Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia/Uploading guidelines/Archive 1

message: Why are we using the  tag instead of the more specific  tag?  Just curious. Ckamaeleon 10:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: doesn't seem to me to fit with derivative works. (That is, because the text is licensed as GFDL, the recording must have that license.  The GFDL-self tag makes it sound like you fully owned the material prior to uploading.) -SCEhardT 15:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Licensing Explanation: Why GFDL instead of GFDL-self 

message: The instructions for uploading sound files divided into several parts still contain the direction to place something below the "|sex=" line...which appears to have been removed from the template (and for good reason).  Perhaps someone who helped create the instructions for this part (or at least simplifed them...Ckameleon, perhaps?) could clarify this.  --Chadley99 05:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops - missed that one when I was taking them out.  Thanks for pointing it out! -SCEhardT 07:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Instructions for partitioned articles

message: The advice that the date written in the date field should be a link to the version of the article from which the recording was made is being ignored (I looked at the first 6 articles in the "Biology and medicine" section of Wikipedia:Spoken articles and found no dates linking to corresponding article versions).  I think this is because people are reading the field name, but not the guidelines (or some are doing that, and the rest are learning by [bad] example).
Fixing this is a trivial matter of adding a field with a self-explanatory name such as "link_to_recorded_version".
Setting the system up so that the people who make recordings get the data right is the only practical way to get this information right.  The usualy wiki-style "plan B" of letting subsequent editors fill in the blanks is insufficient because if the recording maker gives a date, and there is an edit on that date, the subsequent editor might not know if the recording was made before or after the edit - and the problem becomes obviously too complex when there are multiple edits on the given date.  ...and listening the the whole recording and comparing it to each version of the page is very time consuming for a problem that could have been avoided by 3 seconds of work if the recording maker knew what to do.
One example for why having the links to the corresponding text available for each audio is important is for learners of English.  Being able to listen to the pronunciation while reading the words is an amazing tool for language learning wikipedians.
So, given that it will create only a minute amount of work for recording makers, and given that it would otherwise take a very large amount of work for anyone but the recording maker, and given that the current system is demonstrably insufficient, and given that this is an important feature, I'm seeking input on the suggestion of adding a non-optional field with a name such as "link_to_recorded_version".  (or if the template can include html comments, the name could be "recorded_version" and a comment could explain exactly what should be in the field).  Gronky 13:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New field: link_to_recorded_version