Template talk:IPA soundbox

Updates requested

Note

The protection is by WP:CASCADE.

Request

Replace all code in two pages with all the code from their respective sandbox subpages:

• {{IPA soundbox}} replace with all code in {{IPA soundbox/sandbox}} (this version)
• {{IPA soundbox/build soundbox}} replace with all code in {{IPA soundbox/build soundbox/sandbox}} (this version)

Process & check

When the two changes are done without pausing, no serious disturbance is to be expected (the intermediate situation is not correct). A visual check on correct workings can be seen at the next pages, which should show no errors nor misformed tables: {{IPA pulmonics audio}}, {{IPA vowels audio}}, m (the infobox).

What has changed?

• Determining the soundfile-name is using {{IPA audio filename}}, instead of an internal subtemplate.
• The File link could produce a double pipe ||, which disturbs when appearing in a wikitable. This double pipe is prevented.
• errortext usage is made more simple, with the same effect
• In Firefox: clicking (starting) the audiofile would widen a enveloping box (such as {{infobox IPA}}, see eg m). Now the box itself is not widening.

Sandboxes, tests

The code is sandboxed and tested. At the moment the sandbox testresults are not relevant, since I prepared the code for production-pages (the main page/sandbox does not call a sub/sandbox any more; see latest edit).

Signing

When questions remain, please use my Talkpage. -DePiep (talk) 10:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Please let me know if there are any problems. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request (2nd)

{{editprotect}}

Request

Replace all code in two pages with all the code from their respective sandbox subpages:

• {{IPA soundbox}} replace with all code in {{IPA soundbox/sandbox}} (this version)
• {{IPA soundbox/build soundbox}} replace with all code in {{IPA soundbox/build soundbox/sandbox}} (this version)

What has changed?

After the previous edits (see editrequest above) the template needs some tweaking. The boxes do not position correctly (see for example {{IPA pulmonics audio}}.

• Around the sound-button a <div> box is positioned.
  • Size (width) of outer box (div) and inner box (button) are controlled separately.
  • The outer div-box can have additional styles as input: style=background:yellow; border:solid red 1px;.
  • Documentation links to single main /doc.

Process & check

When the two changes are done without pausing, no serious disturbance is to be expected (the intermediate situation is not correct). A visual check on correct workings can be seen at the next pages, which should show no errors nor misformed tables: {{IPA pulmonics audio}}, {{IPA vowels audio}}, m (the infobox).

Sandboxes, tests

The code is sandboxed and tested. (At the moment the sandbox testresults are not relevant, since I prepared the code for production-pages, the main page/sandbox does not call a sub/sandbox any more; see latest edit).

Signing

-DePiep (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Any reason why this request is standing 15 days now? Is the preparation (sandbox, text) intimidating? -DePiep (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I did what you want, but please check it to make sure, and leave me a note on my talkpage if I made a mistake. Nyttend (talk) 04:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Editprotect

Request

• Note: the requested edits should only be done after this related edit request is executed.

Please replace all code in two pages with all the code from their respective sandbox subpages:

• {{IPA soundbox}} replace with all code in {{IPA soundbox/sandbox}} (this version)
• {{IPA soundbox/build soundbox}} replace with all code in {{IPA soundbox/build soundbox/sandbox}} (this version)

Process & check

When done without pausing, no serious disturbance is to be expected. A visual check on correct workings can be seen at the next pages, which should show no red errors nor misformed tables: {{IPA pulmonics audio}}, {{IPA vowels audio}}, m (the infobox).

What has changed?

• At last, it is a true CSS box. All content is in an enveloping <div>-box
• The sound player itself (the button), which is browser-supplied, is in an inner <div>-box, and so can more easily be positioned.
• Optionally, a box is show on top of the button, containing the wikilink to the IPA article (like m).
• Error-messages can be controlled: return the red error text, return optional text, or return a blank errortext=. Also, a separate switch is added to show an error in a box, or in plain inline text (keepbox=yes/no).
• An input option "debug=yes is available to see the graphic (box) effects clearly using colors.
• The style=... option is available to control CSS style.

Sandboxes, tests

The code is thoroughly sandboxed and tested. At the moment the sandbox testresults are not relevant, since I prepared the code for production-pages.

