Wikipedia talk:Featured sound candidates/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Contents

Open questions?

Are there any actual present disputes about particular sound samples, other than the Dvorak clip above (which I will listen to in the next few days)? Please list them here; that seems more productive than the present desultory arguments about procedure. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to discussions. Controversial files are noted there. --Kleinzach 02:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
And which of the files does anyone still regard as controversial? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
All of them. None of them have been dealt with. --Kleinzach 00:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Should we be using phonograph recordings unless they have historical importance?

Even the best phonograph recording that are featured are not as good quality as some of the worst modern recording we have. I think that we should only promote a phonographic musical recording if the recording itself is notable, as otherwise our recordings we not be that high quality. I am not trying to slight anyone for finding and restoring phonographic recording I just do not think they are featurable. I think a consensus agreement is needed on this issue so we do not get support and oppose based on quality on all phonographic nominations. Zginder 2008-11-08T20:33Z (UTC)

Yes, we should use LPs. The best phonographic recordings have higher sound quality than CDs. (Few of them are out of copyright - but that's what fair use is for.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I was talking about wax cylinders from the 1910's and earlier and not LP's from the fifths. Zginder 2008-11-11T02:31Z (UTC)
Actually I don't think many wax cylinders were made after 1912. --Kleinzach 03:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
In general I agree with Zginder than the key criteria for the use of phonograph recordings should be historical notability - definitely the case with recordings dating back to the early 20th century. (Perhaps PMAnderson has missed the point here?)--Kleinzach 02:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Most recordings from the 1910's are notable. Can we feature them all? If we don't, we should certainly make sound quality one criterion, which can be compensated for by truly remarkable historical interest. (Edison's first recording, for example, or the Edison recording of Brahms' own voice, which does not seem to have been uploaded.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Many recordings were made between 1900 and 1920. Sound quality depended on the technical process used - and what was being recorded. Voices and single instruments recorded much better than groups and orchestras. IMO the importance of particular recordings really depends on their relevance to particular articles. The problem we've encountered again and again here is that the FSC process isn't properly related to actual articles and after approval links are put in inappropriate places.--Kleinzach 03:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Anderson, where is the recording of Brahms's voice? Do you have access to it? Tony (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Try this. Not the access, rather a little clue.--Vejvančický (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
You have to join the Yahoo group to hear it. Yes, that's the one I was thinking of, although I have heard versions over the radio which may have been slightly cleaner. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Rejuvenating Featured Sound process

Featured sounds are not a very active part of Wikipedia. At the moment, there are only 86 FSs, compared to 1486 FPs and even 132 featured portals. After a discussion on IRC between Mitchazenia and I, and we decided Featured Sounds needed to be rejuvinated. We decided that we could update the portal page itself, finding ways to get the word out about FSs, and close FSCs on time.

So here's the problem: FSC has been lacking a regular closer for a while now. Just a few days ago, I found some nominations from October in there. Shoemaker's Holiday did that formerly, but as he explained in a private email, he left after drama. So now, after closing about 10 FSCs, I think it's time we need to appoint some actual directors, like WP:FA and WP:FL have. Recently, Mitchazenia added him/herself, Shoemaker, and I as some directors, as some people who are regularly willing to close noms. Before making it official though, I'd like to get some more opinions on it. What do others think? Xclamation point 07:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If you read the discussions above, you'll see there were widespread concerns expressed about the standards, transparency and general purpose of FSC. Do you intend to help address those concerns? I see you are offering to both nominate candidates and close them. How exactly will that work? Also how did you add yourself as a director? Where exactly was this done and how does it work? Thanks. Best. --Kleinzach 08:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I second Klein's post. Tony (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I have no objection to being called a closer and any be able to to it, but, we are to small to have official directers. Zginder 2009-01-07T15:22Z (UTC)

Current U.S. speeches

I just uploaded Bush's farewell address to commons at would like to nominate, but I need an article to post it in. Also, I would like to have Obama's inauguration address as soon as possible after the 20th. Any help with these things would be appreciated. Zginder 2009-01-17T01:50Z (UTC)

Why not just add it to George W. Bush? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

A nom was removed without explanation

Featured sound candidates/La traviata was removed by the nominater Shoemaker's Holiday. An explaination would be helpful. Zginder 2009-01-29T20:09Z (UTC)

Noone had voted on it, and I thought I might be able to do better if I tried that one again. I didn't think it mattered, given my noms have been almost universally ignored. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Still very unhappy about the !voting system

That a nominator needs only one person to support, with one oppose, seems vastly too easy a system. I am disappointed that this has not been addressed. It's also still unclear whether co-nominators each get a vote, in which they can override a single opposer. Tony (talk) 09:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm also disappointed that after this issue has been raised and discussed in detail in the past — with a majority of editors asking for reform — we still have this loose, unrigorous system.
'Certifying' the importance of almost all FSCs causes a much larger problem. Once a recording is passed, it is then invariably added to a maximum number of related articles. There is still no system for determining the relative suitability of particular recordings in relation to particular subjects. To give an example, a historic recording of a singer that is appropriate on a biographical page for that individual singer, may not be appropriate for a page on an opera (from which it comes), or on the page of the composer of the work. However the nominator (or whoever) invariably seems to add them to all regardless. --Kleinzach 09:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Rewording of the voting procedure notice

The present text at the top of the main page explains:

If a nomination is listed here, has at least three votes, including the original nomination, has been on this page at least one week, and has a majority (at least 66.6% or 2/3) of supporting declarations (including that of the original nominator) in its favor, it can be added to a Wikipedia:Featured sounds list. At the moment, this process is not well monitored, so nominations are allowed to run until a consensus emerges.

I suggest we tighten up the criteria and adopt the following text:

If a nomination (i) has at least three !votes, not including that of the original nominator, of which a supermajority (at least two-thirds) are in support; (ii) has addressed all actionable shortcomings in relation to the Featured Sounds Criteria, and (iii) has been on this page at least seven days, it may be added to the Wikipedia:Featured sounds list. At this stage, the FSC process is not well monitored, so Nominations are allowed to run until such a consensus emerges.

Please agree, disagree or suggest other wording as appropriate. Regards to all. --Kleinzach 08:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I think this change is long overdue. We need to shift the emphasis from vote counting to the addressing of issues raised; this change was made more than a year ago in FAC, and I think it pertains now to FLC. It's essential to a quality process. As you all know, I do not think it is proper for a nominator's support to be counted. As well, we have a statement that there's no rush to promote or archive because the page is not monitored as much as we'd like ... not yet, anyway. Tony (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Prefer removal of the wording "At this stage, the FSC process is not well monitored, so..." DurovaCharge! 15:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you want the whole sentence taken out? --Kleinzach 23:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The second half of it is fine. But the first half is unnecessary. DurovaCharge! 23:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
OK. That's alright by me. --Kleinzach 00:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Remove first half of last sentence? Sure. Tony (talk) 04:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Good. I have now inserted the new text. Thank you. --Kleinzach 01:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Good work, Klein. Soon, it might be worth trawling through a few related, big articles to attract more reviewers. Tony (talk) 06:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Why has the number of required reviews increased, when the number of actual reviewers has not? If noone objects within three days, I'm going to revert back to three votes including the nominator - because it's very clear that that's all the project can handle at the moment. Nothing's been promoted in, what, two months? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's a little early, but I won't be back on for a couple days, so I'll make the change. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Signpost doesn't announce FS promotions

It announces other categories, including the rare F Topics ... but not Sounds. Why? Can someone remember to let them know next time a nomination is successful? [1]. Tony (talk) 06:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the Signpost doesn't seem to be working from any of the notice boards, which is, kind of mad on their part, since all such featured processes update them. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

missing featured sound

What happened to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%EB%B0%95%ED%96%A5%EB%A6%BC_%EC%98%A4%EB%B9%A0%EB%8A%94_%ED%92%8D%EA%B0%81%EC%9F%81%EC%9D%B4.ogg? —Ruud 20:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind, I found it here. —Ruud 20:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, some [commentary deleted] on commons decided that, oh, no! We can have files in Cyrillic, but never Korean. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 184 FCs served 21:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Commons

Since there is currently no featured sound system over at the commons, is it ok to nominate sounds from commons for featured status here so long as they are included in an article, or do I have to upload it to Wikipedia as well? Ks0stm (TC) 16:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Files from Commons can definitely be nominated, and if you check the current featured sounds, most (all?) of them actually are from Commons. They do have to be in use in Wikipedia, though. It's actually preferable to upload free (as opposed to fair use) sound files to Commons rather than Wikipedia, and featured sounds are required to be free anyway. (And yes, I'm aware that I'm about five months late with this answer.) Jafeluv (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination Closing Bot

I would like to design a bot that would automatically close nominations. It would follow a process like this:

  1. It would check the age of the nomination.
  2. If the nomination is at least 7 days old it will check the supports/opposes.
  3. If at least 6 (I'm just making up a number, I'm very open to suggestions here) people have commented it would tally things up.
  4. The bot would then add a message asking a human to confirm it's assessment of the nomination - whether it's consensus in support, opposition, or it needs more time.
  5. After a human has verified, the bot would then proceed to close the nomination (or wait, if no consensus) and take the corresponding actions.


