Template talk:Audio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents

[edit] 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 Běijīnguttal ) .. 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. Sound 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; Sound 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 Sound 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] this template needs a link to the file page

as it currently exists there is just a link to the actual file, which tries to download, and a cryptic "?" which links to audio help, but this is not very obvious. a lot of people don't understand URLs, hovering over things to get tooltips, etc. it should have a more explicit "audio help" link and also a link to the original sound file page for people to find out information about the file, revision history, etc. - Omegatron 23:12, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

oh, i see. there are two templates. i'm going to make this a lot more obvious. - Omegatron 23:15, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Template:pronunciation

I have seen some Wikipedias using a special template for pronunciations. I have made one see Template talk:Pronunciation. I think this is more easy to use and you have more options to change the looks of it whitout the need to change the article. --Walter 16:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Link to source-side

the current shape (? you know what i mean ;) ) of the template makes it difficult to for users!

  1. when they are not used to wikipedia-audio-things they will be "afraid" that without warning a file wants to download on there computer
  2. when they want to find out the information about the source of the file the are challenged: try it with Ketrzyn ... you need to know wikipedia very well to find out where the file and the description you need for GNUFDL is hidden! i think it should be changed back to an older version! ...Sicherlich talk 20:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
i reverted as i could not see the reasons why neutrality changed it ...Sicherlich talk 20:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Superscript

The superscripted question mark forces my browser (Safari) to put a line space above, as big as a paragraph break. This confuses the reader by disrupting the flow of the page. I've substituted a bracketed question mark [?], but this could be done a number of ways, e.g.;

Sound listen[?]
Sound listen[?] (<small> HTML element)
Sound listen ?
Sound listen[help]
Sound listen﹖ (Unicode "small question mark")

—Michael Z. 2005-10-3 19:09 Z

[edit] This ain't music

I really like the idea of linking to the sound file from a symbol, but I don't like the fact that it's made up of a musical note. I don't think I've ever seen this template used with a music file, and it's very misleading to signify links to audio files that don't consist of music with this kind of symbol. Surely there must be other symbols to choose from.

Peter Isotalo 17:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

My goodness, yes! The musical notes in the introduction to Kiev are quite out of place. Isn't there a Unicode character that looks like a speaker, or an ear, or something denoting sound, but not necessarily music? How about a short word, like [audio], or [hear], or maybe a standard abbreviation like [A] for audio? —Michael Z. 2005-10-15 23:35 Z
It's not a Unicode character, but what's wrong with Image:loudspeaker.png, as used above? --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, clicking on it takes you to an image of a speaker. But maybe this could be solved with some inline CSS. —Michael Z. 2005-10-17 13:36 Z

The musical note is just misleading and silly. This is not "template:jingle" or "template:muzak". I've changed i to a letter A, which at least vaguely says "Audio". Please only change it if you come up with something better. —Michael Z. 2005-10-17 13:43 Z

Some other possibilities are: ◄ (which looks a little like a speaker if you use some imagination), ⍄ (which looks like the "play" button on a tape deck or CD player), ☊ (which looks like headphones), ❝❞ (to indicate something spoken), or ㍳ (perhaps more indicative of "audio" than A alone). --Angr/tɔk tə mi 14:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Good thinking. These also look like "play" buttons: ▶ ▸ ▷ ▹ ▻ (why is there no "right-pointing black pointer"), maybe the white ones are less obtrusive on the page:. The "headphones" look great, but in a screen reader they might be read as "Ascending Node". —Michael Z. 2005-10-17 14:23 Z

Ideally, the loudspeaker image should click through to the audio, but it seems that with the (current) Wikimedia software, images always are click-through to their source page, no matter what. Regretfully, IMHO. What about simply making the text clickable, so that clicking "listen" or "pronunciation" plays the audio? Is that better? (Maybe not?) The best thing IMHO would be to modify the Wikimedia software to accept the behaviour we want. It is easy to implement, but probably very difficult to get acceptance for! -- Egil 14:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Are the square brackets around the "play button" really necessary? --Angr/tɔk tə mi 15:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Feature request