Signing

-DePiep (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Postponed, trouble in paradise. -DePiep (talk) 07:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

 by myself Protection has left the building. -DePiep (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing info links is not an option

I've removed the parameters that allow editors to remove links to the information about the license and creator of the soundfiles. Hiding information like this is simply not an acceptable option. This info has to be available to readers with a simple click, just like with other media. And it should be easy for a user to actually find the file and reuse it.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

[1] then. That removes:

:showicon={{{showicon}}}
:width={{{width}}}
:size={{{size}}}

-DePiep (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but it seems that several sound chart templates have been relying on the option of truncating the audio player box. Have a look at IPA vowel chart with audio or Template:IPA chart non-pulmonic consonants with audio. Is there any to handle them?

Peter ^Isotalo 16:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there any to handle them Any what?

Can you point to the guideline that says it must be so? After all, the option is in the sound link. I cannot recall being forced to do so (by any guideline or document) when I build it that way. In fact, I used Wikipedia:Extended_image_syntax#Multimedia_syntax. As you see, the templates have no space for the extras.

Of course, the two pages you link to now are disrupted beyond usefullness. If you impose such a template change, you might have checked and redesigned its usage in the process. Since the link is not required, I suggest we undo this it while a well-tested redesign can take place. -DePiep (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

"Not required"? I urge you to reread what I stated above. You can't simply zap the ability of readers to access audio files, take part of the license or find out who the creator is. And certainly not for the sake of pretty layout.

It's unfortunate that these tables are now broken, but it's even more unfortunate that the links were removed in the first place. I consider the latter to be the most pressing issue to deal with.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Link please. -DePiep (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

There's no policy dealing specifically about this as far as I know, but here are several discussions about the importance of not removing info links for audio files:

• Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_AJ#Template:Audio
• Template_talk:Audio-nohelp
• Template_talk:Audio/Archive_1
• Template_talk:Audio/Archive_3#Help.2Finfo

Can you refer to any discussion that has taken into consideration issues with copyright, licensing and re-use of free media when info links are removed?

Peter ^Isotalo 17:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The link is in my earlier answer. (I have just re-aligned them which caused a possible mistake). The link is, again, Wikipedia:Extended_image_syntax#Multimedia_syntax.

I can add that you also removed the |size= and |width= parameters, which are not decisive in this process (though their removal contributes to the disruption). Also, you have not taken a single step to prevent or limit the damage. And no, I didn't need a discussion because the page (just linked) was clear to me.

Now about your discussions. None of then showed any form of outcome or consensus, let alone that it made a guideline or policy. And they are from 2007, 2006, 2005, 2007. So that does not add much value to the statements made. I bet if a licence issue exists, it would have been addressed more widely since, and on more high-end pages. And also, it would have been implemented in the recent remake of that sound box! OTOH, the WP:EIS page I linked to is an "editing guideline". Last: you reply "for the sake of pretty layout" is nonsense. It is an inline box (alas, in table), not stand alone, which should follow inline format conventions. I can agree with you that the layout you left behind now sure is not "pretty". -DePiep (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, you don't seem to have done anything to explore this issue yourself. And now I'm raising what I believe to be a very relevant issue. So why don't we engage in a relevant discussion about this? I can understand why you defer to WP:EIS. It's been in place for a while, and no one seems to have noticed this. But it is merely a technical guideline. From my standpoint, I'm arguing from one of the five pillars. It's a very general principle, yes, but I believe truncating info links of audio files very clearly goes against that principle.

And I don't really agree with your interpretation about the previous discussions. Yes, they're old, but it's not like the discussion is "outdated". It's clear that you shouldn't be hiding file links. The outcome in other templates was actually solutions that made sure you couldn't completely remove info links (you can at least click the speaker icon). The lack of discussion, I believe, is because sound files are somewhat of a backwater when it comes to media. They're seldom used, few people make them and a lot of them are fairly low quality; they simply don't attract as much attention as images and videos.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I did explore the issue myself. Proof: the resulting template (set) that complies with the then and now guideline. Believe me, if there were any mentioning of the issue you raise, I would have met it during my soundbox research & build process over the years up until today. If you are implicating that I or anyone should have contested the guideline out of the blue, you are dead wrong. That is not how we work at WP. And where did I write that the issue is "not relevant"? I do write: the issue is not there.