Is this a good idea? If so, what do you think might be good thresholds for both number of comments and percentage in favor? RandomStringOfCharacters [T] 22:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this would be a good idea. The Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates page has a procedure for closing: "(i) has at least three !votes, including that of the original nominator, of which a supermajority (at least two-thirds) are in support; (ii) has addressed all actionable shortcomings in relation to the Featured Sounds Criteria, and (iii) has been on this page at least seven days, it may be added to the Wikipedia:Featured sounds list." I, however, have always found this to be a fairly low standard for number of votes, especially if we began using a bot to close them. 6 !votes sounds good to me. Jujutacular T · C 04:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps using a sliding majority for the number of votes? Starting at 0.83 in support and getting closer and closer to 0.67 in support with every additional vote above 6. This may be overkill though, but the bot having higher standards for lower numbers of votes seems like a good idea to me. RandomStringOfCharacters [T] 06:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Yea I like that. I just reviewed the current nominations and realized 6 would be bit high. Many of them currently only have 1 or 2 comments. Jujutacular T · C 19:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Featured sets

I have proposed a new featured content type which may be of interest to featured sound contributors. Please feel free to join the discussion. J Milburn (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Au Clair de la Lune (1860).ogg

According Phonautograph, File:Au Clair de la Lune (1860).ogg is twice as fast (or near that) as it is supposed to. They list File:1860-Scott-Au-Clair-de-la-Lune-05-09.ogg as the correct playback speed. Should we remove featured status from the first and give it to the second? --Chrismiceli (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Free pubic domain sounds website

I just wanted to make sure the group was aware of this website [2] since I just found it. Remember (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The site gives the disclaimer "In japan, All files open to the public on this site are certainly lawful. But, if you do not live in Japan, You might do not have to use files. You should check the law of your country." So unfortunately those great Furtwängler recordings, and probably the rest as well, aren't PD in the US. ThemFromSpace 15:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Whoops. Damn. Remember (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

FSCs needing closure

There are two nominations that have clear consensus to promote, both months old. I have closed most recent FSCs; however, I am involved in both, and as such should not close them. If an uninvolved editor could evaluate the nominations and confirm, it would be appreciated. Once confirmed, simply place the following code at the bottom:

'''Promoted Example.ogg''' --~~~~

The two nominations are:

Simply confirm, and I will complete the closure process. Many thanks. Jujutacular T · C 15:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. There is consensus for the edited version of the purring cat, and there was consensus before I had commented on the NZ anthem for it to be promoted. Had I realised that it was open to me to close that as promote instead of commenting, I would have done so; so I have struck my !vote and promoted it. I can't imagine there's a problem, but if there is, then someone else can unstrike my vote, strike my promotion and append their signature instead. BencherliteTalk 16:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Jujutacular T · C 17:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there consensus to close some of these yet? Views requested

The oldest current FSC nomination has been running for 14 months. The next has been running for 12 months. It does FSC no credit to have nominations running on for so long, so what do people think? The numerical threshold for promotion is "at least three !votes, including that of the original nominator, of which a supermajority (at least two-thirds) are in support". The current tally is as follows (including nominator support in the "support" count):

  • Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Sergei Rachmaninoff
    • 3 supports, 1 conditional support, 1 oppose. No comments since July 2010. I'm inclined to say that this is a "close as promote".
    • Now 3 supports, 1 conditional support, 2 oppose. I'm not inclined to close this at present as discussion of the latest oppose may follow. BencherliteTalk 01:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
      • More opposes, but one of the opposers has previously supported, so I've asked for clarification. BencherliteTalk 17:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Handel - messiah - 44 hallelujah.ogg
    • 3 supports, but unaddressed comments about fixing the dead source link. There's a clean-up tag to remove the applause, and two other people agree with this; one does not; one is neutral. Seems to me that there is consensus to promote IF the applause is removed and if the dead source link is fixed.
    • Issues resolved and closed as promoted. BencherliteTalk 17:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

For completeness, Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau, Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/United States Navy Band - Inno e Marcia Pontificale and Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/File:Mimus polyglottos.ogg each have 2 supports. They are not yet ready to be closed, but would be promoted with one more support.

Comments on this assessment, and on the candidates of course, welcome. BencherliteTalk 13:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

14 months? :S. Promote it please. Maple Leaf Rag, yes. No consensus on Patriotic Song. Leave Handek there. Problem solved.Mitch32(Transportation Historian) 19:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Mitchazenia. Imzadi 1979  20:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Are you saying "close as no consensus" or "keep open until a consensus emerges"? BencherliteTalk 20:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd agree with promoting of the Maple Leaf Rag and the Prelude in C♯ minor, both are important and valuable historical recordings and the poor sound quality is undertandable and acceptable (and the consensus is quite clear, given the low participation). I share Tony's concerns about the Patriotic Song, the quality standards for modern recordings should be higher, our featured sounds/files must be perfect or at least close to perfection. I've already commented at Hallelujah. I'm still a bit concerned about counting the votes of nominators, but this was discussed here many times. Thanks to Bencherlite for reviving this forum. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 21:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have promoted Scott Joplin but not the Rachmaninov, since that now has an extra oppose vote. And, in the law of unintended consequences, so has my own FSC nomination(!) BencherliteTalk 01:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Re the applause in Hallelujah, what program would that require? I'd do it myself but I don't think there's any specialised sound editing program in the Adobe CS4 Suite. —Ancient ApparitionChampagne? • 2:39pm • 03:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Audacity - it's free, easy to use. Jujutacular talk 06:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and applied the requested edits to this file on commons. ThemFromSpace 06:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I've added my votes to the above (oppose for the Patriotic song, weak support for the Handel). Well done everybody! Thanks for continued interest in this, and for closing the Maple Leaf Rag nomination. Merry Christmas in advance. Major Bloodnok (talk) 08:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

New userbox

As a numerical counterpart to {{User Featured Sound}}, we now also have {{User Featured sounds}} to match other userboxes for other featured content. Enjoy! BencherliteTalk 15:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for a dedicated closing account

It's a well known fact that the closing procedure for featured sounds is a long and painful one. I struggled with it, I've seen other users strugle with it, but most disturbingly, I've been told that people decided not to close nominations that they otherwise would have if the process was easier.

What compounds this is that at the current time, there are only two users that perform closes on a regular basis, X! and myself. I really don't do them often because I either nominate or vote on everything at FSC, leaving only X!, which isn't fair to him.

To that end, I present user:FSC Closer, an alternate account of my creation, designed to close FS nominations. This would solve the problem of not having enough closers by allowing people who would perform the close themselves (if it were not so painful) to instead authorize the close. For an analogy, think of it like mowing the lawn. A homeowner could mow his lawn himself, but it's hard and unpleasant work. Instead, that homeowner could hire the neighbor kid to mow the lawn for him. The Homeonwer controls if and when the lawn gets mowed, and is ultimately responsible for the lawn, the neighbor kid just does the grunt work. In this process, an FSC regular is the homeowner and FSC Closer is the neighbor kid. The decision to close is still the FSC regular's, FSC Closer just does the other nine implementation steps.

Please click on the link and read over the process that I've outlined, then come back here to leave comments and vote on it. Thanks, Sven Manguard Wha? 02:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd much rather know who is closing what. It's working OK at the moment, aside from the inherent conflict of interest allowed in the voting system. Tony (talk) 11:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
If we get more people closing, then this would be unnecessary. At the moment though, it's all on X! and X! isn't going to do it all. We either need more closers, a bot to cut the steps the user does down, or this, preferably in that order. I could walk you through closings and I'm sure Adam knows how to do them as well, but they need to get done. Satie - Gnossienne has been waiting to be closed for weeks. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Scrapped Superseded by the section "Adam and Sven" below. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Disparate Voices & Lost Transmissions

I have a rather odd request. As I've been looking over the various talk pages with the featured sounds collection of pages, I can't help but notice that requests and notices placed at this page seem to elicit faster and more numerous responses than the rest.

I propose that we archive the current conversations at Portal talk:Featured sounds and Wikipedia talk:Featured sound criteria, and place messages at those pages, as well as the currently redlinked Wikipedia talk:Former featured sounds and Wikipedia talk:Featured sound candidates/Featured log directing (soft redirecting) all conversations to this page.

Another option would be to soft redirect those above pages, as well as this page, to Portal talk:Featured sounds.

Either way, a lot of things seem to be going unnoticed, and queries unresponded to, because of a lack of attention to those other pages.

Thoughts?

  • I agree. Answering newcomers' questions quickly would help with retention. Jujutacular talk 03:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Having one port of call is better than many. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Seems sensible. Major Bloodnok (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done With so many other things going on at the moment, I figured four was enough. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Goddammit

Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Template:FSCnom.2Finit_and_Template:FSCnom.2Fintro

There used to be templates to set up the nomination. Someone deleted them.

