Wikipedia talk:How to play Ogg files

A terminological debate

Silsor, thank you for your careful attention to this article.

I'd like to explain my deletion of "Vorbis".

My own connection to Ogg has nothing to do with the technology. Rather, I've been putting illustrative ogg files into articles I've been writing about classical music. The captions for these files (where space is at a premium), say "(Ogg format)", with a link to Ogg (I will soon change all these links to go to the "how-to" page instead).

Now, what I want is for people--even computer-phobic people--to be able to quickly know what to do in order to hear my files. I am experienced in guiding computer-phobic people through the use of software, and I would judge that it is very important to keep the information input to the minimum that is needed; otherwise people tend to just give up. Here, all they need to know is (a) that these files are Ogg files, and (b) how to play an Ogg file. "Vorbis" doesn't help here, and given the possibility of user discouragement, I believe it actually hurts.

Obviously, "Ogg Vorbis" is more accurate. However, this additional information, as well as everything else about Ogg, belongs in the Ogg article, or so I believe. Cheers, Opus33 21:32, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

FYI, "Ogg Vorbis" is not just an expansion of the title "Ogg", it's the actual file type that you are using. If you shorten it to "Ogg", you're talking about something completely different, the universal media file format that your sound data is stored in. This is the equivalent of having a page called "How to play .avi files" which only directs users to download the latest DivX codec. Misleading users leads to confusion in the long run. silsor 21:28, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Silsor. However, I think you are still not getting the point. Many users attempt to access sound files from the Wikipedia and are puzzled and dismayed when the computer tells them it doesn't recognize a file with the suffix ".ogg". In this sense, it is precisely an "ogg file" that they want to know about.

Would naming the page "How to play Ogg sound files" suffice to address your qualms? Opus33 00:25, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I suggest keeping the current page name and adding information on the other types of Ogg files that users might encounter. I will add this information myself if you like. silsor 00:39, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Silsor, I've made another try, again aiming at helping the newbie but hopefully less offensive to purists.

I think "adding information on the other types of Ogg files that users might encounter" would be a great idea, so long as this information is added to the Ogg article and not here. If the Wikipedia eventually includes Ogg files of other types (I've never seen any yet), then I think a separate newbie page ought to be created to cover them. Opus33 19:40, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why this page is rather redundant

Hi, I just wanted to point out that:

• there is already a page attempting to fill the same role as this one at Wikipedia:Sound, which contains more and better information (although it, in turn, is in need of further improvement, and may be replaced by something more like meta:Multimedia/Help:Listening to sounds soon)
  • which, incidentally, avoids the problem of "should we include 'Vorbis' in the title?" by using a much more memorable title
  • I think I'll make this redirect there
• in general, "self-references" to wikipedia within encyclopedia articles, such as linking to this page from Ogg, are discouraged. See Wikipedia:Avoid self-references.
• incidentally, you should always use the Move Page function rather than cutting and pasting, so that page history is preserved.
• most importantly of all, there is discussion currently underway as to how best to deal with multimedia files (including what the help pages should look like, and what policies and additional software features are needed in order to help people find them). Please read and take part in the discussion at meta:Multimedia

Thanks for being bold in this matter, and I hope my comments don't come across as negative; your contributions to meta:Multimedia would be very welcome. - IMSoP 19:29, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Use of the word "Ogg"

I think the use of the word "Ogg" doesn't really match your aim of "minimum necessary information". The only way in which users will notice this, is that the file is called "blah blah blah.ogg"; but that's not what they want help with - they want help with "this here sound file". Hence, the existing (yes, I know it's terrible) help page's location at "Wikipedia:Sound" is a very astute choice: as far as the user is concerned, that is exactly what it is about. Or perhaps "Sound files" or, if you want to be really verbose "Listening to sound files" The links can just say "help" or "sound help", if you like; the page itself can then mention the facts briefly:

All sound files on Wikipedia are in a format called "Ogg Vorbis".

I don't think this is too detailed, or confusing, just factual: people (probably) know that ".doc file" means the same as "Word file", so why should they not be informed that these ".ogg files" are "Ogg Vorbis files"? Furthermore, since they don't need to be able to spot the difference, they don't even need to think about it (there's no need to say "this is an Ogg file", just "this is a sound file"). - IMSoP 19:26, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi IMSoP, My rationale for using "Ogg" is that that's what people see in the original article. That is, it seems that those Wikipedia editors who are posting sound files almost always say something like this:

Click to hear (Ogg format, 37K)

Thus, when a reader of the article cannot hear a sound file, (s)he is likely to click on Ogg to try to figure out why. Therefore, as things currently stand, it's good to place the beginning of the "help" process at Ogg.

In principle, we could actually change all the articles that have sound files, altering the way they introduce them; this is a matter worth discussing. My actions so far have been oriented toward obtaining a quick fix for what I felt was a deplorable situation, and I'd like to leave my quick fix in place until a more thorough solution is agreed upon and installed. Cheers, Opus33 20:07, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Should we install a template in the individual articles?

Fair enough. I do, however, think that a much nicer solution is simply to replace all these links with something which is inherently more useful. I've just turned my example at m:Multimedia#Software features into a template (m:Template:Sound) which I actually think could/should be copied and used straight away, since it has multiple advantages over the current bits of text:

• confines the self-reference to one template
• provides links to both file info (such as copyright status) and help (for now, we can point it at the old page, your draft, or mine, I'm not bothered)
• lets us track all the affected files, and change the text for all of them with one edit. The only thing I think might be controversial is putting in a coloured frame like that - I was intending to emulate what's now common usage with images. But, of course, we can tweak things like that once the template is in use.

What do you think? Should we start using it now, even if something even better might come along later? - IMSoP 20:31, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My reaction is to proceed with caution before changing all those articles. The people who are doing the substantive work on an article are likely to resent efforts at standardization if they haven't been consulted. Better perhaps to check to see who has posted sound files, and first invite them to participate in the discussion. Opus33 16:09, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you're probably right, I did a bit get carried away. OTOH, part of the beauty of templates is that once the page has been set up to use the template, the actual look of it can be changed radically without having to fiddle with the individual articles (unless some new parameter is added to the template, that is; missing parameters don't get dealt with nicely by the current software). So if someone doesn't like it, they can just make the template look like the original text did that it replaced. - IMSoP 19:25, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)