Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia/Archive 3

message: What's about a speech synthesis solution, like (an opensource solution like) Readspeaker, as it is used on the site Agoravox (in french) : the synthesis is done server sidde and the resulting mp3 transmitted to the client. So, it's probably to complicated/expensive : the hardware infrastructure to make that possible should be pretty heavy... Traroth 09:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the reasons we decided to start the project is because many people found listening to synthesised speach painfully tedious! Joe D (t) 23:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: http://www.vorbis.com/software/ Joe D (t) 03:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That actually tickles my sense of humor :D I have TextAloud with the Natural Voices installed - may I should run the article though it ;) - Beowulf314159 02:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speech synthesis

message: I downloaded Titanic and I can't open it unless I know what program created it! Help me! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.247.126.44 (talk • contribs) .
:Which operating system are you using?  (Windows, Mac, etc?)  You probably need to download the OGG codec in order to play the file. -SCEhardT 20:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you try taking a look at Wikipedia:Media help? ~MDD4696 22:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem downloading

message: This may be a silly question...bear with me b/c I haven't much uploading experience. Do we have a protocol for uploading new versions? I've been uploading as with new files (using the canonical file name) and clicking "save" after the warning about replacing the old version, then updating the IMAGE:Name_of_file page. I wouldn't want to accidentally mess up the previous reader's work. Just in case, I've downloaded the old version of any Spoken file I'm replacing. 
For that matter, I was thinking about the re-recording process. Do you think it would be a good idea to give re-recording preference to the original reader? If he or she saved their project files, it might be easier for him or her to edit them to reflect the textual changes. Then again, the nature of Wikipedia editing (a change here, a change there) may mean it would be easier to just re-record from scratch. Thoughts?  Ckamaeleon 23:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When you upload a file over an old one the old file is not deleted but kept in the history, and can be reverted if necessary. Joe D (t) 00:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Unless entire sections of very large articles remain unchanged, it probably makes more sense to re-record from scratch due both to the time required for editing and to make sure the final product has a consistent sound throughout. -SCEhardT 03:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uploading NEW Versions / re-recordings 

message: Is it just me, or did the project shortcut change from being WP:SPOKEN to WP:WSW? 
Just curious. I learned the first somewhere, but I notice now that the second is on the Project page, and can't see a recent change in the page's history. It seems that both are redirecting to this page at the moment. Ckamaeleon 01:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now they're both listed. -SCEhardT 04:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it was less whining than trying to not be out of the loop. I didn't know if we were trying to start using WSW instead or what. Just wondering if someone knew anything about it, really. But thanks. Ckamaeleon 07:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies if I came across wrong.  I don't always have the best 'internet voice.'  I'm glad you brought up the discrepancy so it could be fixed! -SCEhardT 16:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No offense taken. I assumed good faith :o) Ckamaeleon 01:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortcut? 

message: Is there a special page that automatically lists newly recorded articles (and removes them after they are X days old)? We have a lot of automated stuff like that on Wikipedia. I'd really appreciate a way to see the newest spoken wikipedia contributions--especially if they didn't have to be manually updated. Ckamaeleon 08:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing I know of that updates with recent spoken articles is the (manually updated) rss feed, which is linked at the top of the project page.  That said, it is currently very out of date, but I am going to work on that when I get a chance. -SCEhardT 16:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems a shame to waste real people's time/effort on something like that that could be automated..But I don't know enough about Wikipedia and it's inner workings to make that happen.  Ckamaeleon 02:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, looky here! Special:Newimages. So there IS a special page for new uploads.. unfortunately, it's ALL uploads because of the way Wikipedia refers to both sounds and images as "images." I shall delve deeper into this mystery. Ckamaeleon 14:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newest Spoken Articles Page? 

