Audio files

Hi, thanks very much for adding audio pronunciation files to entries! Can I suggest that you use the standard file naming convention "En-au-[entry name, including spaces if any].oga"? Thanks.

I suppose my idea was to pick a unique filename so as not to interfere with existing files. It has several advantages when working with the files on my end. But, if it is essential I could adopt the standard. Is it essential? I will not be uploading new files for a little while so there is time to decide.

Since there is a standard specified at "commons:Commons:Pronunciation files requests", I think it would be best to try and stick to that standard. It also makes it easier to refer to the files in templates.

Sorry for butting in here, but I also would like to sincerely thank Commander Keane for choosing to upload pronunciations in his dialect to Wiktionary.

I say this because, when I first came to Wiktionary, there were basically only two kinds of English audio file pronunciations that were to be found here: Western (especially West Coast) American English pronunciations laden with mergers, and Received Pronunciation pronunciations (I am by no means knocking Received Pronunciation, by the way. I personally think that, especially when compared to the semi-demi-official attempts to form spoken standards for speakers of [often significantly different] dialects of English that are being grouped together because of geographical closeness/national identity found in my part of the world, Received Pronunciation is a model example of how a spoken standard ought to be. Of course, many would point to Northern England, the West Country, and the like and say "What about them?". To that, I say: fair enough. However, my view on the matter is still the same, because, although it is sad to see instances of features like rhoticity declining in areas like that, where they have long been key features of the local dialects, the thing is that the very opposite thing is happening in my part of the world, for the same reasons, so... yeah. It doesn't feel good at all for me and my ilk that harsh 100% rhoticity is becoming absolutely dominant across North America, along with loads of mergers quite foreign to my area, but I have to live with it, so, I mean, if (kind of) the opposite thing is taking place in another part of the English speaking world, forgive me for not being excessively sympathetic.). Now, I respect and appreciate the contributions of those who speak in those ways (indeed, aside from the many users and many valuable contributions still being produced regularly by such users today, many of the [at least relatively] early contributions here seem to have been from those folks as well), but I also really do think that a (worldwide) English dictionary ought not to have its scale tilted so starkly pronunciation-wise like that. Now, don't get me wrong, the opposite is just as bad: if no one has any clue as to which pronunciations possess at least some semblance of perceived correctness by people, due to the fact that they are swamped with so many miscellaneous dialectal pronunciations, that is a serious problem as well.

...Anyway, just wanted to tell Commander Keane to keep up the good work!

Thanks :-)

Just wanted to thank you again for all the hard work in adding audio pronunciation files, especially for entries slated to appear as Words of the Day!

My pleasure :-)

How do you do it so fast? I used to do some pronunciations but I found the "rename, licence, upload, copy, link" process unutterably slow and tedious.

I second what Equinox said, Commander Keane, and I actually admit that I was thinking about this subject earlier today.

Do you have some super secret method, or is it that you just have phenomenal patience?

I have written some software to make the process faster. Working on this concept. Unfortunately the program is hacked together and I don't think it is suitable for general use. However, if you want to view the source I am happy to share. If you want a detailed explanation I am happy to give you one, just let me know.

I have been wondering lately whether or not I should add the entries as a bot. Since Commons turned down the idea of a bot for this work I didn't bother asking here at Wiktionary. And I only just recently saw that User:Dvortygirl used a bot. My reasoning for not having a bot is that every Wiktionary edit is viewed and given the ok by me - no autonomous edits.

Actually a previous editor did create a gadget for allowing editors to record and upload pronunciation audio files. If you look at today's WOTD, charlotte russe, in the "Pronunciation" section you will see a black circle and the words "Add audio pronunciation". Clicking the circle allows you to make a recording using the microphone on your computer or device. The problem is that there is now something wrong with the gadget – the audio file created does not properly upload to the Wikimedia Commons. I reported this at the Grease Pit some time ago but either no one knows how to fix it, or no one is interested to do so. I wonder if you can assist in this regard?

I don't think I can see the black circle but I am guessing you are referring to User:Yair rand/AddAudio.js, which has been added to your personal scripts page.

The concept of the tool is great but I simply don't have the skills to repair it.

I don't think I can see the black circle but I am guessing you are referring to User:Yair rand/AddAudio.js, which has been added to your personal scripts page.

The concept of the tool is great but I simply don't have the skills to repair it.

No worries, then. I wish somebody did!

If possible we should promote this as a Wikiwhatever summer intern project (AGAIN) since the first bunch had a brave crack at it but didn't really hit the target.