Wikipedia talk:Creation and usage of media files

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] How can I post powerpoint presentations to an enterprise Wiki??

[edit] This entire page seems to have been written for nerds, by nerds. Can anyone explain in plain English how to listen to Ogg files? I've never read such unhelpful tips!!

--> Easy. Download Winamp, free-of-charge from the Internet. I'm sure you've heard of this media player program. It plays Ogg Vorbis files for your listening pleasure. Cheers, AppleJuggler 04:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Media help. This page isn't helpful because it's not the right page for your question. --Gmaxwell 05:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I believe Ogg Theora files in commons should have their extension changed

I've seen that some users have a lot of problems when dealing with Theora video files, one of the biggest is the file extension. The .ogg file extension normally applies to audio, so in most opearting systems a user downloads the file and the audio player starts it, because .ogg is associated with it. This is a big problem, because the average user won't know s/he should be using a video player instead.

Unofficially, the .ogm extension is used for Theora, and this is a good idea, because many video players can recognize this extension as theirs.

I believe this issue should at least get a voting. Should Jimbo Wales be contacted?

--Saoshyant 13:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

ogm is a distinct file format and is not compatible with ogg. also ogm doesn't mean it is used for theora or video at all. see Ogg Media for a detailed description. --Pythagoras1 14:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Saoshyant is right on the general principle - the decision to use the same extension for many different kinds of media using the same wrapper format was incredibility stupid. Pythagoras1 is correct that ogm is a distinct format - I believe it's mpeg video wrapped in an ogg wrapper. Raul654 14:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Video

I seem to remember a discussion about using video media on wikipedia, but can't find it. Does anyone recall where it is? I have some .avi files that I think would be a welcome addition.. what (if anything) can I do with them? Pete

Well you can transcode them for a start. We would have to look at open video standards. I think Xiph (people behind Ogg Vorbis) has an open video codec. CGS 11:40, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC).
Given the load on the Wikipedia server, the bandwidth costs of making video available, and the various format issues (in terms of freeness, availability, video quality, and required bandwidth). I think some extended discussion might be wise before people start uploading videos. --Robert Merkel 11:38, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)
You'll find a a discussion over here m:Talk:Video policy mk 08:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spreadsheets

We seem to have a policy that the Image: namespace is just for images. And sounds and movies. But definitely not Word documents or anything like that. However, I have a couple of Excel spreadsheets here I think should really be uploaded to Wikipedia. They're for editorial convenience, not content. I could put them offsite, but then permanance wouldn't be guaranteed. One is the spreadsheet I used to generate the inorganic compound property tables: it has a really handy macro to merge the spreadsheet with wikitext. The other is the spreadsheet I used to generate Image:Articles per day 20030418.png. Both would be very useful to anyone wishing to extend or improve my work. How would people feel if I uploaded them? -- Tim Starling 14:41 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

Excel spreadsheets probably aren't a "Transparent" format compatible with the GFDL, which means that you'd need to use a different license if you want other people to be able to extend and improve your work. public domain is simplest.
Another issue is that Excel spreadsheets can contain viruses, and we recently decided not to upload executables because they might contain viruses/trojans/etc - not sure if this is a real issue.
I suggest uploading them both to meta... Martin 15:25 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)
Martin beat me to it on the virus issue. Excel is a fairly significant virus vector, and in any case, lots of people don't have it. (I certainly don't - I use spreadsheets all the time but I wouldn't touch Excel with a bargepole: I am no security fanatic but there are' limits to the risks I'll take. For data, a universal format file (comma delimited as a lowest common demominator, but whatever) would be fine, I should think. But how to deal with macros? Good question. Tannin 15:31 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)
Don't upload Excel spreadsheets because of license and virus issues. It's better to host it outside wikipedia. I can' host it on my ftp if you want.
Ericd 20:10 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

It's a pity I can't do something like this due to a legal issue. A transparent copy of a VBA macro is no use to anyone, so there's not much point in me making one. Anyone who has Excel would prefer an XLS file, and anyone who doesn't have it can't use it anyway. Note that meta is covered by GFDL as well, so Martin's suggestion of uploading it there would be no better.

The virus issue worries me less -- it would have to be a pretty clever virus to escape both my attention and recently-updated McAfee's attention. It's theoretically possible but I haven't heard of anything like it -- all the VBA viruses I've read about are much too simple to pull off anything like that. Anyway, wherever I upload it, someone will eventually have to get over their paranoia and click on "enable macros". -- Tim Starling 05:27 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

I am also thinking about uploading a database to wikipedia. The database does do some fairly trivial computation but couldn't be sensibly replaced by an html table. It's purpose is to help balance the number of news resources on wikipedia: News sources by the population of the countries involved. I am writing it in open office. In this instance could I upload it in open offices standard format. I imagine that the issues mentioned above are less problematic with open offices format? Barnaby dawson 21:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out, if anyone's not aware of it, that Openoffice SXC (spreadsheet) files can be uploaded to commons:. See commons:Commons:File types. pfctdayelise 14:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the pointer. Barnaby dawson 14:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to upload Excel files demonstrating the computations on the financial articles. As a first example I uploaded PV example.xls , but now I understand that it is not allowed. Maybe the virus issue can be solved by not allowing VBA? It is a pity that such examples will not be availaible to the public. --YoavD 07:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What about Open Office XML documents?