This really needs a bugfix. (I've entered this as Bug 3726.) We can display icons next to things like this:

so why can't we display a loudspeaker icon for links to audio files? If we did it exactly the same way, we could have links that look like this:

But we probably just want it to look like this:

  • Image:loudspeaker.png

where the speaker links to the sound file and not the image page. But it still seems relatively easy to add to the software. Also would be nice if the Listen template image linked to the sound file, too, instead of the image page:

The "play" triangle is a good solution for now. — Omegatron 15:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it may be doable by editing the style sheet at wikipedia:monobook.css. Have to figure out where and how the others are done, and be consistent. It would also be nice to have a more attractive little speaker image. Maybe if it was just blue like a link, instead of solid black. —Michael Z. 2005-10-17 16:26 Z
I like it the way it is. Blue would be different for different skins. It can be changed after the fact anyway. — Omegatron 17:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A solution

Add this to your user css (User:YOURUSERNAME/monobook.css):

.audiolink a{
    background: url("http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Loudspeaker.png") center left no-repeat !important;
    padding-left: 16px !important;
    padding-right: 0 !important;
}

and then reload this page:

This way people can click on the loudspeaker icon without going to the loudspeaker's image description page. If it works for everyone we can add it to MediaWiki:Common.css.

The icon should really be a system icon (in http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/monobook/), but we can use a (protected?) image from the Image: namespace for now. I made a copy here to be protected, but maybe that's not necessary. — Omegatron 18:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help please

I'm sure this has to do with the way my browser (Mozilla Firefox) is set up, but when I click on the little music note, I don't hear the sound file, I get sent to the Image: page where the sound file is located. If I click on the symbol there, it still doesn't play, it just wants to get downloaded onto my hard disk. And if I do that and then play it with Winamp, it still doesn't work, and I can't hear anything. So instead of clicking once and hearing the sound file, I have to spend three minutes accessing the file and still can't hear it. Any suggestions? --Angr/tɔk tə mi 13:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I figured out I have to use Windows Media Player, not Winamp, and it works, but I still have to go to the Image: page and download the file, rather than just click-and-hear. Is that how it is for everyone, or just me? --Angr/tɔk tə mi 13:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
No, it's the same for everyone, and it's been like this for quite a while. I don't like it either, but the problem is that people need to be able to get to the image page without being computer savvy. So far there's no satisfying solution for how this should be done without having three links from the same tiny template.
Peter Isotalo 14:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] It looks really odd

with the double parenthesis: (pronunciation (♫))

The outer parenthesis is really needed (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amsterdam&oldid=25717372 for what happens if they are not used), and should be added outside of the template (for flexibility). But it looks really odd with the inner ones in addition. Why not revert to the speaker symbol without the parenthesis, it is also more logical (e.g. pronounciation in all languages, except perhaps Italian, is not music). -- Egil 06:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

See also: Template_talk:Pronunciation#Why_on_Earth for examples. -- Egil 06:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Now the latest version has round brackets subordinate to square brackets, in a template that often appears in brackets (e.g., in Kiev). Furthermore, the content link is one character, and the supplementary help link is ten. The interface for this template has gone from bad to just as bad. Maybe it's time to dump this template and let editors just link to sound files? —Michael Z. 2005-10-23 05:55 Z

I don't think we should dump the template, and I do think the [>] is sufficient. The problem is the (audio help) after it; that takes up a lot of space, even when small, and is especially distracting when there are two audio files on a page, as there are at Kiev. I'd rather see the link to Wikipedia:Audio help at the image page of the .ogg file (like Image:Kyiv.ogg), perhaps in the bar on top where "Image - File history - File links" are now. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree that this whole thing is tricky; the two main problems are that
  1. we can't use images (e.g. a loudspeaker icon) as links, and
  2. we need to provide a help link every time we provide an audio file, since most people have never seen a Vorbis file before and have no clue what to do with one.
Ideological issues aside, I really wish we could provide MP3 files; every major operating system supports them out-of-the-box, whereas Vorbis requires a plugin on (at least) Windows and Mac OS X. Policy is policy, though, so the latest version of this template looks like "Київ ▶(?)". Any thoughts on this version? --bdesham 14:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Please discuss changes on the talk page before changing it all around and back again. Unnecessary editing of templates that are used on lots of pages bogs down the servers. — Omegatron 19:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I didn't think of the potential server load before I edited. --bdesham ★ 22:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Bdesham's proposal is the best one I've seen lately. —Michael Z. 2005-10-23 23:45 Z