The whole purpose of them was to make sure that promoting featured sounds was as simple as possible, given all the random places Featured content needs to be linked, by standardzing the templacte, and making sure nominator knew to make the description of the sound detailed and well-written enough to be useful on WP:FS.


How did noone catch that?

Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I just poked some admins to restore them, and Timotheus Canens just did so. Now if you could put them where they belong, that would be great (as I have never seen them in use before.) Sven Manguard Wha? 02:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Nevermind, they went back on their own. I already see how they make things much easier. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I've expanded the intro, maybe too much. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyright on recordings

Some of our recording and a lot more scattered through out Wikipedia and Commons have the wrong and misleading copyright tags. Many countries including the United States have different copyright laws for recordings than for pictures which most of the tags were designed for. In the United States, federal copyright never applied to recordings before February 15, 1972, only to the underling work. copyright of recordings was instead handled by the states. It is therefore wrong to use PD-US, PD-1923, or PD-old commons tags on these recordings. For all U.S. PD works we need Template:PD-US-record, Template:PD-Edison_Records, or PD-self. Zginder 2009-04-04T00:25Z (UTC)

Proposal to reform the voting instructions

The voting system for FSC has not been updated for some years, yet other featured-content processes have evolved significantly. I've listed two proposals for your consideration. We can do both of them, one of them, or none of them, depending on consensus.

  1. Support threshold. The number of support votes needed is increased to ≥4 [up from ≥3]. Submissions would still require a two-thirds majority support of the total vote.
  2. Conflict of interest. Votes by editors who contributed to the production of the file – including musicians, speakers, recordists, and editors who restored the file before the nomination – are not counted, but these editors may comment (if doing so, they must declare their role). Restoration done after nomination does not of itself invalidate the vote of the restoring editor.

Comments

  • Support Both We have to balance the fact that there are talented wikipedians that contribute their own work and want to be recognized with the inherent harm that conflict of interest, or the appearance of such, would cause to the reputation of featured sounds. All that being said, I still think allowing people to nominate their own work shouldn't be disallowed. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support increasing threshold, oppose COI - I understand the concerns about those voting who have a conflict of interest, however, I'd imagine those that do regularly vote/participate in discussions on files they created or edited would know better than to make a biased comment/vote. It hasn't been a problem and still shouldn't be a problem, putting into consideration that most, if not all, of the users that participate in discussions are very sensible and experienced users. —Ancient ApparitionChampagne? • 4:02pm • 05:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support both de jure proposal. This is the way I've been doing it in the past, and it's kind of common sense. (X! · talk)  · @261  ·  05:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support increasing threshold, oppose COI I feel as though knocking out anyone who might have a conflict of interest would be counterproductive. Besides, by increasing the threshold, it would be the same as keeping the vote level at four and eliminating the vote of anyone with a conflict of interest. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support COI, question It's only ethical that contributors to an audio file shouldn't vote. However, as Sven has mentioned, uploaders should be able to nominate their own recordings. I have one question, though; what would we gain from increasing the number of support votes needed? Nomination processes are sluggish as is. —La Pianista 06:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support both, of course. It is high time that FSC was updated to professional standards. Other featured-content processes don't put up with even the appearance of CoI, and nor should we. Ancapp says, "It hasn't been a problem and still shouldn't be a problem, ... most, if not all, of the users that participate in discussions are very sensible and experienced users." Errr, that's not the point. Please see, for example, the FA instructions. If standard CoI avoidance (i.e., appearance of CoI, like ... one of the two pillars of natural justice) isn't built into the instructions here, I don't think I'll bother with the process any more. The increase of the threshold to 4 is welcome, although I think we'll need to go to 5 when the process gains more credibility and dynamic interest. Tony (talk) 10:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: I just want to point out that there is no COI rule at FPC, FSC's closest relative. The votes of the people involved with the picture do count towards the overall result. J Milburn (talk) 13:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
It is something that needs to be changed. Tony (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose both We just had a nom last for a year from lack of voting and we want to make noms harder to close. This is non-sense. Why do more editors vote to raise the number of voters than the number who vote? Zginder 2011-01-08T16:27Z (UTC)
  • Neutral to (1), oppose (2) -- Increasing the threshold is a good idea. There's a danger that sub-standard files may slip by because so few people are required to vote. The thing is, the project doesn't get enough attention to support raising the vote threshold. Once it does, I'd support that. I don't think COI is a big issue. All other Featured content processes automatically assumes the nominator supports the promotion. Additionally, FLC and FAC require only the primary contributors nominate. Only FPC readily allows drive-by noms of other people's work, and if the nom isn't the author, I'm sure the author would say something if they oppose. Matthewedwards :  Chat  17:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
So you don't even have to declare that you recorded the music, or performed it, when you vote? Tony (talk) 05:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support both. They make sense to me. Even if a handful of additional people get engaged in this seemingly low-volume (har har) process, the vote threshold should be easy to meet. On the COI front, I see it this way: If someone nominates their own work, they are saying, "I think this is good enough. Do you agree?" Their "vote" does not count, as with FAC. If someone else nominates it, I believe it appropriate for them to field comments and questions here, but not register a vote. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Andy. It is my view that the standards need to rise before we worry about the lag. I'd rather have lag than poor standards. Tony (talk) 05:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment FAC and FLC don't have numerical thresholds (neither does FPoC, and that's about as quiet as FSC). Why does FSC need numbers? Shouldn't we just get rid of the need for a threshold, and trust the closer to judge consensus (including declarations of interest)? If we're into changing things, would it also be a good idea to archive nominations that have gone stale with not enough comments to judge consensus, as at FAC and FLC? Nominations that linger are off-putting and give an unhelpful view of project activity e.g. this 14-month nomination. BencherliteTalk 08:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Featured pictures has a threshold and a strict deadline, but I've never liked that arrangement: some good candidates fall by the wayside, and it's too easy for drive-by voters to influence the proceedings. On the whole, it works very well because of the quality and integrity of the editors who run it; but I worry sometimes. In my view, it would be MUCH better not to have a threshold at FSC, to have a director or two like FAC and FLC whom we can trust to be neutral, to have only a preferred time-limit (say, two weeks, but extended informally where the director(s) think it's appropriate), and to promote FSC reviewing in the community. Setting up a revamped process would itself be the platform for increasing traffic on the page. (I am not interested in being a director, but I think Sven Manguard and someone should come forward and offer themselves for endorsement!). Tony (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, umm, thanks for nominating me... Seriously though, if it's decided that we go back to a director system, which I will note FS has had in the past, I would take the job (if the community wills it, of course) if only because I want to see it done, done right, done efficiently, and considering how bloody tedious and mildly complex the promotion processes is, done right. Now, mind you, I'm not an old hand around here. I'd really love to have someone with some experience, or better yet, a few someones, help me. I'd personally nominate X!, as he was a director before, and I'd nominate Bencherlite and Jujutacular, as looking back to recent months, they have performed between the two of them the vast majority of closings, and perhaps a few other people that I know that closed in 2009. I'm sure other people have other picks. That being said, I'm, not entirely sure that a "director" is a good idea. A while back, I flirted with the idea of a group of "experienced closers" that could be listed somewhere, and would perform the bulk of the closings, but would not have the fancy authoritative title of "director" and would not tacitly shut out other people performing closings. It's something to think about. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
No comment on myself being the director, but the idea of having one or two of them does seem like a good idea. If I do get informally nominated, though, I would be more than happy to go through with it. (X! · talk)  · @027  ·  23:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Both Increasing the threshold depends on the number of contributors to the page - in my brief experience of it I am not convinced that enough Wikipedians regularly go to this page. Should that change (getting a featured sound on the Main Page would help) then I'd support the idea as per comment by Matthewedwards. The COI should be decided on a case-by-case basis. A conflict of interest is not necessarily a problem. As long as an interest is declared, then there should be a process which decides whether the COI is severe enough to make the vote void. Why should a recording of an orchestra loose a vote just because one of the string players happens to be an editor? In the case of say, a musical performance played, recorded, and edited by a wikipedian, then the community might feel that they cannot vote (and in fact nominate) their recording as a FS. A strict COI rule would prevent the latter, but also prevent the former. In don't know enough about wikipedian management proceedures and processes to comment on the "director" issue, but more individuals being given the opportunity to close nominations sounds sensible to me (as per Sven Manguard) Major Bloodnok (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose both: Don't let theoretical best practice kill what is still a marginal featured process. Once it's on the main page, then it can be worked on. As for COI: there's no indication of any problem whatsoever, and, where there would be (e.g. everyone in a 30-person performance is voting support) then I believe we're savvy enough to deal with that on a case-by-case basis if it actually happened. But let's wait for actual evidence of a problem before changing it; FPC, after all, has run for, what, 5 years, with similar rules to here, and has never had any sort of trouble. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose both for now. I believe the support threshold could be raised in the future, but the project is not ready for that right now. "COI" isn't really a problem, because as Adam says above I think we would be able to deal with any issue sensibly when and if it arises. Jujutacular talk 22:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


Results at the moment

Right, so it's been just over a month, we've had 12 people cast votes, including just about everyone I've seen participate in FS over the past three months, and I doubt that we'll see much of anyone else casting votes if we keep it open any longer.