Since MS Office 2007's file formats are open standards, should the .xlsx (Excel 2007) format, and other Office 2007 formats (like .docx for MS Word 2007), be allowed here? I would not recommend allowing the .xlsm and any other .***m formats even though they are open formats, because those extensions signify that macros are contained, and macros can contain malware. With the MS converter for older versions of Office, it should be trivial to generate Open Office XML documents. Jesse Viviano 04:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MPG and Quicktime

Thomas Edison

I would like to upload : Cattle driven to slaughter / Thomas A. Edison, Inc. ; producer, James White as an example for both the cattle article, and the motion picture history article. It is in both MPG(4mb) and Quicktime(1mb). Should I upload the MPG? Its in public domain as it was created in 1897. I assume thta Wikipedia would not be friendly towards proprietary formats like quicktime. See the Library of Congress site where I downloaded it [1] Greenmountainboy 21:36, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)


I, as a Wikipedia reader, would personally prefer to have access to both versions, or at least to the MPEG version. But if I was wikipedia owner (paying the bandwidth fees) I would suggest you just to put an external link to the MPG and/or Quicktime file at lcweb2.loc.gov website (there is no reason to duplicate the file here in wikipedia, I suppose lcweb2.loc.gov isn't going to delete the file from its servers in the near future). Optim 22:17, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, there is a 2MB size limit on media files. So the MPG format would be too large, unless split in two. I'm not sure about the use of quicktime, but I've never seen it on Wikipedia, so that could be a reason :) Alfio 23:14, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
MPG files are disallowed here because they are encumbered by patents. QuickTime files are probably also encumbered by patents, and are a proprietary file format, so they are disallowed here as well. Since one of the goals is to be accessible to users of purely free software, those formats conflict with that goal and therefore must be disallowed until the patents expire. Jesse Viviano 05:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flash

Is it possible to upload a flash-file? On the danish Wikipedia we are making a portal for children. On that page it would be fun to have a collage of pictures leading to different articles. Because it is for children it would be fine if it was animated to some extend too.

- Malene (admin on the danish Wikipedia) (62.107.100.2 07:56, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC))

I am desperate to upload a flash file to display the activity that occurs when 'quidco' is included in private messages on rpoints. Is wikipedia likely to enable the uploading of flash pretty soon. The extension exists for wikimedia here.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Flash

Thanks Supposed 16:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The best way to find out would be to ask the devs in on Freenode in #wikimedia-tech, but I *very much* doubt we will be getting flash support anytime in the near future. Raul654 17:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on video policy, please comment.

In response to some new developments, I'd like comment on a possible update to the currently-outdated meta:Video policy. Please comment on the discussion here, as this involves all Wikimedia projects. grendel|khan 13:14, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciations in articles

Recently user Amitst added Image:Monkey.ogg and Image:Marmalade.ogg, which are simply pronunciations of the words, and added links to the Monkey and Marmalade articles. This seems inappropriate to me—surely this would be more appropriate in Wiktionary or something—but I've been hesitant to remove them because I haven't been able to find an actual policy against it. Is it safe to say that these have no place on Wikipedia and should be removed from the articles? —Cleared as filed. 03:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Revert

I've gone ahead and reverted this edit because it's far, far out of place on this page. This page is not for discussing royalties, patent law/software patents , 'etc - it's simply a page listing free (gratis) software availble to do the job we need done. I don't have any objections if someone wants to rewrite the recent changes to fit the demeanor of this page. →Raul654 01:37, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates

Please have a look at this proposal and comment on its talk page. Thanks.--Pharos 04:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How to use ffmpeg2theora

For those of us who don't understand a single word at the "examples" page of the ffmpeg2theora site, it would be nice with a hint on how to use it. Jon Harald Søby \ no na 18:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's the super-executive summary of how to use ff2mpeg for windows:

  1. Save ffmpeg2theora to your desktop
  2. Go to start -> run
  3. Type "cmd" and hit enter. A black screen will pop up. This is the command prompt
  4. Drag the ffmpeg2theora icon (the one on your desktop) into the window. The ffmpeg2theora's location will be copied into the command prompt window
  5. Click the window and hit the space bar once (to put a space a after the address)
  6. Drag the file you want decoded (let's call it xyz.mpg) into the command prompt window
  7. Click the command prompt window and hit enter
  8. Assuming you did everything correct, ffmpeg2theora will convert the file. The new location will be xyz.ogg. →Raul654 19:45, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
That worked, thank you very much. =) Jon Harald Søby \ no na 09:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MP3 format illegal?

A decision has been made that MP3 files will not be hosted at Wikipedia.