[edit] Ogg on Mac

Speaking of ogg audio, I haven't had much luck listening to them on my Mac lately. Using either the QuickTime plugin or the VLC player application (with QT plugin un-installed), the first full second or so gets cut off before audio plays. For most of the short audio samples on Wikipedia, this means I hear nothing, or just the last half-syllable (usually "–uh").

Anyone have a better experience? Same? Any tips? —Michael Z. 2005-10-23 23:44 Z

At the moment I'm using the QuickTime component from Arek's OggVorbis QuickTime component page. There's still the delay before playing, but it seems that the plugin is at least under active development, unlike the qtcomponents component. MplayerOSX probably works fine, but its interface is awful IMO. --bdesham ★ 03:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. The gap at the front is still there, but much shorter. —Michael Z. 2005-11-3 07:07 Z

[edit] Error

After the recent changes this template stopped displaying nicely. Near the play triangle I get this "missing image" error icon. --AdiJapan 07:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] cross-namespace links

I removed

(?)

because it was causing pages to show up on Special:CrossNamespaceLinks

Fplay 19:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The colon before the "Image:..." syntax.

The colon before the "Image:..." syntax causes the image file not to directly link to the page, and I've had a multitude of audio files almost deleted because people thought they were orphaned. Is there a particular reason it's coded this way, or is it okay to change it? --FuriousFreddy 20:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

yes there is a reason: see the discussions. Unfortunately it is otherwise not possible or at least only possible with a good knowledge about the functions in Wikipedia to get the information about source, licence ...Sicherlich Post 15:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A little redesign

  • Now it looks like this: listen ▶(?)
  • It could look like this: (listen: ♫ (info·help))

This "♫" character would be linked directly to the file (ok, not the best one, but better than just square box I see), info - to description page with copyright tags, help - to help. What do ya think? Renata3 20:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I did like this: listen ▶ (help·info). Left out parenthesis, colon for flexibility and did not change the character. Renata3 21:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template not suitable with IPA

This template is likely to be used in conjunction with an IPA transcription. However the template does not allow the IPA string to be surrounded by the IPA template. For example I would like to write (symbolically):

{{audio|soundfile|{{IPA|[transliterationstring]}}}}

However the nesting of the template does not function properly, showing as "soundfile (help·info)". Another way to use it would be:

{{IPA|[transliterationstring]}} {{audio|soundfile|}}

Note however the extra vertical bar at the end of the template. If this is forgotten, the then missing parameter shows up as in "[transliterationstring] soundfile (help·info)". This template is not very suitable for its intended purpose. Any one with better ideas? −Woodstone 13:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

have you tried to subst:IPA? Renata 19:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New css speaker

I added an "audiolink" class to the site css to render a speaker icon next to the link. The speaker is now clickable and goes to the sound file instead of the speaker image description page. I can imagine this not working in some older non-css browsers? Leave a note here with info about your browser if it doesn't work. We can make it even more complex and have the css hide the text triangle thing at the same time as it adds the speaker icon. Of course, the triangle thing doesn't display in some browsers, either... — Omegatron 14:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metadata class

Why is this class = metadata? Apparently this class is meant for data that shouldn't be printed on paper, like infoboxes. This doesn't seem to apply. — Omegatron 15:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clear links

I reverted the insertion of just (very) small "h"- and "i"-symbols, since this saves a minimial amount of space and makes the template a lot harder to read. I did like the look, but it struck me as non-functional for those not used to the template.

