This page is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles
Articles also marked with have been featured, with an audio link, on the Main Page.
But for consistency with existing practice, shouldn't it be the other way around? The Featured articles page has an image for spoken articles, and bold for appearance on the main page. I think this page should follow the established tradition, or else it can get kind of confusing. — Timwi 13:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree, and was considering implementing the change last week, but decided it was too much effort at the time. Joe D(t) 08:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So is there a good reason to have the same information listed "three" times on the page? --CGP 22:05, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, the information in the table should be merged into the sections. That leaves the info listed just twice (once by topic, and once automatically and alphabetically). — Chameleon 00:27, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Spoken articles should only be used for disabled individuals such as blind people etc... However I would really, and I mean really reconsider the people who are chosen to record and used to read out the articles, because so far they are all below average, with slurring, mis-reads and weird accents. You can't expect just anyone to do these with their computer mics (resulting in reverb and irritating interference), but I would strongly advise using professionals in audio-visual or audio-engineering instead. Piecraft00:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Low-quality work is better than none at all. Once all our featured articles are recorded, professional readers with professional equipment can re-record things for improvement. If any volunteer, that is. — Timwi19:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well going by current wikipedia standards, there is suuposedly no room for low-quality work. Therefore I still see no purpose for this at all, unless real professionals or individuals who know what they're doing are contributing or wrking alongside this project - which at the moment I do not see. But then again, this is typical to expect such a hypocritical system in Wikipedia. Piecraft20:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I would think Wikipedia must have started with a "Low-quality work is better than none at all" philosophy. But it's only due to the massive amount of contributions and edits from enthusiastic users that the quality and quantity of organization and content has come to the point where someone would say that the "current wikipedia standards" demand high-quality. I think read that the people in charge of Encyclopedia Britannica believe Wikipedia is doomed in the end because its peer review system is too random and free. I think it's exactly because Wikipedia trusts in its users' ability to spread, add, and improve, that Wikipedia has come to this point. Thus, I agree that low quality is better than none at all. If you find something that's low quality, hopefully that means you or someone else will decide to improve it one day.
Low quality recordings are inevitable. Equipment aside, not that many people have sufficient control over their voice and/or some accents make it sound low quality no matter what! I think that low quality is better than nothing - as long as people label their accents correctly. Why does the majority of US recordings have a "General American" label? Because most Americans believe that they and the people around them don't have an accent. Wouldn't it be better to get people to say where they have lived if they were to write General American? Temporal Fugitive (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which brings me to this suggestion or request - is there a page that could collect and award the spoken files for their high quality? And when I say high quality, I don't just mean sound quality, but I am talking about the quality of the speaker (so maybe it should collect names of users who are highly regarded for their spoken files). I'll go right ahead and give props to the spoken file for Rachel Green. I think the person who recorded this is a podcaster that has his own site at http://www.techonthefly.com/techonthefly/drupal/, but isn't particularly involved with Wikipedia. The first file he uploaded advertised his "techonthefly" site within the file, so someone (User:MarkSweep) cut that part out. In any case, the quality of the speech is very good. Kenumay20:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"...real professionals or individuals who know what they're doing are contributing or wrking alongside this project - which at the moment I do not see." — Semi-professional audio engineer and professional voiceover actor/announcer here. :D tgies06:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i added the hear it links because im from germany and would like to use this files to learn speaking and hearing english but my downloadmanager can only catch directlinking files and noone who have a site before. For the actually status i must write an extra ripper :|
I hope the use of this file is ok for wikipedia?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.146.210.136 (talk • contribs) .
I've reverted the new format because it would make the page too unwieldy if it was applied to all the spoken articles. If you need special formatting for your download manager, I'd suggest registering an account and using your User Page to make the formatted list. Thanks -SCEhardT03:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
look at the german page. You have there a more better overview as here! It likes bad is uninformativ and stupid for downloadmanager or people who want not have a second page to hear it. You must click 2 Links to hear it!
There is a discussion underway at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Hidden categories concerning what kinds of categories should be hidden (using the new HIDDENCAT magic word). For the moment it is proposed that hiding be applied to all categories which classify the article rather than the article subject (i.e. maintenance cats, stub cats, etc. and this category). Please weigh in. --Kotniski (talk) 08:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a category for visitors, not just for maintenance doing Wikipedians, so I would suggest to keep it visible. Jcbos (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the categories are awkward. Many categories are missing. Am I correct that anyone can edit the categories to make better sense? Alanasings (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been listening to a few of these on my MP3 player and really enjoy them. I wanted to suggest that it would be would a really great idea to start a spoken article podcast. Each week a spoken article can be chosen, one that is well written, and spoken and recorded, or may be just relevant to that weeks events. May be chosen by a vote or something. Then that article could be podcasted out. I don't know all the technical aspects that would be required, or weather it would need to be done some where else other than on Wikipedia. I just think it would be a cool idea and I'd love to help make it happen.
