Artifact or Artefact
Consistency does say "artifact" should be used however some sources think it is not simply a US/British English distinction and that false data is properly an "artefact". See: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/37903/difference-between-artifact-and-artefact . I use "artefact" in e-mails for false data. As far as I can see the term isn't currently used in the Manual.
- Peter 09Aug14: The sources I used to clarify what "proper US usage" (and artifact with the "i" appears be the preferred US form) is were:
- There are those who would say the more properly "artefact" is more accurate for something made by skill by human hand given the root of the word "arte" "with skill".
- Gale 09Aug14: You cite the same Stack Exchange article I do, which offers sources for both viewpoints. Probably this is like "cutoff" - what is correct usage is unclear and the more common usage in the US "wins" because we happen to choose US English here. So let Consistency stand.
Gale: Presumably if/when this is an approved GSoC Project it will be in the GSoC category (as a subcategory of it) or better (?) renamed to GSoC 2008 - Intuitive cross-fading? Also although we link to FFmpeg on GSoC Ideas, I don't think that page itself (FFmpeg) should be the GSoC 2008 project page?
- Federico: I'm not too clear yet on how the "talk" piece works, so I am simply adding my comments below. I'm ok with adding the crossfade project to the gsoc category, once it gets accepted. We can change the name (but I really think that is less important in the scheme of things ... I chose "crossfade" as it matched the ffmpeg page and it is easier to access directly than the "gsoc intutitive*" string). I had created a link yesterday from the gsoc ideas page to this crossfade project page (again, matching ffmpeg).
ffmpeg discussion should probably be on another page. Inn breif, if it is not not to be used for the project page, where should the ffmpeg project page be stored? To me it makes sense to have a project page to help centralize all pieces.
- Gale: The talk page of an article ("Crossfade" being the article in this case) is independent of the article and is used for discussing its specific contents. You could actually delete the article but retain its talk page if it contained a valuable discussion. Anyway, my view would be that the Wiki pages for the approved projects should include the exact string of the project as named on GSoC Ideas, then there can be no confusion. So if an FFmpeg project is approved, its Wiki page should include the string "FFmpeg integration". FFmpeg is much more of a background page that describes what FFmpeg is, for anyone who is interested. We could easily have a Crossfade page that discusses the subject (e.g. the steps needed to do it now, why and how we could do it better, linking to "Intuitive cross-fading" if it becomes a project), but the actual project page maintained by the student should have the name of the approved project IMO.
Similarly we have Audio Diff Notes to give background information on what Audio Diff does, and Label Track to draw together ideas on planning improvements in this area, but these won't be the project pages if the projects are approved.
In any case, we probably should not put links in article headers as we have done for example at GSoC Ideas#FFmpeg integration, for accessibility reasons.
- Carsten: Instead of writing a novel to explain what I mean, I decided to go the video route. You can watch the recording in 1024x768 on the web here: http://www.cumbrowski.com/lp/audacitycrossfade.asp. There you can also find download links to download the video in .AVI, .WMV or .MOV format. Cheers! --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 01:17, 13 November 2008 (PST)