Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia/Archive 1

message: We should have a consistent naming convention. Is there any reason not to use the full exact name of the article for the name of the .ogg file? Fuzheado | Talk 23:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the article name should be used to name the OGG file. This would be easier if there was a "move" function that renames files. :-) — Timwi 14:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names 

message: This is a great project, and I very much like it, but my question, I guess, is what happens when an article is changed or expanded?  Is a new sound recording going to be made?—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 15:50, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
*I would think so, more or less. Good judgment should probably be used as to the stability of the version being recorded--picking a version in the middle of an edit war would be a bad idea. I think it's also why it's a good idea to start on the featured articles first, since they are less likely to be rewritten or greatly expanded. Demi T/C 17:04, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)
* How about simpy re-recording the (substantially) updated/added paragraphs, and simply inserting them in where neccessary? Flipping between different voices might sound odd for small bits, but for whole paragraphs it might sound okay... ?? --Frankie Roberto 15:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates 

message: * Is there any value in saving a lossless format like FLAC as well as the ogg? So it could be reprocessed in the future more easily?
**No, by that time the article will need to be re-recorded anyway. silsor 20:35, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
* Do we like the new bitrate? 48 kbps sounded a little "watery" to me, but maybe it's my ears or headphones. Demi T/C 17:20, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)
**Actually its likely your encoder is not set to "high quality". 48kbps is the standard speech bitrate for testing purposes, anything more than that is pointless space wasting. I'm a professional audio engineer and I can assure you if your planning on a long term speech recording program, 48kbps, 44.1khz mono is the way to go.  ALKIVAR™ 18:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  File Format 

message: * as a side note, freematrix radio (freematrix.us) would be willing to air these after some review and talk about a way to put them into some sort of way to make it good for a radio show, and maybe something else, contact Apple in #freematrix, #wikinews, or #wikimania on irc.freenode.net (I might join #wikipedia soon enough). and we can work something out.
* GFDL compliance - do we need to worry about GFDL guidelines, like having to cite the most significant authors? Do we need to provide a spoken list at the end, or perhaps speak the Wikipedia URL, or append the GFDL license?
** I think to be safe the reader should recite the license notice at the end, or merely state it's distributed under GFDL. Ghost Freeman 10:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other notes 

message: I've run into a couple of situations where the proper reading isn't clear. Let me say how I've handled it and then we can discuss it so that, if someone wishes, they can follow a consistent practice.
Most diagrams and images I just make no reference to, since they are "decorations" that add to the article but aren't necessary to read. However, occasionally there are inline tables or diagrams where the text doesn't make sense unless the diagram or table is included, perhaps because the text makes reference to something the diagram says or introduces it. In that case, I've introduced the diagram by saying "View diagram: " and then a brief description of it, before continuing with the text.
Secondly, I considered introducing (long or block) quotations by saying "Quote" or something similar; in the end I just changed the cadence of my reading to try to make it clear I was reading something else: more conversational, and ended with the quote source.
Demi T/C 22:34, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
: I used the words "open quote" and "close quote". — Timwi 23:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagrams (inline); Quotations 