--The_stuart (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best way to manage that would be to set up a page where spoken articles could be nominated for this and then some kind of voting system perhaps? The seraphim (talk) 02:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I would love to do this. Is there a way to do it within Wikipedia and have an RSS feed? Or would we need to set up a whole new site? --The_stuart (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know this talk section is rather old, but I thought this was a good idea. There is also a great deal of talk about how it would be good to see more professionally done articles. I'm a voice artist with a few books (and other commercial stuff) under my belt and think a podcast is a great idea. I've currently done about 15 articles, mostly featured articles or ones that I find particularly interesting. I upload these articles to Wikipedia, but also to my podcast (www.wikipodcastproject.com), so people can get them as MP3's. The podcast also recently got accepted onto iTunes (http://itunes.apple.com/podcast/wikipedia-podcast-project/id517694217). If anyone has some feedback I'd love to hear it, or if anyone wants to get involved, I'm open to suggestions! S Whistler (talk) 09:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A podcast as a single person project, only with own recordings makes no sense in my opinion. Because: 1. It's likely to drop off after a few month. 2. You'll never get a audience which is worth the effort. --LordOider (talk) 12:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just set up a new mp3-Podcast for the German spoken Wikipedia (for more info, see here). What I do is taking the latest articles and put them in the feed. As there isn't much new stuff, I'll not sort anything out, as long as the audio-quality is acceptable. I don't think a vote will work, because the participation in the spoken projects is too little. Better offer more content and let everybody choose by itself.
I also thought about building a podcast for the English spoken Wikipedia, which won't be much work, as I can copy some parts and know what to do now. I just can't figure out how to get the latest entries. For the German I use the Catfood tool by Magnus (doesn't work always) with the category "Spoken Wikipedia - German". When I do the same with "Spoken Wikipedia - English" or "Unreviewed spoken articles - English" I get a mess of entries from the last 5 years. --LordOider (talk) 12:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
i used a text to speech program to make Syston & rearsby and will be using them on the other pages i am making. even though it takes a long time to ajust the timings for them, the output is very clear and understandable. also, having a voice what sounds like they know what they are talking about goes into your mind better.
also, in the software licence, the output is not under any copyright restrictions.
I just tried listening to "Syston". I don't like this artificial voice at all. It grates on the ears, unpleasant. Axl¤[Talk]09:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds just like every other text to speech software. Halting, grating and terrible. Wait 5 years and maybe google will finally get it right.--RaptorHunter (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this project would be useful at Wikiversity. It's sometimes easier to learn when listening to stuff, and it will be a great aid for visually impaired students, as many coursebooks aren't in braille. Thoughts? ManishEarthTalk • Stalk05:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
T2S and all other computer generated articles should either have their own section or their entries should be distinct enough to be able to tell that that's what they are without having to open them. If no objections arise, I shall proceed with making their entries distinct (I'm thinking underlined gray). Temporal Fugitive (talk) 07:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Done. Hope I didn't miss anything! Temporal Fugitive (talk) 10:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are many spoken articles that no longer bear even the slightest resemblance to the current text version. I think those articles (eg dinosaur) should be indicated in the list. Serendipodous20:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Goog idea. It may be the number as superscript which indicates number of years passed after the recording. E.g. the article Wikipedia3 was recorded 3 years ago. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If somebody want to create spoken version of article, which have some words/phrases in Russian, then I can record these Russian words for you and upload to Commons. Because Russian is my native language. I hope that the result spoken article (with mix of native Russian and native English) will be more high quality spoken article. :) -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 12:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All the podcasts I listen to include music and some have sound effects. - These can serve nicely as an audio equivalent of chapter markings and block text. However I haven't heard any spoken articles using these, and the result comes out rather dry. Is there a policy? Also, if an article about a TV show included background music from the show in question, (under me reading the article) would that pass as fair use? Algr (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For sure audio samples, sound effects, etc. could enrich a recording. As there is no policy, it's up to every speaker to be creative. Beside voiding copyright infringements it's also not easy to mix speech and music together on a even level. Background music tends to be annoying and as far as I know it's not a fair use, as you don't only play a sample (see: music samples). --LordOider (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For music beds and chapter markings, I'd use something royalty free, or something I wrote myself. I figured I'd play the first few seconds of a theme song for the title. Algr (talk) 04:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if there is a way to gain bulk access to (meta)data on the spoken wikipedia files, e.g. file length, user, accent? Which script or workflow would allow you to export this data into an easy table format? Anyone know of an easy fix, or willing to help make it happen?