The newsgroup message at that link implies that the only legal MP3 players cost money, and that “all major players on all major operating systems” can play Ogg. The first is incorrect, and the second is just backwards. iTunes is free. Windows Media Player is free. And those are just the most popular of the thousands of MP3 players/encoders (some free, some not) available for every operating system. As far as I know, neither of those programs can play Ogg. The only program on my Mac that can is VLC Player, and I had to find and download that.
Wikipedia talk:Sound is full of debate, with holes on both sides of the argument, and I’m just looking for a definitive answer. Is there a reason for this decision that’s based on actual facts? —Frungi 03:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

If you'd read the text on Wikipedia:Media help you'd see instructions for playing Ogg/Vorbis with Windows Media player, I'm not sure with itunes. There is some confusion in your post over the word free. In english we use free in two ways, one to talk about freedom and the other to talk about price. When we say The Free Encyclopedia we are talking about freedom. The content of Wikipedia is free, but it is not free if we put it in a nonfree format. The players you mentioned are not free in the sense of freedom. The MP3 format is patent encoumbered and can not be legally created with free software, and possibly can not be played with free software. As such, it is unacceptable for our purposes. The Ogg/Vorbis format is free in the sense we require and offers higher quality at a given file size. If your favorite player does not support Vorbis, please ask its maker as vorbis decoding software for many types of hardware are available for inclusion at no cost to them (BSD Licensed). --Gmaxwell 03:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and the post you mentioned is definitive. MP3 is not permitted. --Gmaxwell 03:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I meant definitive reasons, not decisions (and anyway, the linked decision contains a bald-faced lie). iTunes and many other programs let you create MP3s from anything it can read that isn’t DRMed. I don’t use WMP, but I assume it has similar capabilities. MP3 playback is much more widely supported than Ogg, which means users are freer in their choice of player (not sure if this fits your definition of free, just throwing it out there). Does the patent on the MP3 format have any restriction on the MP3 files themselves, or does it only apply to the software used to create and play them (which actually is “all major players on all major operating systems”)? If the concern is freedom, why shouldn’t users be free to upload whatever format is convenient for them? Why must only open-source but relatively obscure formats be allowed? I don’t see a problem with allowing the format on the site. No one’s violating any patents, unless Wikipedia tries to develop its own web-based player (which would actually be a great idea for Ogg). —Frungi 04:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested bit rate for audio?

Is there a suggested bit rate for ogg audio files? --Fritz S. (Talk) 14:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

If you are creating samples of copyrighted works, use a quality setting of 0 (~64kbps). A quality setting of 3 is sufficient for nearly everything else, but if necessary, you could use 5 as well. The size-to-quality ratio above 5 isn't really worth it for sound files here. See http://www.vorbis.com/faq/#quality. ~MDD4696 02:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to edit and convert Quicktime to Ogg Theora on Windows

Here's a method for converting Quicktime movies (the only format shot by many types of cameras, including mine) into Ogg Theora videos for upload to Wikipedia. It does require two transcodings (instead of the ideal single-step), but given that I know of no single program capable of converting directly, it will have to do. At some point, I am going to polish this up and put it into this article, but for now, this will have to do

  1. Download and install RAD Video Tools [2]
  2. Download and install the Quicktime alternative codec [3]
  3. Download and install Virtualdub [4]
  4. Download ffmpeg2theora [5]
  5. Using the Rad video tools, convert the movie from Quicktime (.mov) to uncompressed AVI
  6. (Optional) Use Virtualdub to do any necessary editing (such as rotating the video using the "rotate" filter) and save as an uncompressed AVI
  7. Use ffmpeg2theora to convert from uncompressed AVI to Ogg theora

I hope some people find this useful. Raul654 06:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I recently had to do the same thing. I fortunately have the Pro version of QuickTime player, with an Export function, so here's how you can do it if you have that:
  1. Export to MPEG-4. For video, use passthrough (i.e. don't re-sample). I tried AVI export, but that was going nowhere after 15 minutes on a 3GHz machine, so I gave up.
  2. Then use ffmpeg2theora, but you may have to use the --inputfps flag to manually override the input file's fps setting. For my 60 second video, its overestimation caused it to make it 7 seconds. Just experiment until it becomes the right length. For my Kodak LS743 camera, I needed to use 13 fps.
enochlau (talk) 09:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I collected all methods we are using in Commons:Help:Converting video. Please take a look to this message at the Commons Village Pump. Regards, --Colegota 18:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Users: "WTF is OGG?"

A summary of the arguments on both sides of this issue has been put on User:WAZAAAA/mp3vsogg. Hit up my talk page to give another reason for either side. Keep the discussion flowing, WAZAAAA 15:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


I understand a final decision has been made on the use of MP3s in Wikipedia, but I think it is really hurting the Spoken Wiki and sound file collection projects. Every single time I try to show somebody some of my audio work on Wikipedia, I have to spend 10 minutes explaining why we don't use MP3, and what the hell this OGG thing is. After that, I have to explain how and where to get an OGG player or codec, hell, I have to explain what a codec is.

