# Talk:Windows Speech Recognition

Image:Windows Vista Speech Recognition Tutorial.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This is easily the biggest flaw of this entire page.  Windows speech recognition comes pre-installed on XP tablet edtion 2005, and available as a download for regular XP (it may even come pre-installed in other versions).  On top of that i'm sure it's probably also in Windows 7.  
This entire page is misleading and wrong.  If you can fix the page, keep it, if you can't - delete it. (71.235.80.25 (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing called "Windows Speech Recognition" -- all three words in that order -- was first included with Windows Vista.  You will not find something called "Windows Speech Recognition" in Windows XP Tablet PC edition.  It does indeed have speech recognition capabilities (as does Office 2003), but it's not the same thing that's included in Windows Vista.  This article isn't titled "Speech recognition in Microsoft Windows" -- it covers, specifically, the Windows Vista implementation.   Warren -talk- 17:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This article should be nominated for deletion.  While articles about companies and products are allowed (if they pass the criteria of notability), this single features of a product (Vista) is not notable enough.  Does anyone have any reason to keep it?  Bardcom (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe this article satisfy the notability guideline. The feature is included in Vista (which is used by around 10% of all computer users as of March 2008) and used by many people. Numerous references can also be found on the web. I personally feel that, though the article could certainly be expanded and improved, it is as notable as any of the other applications in Microsoft Windows that have individual articles. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, that's the exact point I'm making.  This is not a seperate application, but a feature of Windows Vista. While Vista is notable and has it's own article, this feature on it's own doesn't pass notability. Bardcom (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
By what reasoning do you come to the conclusion that the feature alone is not notable? It is used by many people, and reliable references on the feature are available. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Notability does not extend to features - if the feature is notable, it should be merged with the article on the product.  I suppose that's really the point I'm trying to make - a feature on it's own has to be notable in it's own right, and not just because it's part of a notable product.  I don't believe that this feature meets the notability guideline on it's own.  Speech Recognition has been around for a long while, lot's of vendors have products in this area, it's part of lot's of Operating Systems, it's not even the 1st OS from MS to have it.  I agree that Vista does, but why is there something notable about this feature on it's own to merit it's own article? As a seperate point, this article may also be seen to breach WP:NOT. Bardcom (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
As you know, it is the first time speech recognition is fully implemented and readily available in Windows. Also, just because a feature was not included in the first version of MS Windows, it does not mean it is not notable. This article focuses solely on the software, and there would be no way that we could merge the contents of this article without losing info. I admit that the article is not at its best now. However, so much more information could be included in this article (e.g. History, more technical detail, criticisms). In addition, I disagree that notability does not extend to features (or else, why do we have articles on Windows Aero, which is technically just a feature of Windows Vista). Stephenchou0722 (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Stephenchou0722, Thanks for responding to my query. I'm still inclined to nominate the article for deletion, but I prefer to see articles created than deleted, so let's wait for a few weeks and see if the article is developed.  I agree that more data can be added (e.g. History, tech detail, etc), but you need to show why it's notable (beyond the fact that it's a feature in Vista - it must stand on it's own merits).  Your point about other features is noted, and in all probability,  many of those features might also fail notability, but perhaps there are a few that are notable in their own right.  And that's fine and good.  But at what point is there a cut off?  Bardcom ([[User
talk:Bardcom|talk]]) 13:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't delete this article. There is no reason why. It is notable enought and besides it's the first time Microsoft offered a full-feature speech recognition software program built in to the operating system, so this NEWS guys!
In addition, if we only talk about Speech Recognition on the Vista article, it won't have much said about it - like, for example, the way it works, etc.