message: * This discussion was ongoing at 2005-06-28 archive, and may appear later in this archive, in another archive, or the current edition of the talk page.
=== Date ===
I've copied this discussion from the template's Template talk:Spoken Wikipedia:
Wouldn't it be nice to record the date the recording was made, so that users can actually tell how up-to-date it is?
*Not just the date, record the exact revision it was taken. Also a link to the comparison between that revision and the current revision (i.e. the equivalent of clicking the (cur) link adjacent to that revision on the history page) might be useful. Thryduulf 09:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: hmm, true at present, although I understand the developers are working on this. Another work around is to view the newest non-current revision and then click the link to view the newer edit. I think this generates a permanent url that basically says link to the version that is one newer than the one with the id given. Thryduulf 12:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so: Doing that on this page gives you the URL http://...Template_talk:Spoken_Wikipedia&redirect=no, whereas a permanent revision URL is of the form http://...Template_talk:Spoken_Wikipedia&oldid=12429402. Maybe as a temporary measure, until there is a fix in the code, the template should contain a timestamp of when it was created? Or else just have the poster first add the template and then find the revision URL of the previous version. — Asbestos | Talk 10:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: I've copied this discussion from the template's Template talk:Spoken Wikipedia:
Wouldn't it be nice to record the date the recording was made, so that users can actually tell how up-to-date it is?
*Not just the date, record the exact revision it was taken. Also a link to the comparison between that revision and the current revision (i.e. the equivalent of clicking the (cur) link adjacent to that revision on the history page) might be useful. Thryduulf 09:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: hmm, true at present, although I understand the developers are working on this. Another work around is to view the newest non-current revision and then click the link to view the newer edit. I think this generates a permanent url that basically says link to the version that is one newer than the one with the id given. Thryduulf 12:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so: Doing that on this page gives you the URL http://...Template_talk:Spoken_Wikipedia&redirect=no, whereas a permanent revision URL is of the form http://...Template_talk:Spoken_Wikipedia&oldid=12429402. Maybe as a temporary measure, until there is a fix in the code, the template should contain a timestamp of when it was created? Or else just have the poster first add the template and then find the revision URL of the previous version. — Asbestos | Talk 10:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date 

message: Shouldn't we have a section for spoken articles? If not, I guess this will do. Ghost Freeman | Talk 21:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests for Spoken? 

message: I'm a little surprised to find this project starting up instead of something that trained and operated a text-to-speech program...it seems like that would provide a lot more coverage a lot faster, would make it a lot easier to keep things up to date, and wouldn't require special audio equipment.  Though having actual people read the articles is a nice touch.  On the other hand, it's not like people can't use their own text-to-speech programs in combination with their web browser, which sort of brings in to question the entire effort.  Though perhaps it is worthwhile to make audio available to people who don't own or who can't set up such software.  It would also be nice if there were some collaborative way to give pronounciation hints on words that a computer would mess up. -- Beland 11:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text-to-speech 

message: It seems like a good idea to announce the version date of an article in the spoken introduction, no?  -- Beland 11:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Versioning 

message: Festival seems to be close to state of the art for speech synthesis; however, it doesn't build on OpenBSD. Can someone please install it and use one of the 16-bit diphone voices to run a reasonable long article we've recorded through? We're getting a lot of questions about "why aren't we just synthesizing the voice?" and I think it would be fruitful to the discussion to have a spoken article and text-to-speech-ed article to compare. Demi T/C 00:24, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
* It would probably make sense to have a speech-synthesised file for comparison. The German Wikipedia has one, too. They never state this, but to me it kind of looked like they were saying "See, this is what speech synthesis is like, isn't it useless? This is why we're recording things ourselves." — Timwi 11:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speech synthesis 

message: I've just been trying this out on the current featured article which is quite long and involves some real pronunciation humdingers. So far I've reached 15 minutes and am still less than halfway through the article. I haven't been reading unduly slowly but I haven't been pausing either. I stopped there and saved the resulting ogg file -- 8MB so far. Looks like one file containing a straight through read isn't going to be feasible. Maybe I should try recording individual sections of the article. -- Derek Ross |  Talk 04:14, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
*Maybe. I just recorded Evolution, which is pretty long: I ended up at over 34 minutes and a 15 MB file, but I plowed through anyway. It's feasible, but maybe it would be more manageable in sections. If we wanted to do this for long articles, we'd have to consider:
**The intro would be very short--should it be in its own section file or together with the next section?
**Is there inconvenience associated with downloading multiple files?
**How do we let people know what they all are? Make a template that accepts a list?
*On the other hand, it might make change control a little easier and each individual file is a little more managable. Demi T/C 10:05, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
** I could reasonably imagine having two files for each article: One with just the lead section, and one with the complete article. Once you have the complete article, you can trivially derive the shorter file from it. — Timwi 11:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this project is a good idea, and, as one of the main contributors to Aramaic language, I thought I'd give it a go. The pronunciation 'humdingers' aren't so bad, probably because I wrote most them (!), but the file is big. It would be best to split the file up, but that would disrupt the flow of the article for listeners. Each file would need the top and tail suggested on the project page, and speakers may want to introduce the next file at the end of the previous one. Any thoughts? --Gareth Hughes 12:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  How big is your file? Have you uploaded it yet? Maybe someone can convert it for you to a lower bitrate, but you'd have to upload it first :-). — Timwi 12:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm working on squeezing that file down. I've uploaded the lead section quite easily: you can find it at Image:Aramaic language (lead section).ogg. --Gareth Hughes 12:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the vote of confidence, I think! I'm using Audacity to record the article. Can anyone suggest the best way of recording the sections of the article and preparing the audio for upload? --Gareth Hughes 14:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current featured article on Aramaic 

