[[m:Logo]] claims logo should be consistent. I agree.
This document shows us the "scrabble" type logo as Wiktionary logo; at
least it was a result of straw poll. I am not sure if the Wiktionary
active editors love it. Perhaps not.
On the Wikimedia Foundation website, on "Our projects" table and
[[Wikimedia:Our projects]], both pages show visitors the old one (dic
entry type) logo as project logo.
On the project itself, most of projects - I visited top 10 websites of
Wiktionaries to write this mail - most of projects use the older one
as their logos, except one. The Vietnamese Wiktionary uses the
We need to pursue consistency here? Or is it okay for all parties involved?
I think it is a matter of promotion/publification, not only the
community, so sent a cc to Communication committee (before I failed to
type the current email address of this list) .
Two different logos:
"dic entry type"
* habent enim emolumentum in labore suo *
I recently did a survey of 100 Wikimedia projects, to see what their
template:welcome and MediaWiki:Welcomecreation messages were like.
(MediaWiki:Welcomecreation is the first message new users see when
they have successfully registered an account.)
In my opinion, one of the best Welcomecreation messages was Vietnamese
There is a translation in English here:
(the talk page of the previous message)
which could be useful if you want to update the Welcomecreation
message for your own wiki.
The problem is that existing academic software like "praat" use .wav
files. I do sympathise up to a point that storage is used. However, the
price of a terabyte of storage is such that this is not that relevant.
Both an .ogg and a .wav file would be saved. The first is to enable
science to do its thing, the second is for our punters.
Gregory Maxwell schreef:
> On 2/11/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> I read this in digest mode so let me answer things together.
>> The reason why .ogg files are not great is because indeed it is a lossy
>> algorithm. There is some great software to analyse pronunciation files;
>> a program called "praat" is worth mentioning it is even licensed under
>> GPL. There is even functionality in there to do with IPA transcription.
>> Gregory's proposal to use Ogg/FLAC is not helpfull. This is not the
>> format that is used to analyse pronunciation files. The notion that a
>> specific quality was "the gold standard" at the time is indeed that. It
>> used to be, times have changed.
>> The Shtooka program that we are talking about CAN create both a WAV and
>> an OGG file. It just needs asking. It would be helpful if we learn
>> sooner rather than later what the outcome is of this request.
> The Ogg/Flac is lossless, so it removes your concerns about lossyness.
> It can be uploaded today, so it removes the problems of not being
> uploadable. It is compressed (losslessly) so it's not quite so bad on
> our storage and bandwidth. Shtooka already outputs Flac, and could be
> trivially altered to output ogg/flac, if you'd like I will do this for
> you. Any number of Ogg/Flac files can be quickly converted to wav with
> a single command.
> I am very hesitant and concerned about the prospects of permitting
> uncompressed files: I think people will use them where they are
> completely inappropriate because they are a bit easier to playback.
> Flac or Ogg/Flac should be substantially smaller than wav and won't
> drive people to use uncompressed formats for bad reasons.
I read this in digest mode so let me answer things together.
The reason why .ogg files are not great is because indeed it is a lossy
algorithm. There is some great software to analyse pronunciation files;
a program called "praat" is worth mentioning it is even licensed under
GPL. There is even functionality in there to do with IPA transcription.
Gregory's proposal to use Ogg/FLAC is not helpfull. This is not the
format that is used to analyse pronunciation files. The notion that a
specific quality was "the gold standard" at the time is indeed that. It
used to be, times have changed.
The Shtooka program that we are talking about CAN create both a WAV and
an OGG file. It just needs asking. It would be helpful if we learn
sooner rather than later what the outcome is of this request.
A lot of wiktionarians are involved in recording pronunciations at the
moment. At issue is that pronunciations that are recorded for scientific
purposes are universally saved as wav files. Given that with the shtooka
software we can record vast amounts of pronunciations, it is a waste to
destroy something that can have an incredible value because of an
insistence on .ogg files.
I would urge us to allow for the recording in .wav files in order to
ensure that this data keeps its relevance for scientific usage.
The RobotGMwikt has been blocked on the http://af.wiktionary.org. The
admins there do not have their e-mail enabled so I cannot contact them
directly. There has been no communication with me about this. The bot
service I have been performing for the last two years and has clocked
more than a million edits.
The service that I have been provided will be suspended until there is
Apparently people at ru have filled their their Wiktionary with completely empty templates saying "This word or expression has not been translated yet. Please add your translation."
ru.wikt has 105 877 entries, out of which 81 496 are empty templates.
This makes the Russian Wiktionary entirely useless; people complain they have stopped checking it, because they keep seeing empty entries.
I suggest we stop adding interwiki links to ru:.