Incidentally, are the data on files added only by the author, or also by later reviewers?
Is this page automatically updated via some categories (couldn't find local markings) or is this curated, and updated as the moderators manage too keep up? Pusle8 (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The page is curated. Adding your recording to the page is part of the workflow of creating a spoken wikipedia article (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spoken_Wikipedia#How_to_create_a_spoken_article). When you add your recording to the article, you add it to the appropriate section. I suspect the categorization would make it difficult to update this with a bot, but I think that there might be a possibility to have a less neatly curated list (maybe to double check that everyone's adding their recordings to this page). 0x0077BE(talk · contrib)14:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to record articles in my free-time, but I don't have very much of it. If I had an easy way to find short articles, are any strategies to optimize recording, it would be extremely helpful. Thanks in advance for any ideas!
Tanzensally (talk) 09:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see you noticed my many Spoken Wikipedia requests. I recently discovered the Spoken Wikipedia project and I just put in different articles on topics I felt were important. I included everything from U.S. Presidents (Abraham Lincoln, Donald Trump) to cars (Chevrolet Camaro, Ford F-Series, Willys MB) to video gaming (Nintendo Switch, Playstation, Casio Loopy, Burnout (series), Crazy Taxi, Q*Bert) to South Park (Matt Stone, Trey Parker, Mary Kay Bergman, With Apologies to Jesse Jackson, Casa Bonita, Scott Tenorman Must Die) to MLB Baseball (Boston Red Sox, New York Yankees, different world series) to popular tourism spots in the United States (Orlando, Florida, Virginia Beach, Virginia, Atlantic City, New Jersey) to popular movies (Satuday Night Fever, Miracle on 34th Street, Inside Out (2015 Film), Ferris Bueller's Day Off) to clothing brands and designers (Adidas, Aeropostale, American Eagle Outfitters, Calvin Klein, Hanes, Jockey, Nike, Ralph Lauren, Tommy Hilfiger) to a huge variety of other topics.
I like to listen to these while cleaning, working out, etc. and find the request tool very useful for gaps in Spoken Wikipedia.
To answer your question:
The Buick Y-Job was one of the first concept cars ever made by a major company, having been introduced in 1938 and having many features that inspired design cues on later Buick models.
"With Apologies to Jesse Jackson" has become a viral video on youtube, in addition to being the Season 11 opener of the South Park television series.
By the way, ThatGirlTayler (talk) does a great job with this stuff. You should listen to her recording of Garage Sale.
Sorry to sound so suspicious, but I know that projects like this (Graphics Lab would be another) a lot of the work gets carried by a very small number of people. Now that's fine when they're doing useful things that add value to the project, but it's not fair to over-ask for stuff that's not going to be of benefit to more than a small handful. My concern here was just that it was an awful lot of articles, all coming at once. For that matter, not everything gets to be "important". On average, things are only ever of average importance.
@Andy Dingley: That's very true not every article requested is important and it does increase the work load significantly. I recordt the short, silly article just for the fun of it, so it's all in good fun. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many articles use this template when the first word of the article title is "The" which leads, unfortunately, to an unnecessary repeat of "the". Can someone please fix this or at least tell me why you can't Jodosma(talk)20:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any way to ask for a spoken article to be updated/re-recorded?
There appear to be articles that were recorded as spoken articles many years ago where the pages have likely changed significantly since and need re-recording. Is there any way to highlight this? If not I think it would be handy if we could implement a way to highlight outdated spoken articles (perhaps a new template?). For example the spoken article for the Avril Lavigne page has not been updated in over 9 years. Helper201 (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great! I don't know how to do that. There are audio recordings going all the way back to 2006. Right now we have a limited amount of people recording audio so it's difficult to field requests. Peppage (talk) 04:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, many of the present recordings are that old or older. Most editors are going to prioritize recording entirely unrecorded pages before updating pages that need re-recording. {{u|Sdkb}}talk09:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not even a project page per se. I have removed the text "If you have more questions, please ask the project coordinator, {{u|Galendalia}} on their [[User talk:Galendalia|talk page]]." from the prominent box at the top of the page, because of concerns about ownership of content and Wikipedia's third pillar. There has been some discussion about this at User talk:Galendalia, and I would be surprised if there is consensus for adding this text, after all what has been discussed. If anyone else than the "project coordinator" agrees to include the text, I'd be surprised. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I edited one of the list guidelines, encouraging people to include the year of their recordings to this page when they add them, and I programmatically added the year to the majority of the recordings already here. (Specifically, I added all the ones which had a date format that I could easily get my code to recognise). With a little more work I could finish the job, coding to recognise some more formats, then doing any remaining troublemakers manually. However, before pressing on too far, I want to make sure people are on board with this!