As it stands neither proposal got a super-majority of 2/3rds. The proposal to raise the threshold has with 6 in support and 4 in opposition (60% support) while the proposal on conflict of interest has 5 in support and 7 in opposition (42% support).

Good points have been made on both sides, and I urge the closers to keep in mind that maintaining high standards is the cornerstone of the title of "featured" While the community has decided not to adopt either of these statements, I would still encourage closers exercise their best judgment. (For example I certainly would give additional time to a nomination resting on 67% support, especially if there were only three votes and one of the supports was from the performer.) As X! said, these are not new ideas, and closers have historically erred on the side of waiting for additional voices, especially during the era of higher participation. Many people also mentioned that if cases of COI did emerge, we could deal with them on a case by case basis.

I hope that we do see an increase in participation. If we can get half as many votes on submissions on a regular basis as we saw here, FS would be in better shape. I also hope that, as indicated, FS stands by its apparent commitment to recognize and deal with COI when it arises. As neither proposal has received a strong consensus, I feel it is time to close this discussion for the time being.

Thank you all for your participation, and don't forget to check FSC regularly. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I certainly think that we could raise the number of votes once we have a little more activity; I just don't think now is a good time, since, in the end, the process needs regular output to attract more participation. Let's work on getting this on the main page, then we should be able to raise the limt without problem. As I mentioned above, there was widespread support for a second FP alternating with FS on the mainpage, and I believe Howcheng, the FP head, expressed support, as more than 7 FPs get promoted a week on average. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Are there enough good promoted files for regular main-page exposure?
If you're asking what our best of the best is, I'll comb through the portal and find you some things. Like FA and FP, FS isn't exactly uniform in quality, but I can generate two dozen of our best as soon as I'm done writing this. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Here are some of my personal picks. I'm sure other people would have other picks. Everything I have here I think is main page worthy. The ones with the gold stars though, those are the ones that just blew me away.

My picks: (I only got to the pre-1900 sounds at the time of this writing)
Symbol star3.svg File:Victimae Paschali Laudes.ogg or File:A Chantar2.ogg by Makemi. Both of these are superb medieval chants.
Symbol star4.svg File:Toccata et Fugue BWV565.ogg is outstanding. I'd stick this one on the main page on October 31st, just for the cliche factor.
Symbol star3.svg File:Mozart - Eine kleine Nachtmusik - 1. Allegro.ogg is another piece so well known as to be cliche. Still though, it's quite good.
Symbol star3.svg File:Pierre Gaveaux - Polacca from the opera Le Trompeur Trompé.ogg, an opera.
Symbol star3.svg File:Sor Op 11 No 2.ogg or File:Sor Op 31 No 1 Rec 2.ogg, the two best of Jujutacular's guitar pieces.
Symbol star4.svg File:Beethoven Prometheus Creatures Op. 43 No. 14 - Andante.ogg is another outstanding instrumental.
Symbol star3.svg File:United States Navy Band - Inno e Marcia Pontificale.ogg, a solid performance of a national anthem by the U.S. Navy band.
Symbol star3.svg File:Camille Saint-Saëns - The Carnival of the Animals.ogg is, well, a full orchestra piece, so it probably should be reviewed by Adam and Tony before it goes on the main page. I think it sounds great, but I don't know how it's supposed to sound.
Symbol star3.svg File:Sarasate - Navarra Op. 33.ogg seems pretty good.
Symbol star3.svg File:Jeanette Ekornaasvaag - Jules Massenet - Werther - "Va! laisse couler mes larmes".ogg is one of the few opera recordings free of background noise, and seems like a good performance.

Other notes:
Symbol star5.svg There's got to be a few from the 1800s block, which are mostly operas. I, however, can't pick out one from the other. They all have the background noise inherent in old recordings, and I really can't stand opera singing, so I can't listen closely enough to tell good from bad.
Symbol star2.svg File:01 - Vivaldi Spring mvt 1 Allegro - John Harrison violin.ogg made the main page on January 15, 2010.

  • I presume we want a higher standard than the DYK hooks that engulf so much of the main page. The third item above (BWV565) is pretty robotic (i.e., lacking in musicality). Good articulation; the instrument is a bit brittle. It's not the worst recording I've heard, but not enough of a deal for the main page. Music is such a difficult thing; WPs don't specialise in it, unlike written text. I'm nervous about exposing these files in such a high-profile place.

    Nor do I want to be a complete wet blanket. I know the US Navy Band file, which is at a professional standard. Eine kleine Nachtmusik ... first chord is bad; the chord before the pause seems to be choked off before you get to it. Hmmm. More vibrato than Mozart would have liked, and more than is typical nowadays for the early Classical style. A certain boxy feeling to the recording. The tuning is just a tiny bit off in a few places. Juju's Sol pieces: I listened to the first. The sense of melody: legato and a greater volume in the melody compared with the accompaniment would be welcome; the melody has to sing. The execution of the unspread chords seems inelegant, but I may be ignorant of the style (does the score say not to spread them?). At least one of the strings (in the tenor region?) is not quite in tune. Possibly experiment with more reverb in the acoustic, with related adjustments to the miking. Tony (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you pick what you thing is the best of FS, and we can all go over the various lists that people have created and decide which ones to feature on the main page, if the opportunity presents itself. The only on I really want on the main page, which I didn't even list there, is the Hungry Lucy song Balloon Girl, which is my favorite from that album. A side note, if anyone is able to convert it into a file format that my iPhone can play, or can tell me how to do so, I'd be very happy. Audacity is being mean to me as of late. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


Without having had the opportunity to go through the list of Features Sounds thoroughly I can't make a list of personal favourites. However, a thought did strike me; while the music performance quality question is an issue for some of the recordings we have, why not concentrate on the "historical" recordings and the "nature" recordings in the first instance? The world's first sound recording (of Au Clair de la Lune) would seem to be a prime candidate for the first semi-regular featured sound on the Main Page.
On another note, I have found Goldwave (see here) to be a OK sound editor. It should be able to convert the off file of Balloon Girl into MP3 or WAV etc - I don't use it now, but I used to use it a lot and it seemed to be fairly user-friendly. Best of all it's got a free evaluation period. Major Bloodnok (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Respectfully, I don't think we have enough Featured sounds to be that picky. If we choose all our favourites for the first month, what will we put up after that?
Obviously, we'll want to pick some astounding ones for the first week, but after that, I'd suggest just doing it more-or-less in order of promotion. However, if we manage to get a lot of new material of high quality, THEN we should begin dropping some of the older ones. =)
Remember, once we're on the main page, the exposure should cause an increase in submissions. At that point, we can begin considering some for delisting. Until then, some variability is to be expected, especially for some of the historical recordings. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I do agree with you. If a sound is not felt to be good enough for the main page as an example of the best Wikipedia has to offer, then one does have to wonder why it's featured. Having all the FS on display we have in order of promotion (say) would be a sensible option. Or perhaps by date, with any significant anniversary being celebrated with an appropriate sound. A community favourite to start with would be a great idea though. Major Bloodnok (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Date of promotion seems better than date of publication, as if we do it by date of publication, we'll hit a point where we've got 30 grainy operas in a row. We could also generate a semi randomized list that would ensure that the submissions that make the main page aren't too similar to each other on consecutive days/weeks, although it would be just as simple to check that for the other methods and tweak when necessary. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a start

Well, for Wikipedia's tenth birthday, a FS is on the Main Page today! If this were a recurring event, FS might actually get participation, which would ease a lot of concerns above. Maybe it's just a dream. But it's a plausible dream. (X! · talk)  · @758  ·  17:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I suppose one good sign is that Featured Sounds has apparently attracted the attention of Raul654, who if my understanding is correct, has influence over the main page.
I came up with an idea a while back called "Sound Saturdays" or "Sound Sundays" in which we would, instead of asking for a spot on the main page every day, we'd have a sound on the main page once a week. This will give us a foothold, some attention, and will have a more manageable requirement for FS generation. At once a week, we have at this time over two years worth of sounds. At once a day, we have less than a year of sounds, and cannot possibly keep up (since sound uploads are a tiny fraction of total uploads, even if we get the participation we might not get the sounds themselves.) Perhaps if we get enough support behind that we can pitch it and see what happens. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
One of the concerns with doing a FS for a day is that FA is promoting more than 1 a day, so they have a backlog that can't be cleared. 6 FAs a week will just make it worse. (X! · talk)  · @842  ·  19:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah. For the record I don't want to displace FA on the main page. Nothing is to say we can't add some space to the bottom. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I think monthly would be a start, it would encourage more participation in FSC. Considering what Sven said about the number of Featured Sounds we have I think it'd be best to display them on a restricted but regular basis. Thoughts? —Ancient ApparitionChampagne? • 11:59am • 00:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Monthly would be a great start - maybe it would encourage more editors to contribute.Major Bloodnok (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
A long-standing proposal that only really needs a little effort to push it oforwards is to have a second FP on the main page, which would be replaced qwith an FS on specific days, e.g. Sundays. Howcheng has expressed support for the proposal, and it only needs a little effort to get it implemented. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

File Rip

There's a featured article on the Checkers speech that has a very lousy copy of the speech, complete with a screeching sound in the background. Two questions. First, can we replace it somehow with this version, or second, barring that, can we clean up the current version? Thanks, Sven Manguard Wha? 17:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Musical performance standard

I've voted on two recent nominations; the Bach Cello suites and on the Magic Flute Overture. Both performances had issues which did worry me, but for former I chose to ignore them, and for the latter I thought that it undermined the whole track.