message: At the end of any article there can be a vareity of common sections, such as See also, References, External links, footnotes, and so on. I think that most of those should be read out with the exception of "external links." In most cases the title of the link on the page, not the url. Is there a consesnus on how to handle this material? Cheers, -Willmcw 00:25, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
*I don't think there's a standard yet. What I've been doing is reading all the See also, References and External links information including the link URL. It's tiresome to listen to, but I do it on the logic that since the article is essentially over, a listener can always hit "stop." Demi T/C 01:11, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
*If the URL is short, you can say it if you want, but if it's weird (ie has ?, =, etc) you can just give the title of the page and the domain it's hosted on, or some other info that'll let someone find the page again.  I'd definitely do this for sources, references, See also, but External links seems optional, unless, for example, the article is on a company, and the link is to the company's web page. --brian0918 01:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  End material 

message: In the document now, it says use OGG at 48 kbps, but Audacity and other say that with Ogg you cannot exactly rate limit anything since its VBR, and it only has a 1 to 10 slider. Should we not specify instead what quality to use? Fuzheado | Talk 07:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  OGG spec 

message: I don't think we should have the template on Talk: pages -- it's not the place for it. I wrote on User talk:Brian0918:
I also think the link is better solely on the article page. For me, a useful rule of thumb is that things that primarily target the readers/users/audience of Wikipedia belong on the actual article, and things that are directed at editors belong on the Talk page. In this case, a link to a recording of the article targets the readership (er, "listenership"!), rather than editors, and would be better (IMO) just on the article page, and not on the Talk: page. — Matt Crypto 02:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, the "Featured" status of the page is useful metadata about an article for editors, as it is an end-result reflecting peer-review and stability of an article. (I would, incidentally, advocate that a Featured template would do well to be on the main article page itself, since the information is useful to readers, too). However, a Spoken template doesn't really provide a great deal of useful editorial information, at least as I see it. It may link to the Spoken WikiProject, but that's not really like other WikiProjects which exist to coordinate subject areas. It's clearly not a hugely important issue, but I think we need to be careful how much clutter we add — for example, on Talk:Caesar cipher, it becomes difficult to see the Table of Contents. Adding a Talk page template involves an (admittedly quite small) cost, yet provides no real benefit for editors, or at least as far as I can see. It might raise the profile of the WikiProject a little, but I'm sure there's better ways of getting the (most excellent) Spoken WP project known than adding clunky templates to Talk pages. — Matt Crypto 02:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks, although I'm still unconvinced this Talk page template is of any utility other than an advert for Spoken. That's not necessarily a bad thing, of course, but is probably off-topic on Talk: pages for articles on arbitrary topics — at least, that's my take. But, again, it's no big deal, and I'm happy to go with whatever people prefer. — Matt Crypto 02:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So far, I've talked to Raul654, Demi, Luigi30, and silsor, who are all fine with it.  Check out Talk:Caesar cipher.  All those WikiProject templates are just like this one (advertisements?).  --brian0918 02:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I'm happy to accept it if the consensus is that the templates on the Talk: page are beneficial. I would, however, argue that "topic" WikiProject templates are different in two ways: 1) It'd be inappropriate to put a Project template on an article page, unlike a Spoken template; and 2) An editor interested in editing a article in a certain field is especially likely to be interested in any associated WikiProjects which concern that topic. There is no special reason why an editor on arbitrary topics would be interested in the Spoken WikiProject. Would we be happy with links to Wiktionary, WikiQuote etc on the Talk pages? — Matt Crypto 03:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, anything that promotes any aspects of Wiki is fine by me.  