Peter Isotalo 11:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On links to help, etc

The way the template is now, things appear in articles as

eigenvector (help·info)

I find those links to "help" and "info" highly distracting in articles, see for example the beginning of Eigenvalue, eigenvector and eigenspace. That "help" information may prove useful if your player fails to work, but on the balance I would argue that we would be better off with them out rather than in. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think they're distracting, too, but we really need something, as people have said on this talk page many times when this comes up. We can't just link directly to the files, because then there is no link to the file description page, etc. See (#Overloaded interface, #Discussion, #this template needs a link to the file page, #Link to source-side, #Help please)
The other alternative is templates like {{audio2}} or {{audio-nohelp}} combined with {{inline audio}}, but that doesn't link to the file description page, either. — Omegatron 21:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I understand. But that does not change the fact, those (help, info) links do not belong in articles, they don't. Something must be done about the few people who can't set up their audio, but not by linking to help and info from all places where ogg files show up. That is poor usability. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
The only rational solution I can think of is for the small loudspeaker image to have a link (and just a single one) to some kind of info or help page, while the bolded word after it links to the ogg file. How's that? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Then how will people find the ogg file's description page?
Besides, there's no way to link just the loudspeaker icon without a software change. If we're going to make a software change, we might as well solve many things at once. — Omegatron 21:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Why do you need two links though? A link to info should be enough. The link to help should be accessed from the info page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
That's fine, but doesn't help someone who clicks on the direct link to the file. They won't realize that the image links to a different place than the text link. Plus that would require a software change, too; the audio help link would have to be added to all Image: pages that contain audio files. — Omegatron 02:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I am saying that instead of

eigenvector (help·info)


we could have just

eigenvector (info)

Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

But that doesn't fix the clutter problem that you had with it, either. It's barely different from that perspective. — Omegatron 01:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting

This template was recently edited to recommend the following formatting:

The previous formatting was:

WP:MOS suggests that as a general rule links should not be put in the bold reiteration of the title in the article's lead sentence, but user Omegatron rightly points out that this is a special case (diff). I think we should establish that this is an appropriate exception before we commit to a non-standard formatting on such a widely used template. (I've added a note about this issue on the WP:MOS talk page). --Muchness 22:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how this is a special case that merits exception. We could link to all sorts of things in the bolded reiteration, and the consensus is that it should not be done. That said, I would still argue against it if it were clearly a special case. The article is not about the pronunciation but about the subject, and so linking in the former manner is overloading the reiteration far too much. Even if it was not considered an overload, having the audio icon and the (help-info) right after is cluttering and confusing (what is the help for and the info about, the subject of the article or the audio?) and does not improve the style or accessibility at all. Finally, putting the word "pronunciation" there is an important semantic cue for non-standard browsers and screen scrapers: putting the media link on the word leaves little clue for a non-visual browser-user as to what the heck the link is. So, there's three nested reasons and one independent reason why I think this isn't a good idea. For cases like this, I believe the latter formatting or {{listen}} to be stylisticly better and semantically more appropriate. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok. — Omegatron 01:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I consider having five elements (brackets, speaker, "pronunciation", "help", "info") to indicate a sound file places a lot of clutter on the page. Not only for headwords does this distract from the content. I would be in favour of limiting to just the speaker symbol being immediately visible and clickable. The text like "pronunciation" should be visible on hovering only. −Woodstone 09:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm the one who made the edit and I find the implementation of the semi-official ban on linking bolded words to be a bit too strict. Bolding aside, I agree with Woodstone. The amount of clutter with too many links is problematic.
Peter Isotalo 09:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
As has been said on this page many times, the extra links are necessary.
I wrote a little mock-up javascript to hide them and only display them in a little box on hover, if you're interested in trying that out. If enough people like the idea, we can write a robust version and include it site-wide so that everyone with javascript will see only a single link (and browsers without js will see it the way it is now). — Omegatron 13:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Javascript solution?