My problem is that I'm not entirely sure how to judge performance as only part of the FS nomination; the Criteria says it should be of high standard - obviously high standard is in the eye of the beholder (or ear as we're talking sounds here), but should the musicality of a performance not be important too and be part of the FSC? I have had a brief look through the archives and I recognise that there has been an awful lot of discussion over the current criteria, but could there be some guidance at least? I know I am a newcomer to the whole Featured Sound Project, but I don't know what the community thinks about these standards.

Of course not all sounds which come up for nomination will be musical ones so my concern does not apply in these cases. For the musical sounds, I feel that when there are significant errors on the part of the performer this would surely count against a nomination to be a featured sound (wikipedia's "best work") unless there was some other reason which made it especially notable, or otherwise reduces the significance of the errors of tuning etc. Should a performance of a piece of music necessarily be of "professional" standard equivalent to anything found on CD by established record labels?

I'm feeling my way here - I don't quite understand how to judge this aspect of a recording so some guidance from more experienced editors would be appreciated. Major Bloodnok (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it should be a good (or notable) performance for the song. I don't think we should judge the song itself, though, except for the obvious cases - for example, if someone nominated an original composition because there were no out-of-copyright examples of a musical genre or style, then judging the song itself is meaningful. Otherwise, I think we should concentrate on the performance, recording, notability of the performance and so on.
The one important thing, though, is we should be careful about insisting on world-class performances of, for example, orchestral works (which need a lot of musicians), when the cost, huge numbers of musicians, and expertise necessary for such recordings may make it impossible to get recordings of extremely high quality under an appropriate license. Orchestral works (for now) are going to be of somewhat lower quality than solo works and small ensembles, but as featured sounds gain visibility and prestige, we may be able to improve on this later. Perhaps we could encourage one of Wikipedia's spokespeople - Wales, Gardner, etc - to schmooze with some performance groups or festivals; but until then, I think that we should consider comparing with what else is available under an appropriate licence.
Obviously, FS, like FP, should be a moving targget. As and when things start becoming available of higher quality, the older ones should be reconsidered in this light. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I personally have almost no musical ear. I judge entirely on the quality of the sound, the encyclopedic value, and whether it meets the other requirements of the FS criteria. That being said, I am grateful for people like you and Tony who do have that ear, who can listen to something and say that it isn't technically sound or accurate. By all means, if you believe that it isn't sufficiently technically sound or accurate, oppose it. No doubts, no regrets. Featured article and picture nominations are examined for technical quality and accuracy, Featured Sounds should as well. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy to have that reassurance that we're not after a "perfect" performance; that (to echo Adam Cuerden) its a "good enough for now" performance which we are after. While obviously there is no such thing as a "perfect performance" especially for an orchestral work, if the consensus is that we can confirm as a featured sound the best recording we have given resources available, then I can change my vote for the Mozart overture and this will help guide me in the future. In the Mozart example, the problems with the brass section are acceptable given the nature of the work and that it is free and of a high technical recording quality. Should a "better" performance of the work come to light then we can obviously readdress the performance. Many thanks both for helping to explain that.Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Adam expanded his answer since I posted mine. I want to comment his statement "I think that we should consider comparing with what else is available under an appropriate licence". On the surface this seems like a good idea, but (and while I'm probably saying something everyone already knows,) it should not be used as a justification when the performance just isn't good. There might only be on free use recording of a musical piece, and we're not asking for perfection, but it still needs to be a high quality recording and it still needs to meet the FS criteria. Where an individual editor draws the line for "high quality" is up to that editor. I probably draw it lower than most because I'm not sure how it's supposed to sound. Tony and Major Bloodnok draw it higher because they know what the heck they're doing. Vote how you're comfortable voting, and don't be afraid to leave comments in the nomination page if you're on the fence. It'll (hopefully) all balance out in the end. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Obviously, we cannot just consider the recordings we have of the single piece, but we can look around what we have in similar music to judge the standard we should hold it to. For example, we have many very good recordings of chamber music and single instrument works, and so such recordings should be held to a very high standard, matching the excellent performances we have. However, the majority of symphonic recordings are generally very amateurish, so the bar is somewhat lower.
Other things we could use to set a standard might be Youtube. Not the professional recordings, of course, but if a number of amateurs perform similar works as well or better, then we should instead be doing outreach to those high-end amateurs.
A Wikipedian created this, so we can expect single instrument works to be at least as good as this, for this difficulty level.

Problems playing this file? See media help.
Here's a professional recording, which we were lucky to get. It's also to a very high standard, and the piece is one of the most difficult in the oboe repitoire.

Problems playing this file? See media help.
This sample of the Diabelli variations further confirms that a lot of great stuff is available. We should have high standards here

Problems playing this file? See media help.
Some examples: Jujutacular does amazing classical guitar recordings. While I believe he does mostly the medium-difficult works, not the most difficult parts of the repertoire, what he chooses to do, he does superbly. Hence, we can expect classical guitar, and, by extension, most single-instrument recordings to be of a very high standard, though should someone brave very difficult pieces, we might cut them a little more slack. We have a lot of excellent pieces of this sort, some examples are to the right.


This is typical of our symphonic recordings. While fairly well performed, the recording is awful, clearly an afterthought to a live performance. Plus the name of the soloist on the "cough" isn't documented, which is a flaw for such a prominent soloist.

Problems playing this file? See media help.
A somewhat mediocre performance, rather poorly balanced between the instruments and a bit more exuberant than precise. Great for articles, but not our best material, and so not really good for use here..

Problems playing this file? See media help.
This one is really quite good, and would probably be promoted if nominated (Though the several minutes of applause really needs truncated)

Problems playing this file? See media help.
However, for symphonic works, the general level is much lower, so some minor flaws can be tolerated. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comments.
  1. Adam, I'm puzzled as to why you concentrated on a particular genre, the "song", in your first response. Do you comments apply to other genres of musical works?
  2. "I don't think we should judge the song itself"—again, assuming you mean "musical composition": there's a lot of ordinary music around. Some of it is even by notable composers. It's a delicate balance between the quality of the composition, the quality of the performance, the quality of the recording, and encyclopedic value (the last including the existence of related featured and non-featured content on Commons). A superb rendition of a boring song (i.e., voice and piano) by Wolf or Mendelssohn has to be considered carefully, especially if we have similar material.
  3. Major, I'm glad you raised this matter. I don't disagree with your decision to support the solo cello recording and reject the Magic Flute overture. The opening of the latter is underwhelming, and there is a noticeably bum chord 2/3 of the way through. On the plus side, we have little orchestral music at Commons, and this is a good standard by comparison, and a live recording. But I could easily be persuaded not to lower our standards for this one: a studio producer would have insisted on another take of the passage in question, and a studio conductor would have put the wind up the brass before or during the session.
  4. "I personally have almost no musical ear." Sven, this is of little practical importance. I see all nominations at FPC in my role as author of The Signpost's "Features and admins" page. It has been an eye-opener, since I consider(ed) myself a newbie at judging pictures and now have a much better idea. Mind you, their excellent glossary helped a lot: to me, there's no hard-and-fast boundary between the technical and the artistic. Tony (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Replies to Tony, in order:
  1. I'm using "song" colloquially, to refer to any recognised musical composition, but excluding such things as, for example, a demonstration of the major, harmonic minor, melodic minor, and modal scales, or a comparison of the same note played on different strings of the violin, or a semi-exhaustive rendering of all common guitar chords. There are some things that might pass FS on informational value, but which shouldn't necessarily be evaluated by the criteria I set out.
  2. I think that if you, for example, hate Bela Bartok's Out of Doors (a reasonably notable work, but one that is somewhat strange and unusual), that shouldn't be a criteria in judging the work for FSC. Notability is still worth considering, but I don't think we should be too hard-line if the composer's notable and it's a good example of the composer's work and style. Now, there's a lot of room to wrangle about where exactly the line falls, but I think everyone should agree that we should never insist that only the most famous compositions of a composer should ever be considered, turning ourselves into a greatest classical hits. My personal opinion is that:
    • If the piece has its own article, it obviously satisfies notability.
    • If the piece is a part of a very large work - for example, an opera - any non-trivial example from it is very likely to be sufficiently notable for FSC if the larger work is notable.
    • If the piece does not have its own article, look at how it's used. If it adds significantly to the articles it's in, it probably gets a pass, because:
    • All featured sounds must be in at least one article. If a featured sound isn't in an article, and cannot reasonably be added to one, then it should be delisted.
  3. I think the Magic Flute Overture is an example of one which may be replaced in future, and would likely get delisted if the quality of symphonic/orchestral recordings rises. However, insisting on a quality that no examples actually reach is probably counter-productive: One of the biggest benefits of a featured content project to Wikipedia is attracting talent and material, but if our expectations are too unrealistic we prevent the people who might be excited by the project from contributing. The Magic Flute Overture is better than some published CD recordings I have, and is easily in the top tier of Wikipedia's symphonic content. As such, I think it should be featured, with the possibility of a later reevaluation as the process's standards evolve.
  4. [No reply needed]. Adam Cuerden 01:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