Wikipedia is great because it is simple, and even the most common user can enjoy what it has to offer relatively easily. The OGG format is holding the audio projects back from common use and popularity; alternative formats such as mp3 or a flash player (a la Google Video) should be seriously considered. I would guess more than 90 percent of normal (see: non-CS major) users don't have OGG playing capability on their computers, and I don't think they should be expected to call up their tech support neighbor to install it just to to hear an article about Jessica Simpson. A common format would allow users to easily get the files on their mp3 players, burn CDs, and share them with friends. Not everyone is sporting Linux. (Sorry for the rant!) -WAZAAAA 18:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Every major operating system has support for ogg, and every template for using ogg sound and video including a link to the media help page (where they get crystal clear instructions for installing the necessary programs). I fail to see your point. Raul654 19:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Really, would you please tell me where I can find my Windows OGG player? I've looked all over my computer for it. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 16:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
My point is that, in this crazy little world called reality, users want stuff to work now, and they don't want to jump through hoops to get to what they want. And that's why Wikipedia has become so popular.
Every major operating system may have support for OGG, great, they also all have support for FLAC and most every other file format that exists. The point is, it's not in 90% of the computers. I know, it's possible to get OGG on your computer, but the current situation is making the visitors apprehensive and too intimidated by a technology they havent heard of to listen to the work Spoken Wiki project members and I have done. I don't care, embed a flash file to play the audio like Myspace and Google Video does, allow distribution of MP3 alongside OGG, or convince Bill Gates and Steve Jobs to include OGG in the operating systems. The fact of the matter is that the use of OGG is scaring away normal users from taking advantage of Spoken Wiki and wikipedia's sound file collection. And that's bad™. -WAZAAAA 19:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I asked about this above some time ago, and got much the same answer. The referenced decision implies that it’s illegal for WP to host MP3 files—not even to provide a Flash-based player (which WP should for Ogg), but simply to host the files—and that every computer has Ogg-playing capability out of the box.
Everyone knows what MP3 is. Every computer has an MP3 player. 10,000 programs on each OS play MP3s; 10 on Windows and 3 on Mac play Ogg (sorry, I don’t have a reference). What is the rationale for outlawing MP3? —Frungi 20:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
It's not that it's illegal; it's that mp3 is a patented format. Creating players and encoders require paying royalties to the patent holder (Fraunhoffer Corp), which goes against our philosophy that the information on Wikipedia should be free (both free as in speech and free as in beer). Raul654 20:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
But not free as in not wasting time and effort downloading codecs for obscure and unused formats. We could have the same net effect as using OGG by simply not having sound and video files available. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 20:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
No histrionics, please. It's a one-time, 2 minute effort to follow the instructions and install the codecs. We're not talking about a mammoth effort here. Furthermore, assuming wikipedia will be around for a while, ogg support will become more common as time goes on (all it would take to solve 95% of these complains would be for Windows Vista to include an ogg codec by default). Raul654 20:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Sweet, let's assume we rely on Microsoft to release their new OS with some OSS built in. Maybe 6 years from now, almost 40% of users will be able to hear my sweet voice on Wikipedia! (gag) We're talking about the now, the actual, the fact that everyone I've told about Spoken Wikipedia said "it sucks i dunno how2uze OGG so i g2g". Wikipedia won't get sued, and can't get sued for having MP3s, and the OGGs are practically worthless in the eyes of many users. MP3 is not going to die or be overtaken by OGG, look at every computer and every audio player. MP3 won the format war a long time ago, OGG is coming in after-the-fact. I say, include both MP3s and OGGs if that's what makes the format-gods happy, because double the disk space is worth it if it turns the data from worthless into GOLD. -WAZAAAA 21:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I see no reason Wikimedia should subsidize users who are too lazy to spend two minutes following clearly marked directions. Raul654 21:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Cost-benefit analysis. Far more users will utilize our audio data if it's in a format they have. The value of the spoken articles goes up as more users access them. The more people listening, the more people contributing to these projects. I respect the Stallman-esque standpoint, but when it comes down to it, Wikipedia cares about making its site easily accessible, otherwise it wouldn't consider IE's capabilities (disabilities) in its design. Why not do the same thing with audio? We don't have a big sign up for those who use IE instead of FireFox saying "Go away. You are a lazy bastard. Go get Firefox." All I want is a way for the casual user to listen to my work without installing anything extra. I want to tell my near-blind friend across the country about a sound file and have it result in it playing on her computer, not a popup box asking her if she wants to open up en-Guide_dog.OGG in Notepad or MS Paint. I've offered a solution--include MP3s with OGG. -WAZAAAA 21:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Dual-format. Offer it in OGG *and* MPEG formats. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 20:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. -WAZAAAA 20:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the decision has been made from "up above" not to include mp3, but why not use Flash, as many here have suggested? It doesn't seem too hard to do [6]. -Sesquialtera II 23:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Flash is even more proprietary and restricted than mp3. Raul654 23:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Do website owners have to pay Macromedia to host Flash files? And about how perfectly easy it is to install Ogg: what about on library computers or something where the user can’t install software? —Frungi 23:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
No, they don't have to pay to host flash files - but you are obligated to use their player (since no others exist) and I'm not positive but you probably have to pay for a development enviroment as well. Raul654 23:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

and No mp3 players support .ogg! <-- this post is from 70.178.95.216, sign your posts! -WAZAAAA 01:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