About your two edits. I do not doubt that you work in good faith. Still, the edits have three questionable items. So far, you have not given any ground for this template being "offensive". It is "crapping up a bunch of complicated transclusions, but that's less of a concern in my view" - how are you to decide this priority for the article pages? Why not consider the effects beforehand, and look for a different solution? "I'm hoping it will get people's attention" - sure you do not want to get attention by ruining some 160 article pages.

About WP:EIS you write: "no one seems to have noticed this [link issue]". Says a lot don't you think. Stated copyright rules are one of the vigorously maintained topics at WP, at level with vandalism; just think of the undiscussed speedy deletion of images! (And rightly so, because it could destroy the whole project through legal/financial claims). So when this issue is "not noticed", it could very well be that it does not exist as such. So far, you are about the only one who thinks this issue is an infringement to be rooted out, at all cost, even disrupting the article pages. Please consider this possibility: that you are wrong in this.

WP:EIS is "merely a technical guideline" you write? No it is not. Read the top of the the page. Don't add words that are not there. And sure: as an explicit guideline it trumps your interpretation and extension of pillars or of any guideline.

Your four links are not just "outdated", they are outdated because WP:EIS after these talks added the noicon section I referred to [2]. Also, as I noted, none of these four discussions did conclude or consense anything stable. And, third point, the remake of the soundbox about a year ago did not change (limit) the noicon option or its documentated usage.

Background: two copyright issues from the WP image (not sound) world. First: a WP:fair use image, say a book cover, may not be used in template space, only in content space (=article page). So when using a fair use picture, we have build constructions like this for this article. The picture only shows in article space! This is one example of the toughly maintained attitudes wrt copyright. Second: it is possible, and not forbidden, to use a construction like this image: (see image) No link, right.

My conclusions so far. First I conclude that there is no guideline or any other serious base to make your edit mandatory & undisputable. Second, I see your edit disrupts article pages (possibly 160) into garbage like this, and still does not solve your quest (also here unsolved, but for a different reason). Third, the issue you raise (no direct link to the soundfile) also pertains to visual WP:IMAGE usage: similarly allowed, no guideline against it.

How to proceed? I will raise the issue at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions shortly. I will revert your edit, because it disrupts article pages without grounds. And I will think & work about a different solution for this template that could satisfy both ends; you are invited to think along. For this, there is time. -DePiep (talk) 05:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Question here at WP:CQ ([3]). -DePiep (talk) 06:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I'm trying to point out that I believe this goes beyond your normal guideline comparisons. Guidelines are not hard "rules", as is pointed out at the top of every single guideline page. I'm not here to throw around policy trying to "trump" anything. I'm trying to point out that hiding info links is very obviously something not good. If you believe it has upsides that outweighs that, please point them out. Arguing from a standpoint that it's irrelevant because we have no rules against and that you've never heard the complaint before is really not constructive. I appreciate that you raised the issue at WP:CQ, though. We need more eyes on this. For one thing, I had no idea that you could do the same to images. That, if anything, is a case of obviously letting pretty layout come before copyright, licensing and re-use of media.

One immediate question, though: why is it necessary to remove the file link in articles that use {{infobox IPA}}, though? Letting it show up in full size didn't seem to do any harm at all.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

In short, I agree a solution solving your point would be an improvement. But it is not that bad that it requires the disruption. Now there is time to try improvements. I get it you saw the change in template:infobox IPA. This template here will take some more sandboxing. I think about adding the <small>[source]</small> link below the soundbutton in each cell (and a simplified design). Adding the full visible soundfile name (as WP:EIS suggests) would not be clear in the crowded tables I think. -DePiep (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, we'll see what comes out of any future discussion concerning copyright, coding and all the other aspects of this. Kudos for all that coding, btw.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Will need a lot of stacked sandboxes to test and imsplify, cannot do that live. Good that the new soundbutton is available, it was a horror to handle the old one. Only used in audio-tables (vowel & consonants) I think. -DePiep (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)