I didn't find out about several of the other projects until I randomly came across them.  --brian0918 03:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, perhaps. To argue an straw-man extreme, you could include links to every single Wikipedia project on every single Talk page, but that wouldn't help people find things — it would just increase the noise of the project. We need to weigh things up, and see if the benefit of the link is worth it. In my opinion, a good way to keep the clutter down is to try to stay on-topic. There are plenty of other places on Wikipedia to promote worthy projects, but an article's talk page is primarily for discussion about ways to improve that specific article. Of course, it is appropriate to include links to WikiProjects in the same field, or to mention the Featured Article status. But, for me, links to projects like Spoken, or Wiktionary, or WikiQuote (or whatever) just seem too generic. (They're fine on the article page itself, of course). — Matt Crypto 03:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiktionary and WikiQuote are sister projects though, which get main page advertisement.  Spoken is just a WikiProject, and can't get the same type of advertisement that other WikiProjects do (because it's not about a specific topic).  So we have to advertise whenever possible.  Once the project gets much larger, we might consider getting rid of the talk page template.  --brian0918 03:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I guess this is the crux of the problem I have: the benefit is all for the Spoken project, and not for the articles themselves. I would say that if you're going to include an advert on an article Talk page, it should be for the benefit of that particular article. If all that these Talk-page templates provide is advertisement for Spoken, then I think they're misguided. I do, of course, understand the importance of getting people informed, but we have plenty of places like the Village Pump, the Community Portal, etc, which are appropriate to point people towards things like this. — Matt Crypto 03:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Current WikiProject talk page templates suggest either editing the article or visiting the project page to join the project.  We don't really have the option to edit the audio file, so we have to go with what we can do, visit the project page.  --brian0918 03:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template on Talk Pages 

message: Just thinking about this a bit. basicaly, if i was blind, then wouldn't i want to know about the recorded version befor having m text reader speek the full normak version befor hand. To demostrate what I meen, disable css in firefox for a moment, and you will see that the spoken version comds below the artcal text, this seems non-sensical to me, as i would have probably just lissened or read the full (text) artical befor seeing... oh, i could have just lissened to that recording of it.
Does anyone have any problems with placing the template at the TOP of the page?
tooto 19:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently it goes against policy.  I think what will eventually happen is Spoken Wikipedia will become a sister project, eliminating that problem.  --brian0918 19:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possition of temptate with no CSS 

message: I regret having started this project under a name that was a literal translation of the German equivalent. I'm beginning to think that "Spoken Wikipedia" sounds really rubbish. Would anyone object to a significant name change? (The sooner we make such a change, the less work it will be.) — My suggestion for a new name would be "Audio Articles", which personally I like much better, but of course I am open to other suggestions too. — Timwi 21:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of this project 

message: I've created a list of short featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page.  By requesting that they be on the Main Page, and then turning them into spoken audio, we can more quickly and easily increase the publicity of the project.  --brian0918 12:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short featured articles 

message: What do folks think of the idea of getting someone who's a fan of Wikipedia to record the article on themselves. No, I don't mean Jimbo, I was thinking more along the lines of someone like Wil Wheaton. Thoughts? It might be fun, publicity wise, for the Spoken project. -- Seth Ilys 20:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  An idea? 

