Forum:CT:Audio files as a requirement for status articles

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Audio files as a requirement for status articles
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Oppose proposed changes. Imperators II(Talk) 11:25, March 15, 2019 (UTC)

This topic was originally brought up by me at the latest EC meeting, but it was decided that this is ultimately a decision that should be made by the entire community of this wiki, not just the members of the reviewing bodies. This is why I'm bringing this up to this CT.

My issue deals with how we should treat audio files in relation to status articles. Currently, there are no set rules pertaining to their usage there. The FAN, GAN and the CAN pages say nothing on the matter. For the longest time, the unofficial rule was that audio files were always welcome, but not required for an article to achieve status. However, in recent months, I've noticed an influx of objections on all three nomination pages, specifically pointing out the lack of audio files and asking the nominator to add them. This, as has been established, is not a valid reason to make an objection, since it's not required by the rules.

Personally, I think that our unofficial policy was perfect. I'm not opposing the addition of audio files, but I don't think that it's something that should be an absolute necessity. There's an argument that P&T info can be extrapolated from them, based on the tone of voice and somesuch, yet I hold the opinion that any such information tends to be highly subjective. One person might think that the speaker sounded angry in that quote, but someone else might say that the speaker was "sad" or "indifferent," you name it. It also should be considered that acquisition of audio files is often times a painstaking process, sometimes forcing the nominator to dig through hundreds of game files to extract a line of dialogue and add it to the article, for the purposes that consider to be purely aesthetic and unneccessary to the encyclopedic documentation of the topic in question.

That being said, I believe that it's time to set up some concrete rules on this matter. I therefore propose two options:

Option A Add the following line to the list of requirements on all three status nomination pages: At the nominator's discretion, audio files can be added to the article to provide audio reference for relevant quotes. The lack of audio files does not constitute a valid reason for objection by the reviewers, but their addition can be suggested in the "Comments" section.

Option B Add the following line to the list of requirements on all three status nomination pages: If audio reference material exists for the quotes used in the article, appropriate audio files must be added in every such instance.

I honestly do not see any middle ground here. We either go all out and make it a strict rule, or we codify our previously unspoken policy so that up-and-coming reviewers (and let's face it, even established ones) become aware of it. I realize that this might spark a debate, so I encourage everyone to do so in the discussion section. Please suggest any wording changes to the proposed options, suggest new ones.

Share your opinions. Let's hear them! (Pun intended) QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 13:46, February 26, 2019 (UTC)

Voting

Support Option A

  1. Per my reasoning above. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 13:46, February 26, 2019 (UTC)
  2. --Lewisr (talk) 13:52, February 26, 2019 (UTC)
    The FA process, in particular, is dead enough as it is. Mandating audio files is way too complicated of a rule and would be the final nail in the coffin for FAs. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 13:57, February 26, 2019 (UTC)
  3. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 14:43, February 26, 2019 (UTC)
  4. Per Brandon. --Lelal Mekha The Uprising crest (Audience Room) 14:48, February 26, 2019 (UTC)
  5. Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 14:50, February 26, 2019 (UTC)
    Cwedin(talk) 15:50, February 26, 2019 (UTC)
  6. I've been suggesting it in the Objections section and crossing it off as soon as the usual "I'll see if I can" reply comes. Know full well my own status article nomination would dry up would it be made mandatory. Fan26 (Talk) 16:23, February 26, 2019 (UTC)
    TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 22:54, February 26, 2019 (UTC)
    AV-6R7Crew Pit 23:58, February 26, 2019 (UTC)

Support Option B

Oppose

  1. I'm creating a third option to oppose this proposal outright. I strongly agree with and share the sentiment of the others voting in this forum that audio files should not be made mandatory. But this proposal, while well-meaning, is silly. We don't need a "rule" on the nomination pages telling people that audio files are not a rule. As ecks points out in the Discussion section below, the nomination pages clearly state that all objections must be based in site policy or will otherwise be considered invalid, which the three reviewing panels are perfectly capable of managing. While audio files should not be made mandatory, there are certain components of audio file use that should be codified into policy, such as editing out narrative text. That is something that can be explored in another CT and then added to the Layout Guide and/or Manual of Style, which then by extension is added into the nomination rules, which require full compliance with the LG and MOS. The nomination rules don't need to be burdened with trivial matters like this. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:13, February 27, 2019 (UTC)
  2. JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 01:09, February 27, 2019 (UTC)
  3. Per Tope. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 01:34, February 27, 2019 (UTC)
  4. I agree that we don't need rules and what is not a rule. MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 01:50, February 27, 2019 (UTC)
  5. IFYLOFD (Talk) 02:10, February 27, 2019 (UTC)
  6. --DarthRuiz30 (talk) 02:18, February 27, 2019 (UTC)
  7. The review bodies can control our own rules, based off the LG and MoS. We don't need a CT for this, as there is no policy to base the rules off. A future CT should work on putting mention of audio files into those guides. Tommy Imperial Emblem Macaroni 09:19, February 27, 2019 (UTC)
  8. Ayrehead02 (talk) 09:47, February 27, 2019 (UTC)
  9. Per my comment below. 1358 (Talk) 21:42, February 27, 2019 (UTC)
  10. Cwedin(talk) 21:51, February 27, 2019 (UTC)
  11. Not all sources like comics, young readers books, and reference books have audio files. This is just creating an extra layer of red tape. Andykatib 21:54, February 27, 2019 (UTC)
  12. AV-6R7Crew Pit 22:30, February 27, 2019 (UTC)
  13. Better. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 01:25, February 28, 2019 (UTC)
  14. Exiled Jedi (talk) 01:27, February 28, 2019 (UTC)
  15. Imperators II(Talk) 15:25, February 28, 2019 (UTC)
  16. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 13:36, March 4, 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

My personal opinions about the necessity of audio quotes aside, I honestly question if this rule amendment is the way to go about this. As it stands, audio quotes aren't—to my knowledge—even mentioned in Wookieepedia policy, let alone mandated. As such, there is no legal standing for objections regarding audio quotes; in fact, WP:FAN even says, under the nomination rules: "If you object, please supply concrete reasons for doing so, and how it can be improved. Please cite which rule your objection falls under, if possible. Failure to do so may result in your objection being considered invalid." I'm confident that all three review boards would be more than happy to strike objections regarding audio quotes, as there is no backing in policy or the nomination page rules. What I'd like to see is a MOS/LG amendment that ratifies the usage of audio quotes to begin with; something along the lines of "Audio quotes may be used where applicable". This would allow editors to (legally, policy-wise) include audio, while not mandating its inclusion. As an aside, there's a typo in your option A. 1358 (Talk) 23:17, February 26, 2019 (UTC)