click a second time. This is not ideal but totally acceptable.

The only way I could see a sound file linked directly from an article page being acceptable is

1. clearly labelled, in plain English, for example listen (.ogg sound file).
2. with the file name as the linked text, like this: listen: Ru Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev.ogg.

If we choose to adopt one of these as a convention, I will gladly pitch in and change the template or start changing the links en masse (with help, please).

And I'm sorry that several of you are opposed to the change, but I will keep reverting it, because a direct link will mess up the novice users who don't have a voice on this page. —Michael Z. 2005-04-11 20:26 Z

Are you telling us that "novice users" set their machines to "always download" unknown types of files to their hard disk? In my experience, "novice users" never change such settings. The types that have "always download" are people who do lots of downloads from the Internet, and these can probably go to Google and ask for a program capable of playing OGG files.

"On a stock windows machine, it gives the ominous "suspicious file" warning, and asks what to do" — this is exactly what should happen — the system says that it does not know how to handle such files, and prompts the user what to do.

The more I think about it, the more I think that we should try to have something (Javascript?) that explains what should be done. Perhaps we could pop-up some explanation window or alt text that would clearly tell the user what tools should be installed. David.Monniaux 06:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

...this is exactly what should happen, when clicking on an unknown file type. But here at Wikipedia we know all about the .ogg file type, so it's very bad form to make a plain link on the page go to an unknown file type without warning the user. ...and prompts the user what to do." And if the user doesn't know? He feels stupid, even though he just clicked an ordinary-looking link on the smartest freaking web site on Earth.

Why ponder Javascript or some other complicated unreliable solution? Just label the link. Either label it on the page as I suggested above, or link to the media page and put all the help and advice in the world there.

The interface for audio files really needs some developer work. I'm going to post a note at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), and see if someone knows if there's any way to get it done. —Michael Z. 2005-04-12 08:22 Z

Michael, how about a compromise? The linking right now really doesn't favor anyone. Those who want the file in one click don't get it, and the very newbies that were supposed to be helped by this have no help link to go to. What's the point of linking to the en:image if there's not even copyright info there? Could you consider not putting your foot down so early (with a number of people disagreeing, no less) and perhaps try the original design of the template for now? The one where the "listen"-part linked straight to the file and one to the image. Peter Isotalo 08:52, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, but let's try to keep it simple. How about speaker icon, "listen" linking to the file, and the question mark linking to audio help. This at least makes it look distinctive on the page. It will be four click targets, linking to three objects, one of which is a red herring (the speaker). (It may be possible to add the speaker as a non-link using CSS)

I think this could be an acceptable temporary compromise, if we resolve to improve the situation somehow.

Would the single-click advocates be satisfied if it could eventually link to the image page, but with an embedded sound that auto-plays on the page? This would take hair longer to load, play the sound with one click, but give the opportunity to embed the sound with a controller, and offer audio and plug-in help right on the page. There would be some technical hurdles, but I can see it as being doable with some developer help. —Michael Z. 2005-04-12 16:01 Z

I've filed Bug 1880 "Interface for uploaded audio media" at bugzilla. Hopefully some interested developer has a look. —Michael Z. 2005-04-12 22:54 Z

Modifying the template

I just want to try some improvements. Can Windows users see the character in brackets: [ ?]? It's Unicode U+FE506 small question mark. It appears to be small in some fonts, but normal-sized in others. —Michael Z. 2005-04-12 16:10 Z

Win2000 + IE6.0 , no problem whit the question mark. --Walter 16:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've tried adding the image to the left-hand side of the link using CSS, so it won't be a link. Unfortunately, wikitext neuters any background-image or background declarations with URLs. I think this would be doable by editing Wikipedia:Monobook.css. Are there any administrators reading this page, who would be willing to make an edit to that style sheet? —Michael Z. 2005-04-12 16:21 Z

The other audio template

I just found out that there is in fact a second Audio template; Template:Listen. I think both complement each other quite nicely. The listen template works very well as a standalone template, and the audio template is probably better suited for including it in the introduction of articles, or even in texts, especially for pronunciation of proper names of cities, countries, languages or famous people. Here's what it looks like:

Peter Isotalo 20:58, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

I think it goes without saying that the listen template is better for everything except inlined text (for which it was never desinged) - it's cleaner, better looking, and more intuitive. →Raul654 10:42, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

It's a tad bulky for things like pronunciation of names, though. And it's a bit hard to fit into tables. Would you care to comment on the audio template, though? Peter Isotalo 11:21, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)