message: Has anyone recorded a multipart article so far? 
How are we doing those? Do we need to say:
*"Article Title, part 1, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org" 
*[read part one] 
*"This concludes part one of Article Name. This recording, etc, etc, GNU, etc. etc. ..."
**"Article Title, part 2, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org" 
**[read part two] 
**"This concludes part two of Article Name. This recording, etc, etc, GNU, etc. etc. ..."
***"Article Title, part 3, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org" 
***[read part three] 
***"This concludes Article Name. This recording, etc, etc, GNU, etc. etc. ..."
Or are we simply to record the file as usual (with one file title and license announcement), then just cut it into three parts? 
Do we need to reference the file name of the next/previous parts? (i.e. "This is part 2 in a series of 3 parts. For part one, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PartOne.ogg."  and at the end: "For part three, see..." 
I know that we've discussed the practice of dividing long articles, but I didn't see any conversation about the mechanics of doing it. Thoughts? Ckamaeleon 03:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thinking about it, I'm inclined to do it as bulleted above.  I still don't know if I should provide the address of the next part. I think not, though. It's extra length. Is it assuming too much to say that people know where to find the subsequent parts (if they're listed in the template the right way) Ckamaeleon 02:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multi-part articles 

message: Hi all, please allow me to introduce myself. I am Thor, born in Iceland, but now living in the UK.  I have recorded and uploaded my first article, following 99% of your guidelines, but it may need a little cleaning up.  I would like to join the project on a permanent basis, if you would permit me, and if you wish to check the article or listen to it, its at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tabaluga20060124.ogg - I would be interested in your views & considerations, either here or to my talk page.  Thanks a lot!  Thor Malmjursson 01:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: replied on on your Talk page. Ckamaeleon 04:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say it's entirely communist, but it does have a nice communal feel doesn't it? It's very satisfying how people from all over the globe can come together to hash things out in the name of free information. Ckamaeleon 02:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Project Member & First Spoken Article

message: It might be nice to start looking towards the future of Spoken Wikipedia - what purpose these audio files should serve 5-10 years from now, and in what form they will be available.
My vision is of a portal for those who want audio-assisted articles or completely audio articles (ie for blind readers).  This could be accomplished using easy keyboard-based navigation and audiofiles that play in an embedded player, rather than making them click on the audio file and load them in an external player.  Flash audio players have been quite effective in that regard.
10 years from now I would love to be able to go to a Spoken Wikipedia portal and make my way around just by using my keyboard and listening to articles. The accumulation of these articles so far is excellent, and definitely a worthwhile endeavor.  Thanks for everyone's hard work in this project.  -WAZAAAA 04:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add comments to User:Steinsky/Encyclopaedia for the blind.  Joe D (t) 04:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making Spoken Wikipedia easily blind-accessible, etc 

message: In working on various music-related spoken articles  (such as Reggae), I wondered if there was a way to use snippets of songs already included in the article in ogg format in the spoken version.  Is that allowed?  Would I have to completely change the spoken articles' liscence if I include a 15 second clip of a song?
I found a way around it, though, through recording the song segments on my own.  It's worth the effort, and makes the spoken articles flow like cream cheese at the factory. -WAZAAAA 23:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just make sure to not include copyrighted music as it would remove the free status of your work. We discourage fair use in the spoken articles more strongly than in the Wiki text because it's harder to remove in order to make an unencombered version. --Gmaxwell 19:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorporating audio files already on the article? 

message: Created a page of the arguments of both sides of this issue. -WAZAAAA 15:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've gone over this at least twice... I think in archive 2 of this page and then again on the talk page of the recording guidelines. Unless the wikimedia people have a good response to the patent-encumbrance of MP3s, I don't know how much more ground we could break in a discussion.  I should add, though, that if all things were the same, I'd prefer MP3. But I'm learning to deal with OGG. Running Linux and/or Winamp in Windows helps.  Ckamaeleon 03:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it doesn't seem to be a very two-sided discussion. I say Wikipedia should vote on it, as there are a lot of people who seem to think it would make the audio projects worth something. But the powers that be seem to believe this rule is set in stone, frankly I think it's the reason why we haven't been having too much popularity with any of the audio projects. -WAZAAAA 05:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has come up again more then twice.  ... It's not called 'Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia' for nothing. The goal of freedom isn't any more negotiable than the goal of being an encyclopedia. The repeated arguments ignoring what was said before is disruptive and disrespectful. Please don't bring up the subject again unless you really have something new to offer the discussion. --Gmaxwell 19:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm an average user, and I want to voice my intense displasure at being forced to use OGG – or more accurately, denied access to Wikipedia spoken articles.  I don't have an OGG player.  MP3 makes infinitely more sense – though it may be a patented technology, Wikipedia doesn't have to pay anything to use it.  This seems like a case of open-source elitism to me.  You're also going to have fewer people contribute if you use such an obscure format.  Providing audio is about accessibility – how accessible is it if people are supposed to download a separate player just to uphold an open-source ideal?  Use open-source where it works – this is clearly not one of those cases.--24.125.147.87 09:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Look at the help page about Ogg Vorbis files. No need to download a separate application at all, just an extension to media player. Most Linux and Mac flavours worth thier salt natively accept Ogg Vorbis as it's free from patents and other legal rubbish. Please read the guide we have before complaining. --Celestianpower háblame 12:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are incorrect, 24.125.147.87. Wikipedia could very well have to pay to license the MP3 technology to host sounds files--see the MP3 licensing page's FAQ. ~MDD4696 01:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MP3 vs. OGG 