This is incorrect. See Ogg Vorbis#Hardware. ~MDD4696 02:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm only echoing other sentiments here, but it seems unfortunate that sound files are the only part of Wikipedia that don't work "out of the box". I think people would be very unhappy if a similar situation existed for image files; i.e. one had to go through an installation process to see anything, and said process probably would not work on 25% of computers due to lack of administrative privileges. I personally like OGG a lot, but it's really frustrating to know that possibly a majority of users won't listen to recordings I might make for Wikipedia, because iTunes etc. won't play them. I guess what I am hoping for is some research into making sound files available by default on 90% or more computers, rather than setting the line at forcing the installation of new software. Sorry if this has been hashed over hundreds of times already. -Sesquialtera II 23:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't some image file formats have proprietary issues as well? I know GIF did, though its patent is fortunately expired by now. Anyway, I support the principle behind Wikipedia's stand, but find it somewhat impractical; I don't think the iPod supports OGG, which is annoying given that one use for sound files is to put them on my iPod to listen to while I go out for a walk. *Dan T.* 00:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I fully support using the Ogg Vorbis format, and I think it's reasonable to force people to use it. Anyone who really wants the audio will take the 3 minutes to download and set it up. It's not hard, and they only have to do it once. People complain, but those same people complain about everything on a computer.

Ogg Vorbis isn't as widely used as MP3 only because it isn't as widely known as MP3. Wikimedia has been a forward-thinking and revolutionary organization, and I don't see why we can't lend a hand in promoting Ogg. They both have the same founding principles, and using Ogg helps inform the public about those principles (freedom of information, freedom of use). If we continue to take a stand, what do we have to lose? ~MDD4696 02:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

What we have to lose is millions of potential listeners; those who choose not to listen to the hard work we put into our audio projects. I see absolutely no compelling reason Wikipedia shouldn't compromise and allow both OGG and MP3s. Okay, we get it, Wikipedia's roots are in open source, you can see that in the software used and the liscences of every file. I don't think Wikipedia's mission statement includes "Help out codecs that aren't catching on by crippling our own work with them." Walk outside in the city, look around, you'll see people with iPods, and people on their laptops with Windows or Mac, with MP3 support included by default.
Okay, stand up for the right to make our users (the ones that don't get pissed off and give up when they see a format theyve never used before) install software becuase it's open source and you think it should be used. There will be fewer of us doing audio projects (we gain new people through listeners becoming recorders) and the current recorders will continue to have few to no listeners. Let's pick our battles. Incorporate forced-open-source inconvenience into something people already WANT, like introduce an obscure format of web markup into the main Wikipedia, don't push it into the little Spoken Wiki boxes already crammed into the References section of articles. We're trying to grow. Give us MP3s, give us compatability, isn't that what a blind-accessibility project should be about? -WAZAAAA 05:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
You make valid points, but I'm going to bring up another: What happens to OGG if we allow MP3? It would be entirely usurped. Would we ever be able to transition to OGG if it did get more widely supported at a later date? Or would we require that audio files are submitted as both MP3 and OGG? ~MDD4696 17:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
If Wikipedia were to go with MP3 (at least for the short term), and Ogg later gained as much support as MP3, there should be no problem transcoding between the two. I think the real issues at this point are: How easy is it for sight-disabled users to install Ogg support? and Could Wikipedia be sued for hosting widely-supported MP3 files? —Frungi 01:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Transcoding between compressed audio formats reduces quality, but not too much (for speech). As far as the visually impaired issue—if they're using the computer, I don't think they're going to have any more trouble installing new software than they're used to. If they can't do it themselves, they can always have someone do it for them. It's only a minor inconvenience.
And no, Wikipedia could not be sued for simply hosting MP3 files, as long as they were not copyrighted. The issue with MP3 is that any software that can make MP3s must pay a royalty, and people are not free to use the MP3 codec as they see fit. I can definately see a rise in copyrighted material being uploaded to Wikipedia if MP3 were permitted. ~MDD4696 23:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
There are a lot of bigtime webcasters who are currently paying a percentage of their income from music distribution via MP3 to Thomson, I'm sure they'd love to hear from you. Do you offer an indemnification for those who partake of your legal advice? :) --Gmaxwell 19:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course not, but I did look at the Thomson page you linked below. It says that only commercial distribution licensing fees are required. My claim might have been somewhat misleading, but it wasn't inaccurate. So for anyone reading this thread, in addition to royalty fees for codec use, Thomson (the MP3 licensor) requires that fees be paid for commercial use of MP3 encoded files. ~MDD4696 22:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Elsewhere they have said that any use which generates revenue in excess of, um, I think 100k must be licensed. In any case, we don't accept non-commercial only content, so we shouldn't accept non-commercial only formats. :) In any case, we now have a working java player (for both vorbis and theora) that we're considering making available.--Gmaxwell 03:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
What about LAME? —Frungi (not signed in)
LAME exists in a legal grey area. See LAME#Legal_issues Raul654 02:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
That article seems to say that LAME has had legal issues in the past, but is now independent of the ISO source code and licensed under the LGPL, which Sony may have violated. Aside from Sony, it doesn’t say anything about current legal issues. Or am I missing something? —Frungi 19:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The relavant sentence in that section is "LAME developers however state that since their code is only released in source form, "source code is considered as speech, which may contain descriptions of patented technology. Descriptions of patents are in the public domain." In other words, by compiling the source code, you have infringed on Fraunhoffer's patent (at least if you do so in the US). Raul654 20:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like we’re at a standstill yet again. Ogg is completely free, but only the elite 3% of typical WP users use it (2% regularly). MP3 encoders have to be licensed, but it’s ubiquitous. We can’t use MP3 because open-source software can’t legally make them, and most people (think they) can’t use Ogg because their computers don’t know what it is. We can’t make a web-based player because there aren’t any open-source technologies to do so. Anyone who prefers MP3, can’t figure out how to play Ogg, or wants to use a portable MP3 player is screwed. And Jimbo’s a liar. —Frungi 08:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