Javascript can be used to make a little popup, like a tooltip for audio links, to hide the file description link and media help link until the reader mouses over the filename. Here is a rough mock-up. You can try it by adding this to User:YourName/monobook.js:

document.write(
    '<st' + 'yle type="text/css">            ' +
    ' div.audiolinkbox {                     ' +
    '     border:2px solid rgb(170,170,170); ' +
    '     background-color:rgb(250,250,250); ' +
    '     position:absolute;                 ' +
    '     margin:-1.2em;                     ' +
    '     display:none;                      ' +
    ' }                                      ' +
    '<' + '/style>'
    );

addOnloadHook(function () {
    
    function lightup () {
        this.audioPop.style.display="inline";
    }

    function lightout () {
        var savedThis=this;
        clearInterval(this.lightTimer);
        this.lightTimer=setInterval(function(){hideAudioPop(savedThis);}, 2000);
    }

    function hideAudioPop (caller) {
        clearInterval(caller.lightTimer);
        caller.audioPop.style.display="none";
        caller.audioPop.onmouseout = null;
    }

    function mouseoverAudioPop () {
        var hotspot = this.hotspot;
        if (!hotspot) { return; }
        clearInterval(hotspot.lightTimer);
        this.onmouseout = function () {
            hotspot.lightTimer=setInterval(function(){hideAudioPop(hotspot);},2000);
        };
    }

    /* Get all the span tags */
    spans = document.getElementsByTagName('span');

    /* go through them all */
    for (i=0;i<spans.length;i++) {
    /* If the span is class audiolinkinfo */
        if (spans[i].className.indexOf("audiolinkinfo") != -1) {
            /* Put it in a box */
            box = document.createElement('div');
            box.className="audiolinkbox";
            spans[i].parentNode.insertBefore(box,spans[i]);
            box.appendChild(spans[i]);
            /* Remove the parentheses */
            insidebox = spans[i].firstChild
            for (j=0;j<insidebox.childNodes.length;j++) {
                if (insidebox.childNodes[j].textContent == "(" || 
                    insidebox.childNodes[j].textContent == ")") {
                    insidebox.removeChild(insidebox.childNodes[j])
                }
            }
            /* Add the hover thing to the audiolink span */
            var hotspot = spans[i-1];
            hotspot.onmouseout=lightout;
            hotspot.onmouseover=lightup;
            hotspot.audioPop=box;
            box.hotspot = hotspot;
            box.onmouseover = mouseoverAudioPop;
        }
    }

});
What it currently looks like
Enlarge
What it currently looks like
What it could look like
Enlarge
What it could look like

It strips the parentheses, moves the extra info into a box and then hides the box until you roll your mouse over the audio link. That way the links aren't obstructive, the extra info is still there, etc. For people without javascript, it will just appear as it currently appears, so someone who is actually a good programmer could make a good version and we could put it in the site-wide javascript. This is not a finalized version; just a visual mock-up. See the images to the side for what it looks like, and what it could look like.

You can't click on the links because they disappear when you move your mouse towards them, but someone writing a real script could fix that easily enough. :-) You can still see what it would look like. This would be trivial for User:Lupin, I bet (Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups), or using something like this. — Omegatron 21:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Lupin has now updated it so it actually works. If there is a strong consensus that this is a good idea, we can tweak the style to make it more consistent with the rest of the site and then deploy it site-wide. Please leave comments. — Omegatron 04:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Printing issues

Hi guys,

I tried to fix some printing issues with this but, unfortunately, I think there's no way to do that without modifying (at least) common.css. You can see yourself what the problem is by doing a print preview of the template page and, for instance, of Morse Code (look at the first table in the section "Letters, numbers, punctuation, prosigns"). I think either the icon and the link text should both appear in print (though not the help/info addendum) or everything should be removed including any surrounding parentheses (it's obvious that something like "( )" is unacceptable for the user; he would wonder forever what was inside there that the printer refused to report :)) --Gennaro Prota•Talk 02:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that's just because of the metadata class. I don't know why this template uses it. I asked above. No answer. — Omegatron 03:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More elegant solution