message: Should be up and running now; does it work correctly for everyone?  Now go record some more articles! -SCEhardT 04:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work. Yes, Sir/Ma'am! Macropode 10:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RSS feed is updated! 

message: I have a db of pronunciations of names of people & places, from VOA; and am planning to add those to the start of related articles.  Should this involve the narration project at all?  +sj + 19:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't really sound to me like the two are very much related (and thus I don't think they should be integrated), but if you want any help just let us know what we can do! Are you placing the articles with the pronunciations into a special category?-SCEhardT 22:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoken names 

message: I have boldly moved the recording instructions off the main page and into a 5-step instruction set beginning with 'Choose an article'.  Unless anyone objects, I'm planning to unclutter the main page a bit more by creating a couple more subpages. -SCEhardT 21:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK; I'm done rearranging now - what do you think? -SCEhardT 23:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wonderful! Thank you! T J McKenzie 23:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Wowie Zowie! That's good stuff. Thanks for simplifying it.  Ckamaeleon 07:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep, a FAQ section for those types of questions seems like a good idea to me. -SCEhardT 15:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It also seems logical to place Ambuj Saxena's userbox in a section immediately following the barnstar on the main page. It won't take up much room, and it would be easier for people to add their names to the active users list and then snag the userbox code, if the they like. Thoughts? Ckamaeleon 11:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization 

message: OK, I completed my first spoken article and I'm trying to upload it.  However, after I click "upload file" my browser (Firefox) keeps timing out.  Any suggestions? --Speaker Eric 08:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How big is the file size? I think there's a current limit of ~20mb. pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, that was exactly my problem.  I split the file and it uploaded just fine.  Any comments would be welcome.  Doubtless, the process will be much easier next time. --Speaker Eric 11:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uploading problem 

message: Hello all, 
A few weeks ago, I started adding articles to the  Article Choice Guide's Talk Page I wanted to invite project members to contribute to the list: if, during your Wikipedia browsing, you find an article that might be a good "first" article, consider adding it to the list for new project members. 
As it says on the page, feel free to edit the list as you see fit. The only thing that would bother me would be seeing no suggestions there Ckamaeleon ((T)) 08:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Selection 

message: Help please! I've recorded one of the suggested articles this morning, compressed it, normalized it and taken off noise, and I don't know what to do next. Apologies for the cross-posting - I've asked this question in a couple of other places, but I don't know which place is the right one to refer to for advice. I think I need to know how to make my Adobe Audition turn my file into OGG format - is that right? - and then, a beginner's explanation of how to name the file ready for Wikipedia. After that I'll have a go at uploading it, hoping not to find too many problems along the way. Thanks, Patrick
--Patrick 13:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can always just save it as whatever, then download audacity (http://audacity.sourceforge.net/), open the file with that, and save it as OGG from Audacity Robert 01:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just doing some reading, and it seems that while Speex is a better codec to use, Audacity (which most of us use) can't export to it yet. So I'm guessing most everyone is using the "export to Ogg Vorbis" command in Audacity. Ckamaeleon ((T)) 16:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I've removed your email address so that it doesn't get picked up by spammers. You can revert my edit if you really do want it posted. The best thing to do is check back here for responses. -- Laura S | talk to me 01:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do I make an OGG file? 