We have detailed instructions on how to get your computer playing oggs. These instructions should be linked whenever we link Oggs. If you think the instructions need improvement, you are invited to help. Do you have any data to back up your claim that "only 3%" of Wikipedia users are able to play Ogg/Vorbis? The problems with MP3 go beyond a simple lack of (legal in the US) free software encoders, see the 'electronic music distribution' section on Thomson's mp3 royalty page. Also, decoding is covered under their patents as well. They permit non-commerical decoders, but this discriminitory restriction is incompatible with copyleft licenses, such as the GPL, which prohibit nature of use restriction. Speaking as a past Lame developer, I can assure you that neither MP3 or Lame is free enough for Wikipedia's goals. As far as conversion, a quick google for "convert ogg to mp3" give tons of useful looking results.
We could produce a free player either a native (the Vorbis libraries are very portable) or a web-based one (there is a java implimentation of Vorbis that works fine with GCJ/Kaffe, thus it is fully free software). However, based on emails to Wikipedia and to the helpdesk there is simply no demand and thus many people (including myself) strongly oppose the idea of Wikipedia distributing executible code to users. --Gmaxwell 19:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, please either substantiate or retract your allegation about Jimbo. Without support it just looks like a baseless personal attack to me. --Gmaxwell 19:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Why does it have to be Ogg vs. MP3 at all? Why can't we use an open lossless codec like WavPack (preferably WavPack) for better quality and still adequate compression. Or some uncompressed codec for best quality? Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 20:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Um, because even the best lossless compression is 5x or more larger than its nearly identical lossly equivalent and hard drives don't grow on trees. Raul654 01:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, good point. And Vorbis is probably the best lossy codec. All right, then. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 23:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a proposal over on m:Talk:Video policy primarily about video, but it applies equally to audio. The owner of a technology to stream Java for video / audio-only has engaged WP with a view to licensing it to WP for free. Java is estimated to be available on 9 out of every 10 computers connected to the internet, which would open up WP audio and video to a huge audience if it were offered in Java. Many people either don't know how to or do not want to get their hands dirty installing special video / audio player and other software. As Java typically comes as standard on new PCs then a Java system would make these problems go away for most people without them needing to do anything.

For authors, the technology has an upload facility, and is also integrated with / underpinned by an editing system that works for sound as well as moving pictures. An enhanced version is also used in a professional broadcast TV setting; it is a robust and reliable that works for a majority of people on the internet. The editing system is also written in pure Java so it too can be used on any broadband Java enabled internet connection.

If I ever have any video to distribute on the net, I always use this system as it is the most reliable and most convenient not only for myself as the author, but for the viewer (listener) too. I have also added several videos to WP using this system (these at present have to be added as external links). This holiday weekend in the UK I was out enjoying the (intermittent) sunshine. I shot some footage which I will circulate to family/friends - here's a short clip to demonstrate. The quality is VHS, not DVD, but it is IMO quite satisfactory for most purposes. The first base so far as internet video/audio is concerned is to actually get the playback working easily / reliably / conveniently for the intended audience (for WP this is the globe). A secondary consideration is to maximise playback quality. Here's another clip with some audio, the soundtrack was purchased on a royalty free basis by myself. The 'applet' can also be integrated into the fabric web pages. This could be made seemles in WP with a special construct for this type of applet.