  • Comments We definitely have to put some consideration of the performance standard of musical pieces. As Adam stated above, and this is true -- most of the pieces I have recorded for Wikipedia are medium-difficulty. I play more difficult pieces just to myself, but I don't have these to the standard that I would want others listening to them, let alone nominating to be featured. It is definitely a journey that the project will go through as more people become involved and standards raised. For example, with FPC, standards were much lower in the early years than they are now - and the project has responded by continuous discussion of the criteria and by delisting old images that are found to no longer meet the criteria. No doubt, this will happen if this project progresses. Jujutacular talk 22:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Replies to Adam: I think "song" should be avoided in favour of "track". I have no problem with the Bartok work you refer to, but, you know, file after file of Alkan's piano music (third-rate Liszt) promoted to featured status would be enough to make one vomit: it's just flat, and I'd start to draw the line. I don't disagree with your numbered responses above; isn't there already a criterion to the effect that a FS has to be used in at least one article?

And importantly, why do we not adopt the concept of "encyclopedic value", which seems to work well at en.WP FPC? I note that Commons FPC doesn't have this criterion, but then, they don't have articles, do they. Tony (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I follow your point. My impression is that all, or nearly all of the tracks are in either 1. articles directly on their subject (E.g. Diabelli Variations, Purr), 2. In articles on the creator of the sound (e.g. Antonio Pasculli, Jimmy Carter), or illustrate the history of recording, and so are in articles on the recording medium and such. Can you give some examples?
If you mean that we shouldn't feature too many uninspired works by the same minor composers, it's a fair point, but one a little hard to adjudicate. We need to avoid systemic bias - for example, Fernando Sor and Antonio Pascuilli are major composers for their instruments, and we wouldn't want to block half the high-end repetoire of those instruments through ignorance. And, of course, we certainly would want to be extra careful about non-Western cultures: We may be able to say that Alkan is a minor composer, or F. Osmond Carr, but Oppaneun punggakjaengi is one of the most famous songs in Korea, and I doubt anyone ha heard of it unless they saw the nomination.
So, yes, encyclopedic value should be a criteria, but it needs applied carefully. There's strong educational value in introducing people to somewhat more obscure works that they probably won't have heard before, instead of just doing the Classic FM style of greatest hits and isolated movements.
At the same time, I agree we don't want to just put the entire output of, to use a concrete recent example, Josh Woodward, a marginally notable artist, into featured sounds.
There's definitely a balance to strike, but I think striking that balance is a little more complicated than simply agreeing that they need to add to articles. If nothing else, consider this: if we had the complete works of Alkan, it would add great encyclopedic value to List of compositions by Charles-Valentin Alkan, making it a near world-class resource on his works. But would it serve Featured Sounds' educational purpose to include them all, and fill the main page with them? Probably not, particularly as that rôle could be better handled by featuring the LIST on the main page.
Anyway, I don't think any of the current featured sounds or nominations lacks encyclopedic value. Could you pull out some examples? Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
"There's strong educational value in introducing people to somewhat more obscure works that they probably won't have heard before, instead of just doing the Classic FM style of greatest hits and isolated movements." For the main page, I disagree. Who wants to give classical music a bad name, very publicly? Tony (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Would it necessarily discredit classical music? There's a lot of fantastic music that isn't particularly well-known, and I can't really believe that you intend to say that presenting, say, Elfentanz would instantly discredit classical music, so I'm probably misunderstanding you somewhere.
If this is about the historical recordings of classical music, they'll obviously need carefully spaced out, and I may well pull some of mine from the rotation to give better variety, but I don't think we should deny Wikipedians a chance to hear what such a famous singer as Caruso sounded like, for example, so long as we carefully mix in the many, many modern classical music recordings we have. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd certainly pass the Popper, even though the piano is way under in the balance and there's a certain fuzziness about the whole recording (done in 2010? ... sounds historical.). I wonder why it was passed at FSC when the details of the performance are not provided. Who recorded it? Where? We know when. But the list that Sven gathered on this page makes me feel nervous. So we need 100 per year? Tony (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Being on the Main Page has a lot of cachet. The number of new recordings provided to Wikipedia should increase as a result, particularly if we get a press release. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


Adam and Sven

I'd be very happy if these editors nominated themselves to be the official closers. Other featured processes have benefited significantly from having a directorate. Raul endorsed it for featured list candidates, and the regular editors seem to keep that office running smoothly and practically. We need stability and leadership here! Tony (talk) 03:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to be a closer. I should mention though that I end up nominating a lot of stuff, and have been asked by others (including Tony1 and Raul) to nominate stuff. Obviously, I can't close on those, so we'd need a second closer. If Adam wants to be that person, that's fine. Way up at the top of this page X! also said he'd consider doing it if he were asked. X! is also a fine choice. Both of them have done it before, if my memory serves. Personally, I'd prefer having three closers, because that would give leeway to Adam, who clearly knows his stuff, to weigh in on the technical issues I am still learning to catch, and it would give me leeway to keep nominating stuff. I also want to make it clear that having official closers should not rule out other people closing. We can't say "You can't do that" to the rest of the community (although I would like to say "If you're going to do it, as one of us to help you through the process the first few times.") Sven Manguard Wha? 03:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I acted as the main closer for a long time here. What I generally did (when necessary) is to ask a neutral party to make the judgement call as to whether it's promoted or not (which is the only part of closing where the CoI is relevant), then did the rest of the closing - which is just copying stuff around and maybe some light copyediting of the description - for them. In any case, I'd be happy to start closing featured sounds again, but this time we really need to get them onto the main page. =) I'll poke Howcheng and see if he still supports the plan we had a while ago, and, if so, push for its inclusion. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I had an elaborate plan proposed above, but your solution of having a neutral party authorize the close works just as well. I've actually done that before, if I remember correctly, it was with FD, who initiated the close but had to leave shortly thereafter. It's good to have you aboard, and yes, getting things on the main page would be excellent. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Official closers: I'd envisaged more than just clerical duties. At FAC, Sandy and Andy tend to keep tabs on things, niggle-naggle where necessary (as quasi-reviewers, but juggling such intervention with what needs to be a slightly distant and very neutral role all the same). Sandy has been instrumental in raising and maintaining standards at FAC over the years. The guys at FLC, which I raraly visit, seem to be doing a fine job; they don't have a numerical voting system. FPC, amazingly, seems to work without a formal directorate; but I don't expect their system to succeed elsewhere by default—only where there's already a strong ethic and trust among the regulars. (BTW, my observation is that it doesn't work well at FPC when nominations fail through lack of votes within the strict time period for nomination; and it doesn't have a good way of dealing with drive-by supports.)

The first thing to do would be to determine whether regular users and others here are willing to support the appointment/election of official directors to close the noms. If they are, I could contact Raul654 and ask whether he would endorse this system, as he did for the FLC process three years ago; it would add satisfying aspect to the change. A directorate could exist alongside the numerical voting formula we currently have, but would obviously make easier any future trend towards a greater role for closers in interpreting the judgements of reviewers (i.e., less emphasis on arithmetic). It also opens the opportunity to extend noms based on a neutral assessment of the situation. Two directors would be better than one, given RL pressures. Tony (talk) 06:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

FPC kind of has a director: Howcheng handles all matters related to the front page. But I agree with your proposal. Note that I'm fairly liberal when it comes to promotion: While I will refuse to promote if I see copyright issues, or meaningful documentation issues, I am very unlikely to refuse to promote against consensus if all basic FS criteria are met, since I think that a director's job should not be to overturn consensus based on his or her own judgement.
Would it help if I made a list of what I think should be a director's role? Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


We should probably make this official: quite simply, if we're going to be on the main page, it's going to need to be someone's responsibility to prepare things for the main page. Since I'm probably the only person ehre who's made a backend for a featured content section before (Featured media on Commons), you're probably stuck with me as the code guy, but, hey, I'll make sure it's well-documented, so if you need to throw me out, you can. ;)