message: While we're discussing this, is there an authorative decision on whether to use Vorbis or Speex? I know that people have talked about using Speex (a long time ago in the talk archives for this page), but in practice, I'm just using Vorbis, since it's what's on my computer already. Ckamaeleon ((T)) 14:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just doing some reading, and it seems that while Speex is a better codec to use, Audacity (which most of us use) can't export to it yet. So I'm guessing most everyone is using the "export to Ogg Vorbis" command in Audacity. Ckamaeleon ((T)) 16:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I've removed your email address so that it doesn't get picked up by spammers. You can revert my edit if you really do want it posted. The best thing to do is check back here for responses. -- Laura S | talk to me 01:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vorbis vs. Speex?

message: Does anybody use Adobe Audition? Patrick is looking for help getting the program to export to OGG. I looked at the list of sample specs and it seems that everyone is using Audacity, which already is set up to encode Ogg files. But the recording guide specifically mentions Adobe Audition as an example of a recording program, so somebody has to know about it. Ckamaeleon ((T)) 15:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I use it.  All you have to do is download a filter for OGG files and put it in the plugin folder, and it should allow you to save it as an .ogg extension.  Google "Adobe Audition" and "OGG"; it should come up. Anthony Hit me up... 19:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ogg + Adobe Audition 

message: Along the lines of the "File quality audits / Technical summaries" section, is there a page or section that could collect and award the spoken files for their high speaker quality? And when I say high speaker quality, I don't really mean just the sound quality, but I am talking about the quality of the speaker (so maybe it should collect names of users who are highly regarded for their spoken files).  In the long run, I guess I'm pointing in the direction of having experienced/professional people do the spoken articles, but that's not really my intent.  My real intent is not only to recognize good speakers, but also help people (like myself) emulate them when I'm trying to make one on my own.  I'll go right ahead and give props to the spoken file for Rachel Green.  However, the speaker for this file was advertising for their own thing, and the user is not actively involved with Wikipedia.  The advertisement made in the file has since been cut out now thanks to User:MarkSweep. In any case, the quality of the speech is relatively good, and so I would like to recognize those files that are spoken well. Kenumay 11:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a good idea, although I'd be wary of specifiying "good" speakers over anyone else. I've been listening to a lot of different files and have yet to hear one that sounds bad. It might accomplish the same goal (pointing out characteristics to emulate) if we expand the production tips into a section on "characteristics of a great spoken recording" or something, along the lines of What is a featured article. And as for recognizing great recordings, this project does have a barnstar. It looks like it was intended mainly for volume contributions, but I see no reason why you couldn't award it for a single, particularly high-quality recording. --Laura S 15:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speaker Quality (Performer Quality) 

message: Are there any plans to produce spoken versions of Wikipedia Help pages, policies, guidlines, and other non-article suff? --Saxsux 20:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To my knowledge, no. It might be very useful for people with vision impairments to have spoken versions of these, but it would probably be important that the spoken versions be kept up-to-date with any changes in the text, particularly for help and policy pages. Macropode 08:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: How often do some of these pages change? I'd imagine the five pillars don't change a whole lot. (On second thought, it seems they do change more often than I thought, although they mostly look like relatively minor changes, and a lot of vandalism reverts.) It might be worth looking at recording some of the more static ones. If we could do a series of some of the more prominent ones, that might really help increase the visibility of the project. --Laura S 21:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Saxsux, if you're thinking about doing these, go for it! -- Macropode 02:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOT already has a spoken version. I'm surprised that recording spoken versions of the five pillars, at least, isn't actually planned. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:GFDL also has a spoken version, and WP:IAR is one line. This really only leaves two. They're fairly long (feature-length, if you will), but nothing terribly difficult. I can do them as my next articles; I was being indecisive about which one to do next anyway. We should also consider doing some of the other prominent policies, such as WP:AGF. Thanks for the comment Sam, it's great to see active interest from outside the project! --Laura S 13:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to be inside the project, actually, but haven't got around to buying a microphone yet :-) --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: So hurry up and buy one! :) It's a little time-consuming but well worth it in my opinion. And somehow fun. You've probably noticed people saying this elsewhere but you don't need any expensive fancy microphone. My no-name microphone seems to work ok. (I hope - no one besides my friends has critiqued my files) --Laura S 23:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: As an update: I've started recording WP:NPOV. It's long, but going pretty fast because it's written in a conversational tone, and doesn't have any foreign words or names that I have to look up. --Laura S 00:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:NPOV is done. --Laura S 02:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Update: I did WP:EQ and even WP:IAR (the whole line! :) so the five pillars are done. There are other policies that would be worth doing, but I think I need a small break :) --Laura S 00:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like there has been talk of doing this. I DO know that other project  members have been recording the WP: articles (i.e. WP:No Personal Attacks, etc.) I think it's a great idea, provided they're kept up to date. Perhaps a few members will make them "pet projects." It seems like it may be easier to update the articles that you originally recorded, if only b/c you're familiar with them already.Ckamaeleon ((T)) 06:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help Pages 