I think the Help/Audio links are distracting and we should try moving to something resembling Template:Spoken Wikipedia. Anybody agree? ☆ CieloEstrellado 06:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. And the latter, BTW, has a wonderful icon! (Just kidding, I think I've still to tweak it a bit :-s) —Gennaro Prota•Talk 13:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
You're going to put a big gray box inline with the text?? — Omegatron 15:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree we should reduce the amount of clutter the current template places on the page, but it should not resemble the colossal template "Spoken Wikipedia" mentioned above. −Woodstone 17:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, as I've intended the proposal (and consequently replied), Cielo was just referring to the characteristics of lying "outside" the text flow (Omegatron? :)), not to its size. —Gennaro Prota•Talk 18:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
We already have the {{listen}} template for audio examples set apart from the text. — Omegatron 19:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
At a rough guess I would say you're right :) Sorry for the noise. I lieu of what I said in my first reply I would say now "yes, I agree and prefer, in fact, {{listen}} "boxes" to inline audio links, even for pronunciation files". —Gennaro Prota•Talk 12:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Because the help and info links are clutter? Is that the only reason? We are thinking of hiding them with javascript. — Omegatron 14:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
That's *one* reason. I think we are being a little too "paternalistic", so to speak. What's the next step? Explaining how to click? Please, don't take this as a polemic; I'm just trying to explain what I think: we are being "excessively" helpful, to the point of offending the users' intelligence. That said, I think JavaScript should be the last option, for reasons you certainly know (Incidentally, there's a zero day exploit related to JS which affects both IE and Firefox; I have currently disabled it). Another reason: have you tried a print preview on a page that has inline audio links? —Gennaro Prota•Talk 15:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The average first-time Google clicker can open .ogg files with no problems? They know how to manually manipulate the URL to get to the audio file's description page? The links are necessary.
The print preview can (and should) be changed easily, but no one seems to know why we print some aspects of audio but not others. — Omegatron 16:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The merits of the help link is certainly worth discussing, but the info link is simply not optional. These are media files that are copyrighted, just like our photos and images. We would never tolerate a solution that displayed an image without instant access to license information and I don't see how this is any different. Linking to audio files without supplying a link to the license page here or over at Commons is a violation of our copyright policy as far as I can tell.
Peter Isotalo 15:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New icon

A new (SVG) icon has been created. Here they are at the same size for comparison:

Do you like it? If so, I'll update the site's CSS. — Omegatron 19:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I updated it, as no one seems to care, and I think the newer is superior. — Omegatron 16:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newer javascript version

What the new version looks like in Firefox
Enlarge
What the new version looks like in Firefox

Not that anyone's paying attention, but I updated the javascript prototype to be more verbose, etc. To try it, add the following to User:YOURUSERNAME/monobook.js:

document.write('<scr' + 'ipt type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Omegatron/monobook.js/audiopops.js'
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></scr' 
             + 'ipt>');

It still has bugs, of course, as I am not a real js programmer, but it gives you an idea of what we could have. Does this look like a good idea to deploy site-wide? What could be done to improve it? — Omegatron 15:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks pretty good, and I like the way it degrades gracefully without Javascript. A couple of comments, after a very cursory look:

  • The corners are square in Safari—I suppose that's a Mozilla CSS property at work.
  • Sometimes it doesn't disappear at all, and it's not clear why this happens. The normal delay before disappearing is so long, it's hard to tell what makes it go away. This aggravates the following two problems:
  • Sometimes the pop-up obscures the entire word that is being listened to, and it doesn't repeat the text. It would be nice if it appeared below and to the right of the mouse pointer, or of the linked text.
  • Sometimes it's completely impossible to click the ogg link on the page (happens to me in antidisestablishmentarianism when the window is about 800px wide). The pop-up comes up and obscures the link so fast I can't click it, and never disappears while the mouse is over it. As in tool-tips, there should be a brief delay before it appears, and it should disappear very soon after I mouse away. (appears to be caused by interaction with a floating info-box to the right; changing the window width can help—moving the box completely below the mouse pointer might fix this)
  • Might be nice to add a drop shadow to the box, to help show that this is a floating element over the page—its unexpected appearance can be slightly disconcerting.

This is a promising solution, but please get the details right before implementing, or it will be hard to gain acceptance. Good luck. —Michael Z. 2006-08-20 19:47 Z

  • Yep; Mozilla-specific. I'm so used to seeing Wikipedia with rounded corners I forgot it's not what people see by default.
  • Everything else: yeah, this is just a mock-up of what it would look like. The behavior of the pop-up would need tweaking and fixing before it went live. But you like the idea? — Omegatron 19:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Add lang:bg please

bg:Шаблон:Audio --Петър Петров 15:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/u/d/Template_talk%7EAudio_3864.html"