There have been a few requests over the years from people wanting to identify which recordings are out-of-date, and I think this could help with that. Have a look yourself at the ones that are up to see if it seems helpful. I'm feeling a bit cautious because the page I edited is aimed at readers, whereas this change is definitely motivated by editing; however, the information could be useful to readers too, who may want to know when a recording's from.
I first tried adding the whole date, but that made the page look too cluttered, and so I think including only the year is a good compromise. (Even if it's a bit harsh on articles uploaded in December!)
Looking ahead: it could be even more useful to get more accurate measures of how much an article has changed – e.g. detecting how much the actual text of the article has changed since the recording, or whether the article has become good/featured quality since the recording was made – but that would take time and (probably) a bot, and just the date may be enough for now. (Such changes would need a seperate page, too, since all the info would clutter this one up a bit, and it'd be harder to justify the value to non-editors.)
I completely agree with you. The article's contents at the time of recording should be checked against the current article and a percent difference should be calculated. However, an audit of the information might be more useful and a drive (if this was an active project) to replace those recordings.
As it stands now, with the project having so few recordings, newer recordings are more valuable so I don't know how useful redoing the recording is.
I don't personally have a need for the year but I also don't mind it's there. I don't know if it's obvious what the year means when you first land on the page and skip the intro text as everyone probably does. It wouldn't block someone finding articles though. Peppage (talk) 04:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Peppage – Yeah, though I think the date (and, ideally, percentage similarity) is useful information to factor in when choosing a recording, among other factors, but I definitely wouldn't suggest re-doing a recording *just because* it already has one, especially when the project is this quiet.
GhostInTheMachine – I don't think it's a high priority to fill in the rest of the dates, but there's also not much of a reason not to if you want to. :)
I think the page could do with a restructure, to make it easier to navigate for listeners, and to make it easier for editors to know where to put their recordings. I have a draft for one almost ready to go on my sandbox (feel free to have a look here), but since it's a substantial change, I thought I should flag it up early instead of surprising everyone.
This started off as I was trying to shift around a few of the recordings for more consistent organisation. Then, seeing how pages like Wikipedia:Contents and Wikipedia:Vital_articles are organised, I started using them as guidance, and, well, one thing led to another. (This is what happens when you're keen to work on recordings, but your neighbours are doing DIY all day...)
I could understand that people might be attached to this layout, and as a relative newcomer I might not be aware of its advantages. Nevertheless, I reckon it's a good move to change it now, since it brings the structure more in line with other such overviews within the encyclopedia, and when the list on this page grows further, many of those other pages will provide a useful example for how to manage that structure. Lastly, I personally find the proposed structure easier to navigate, though I'm definitely happy to be disagreed with on that point! At the very least, I think having a separate "People" section is a very useful and unambiguous category.
What issues are the changes solving? There's still some confusion where some items should go. For example, Monofilament fishing line, Research & Development Establishment (Engineers), and Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. If we're going to make sweeping changes like this then we should identify the problems. I'm not sure many readers use this page since it's difficult to find which ones are new from the last visit. I expect most find the recording on the article they're interested in.
I have a few questions,
Is the unsorted a placeholder or permanent?
Are the headers not in alphabetical order for a reason?
At this point isn't "Everyday life", society, culture, and internet culture all the same thing?
Should Biology be a sub-header or should we move up animals and plants to the same level and remove it?
Are the history divisions too difficult for editors to place an article? (I base a lot of my decision where to place an article on which WikiProjects are on the talk page)
Some of the changes are good. It does make it easier for editors to know where to add people which is nice. A separate people section for every header would be enough? Especially renaming it from biographies. Journalism needs its own section to differentiate it from literature. I like the Physical sciences too.
So you know, the original organization is based on the WP:FA and WP:GA lists.