I'd suggest that me and Sven start it off; we'll probably want to get a few more people involved after a while, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This is main page once a month, yes? I am very nervous about the ability of the existing FSs to sustain a regular high-quality main-page presence. Tony (talk) 04:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Now that it's looking like a Main Page FS is a likely proposition, I am actually interested in being a director, as was mentioned above. The only reason I wasn't to into the idea before was because I was not sure that a director was even needed. However, now that what happens here ends up on the welcome mat to Wikipedia, it really should have one. I'll throw my hat into the ring now. I've also started to make a mockup for how the coding would work at User:X!/Main Page FS Mockup. It's not very far yet, but the coding should take me far less than a month to complete. I would also be glad to be a "code guy" for the Main Page, if necessary. (X! · talk)  · @909  ·  20:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If my reading of the old Portal:Featured Sounds was correct, there used to be three directors. One was X!, another was Adam, the third was Durova. I'm no Durova, and I doubt that I'll ever have the impact on all things "File" namespace that she did, but if the FS community would have it, I'd be willing to take her place as the third spot. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I support all three of you (X!, Adam, Sven) as directors. I believe this would help in the jump-starting process of this project. Jujutacular talk 02:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Sounds like a good idea. Major Bloodnok (talk) 11:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support all three, but only if we don't lose their comments and opinions from the promotions page. Three reviewers is more than we can afford to sacrifice from the process. If one or two want to weigh in, they could ask the other director to be the more "neutral" closer? Should Raul be involved in endorsing this? I want to flag that I will be scutinising and mostly objecting to nominations for music files on the main page. If there are to be two a week (the current proposal), I suggest that only one movement be highlighted, without on-page links to the others; that is, users could link to the other movements/tracks via the description page, but we would not blow all of Lucy in one go, yes? Need to ration out the good ones. Tony (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Responding to your last point: For things we can easily get more of - for instance, there's a TON of good recordings of Bach on Wikipedia - we'll probably present the full thing at once, but Hungry Lucy is an underrepresented genre, and an album has a much looser connection between the tracks than, say, a symphony. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I know myself, and while I don't know Adam, I have some indication of his personality thus far. From that I can assure you that your concern of losing voices on the nominations can be put to bed. Adam and I continue to vote and nominate, and in those cases where we both do so, X! closes. It's worked fine so far. When I'm dead neutral I won't vote, but otherwise I always do, and that won't change no matter what outcome this closer/director resolution sees. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Main page proposal

See here. If an administrator would like to put this in the site notice, it may be helpful. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been told that the best way to get out the word is WP:CENT with a link at WP:VP to the centralized discussion. Perhaps someone who knows those areas can do that as well? Sven Manguard Wha? 01:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, if people can, can they drag that conversation back on topic, as necessary? People keep wanting to talk about other featured content processes, but I'm the one who has to code the backend, and I categorically refuse to include doing the weeks of code for other featured content processes as well, unless those processes have a good, workable proposal for how that section will be used, that gets the support of the community. A main page section has, like, 10-15 templates each, and while some duplication is possible... Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What featured sounds needs to decide about main page procedure

Multi-part works

Of course, in practice, this would end up handled on an ad hoc basis to some extent - For instance, we might want to treat the Hungry Lucy album as individual songs (since they're useful to give variety) even if we generally show the whole set at once. Still, we need to choose, so choose!

More questions once I start on the actual code, which'll be after the vote. =)

Select one file from the set, and show only that, ever

  • Advantages: Simplifies code and logistics
  • Disadvantages: Hides good material, ruins any continuity the set has.
Votes:

Show selected files from the set, each on a different day

N.B. It has to be selected files, because some parts of a set may not stand on their own. For example, if we had a complete opera, we wouldn't want to try and include 20 recitatives, even though we'd want them for completeness.
  • Advantages: Simplifies code; shows all files that can reasonably be shown from the set.
  • Disadvantages: Ruins any continuity the set has. Logistically difficult, as the parts will need spaced out.
Votes:
Support per my comments above. Need to ration the good ones; visitors can easily access the others via the description page; it would be sufficient to include a note that a main-page file is one of a set, not to link them all on the main page. For classical music, I have no issue with linking, say, the third movement alone of a three-movement work. Tony (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Mostly Support Where it would damage the coherency to split the set, I would not do so. The only case where I believe that to be the case would be the four part Lady Windermere's Fan spoken play. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Show the entire set, where practical, otherwise show a selection, or break it into smaller sets.

  • Advantages: Shows the whole thing, or as much as possible. Keeps continuity.
  • Disadvantages: the number we could reasonably show at once may be as little as three files (though I'll try to make 5 practical). Coding nightmare! (but at least it only has to be coded once...)
Votes:

Comments

This is what we used for the multi-part submission in the signpost article: Note the bar on the bottom that links to the rest of the collection of sounds in the series. Also note the spelling error, which I think might have made it to the finished signpost article. Oops. Would that work for that first option? Sven Manguard Wha? 05:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Just Imagin, track 1 of Hungry Lucy's Pulse of the Earth
(All tracks: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10)

Problems playing this file? See media help.
  • Seems good to me. Tony (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC) OK, when I said it seems good, I hadn't though through the larger issues. It does look very good graphically, whoever designed it. But the need for rationing the good stuff precludes blowing a whole lot of related movements/tracks in one day. Tony (talk) 13:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed - I like the example you have given. It would seem to be the best option for multi-part works, unless there is a reason why we'd want to have a track separated from the group. Major Bloodnok (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It's a good solution for the very long works, but for things where the number of tracks is small, it might not be the best option. FS is probably going to be right of featured pictures, which means that it has a minimum height. It might actually look awkward to do that if there's room for all the tracks. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Helpful hint: To gauge how tired I am, just look at how belaboured my comments are. When I'm babbling like in that last comment, I should probably take a nap. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Main page proposal: Long form.

If noone minds, I'm going to start working on the moere detailed, long-form of the proposal here. Feel free to comment below.


Technical details

This may go over most people's heads, but, for the coding geeks, here's my intentions.

  • The new section will use a modified form of the code currently used for FPs, adapted to allow multiple content types. The layout for FSes will be similar to FPs, though some minor changes may be made for aesthetic reasons.
  • The box will be able to be set to several modes, by assigning a parameter. I believe that the starting modes will be:
    • Featured picture: Emulates the formatting of the other box.
    • Featured sound: One sound + description, similar to the featured picture
    • Multiple sounds: It will be convenient to allow for more than one sound, so that, for example, we can give a whole symphony, instead of just one movement. I suspect the maximum will be 4 or 5.
    • Video sound: We have a small number of these, but since videos and sounds use completely different formatting, it'd be useful to have a dedicated mode.
    • Panorama: Suppresses the FP/FS box to accomodate a very wide image in the main FP box. Should only be used on FP days. =)
    • Featured list: The featured list project is interested in claiming a day on the main page, and it's fairly trivial to code basic support in to help facilitate this.
    • Further modes could fairly easily be added, if needed later.
  • User friendliness and accessibility can, if necessary, be improved by using a >inputbox< on the collective page for Today's Featured Whatever. This will preload the correct formatting for the featured content.
  • The Today's Featured Picture section uses special code and formatting to make things easier for machine readers to find out what Today's Featured Picture is. I will try and retain this feature for Today's Featured Whatever. However, since multiple content types are used, I cannot guarantee complete success.
  • I'll try to come up with a suitable way to automatically separate the different types of content into their own archives. This shouldn't be too hard, as we can always check the mode, and only show, for example, those days that use one of the sound modes.
  • In the other main page columns the left gets 55%, and the right 45% of the width. This will probably be retained (and is easy to change if something else is desired).
  • Estimated coding time, including debugging: 1 month.

Implementation notes

(Presuming the proposal passes.) When coding finishes, a mockup will be available for one week, to allow evaluation and final tweaks. A vote will be held only if five people object to it, otherwise, it will be presumed approved, and implemented at the end of the week.[1]



  1. ^ This will speed up implementation if said implementation is reasonably non-controversial, while making sure that genuine problems are not ignored.

Comments

Heck, the instructions sure are hard to follow

What is "full page name" versus "sub-page name", for example? Could we have an example of a filled-out process? Wikipedia:Featured_sound_candidates/delete/Buxtehude_BuxWV_104_–_Was_frag_ich_nach_der_Welt. I presumed you take out that "subst:" thing ... it's not very clear. The instructions assume you're nominating for FSC, not for deletion, too. Tony (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to Acquire a Professional Musopen Account for Wikipedia

Never got traction, never happened. Pity, but nothing I can do about it. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The difference between lossless (top) and lossy (bottom) in images, dramatized. You can tell that both are butterflies, however the quality of the lossless version (top) is much, much higher. The same concept applies in sounds, you can tell what a composition is, but the quality of a lossless track is much, much higher.

Featured Sounds has need of a musopen professional account in order to acquire lossless versions of free use music. There are two purposes to this. First, we aim to replace currently uploaded lossy versions of musopen tracks with lossless versions, and second, we aim to expand the number of lossless files hosted on Commons. In several cases, we have the first part of a several part musical composition, and are in need of the other parts. Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata is one such case, where we have the first of three parts from Musopen, but not the second or third.