There would be lots of practical details to work out - but if it is being offered to WP free - what other objections could there be for further detaining video / audio as the poor relations on WP. I would direct specific comments or questions to m:Talk:Video policy rather than this thread. mk 12:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on a FORscene article here. Stephen B Streater 13:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
There is now a FORscene article. Stephen B Streater 08:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I inserted my explanations on the wrong section altogether. Apologies, AppleJuggler 14:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

We don't need my response to them here then. The bigger issue is that beginners in computing are a long way behind more experienced users, and anything short of working automatically (even if a only a few well chosen steps are required to get something working) will, in practice, exclude most users. Stephen B Streater 21:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cinelerra

You could add that cinelerra supports Ogg Theora videos - that should help at least all users which are using Linux. --130.243.179.56 04:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sound samples of music artist

I recently uploaded a sample of a song ("Everything Went Numb" by Streetlight Manifesto — file, info) however I noticed on {{music sample}} that one of the conditions is "There is no adequate free alternative available". Now this same song is available in it's entirety as a free (as in beer) mp3 download from the websites of both the band and the record label. My question is: do I link to said file, or do I upload a full version in OGG Vorbis format at the same bit rate? — Ian Moody (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Do neither - the first thing you propose (linking directly to the file) is bandwidth theft and the latter is a copyvio (unless you can convince them to license it under a free-as-in-speech license). Raul654 17:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Does the full MP3 on the websites mentioned qualify as an “adequate free alternative”? If it does, then the sample violates the conditions of that template (and the free alternative should be used instead?). Which meaning of free does that template use? We need some new adjectives. —Frungi 01:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Insofar as the fair use guidelines, "Free" means libre - free-as-in-speech. Raul654 06:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
So the user-made sample should be used on WP, and the webpage with the full MP3 should not be linked to? —Frungi 08:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
A 'user made' recording of that song would not be Free because the music itself is copyrighted. There is no free alternative possible for a modern piece of music when you are writing about that piece of music. However, non-free copyrighted music should not be used to illustrate general concepts about music because free alternatives are possible. --Gmaxwell 19:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
My solution for song samples can be seen in my audio recording of Reggae. --WAZAAAA 23:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I see a subpage with deeplinks to the ogg files, bypassing the copyright information on the image page. Please use the {{listen}} template. The way you are currently linking these files makes inaccessable the copyright related information which we are legally obligated to provide. --Gmaxwell 04:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How do I convert?

Should I ever make any sound files how can i covert them to an .ogg file. As far as I know the only recording program I have is Sound Recorder. Would I need another program in order to save as an ogg.

It will depends what your source file is. A very userfriendly way for converting files is Ogg Drop. --Walter 11:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Do a Google search for the open-source sound editing program called 'Audacity'. It is free to download and use, and it is simple to use if you want to convert sound files into .ogg format. Cheers. AppleJuggler 14:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linking to external media

I just came across Prion, which seems to provide an audio file showing how to pronounce the title. In fact, it does no such thing: it links to webster.com's wav file.

Now, I don't agree with arguments that deep linking to other Web documents as if they were part of Wikipedia can constitute copyright infringement, but I certainly don't think providing such links is a good idea. If it looks like it's part of WP (which, to the casual observer, this does), then it really should be. I think in all cases it's better to do without an audio (video, etc.) file, for pronunciation or otherwise, until we can come up with an original one that we can release under the GFDL, or get permission to use the original under the GFDL (after encoding in Ogg Vorbis, of course). In any case, it wouldn't be possible to include such files on a CD (or whatever) accompanying a paper version of Wikipedia, or indeed in any form accompanying a self-contained derivative, unless we get such permission.

Is there any official opinion on this? Hairy Dude 18:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This was discussed at some depth in my recent RfA. User:Gmaxwell is pretty clued up in this area - you might like to ask him for details. I think what you say above was pretty close to the consensus ie usually no content is usually better than an external link to non-free content. Also, User:Danny is pretty definitive on official policy, and (as you can see from his user page) has direct experience with TV and film. Stephen B Streater 22:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Many articles have pronunciations hosted on Wikipedia. I'm confidence that I'm not stepping out on a limb to tell you what that article was doing was completely foolish, not only does it violate our external link guidelines.. it's just rude. Please don't mistake the fact that you can find an example of almost anything on Wikipedia as evidence that the project as a whole supports the action... it's usually the case that no one else has noticed. I'll go fix the file. Thanks for pointing it out. --Gmaxwell 00:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think WP supports it at all! In fact I was just trying to get confirmation for my hunch, which was that it was frowned upon, and I also thought it was important to discuss the issue here, rather than on an obscure page like an RfA where most people are unlikely to find it. (For reference, here is Stephen's RfA, with the discussion evidently showing consensus against such linking.) Hairy Dude 00:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Switching Audio File Formats

I have started a thread at the village pump regarding a proposed shift to MP3 or another more standard file format for audio on wikipedia. I hope all of you who read this will provide your input. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cool3 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

I have replied to your comment on the village pump. --Gmaxwell 06:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another format

I dont want a change in the format, I understand why ogg is used against mp3. Just asking if there any other format that I can use since idk why but WavePad is having problems to save my file.--ometzit<col> 04:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Keyhole Markup Language