message: ...Do I have a "California accent"? :) A visitor from Texas once told me I do, but I've never been able to discern any difference from "General American" when listening to others talk. I recently recorded :Image:Renaissance.ogg, so maybe someone from the USA can listen to a little of it and tell me - I've been to a few different (albeit western) states without ever thinking, "Man, these people have accents!" Maybe my Texan friend, who had the stereotypical Texan accent, is just more accutely aware of linguistic differences. Moulder 04:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey can't listen to the recording right now, but I sympathize about talking too fast. People have always told me I talk really fast. I slow it down to what feels like a crawl when I record, but it still seems faster than a lot of the others. Ever give a presentation to a live audience? That's the worst! So easy to get nervous but you absolutely cannot let yourself speed up :) -- Laura S | talk to me 12:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't detect any accent.  Sounds General American to me.  I on the other hand am from Michigan, so I have to monitor my use of ABOOT instead of about. :) Good performance, BTW. Aguerriero (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm curious to know... 

message: has been proposed at WP:TFD and subsequently withdrawn, and discussion continues here for anyone who is interested. -- Macropode 16:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, the person who proposed the template be deleted actually wants only the icon in the upper right corner to go away. He was a dissenter early on, as the talk page shows. Thanks for posting this Macropode, I wouldn't have known about it otherwise. -- Laura S | talk to me 20:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no preference one way or the other regarding the Spoken icon in the top right corner of articles. However, I noticed that all the Spoken icons have been removed from WP:FA, apparently on aesthetic grounds. Upon further investigation, I came across this. What interests me is that, unless I misinterpret the argument, there seems to be a proposal here for a vote which would include the option of complete deletion of the Spoken Wikpedia template. -- Macropode 00:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This proposed policy, created by User:Raul654 on 17 May 2006, may also be of interest in relation to the future of the Spoken template on article pages. Acceptance of this proposal as policy would pave the way for the removal of any link from an article's main page to it's spoken version, no matter where it is positioned or what size it is. -- Macropode 04:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of [[Template:Spoken Wikipedia]] 

message: Hi all, I just stumbled on this project and I am very excited about contributing.  I did a test run on a small article I wrote a while back, Opaline glass.  I was wondering if anyone would give it a listen and let me know if they hear anything I can improve on before starting longer articles (or alternately, "Hey Andy, you sound like a dying yak.  Please don't record any other articles.") :) Thanks, Aguerriero (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your recording sounds great. I have two comments: first, that the very beginning of the recording got cut off (unless that's just a problem with my player; I'm using my new Mac and not used to it yet). The second is completely personal preference. I prefer recordings to be a little faster. However, I tend to talk faster than most people like, so it's entirely possible that your pace is perfect :) -- Laura S | talk to me 00:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I too wouldn't mind it being a bit faster, but I'd rather have you do it slower than ideal than the way I did Renaissance on my first try. :) One thing that irks is me is that a lot of Americans (I'm from Cali so make of that what you will) seem to say "wih-ih/uh" instead of "wih-kee" when it's part of the word Wikipedia. That just grates on me for some reason. Moulder 03:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh - I'm from NJ and end up saying "wih-kee", but it sounds weird every time I say it. That's just how it comes out though. "Wik-ih" feels lazy or something. Interestingly, when I listen to my recordings, I hear a much deeper accent than I thought I had. I wonder if that's just when I record though, because I'm making such a concerted effort in speaking. -- Laura S | talk to me 15:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep, good work. speed her up a bit maybe, but the quality's great. THE KING 12:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review requested 