message: :Copied from Wikipedia talk:Spoken articles: hadn't realized I wasn't on the project page...
This spoken articles project seems like an excellent idea, and I'm amazed at the amount of work that's been put into it. I just have one question: all the links on articles to the spoken version are down at the bottom of the article. This generally means that you only realize it exists after you have read the article, which seems to rather defeats the purpose.	 
If this project ever starts covering a significant proportion of Wikipedia articles, and people with difficulties seeing/reading start to keep an eye out for spoken versions, I think it would need a notice that stands out somewhere near the top. If there were a small speaker symbol or something up near the top, people would know instantly that there was a spoken version.	 
Minor point, I'm sure. It just always strikes me as odd whenever I see a link to the spoken word version after having read the entire article. — Asbestos | Talk 23:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Position of links 

message: I think it might be worth summarizing the goals and reasons for the project at the top of the project page. For me, I assumed screen readers were all anyone needed since I know a few blind people that use them and had never heard them mention they weren't sufficient. In any case, having the reasons for the project right at the top should help. - Taxman 14:51, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
: They are about as "sufficient" as Internet Explorer is to browse the web. People get "used" to it and don't complain simply because they don't know what they are missing. — Of course, I agree to your suggestion. :) — Timwi 21:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: I can't play .ogg files on anything (Real Player, Windows Media Player, etc.) on my computer. -- Tony Jin | (talk) 00:21, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
:Try Winamp.  --brian0918 00:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually try installing anything that supports ogg by default. http://www.vorbis.com/download.psp  ALKIVAR™ 07:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Winamp doesn't support OGG (or Unicode or a lot of other things). I recommend foobar2000 or XMPlay. — Timwi 14:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I recently reformatted, and Winamp was one of the first things I installed... and it plays ogg's just fine. --brian0918 14:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with my computer 

message: Remember that huge debacle that resulted in Wikipedia:Spoken articles being moved to :Category:Spoken articles because the template on the article page linked to Wikipedia: instead of an external link?  Well, all we had to do was use  in place of Wikipedia in the link name.  So, it would've been:  :Spoken articles which creates :Spoken articles, and this would be preserved on third party sites as whatever their sitename is.  Should we consider moving the Category: page back to Wikipedia: (since the problem is now solved, and moving it back would reduce the wording confusion and clutter of the article page).  --brian0918 08:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but I'm not in the avoid self-references cabal so it doesn't really matter. --SPUI (talk) 08:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-referencing 

message: Since there's a lot of metadata about each recording here, I agree with Matt Crypto that the table is easier to read and looks better. I also agree with Timwi that it's bulky. I've done a few things to unbulkify the table:
*I added a "questioning GNU" icon for those recordings that lack a copyleft notice, instead of having a second line for this note.
*I shrunk all the icons down to 16px as on the  template. I think they're still recognizable but they don't stretch the table rows at this size.
*I modifed the table headings so they should typically fit on one line.
Demi T/C 18:07, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
: Sure, the shrunk version is still good for me — Timwi, is this now sufficiently de-bulkified? — Matt Crypto 01:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, thanks very much for your efforts. — Timwi 11:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of completed recordings 

message: Someone on IRC claimed that the "best" text-to-speech software out there also happened to be free, and had the ability to act as a server.  It's called Festival.  Not only is the software free for any purpose, but so are the voices. See for example their demo page where you can enter your own text.  Now, since it obviously won't be well-received if we just submit the current contents of the article to their server, the best thing to do might be to create a separate sister project which will host the Festival server, and on which you can create modified textual versions of the articles in question.  One would have to manually listen to the articles and fine-tune the text (such as replacing rising with rye-zing), but this would be a much faster way of expanding the Spoken Wikipedia.  We could still provide the option for individuals to submit their own recordings, but if this thing is going to take off, it seems like speech recognition, especially when it's free, is the better course of action. --brian0918 22:30, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A better idea? 