Yeah go and delete every article from this template. Why do we need ANY article? Yeah right. (I'm being sarcastic btw.) - xpclient Talk 10:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed a WP:LINKVIO, a CNBC story on Youtube, uploaded by a private user with obviously no evidence he/she had CNBC's permission. Given the section is already sourced, it seems another source is unnecessary anyway. Per WP:COI I should mention I have a Youtube video relating to this instance, but I'm not suggesting it as a replacement, in fact I don't believe it belongs for several reasons including I'm not convinced it isn't a copyvio, it's cut from an MS video and IIRC, I couldn't find any evidence MS allowed such things. Nil Einne (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Windows Speech Recognition was introduced as one of the main features of Windows Vista, along with features like: Windows Aero, Folders Preview Icons (the icon of the folder shows what files there are in the folder), Windows Search etc. Although, it seems that this feature didn't gained popularity. I think a paragraph about its popularity is needed to be add. Galzigler (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Windows Speech Recognition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14158843/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Windows Speech Recognition/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 13:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments

Opening sentence is too long, could use split.
" as handwritten tablet PC input" sea of blue and in any case, not sure we need a link for "handwriting".
Just a general thought, I normally expect no citations in the lead as everything mentioned there should be covered and preferably expanded upon in the main body, and that's where it can be cited.
You list a load of OSs in the lead, but I note that "Windows Server 2008 and later" is mentioned in the inbox and literally nowhere else.
A LOT of whitespace after the lead, consider constraining the Table of Contents to just level 2 & 3 headings.
Image captions which aren't complete sentences should not have a period.
"during development" the development.
"system -- a big" en-dash, not two hyphens.
"A prototype speech recognition Aero Wizard" this image is so small it's not really usable.
"An alternates panel disambiguation " why in italics?
There seems to be a variety of differing usage of italics...
"for speech synthesis,[58] to " overlinked.
What is the relevance of all those "See also" links other than the first one?  They're all just other MS OS features, right?
Spaced hyphens in the ref titles should be en-dashes.
"Speech processing (−) (±)Speech processing software (−) (±)Speech recognition (−) (±)Speech recognition software (−) (±)" you problably only need the software categories as the others are generalisations of the software categories.
Generally very good, a few comments above so it's on hold. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Ian Wolfman I'll give this until 15 May before failing it from a lack of response.  Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
The Rambling Man I apologize for my delayed response. I have addressed points 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, and 15 and I have made several other significant edits (even effectively rewriting the information about the 2007 vulnerability reports). Please let me know what you think. (Ian Wolfman (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC))
The Rambling Man I have since addressed point 7, 10, and 14. I wish to discuss with you some points. For point 1, I am not sure how to address the length of the opening sentence without negatively affecting the description (EDIT: I could remove the sentence about macros; please let me know). For point 9, the image of the Aero Wizard had been resized by a bot; I resized the image on the article in an effort to compensate, but I can reupload the original image or remove the file from the article if necessary. For point 12, I wish to eventually list the macros in a different way, perhaps as a bulleted list or in a table, which would allow me to expound on their functionality. For point 13, I have since removed at least Windows HotStart and Windows Mobility Center from the "See also" section; they were originally included due to the emphasis on mobility scenarios (with WSR being listed among them in 2004 and 2005). Please let me know if you have any suggestions or thoughts. (Ian Wolfman (talk) 18:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC))
Hi Ian, just spot-checking sources, I looked at ref 7, which is titled "What happened to speech recognition?" but the source title is "Dictate text using Speech Recognition".  While there may be an issue with references having titles changed, as this doesn't have an archive ref, it may make it more difficult in the future to prevent linkrot.  Could you have a look at that and the issue in general?  Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
And some refs seem to have Microsoft as "author" while others as "publisher".  I would suggest the latter is more appropriate, but consistency is key here. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I understand why linkrot would be problematic. I have updated the reference you cited as well as most (if not all, I will have to check again later) of the citations—the majority of which by referring to their archived links. For some future-proofing I even cited the archived link for the changes to WSR in the Windows 10 April 2018 Update. (Ian Wolfman (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC))
For author versus publisher, I have since made the use consistent by referring only to publishers. Please let me know of other changes that are necessary. Thank you for your assistance and for your time. (Ian Wolfman (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC))
Ian happy with this now, so I'm promoting to GA, well done. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)