message: Hello everyone. to get myself into this project and just see how i go before i do a featured article, i thought i would produce a spoken version of the Handjob article. Feedback would be greatly appreciated on my talk page. Similarly for logitech. Thanks,  THE KING 10:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow those sound like two different people! In both cases, the title got cut off (they start right in with "from Wikipedia..."). I would suggest a little more enunciation, although the Logitech article was ok on that. The Handjob article was probably too fast, but I thought you got the pacing pretty much right on in Logitech. -- Laura S | talk to me 04:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Laura, I think there might be some issues with your playback, since this is the second article where you had that issue of the beginning being cut off.  It plays fine for me in Winamp. Aguerriero (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Nice try. Fremont in the Logitech article is pronounced freemont. I think you need to check the pronounciation on some other names too. --Facto 05:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Handjob 

message: I'm concerned with the formatting in AIDS' external links section, because it hides the speaker icon at the top of the article. Does anyone know how to fix this?
Once it is fixed, I noticed the spoken articles category mentions articles being on the front page with an audio link, so when AIDS is today's FA, we'll get some publicity. :) Moulder 19:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: add it to the bottom of the section maybe? --Facto 19:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Good idea putting it in with the notes. Are any other articles formatted that way? I supposed they're just trying to keep the page from being too long, but it seems kind of kludgy to me. And as far as the main page, I've done a couple FA articles that were planned for main page for exactly that reason :) They're a little tougher, because they tend to be long and there's a time crunch, but worth it I think. -- Laura S | talk to me 20:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Something tells me this is one of those political issues that I didn't want to get involved in... But isn't this contrary to what it says here about spoken articles on the main page? I haven't been involved with the project long enough to know how to react. Moulder 06:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be fearful, Moulder, you're questioning Raul654's will. :) -- Macropode 09:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Excuse me, people. Sarcasm, in hindsight, even in jest, obviously is not productive in situations like this. Moulder, yes it's politics, and it's ugly. You might try asking Raul654 what the reasoning behind his actions is. -- Macropode 06:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been on both sides of the aisle, so no comment. ;) But if this is the case, maybe the bolding on the category page should be either removed or just to indicate that an article had a spoken version when it was on the main page. Moulder 09:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[AIDS]] issues 

message: I really want to record this article, since it is an FA and it has been requested.  But DAMN it is challenging.  I have done several takes and I keep messing things up or barely misprounouncing some facet of it.  The most difficult thing is having to read all the instances of words that contain the umlaut. Aguerriero (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to do it all at once!  Just try section-by-section (or even smaller parts) and stick them together afterwards.  I think this would be a neat spoken article to have! -SCEhardT 22:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Heavy metal umlaut]] 

message: * Ok, so I've now done a few of these, but before I move onto something large I'd like some constructive criticism.  I'm using Audacity on a Windows laptop with a Logitech headset/mic combo.  I think the quality has gotten better, but right now I'm not sure if it is good enough.  In particular the effect that sounds like a synthesized wave on some of them.  Ok, enough dithering.  In order I did them:
#Dennis Ritchie
#Ken Thompson (computer programmer)
#Adam Elsheimer
#Monster truck
Wikibofh(talk) 05:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like you're going too far with the noise removal (based on the monster truck one - I'm listening to it right now). You're easy enough to understand, but it's almost as if something's missing from the audio file. Maybe that's the compression, which I'm 90% sure is whatever the synthesized sound issue is. The file is fine though, just ease up on the threshold next time. Moulder 09:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You were probably aware of this already, but Dennis Ritchie is a bit quiet and sounds like you were trying a bit too hard to make your recording understandable. The recording works though and is fine for a first attempt. Moulder 09:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews please... 

message: Ok, so I've finished World War I, but can't get it to upload.  It is a large file (40MB).  Does it have to be broken into smaller pieces or is there a way we can work around the upload size limit?  Wikibofh(talk) 15:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that other editors have had problems uploading any files larger than 20MB.  So, you probably should break it into at least two parts.  That allows for easier downloading for users, as well. --Aguerriero (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large file upload....