Being able to upload and then link to Keyhole Markup Language files could help geography related articles by adding interactivity. Is there any security reason why this is not allowed? Badgettrg 13:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Is this the place where I can request help with finding and uploading a music sample for an article? I've never done this before so I don't know how to go about doing it.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have a specific question, you can ask it either here or at Wikipedia:Help desk. -- Pepve 13:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Crap, I meant to come back here. I received help from Raul, and everything worked out.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Java Error

java.lang.NullPointerException at com.sun.deploy.net.proxy.DynamicProxyManager.reset(Unknown Source) at com.sun.deploy.net.proxy.DeployProxySelector.reset(Unknown Source) at sun.plugin.AppletViewer.initEnvironment(Unknown Source)

This is message of java error when i try listen music from wiki. WIN XP Prof. java ver. 1.6.0_03_b5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.207.107.6 (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What about Windows Media?

I recently noticed that nobody discussed the notion of uploading Windows Media files. As far as I know, WM is nowhere near as patented as MPEG/MP3 and almost as popular, even outside of Windows. Unless someone has a real problem with it (not being open source doesn't count, neither does opinion on the developer), it could be offered as an alternative to OGG. --208.138.31.76 (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

First a note: it seems to me that the exclusive use of OGG is a solid issue on Wikipedia, changing it would need a broad discussion on a higher platform. Now I don't want to keep you from trying that, but here are some reasons to keep things the way they are: Jimbo's words (noted as a decision here: Wikipedia:Media#Audio), one format is clearer to users than two formats, WM isn't free (the Wikipedia kind of free), and probably more (but that doesn't come to mind). -- Pepve (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Then don't drop OGG, even though Cortado is a slow-loading and buggy browser plugin. I'm just saying that strict adherence to open source can be detrimental. It's just that there is no future for open source. OGG is just plain obscure and barely notable. Would adding WM without dropping OGG work, or would WM overshadow OGG. I could accept exclusive use of OGG if Cortado was a better player.
It's not the format, but the player that is the problem. --208.138.31.76 (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I get that you don't like OGG. Wikipedia doesn't care. And if you think the player is bad, come up with a better solution, present it and convince people. -- Pepve (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Here are some solutions
  1. Add support for WM while continuing support for OGG. WM codecs are royalty-free, if I remember correctly.
  2. Do not add WM support, but instead fix Cortado, or contact the developers. Cortado needs fixing to be useful.
  3. Anything I have not considered.
Also, consider not forcing a single audio or video format on users. If support for open source is more important than support for users, then consider using Explorer Destroyer. --208.138.31.76 (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd say only option 2 is viable. What are you waiting for? -- Pepve 17:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The source code. Or a bug report forum. I have not been able to find either. Maybe I have not looked hard enough. I will post later.
Wikimedia Commons policies can be confusing. Allowing multiple image file formats (most of which are heavily patented) but only one media format does not seem too logical. Is it easy to argue in favour of JPEG but not MPEG (both of which are considerably patented)?
Besides, I am the only one to even think of Windows Media. I just want other users to think about these and other file formats, namely AAC, MOV, and FLV (maybe not AAC) --208.138.31.76 (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I may know a thing or two about Java programming, but I believe fixing Cortado may be beyond my ability. --208.138.31.76 (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, Cortado has a website where the source can be downloaded. But either way, technical problems should probably be taken up with the Wikipedia developers, and policy issues should be discussed at a larger platform. Not here, because we're the only one here. -- Pepve (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theora conversion

I made an animation of the orbits of some celestial objects that I would like to upload to Wikipedia. Is there an application for Macintosh (PPC) that can convert QuickTime files or animated GIFs or series of still pictures frames into OGG Theora video files? The ffmpeg2theora commandline program does not recognize my QuickTime movie. Jecowa (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I think it's working now. Since the program is called "ffmpeg2theora," I resaved the animation as a QuickTime movie with the MPEG-4 codec. Then I tried converting the new QuickTime movie file in ffmpeg2theora, and now it seems to be working. Jecowa (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

ffmpeg2theora is adding 12 extra pixels vertically to the animation. The height is supposed to be 180 not 192. What's up with this? Jecowa (talk) 06:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ffmpeg2theora loop

How do you loop video files in ffmpeg2theora? Every time I attempt to open the man file for ffmpeg2theora, the terminal just spits out jiberish and error messages. Jecowa (talk) 06:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Limit on media button width

I have my thumbnails set to default at 300px, and because MediaWiki reads the OGG files as images, all the media buttons are 300px when I'm logged in. I was wondering if there is a way to limit the width, or just set a standard width for all users. –Dream out loud (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of filenames is out of date

  • Current list is: "jpg, jpeg, png, gif, svg, and ogg"
  • Upload screen list is: "png, gif, jpg, jpeg, xcf, pdf, mid, ogg, svg, djvu."

Surely this document should be updated? Carcharoth (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

For reference: png, gif, jpg/jpeg, xcf, pdf, mid, ogg, svg, djvu. Carcharoth (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Failing any response, I've updated the front page. Carcharoth (talk) 07:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)