The main issue's a subjective one, which is why I thought I should edit cautiously: I personally find that a more hierarchical system makes it easier to see related articles, and to identify gaps where subjects don't have many recordings. Obviously it doesn't (and couldn't) resolve every ambiguity. At the very least, I find it easier to have fewer, broader headings (like Physical Sciences), which are then divided into smaller subheadings.
The main reason it changes so much is this: when was struggling to adapt the current system, I tried using the Wikipedia:Vital Articles system as a model instead, because it was similar to a lot of the other methods of categorisation I had come across, and because following an existing example felt like a better idea than inventing yet another system by myself.
Regarding the questions:
"Unsorted" was definitely a placeholder, as were the ugly <<extra notes like this>> on the page. (Both are gone now.) Some of the "General" or "Miscellaneous" categories that are still there are still quite loosely defined, but that could still be good if someone who's done a recording knows what broad category an article should be in, but isn't able to pinpoint it.
The headers are in the same order I found them in over at the vital articles pages. I think the rationale is to keep similar things together (the broadest categories first, then ones relating to people and society, then science and technology), but I'm only speculating. Many of the subheaders are currently in quite an arbitrary order, and it would make sense to alphabetise them. (And within each category, I can definitely re-alphabetise the articles that have been knocked out of order!)
The distinction between "Everyday life" and "Culture" is from the vital articles again, and admittedly it seemed a bit arbitrary to me too – or worse, it felt like it was sorting everything into "low-brow" and "high-brow" concepts. For the sake of consistency, I decided not to tamper with it. There were enough articles that fell under "internet culture" that it seemed worth its own subheading. Some of it makes sense, though admittedly other parts (like "culture" especially) are a bit of a grab-bag, even if not as much as they were.
Re: biology, animals and plants: I'm not sure which levels you're suggesting moving things to, but I don't expect there's a major problem either way. Unless it's a more fundamental issue than I realise, this could be figured out afterwards.
As for the history subdivisions, I thought it made sense to split it up a bit because of the large number of recorded history articles. Most of them are sorted by period, which I feel *should* be easy enough to manage if the subheadings have appropriate names. (I personally would have found "medieval" more intuitive than "post-classical", but on the other hand, that's because of my own European perspective that ignores world history as a whole.) There was originally another category, "History by subject", but there weren't any recorded articles that seemed to fit into that right now.
Thanks for pointing me towards the source of the organisation! I hadn't seen anything similarly organised before, but there's a lot I've not seen.
Anyway, in short: I think I should branch off some "People" subheadings as you said, and that it's worth splitting up some of the very long sections into appropriate subsections (and if the ones I used for history don't work well for other people, then something else that works better). Though the other suggested changes appeal a lot to me personally, I'll hold back unless they get stronger support.
(What would a good heading for the people subsections be, though, if not "___ biographies"? "War people" and "Music people" and so on sounds fun but a bit silly, and e.g. "Musicians" would exclude music producers, etc.)
Helllo, I completed my first recording which is found in the music section. However I seemed to mess up the upload part because it has a page on here but a duplicate on Commons. I looked at the instructions on WP:CMF but this seems to be from an older version, made me more confused. The recording itself is okay. I know for the future I will just use Commons...
Is there an place in this project (or another project) for people like me who have been recording the poems that are in some articles? ~~~ Back ache (talk) 11:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Back ache, the poems usually are presented in the Wikisource. I recorded several audio files with poems, uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and added links to Russian Wikisource. See, for example,
These categories already do a good job of categorizing science related articles. Placing them all in one absurdly broad "Science" category would be pointless. — Toast for Teddy (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could spoken versions of articles be created for Simple English Wikipedia and/or other languages? I am interested in creating spoken audio files over there. It seems like spoken articles would be particularly useful there. Thoughts, anyone? Alanasings (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Abiogenesis is listed here, but the article does not seem to have the audio files attached to it? Should it be removed from the list of Spoken articles? Alanasings (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is somebody querying the Wikipedia category for articles not yet included in this list and then adding them manually to this list or how does it work? This list even includes information of the article version date so I wonder how people notice when a recording is replaced with a newer one and to then update this list with the newer date/file. Does it show all the 1837 wikilinks? There seem to be some Wikipedia articles with spoken article audios that are not set in the respective Wikidata item (and also vice versa).
Here is a query for all Wikidata items with the spoken text audio value set with the language qualifier English. (now 1692)
have been featured, with an audio link, on the Main Page.
for spoken articles, and bold for appearance on the main page. I think this page should follow the established tradition, or else it can get kind of confusing. — Timwi 13:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Done Derfel73 (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)