message: Came across the project today and thought I'd join. I will record a sample of my voice for everybody to hear and to offer comments on. This will not be until I purchase a microphone though.
Oh and to those who are wondering where I am located, I'm from Melbourne, Australia.
- Peter McGinley 11:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just joined the project! 

message: I've been playing with an RSS feed at /rss, which you can subscribe to with the URL 
: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spoken_Wikipedia/rss&action=raw
I'll try and keep it up to date, though the job would be made easier if we had a list of spoken articles ordered by age of recording.  I don't know where to put a link to it on the project front page though.  Joe D (t) 21:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RSS feed 

message: http://dingoskidneys.com/~dholth/spokenwikipedia.xml is an automatically generated list of spoken media orderd by upload date. With enclosures so it may be subscribed to by a podcast client (about . Wikimedia Commons media don't currently get dated correctly because it is slightly more complicated to crawl wikipedia for that metadata; all those files are listed at the bottom of that RSS.
This program http://dingoskidneys.com/~dholth/spokenwikipedia.py crawls wikipedia starting at :Category:Spoken articles, building a list of media based on the gallery at the bottom of that page. This RSS is not a comprehensive list of spoken media, just (apparently) the most recent 75. I've been updating the feed approximately daily.
The total enclosure size of that list is around 450 MB.
Note: the date format in the HTML has varied in a way that breaks my script so the feed is no longer being updated. An alternative might be to parse the actual wiki history & wiki markup DanielHolth 06:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another RSS feed 

message: A quick survey of spoken articles shows the template being put in semi-random places near the bottom. I've spotted it in the See also section, Further reading, External links, and "just at the bottom". There should be some sort of consistent preferred placement for the thing. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:46, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My vote goes to "to the right of the table of contents".  At the bottom is silly, it's too late by then!  Joe D (t) 00:59, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template placement 

message: OK, before moving the template to the top, we have to agree on what it is going to look like.  There isn't much space at the top, especially with taxoboxes, images etc.  What shall we do?  — Chameleon 19:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Implementation

message: I am interesting in contributing to the spoken Wiki project, but I have one question before I begin.  Is it necessary to license the files under the GNU document license or would a creative commons free license (such as cc-by) be acceptable?
--CGP 17:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure?  If the text is GFDL, surely derivatives like these must be as well?  Joe D (t) 19:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am 99% sure that spoken articles can only be under the GFDL, unless you are the sole contributor to the text article.  This is regretable, because the GFDL is terrible for audio.  Never mind.  — Chameleon 19:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was asking because I don't think that the GFDL is the ideal solution for audio.  Would it be possible to get around it by saying something like this at the end:  "The audio recording of this article is licensed under the creative commons attribution 2.0 license while the text itself is licensed under the GFDL" or would this kind of interaction cause problems?  --CGP 20:06, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way, with or without the dual license the copyright situation is horrible :( Joe D (t) 20:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I think the closest thing to a human-readable version is this:  GFDL.  — Chameleon 15:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  GNU License 

message: The policy is to read links as text, but what about links at the start of a section such as "Main article: Bicycle brake systems"? Should those be read in some way, eg "An expanded version of this section is in the article titled Bicycle brake systems"? And by the way, is there a convention on reading headings? Do we just say the heading title with a pause? -- Tarquin 21:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would personally say that seems fine (talking about the expanded article, and the paused title). Perhaps alternatively something like "for more information on this section, see bla bla"? - Jacen Aratan 21:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I've been reading it as "<title>. This section is a summary of the article .", though the other suggestions seem equally good.  Joe D (t) 08:55, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headings and Expanded section links 

message: This project is a bit sluggish (lack of contributors), so I've been bold and made several changes to the project pages in order to get things done.  I hope nobody minds.  — Chameleon 11:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boldness 

message: I've moved this list from the project page.  It really is more of a "talk" thing rather than a serious list of practical information about the project, don't you think?  — Chameleon 11:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cheerleaders