Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia/Reading Guidelines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Heading section 2 Tables 3 MP3 or WAV ---> Ogg Vorbis 4 Disambiguation links 5 Footnotes? 6 GFDL compliance

[edit] Heading section

Hey, I've noticed this page is currently under construction, and just wanted to give my input. You need to change the Headings section, as the generally accepted method for reading out headings is to say "Section 1: History" for example, rather than just saying the heading itself - this helps reduce confusion on the part of the listener. I'd change it myself, but I'm not great at wording guidelines! Cheers, H4cksaw (talk) 10:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and done! Rfwoolf 10:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tables

Hi there! Thanks so much for the guidelines! Just a suggestion, but some guidelines on how to handle tables would be great. Thanks! -Sarfa 19:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MP3 or WAV ---> Ogg Vorbis

I think it would be exceptionally helpful to note any ways in which some of us can convert files into Ogg Vorbis, considering that we don't necessarily know how to. I was going to try recording for the project, but I can really only record to WAV or MP3 format for vocals as far as I know. : \ (I'm running Win XP, coincidentally) Runa27 21:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I use Audacity, which is free. It can record directly to Ogg Vorbis or import files in other audio formats and convert them to Ogg Vorbis. There's a bit more about using Audacity for Spoken Wikipedia on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spoken_Wikipedia/Recording_guidelines page. I'm new to this project, so I'm not sure if this information should also be added to this Reading Guidelines page or not. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 07:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation links

When an article starts with disambiguation links, should those be read? For now, I'm assuming the answer is "no" (based on the idea that these are similar to category links). But please confirm or correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 07:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say it's a bad idea - but perhaps there are some good reasons for some cases that I can't consider at the moment. I would say that the article identifies itself in its introduction paragraph - so for example for the Titanic article, you would not have to read a disambig note saying "This is the article about the ship, not the movie" because the opening line would be something like "The Titanic was a ship". On the other hand there may be articles where there is room for confusion about a title for instance if the article was about one George W. Bush there may be a disambig note saying "not to be confused with George W. Bush Senior" - you know what I'm saying?

So I think the baseline rule is not to read, but if it will avoid confusion then perhaps read it? Rfwoolf (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes?

The guideline mentions references but not footnotes. I'm dubious about reading them as I fear that they would break the flow of the article but it might be good if we agreed on a standard for them. Dfmclean (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GFDL compliance

Doesn't the recorder have to mention the GFDL at some point? howcheng {chat} 23:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)