Musopen music is all public domian, and the lossy versions of the music hosted there can be accessed for free. However it costs $4 a month $50 a year (which they advertise as $4 a month, but is paid for by the year) to have a professional account, which would allow us to download the lossless versions from Musopen. As you can see by the above link to the Sonata, Wikipedia already uses Musopen as a source of sound files, with no problems.

The difference between lossy and lossless is illustrated in the image to the right. While that is an image, not a sound file, the basic concept remains the same, in that lossless is much better quality.

I believe that this would be a good use of WMF funds, as it meets the Foundation's goals of acquiring a large depository of free use files (i.e. what Commons is) and of improving the quality of articles on Wikipedia (because you can read about the Moonlight Sonata, or you could read about it and listen to it.)

I'm cross posting this on several places where it would be of interest. If the community thinks it's a good idea, we can begin thinking about which budget it comes from and who has access to the account. (To the second point, I would volunteer my time as the/an account holder, and upload from Musopen upon request.)

Thoughts? Sven Manguard Wha? 01:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments

  • Nominate and Support Sven Manguard Wha? 01:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Sounds like a good idea! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • (Re-adding after comment was deleted) Sounds good, but the money would have to come from the WMF, I think. Still, it'd really help the sounds we've got, and add a nice new media feature to lots of our articles. Two questions: How long would we need the subscription for, and how many files do they have? The Cavalry (Message me) 1:22 am, Today (UTC+0)
    • There are hundreds of pieces (but not thousands), some in multiple parts. The full list can be browsed here. As to how long we would need it, the only option, it appears, is a $50 US a year subscription using paypal. I'm sure we'd pull 50 files from it at least though, possibly multiple times that. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - great idea, surprised I wasn't the first to vote. :) —La Pianista  05:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • So we want to pay for their 'premium service', download all their premium files, and then republish them on a site that anyone can view without any subscription fee at all. How does that fit into their business model? That is, why would/do they allow us to do that? Happymelon 10:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Seconded - I would like to avoid another National Portrait Gallery but as they offer their listening services for free we may not have that problem. A little clarification would be appreciated. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • As far as I know, all Musopen works are required to be in the public domain. sonia 19:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, all of the works are public domain, we can't steal them. What we're paying for is not the work, as much as the costs of keeping the site afloat. Bandwidth costs money. Moreover they make it explicit that we can do exactly that, as seen in the disclaimer and OTRS ticket that goes with Musopen uploads on Commons (again, link is above.) Sven Manguard Wha? 19:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • They don't have a "business model" - they are a non-profit charity. They charge money for lossless because they can't realistically give away that much bandwidth based on their donation levels. Wikimedia can afford it. Jujutacular talk 14:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Four dollars a month? Are we sure someone doesn't already have a subscription for that cheap? This seems like relatively small money; also, why not make a deal between them and the WMF directly, e.g. pay a one-time fee and they send us their whole collection? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I just clarified that, sorry. They actually charge $50 once a year for a whole year, so it's really just advertising. As for the one time fee for the collection, that might work, except for that their collection is growing, so we'd have to have an account to get the new stuff anyways. If we negotiated a partnership, it would have to have a stipulation allowing us free lossless access to the new works as well. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Before you guys go out and purchase anything, if you're expecting to get reimbursed from the foundation for this, you should clear it first with the appropriate people (Philippe or Christine would be the first level contact, and they can pass it along further if needed). Just sayin', that might be important -- $50 doesn't grow on trees for anyone. SWATJester Son of the Defender 17:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Nothing has been purchased yet. The idea was to gain consensus and then bring it to the budget keepers. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Is this permission release plausible?

File:Ragtime Betty.ogg has a statemet in German saying it's been releasaed. By letter. Pre-OTRS. A. Is this plausible.? B. If it is, is it enough for now? 02:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

OTRS people are not sure. There was permissions OTRS in May of 2006, but it was new and not formalized, and OTRS existed since 2005. Without an English translation (google is being crazy) that's the best I could do. Mindspillage is saying it's plausible, and acceptable for featured status i.f.f. we believe the person who posted the German message. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible FSCs

Fillmore's "Miss Trombone", performed for theIndestructible Record Company in 1911.

Problems playing this file? See media help.

Any initial thoughts? Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, but it crackles a lot. Any way to remove that without affecting the music? Sven Manguard Wha? 04:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


Thomas Edison

Could someone grab this and turn it to Ogg? I wouldn't do ANY restoration; a history of recording piece should probably be as near to the original as possible. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Find it here:


A recording of Thomas Edison from 1888.

It's a shame the site has a MP3 version of the file. It would be better to have a lossless original. Major Bloodnok (talk) 07:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I spend hours trying to figure out how to record from my sound card, only to find out that I couldn't, because it was a piece of crap. I finally got it, somehow, only to find you already pulled it. Bloody painful. Well, good job anyways. That's life. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
A couple of things. First, I found this 1887 recording which claims to be the "First Gramphone Recording" (which, while dubious, is dated at 1887). Second, I did an overhaul of the description page. My reading of Phonograph would indicate that it had to be a cylinder not a disc based on the time line. Just letting you all know. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Erm, I didn't record it, just downloaded it and did a quick convert in Sound Forge... Sorry to have pipped you to the post! Major Bloodnok (talk) 08:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
No harm, no foul. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. The "Twinkle, twinkle" one is certainly plausibly earlier: the 1888 is part of the phonograph's commercialization push. Let's have it too, and then begin our research =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
FS nomination for the Around the world on the phonograph? Is there a plan with this file, or were you guys waiting for me (as the uploader) to nominate it? Major Bloodnok (talk) 10:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Want to research it and get it placed in articles, but (cough)er, have to start on some coding just now, so I'm a little slow. But the code is important. ;) Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The coding is much more important! Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Reminder

We have a lot more nominations of late. Try to keep up and review them all, as the Main Page approaches. =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talkcontribs) 18:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Murg. Ill

Might be anther day starting, as I'm sleeping all the time today =/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talkcontribs) 00:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  • I have no idea what this means. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
    • It meant I was really ill yesterday, so didn't start the code. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Roll call

Before we can even think of mounting this main-page exposure, a complete audit of existing FSs needs to be done, to identify just how many are worthy of such exposure. We have no particular source of new ones. I am working through the existing music FSs. Please say if you disagree in any case. Tony (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Consider for main page

I'm sorry, I don't quite follow the question. If you mean was it a disc or a cylinder, all Victor Records releases were on disc, to my knowledge. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • File:Hunters' Chorus from The Rose of Erin.ogg—high-class, almost entirely. WTF is the Library of Congress Music Division (which is listed as recording this in 1974)? Is it from an opera, an operetta, or what? The link is dead on the description page.
It's the American name for Julius Benedict's The Lily of Kilarney. It's very valuable so far as it goes, of course, it's more an example of brass band than Benedict =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
It's generally referred to by its Italian title even in English speaking countries. I've never seen it translated. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • File:Josh Woodward - Swansong.ogg—Yes. But is it possible to locate who the recordist(s) and accompanying artist(s) were? Who was the copyright owner? Should there not be an OTRS ticket releasing the copyright? Tony (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we need an OTRS if there's a thingie on the webpage of the artist. God, it's late here. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • File:Wesnothmusic.ogg—Yes, but shouldn't the scant information on the Commons SDP be copied onto the en.WP page? The link to the source is dead.Tony (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Unsatisfactory in some way; borderline

  • File:Toccata et Fugue BWV565.ogg—robotic performance; brittle organ sound. OK in some respects.
    • I find the opening somewhat awkward, and it's such an iconic piece of music. At the very least, this is begging to be replaced, and so should be moved down the list a bit in that hope. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Down the list a bit? Does that mean off the list (I hope). Tony (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, if something's not good enough for the main page, it should probably be delisted, and I agree with all of these except Magic Flute (too soon!), the Pierre Gaveaux (fault explained by period instruments) and I'm a little more ambiguous than you on Eine kleine Nachtmusic. Actually, we don't have the rest of the piece. Delist it. If we can't stand by these being on our main page, they probably shouldn't be FSes. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • File:Mozart - Eine kleine Nachtmusik - 1. Allegro.ogg—as I commented above, boxy acoustic feel, the first chord is just horrid. Some good things about the performance, even though on modern instruments and with too much vibrato than is now normally acceptable. I’d use on the main page only if desperate.
    • I see your points, but am ambiguous on how it adds up. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • File:Magic Flute Overture.ogg—as discussed at the recent nom.
    • Let's not rethink ourselves a mere week later. It'll be near the bottom of the list anyway, if we're going in rough order, so there's no need to rush to reevaluate. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • File:Pierre Gaveaux - Polacca from the opera Le Trompeur Trompé.ogg—the clarinet is sometimes out of tune (and I only listened to the first 20 s).
    • You know it's a period clarinet, though? It's a fantastic performance overall, and period instruments have awkward aspects to them, so I disagree. Actually, this (Or Oppaneun punggakjengi) is probably my favourite featured sound. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • File:Beethoven Prometheus Creatures Op. 43 No. 14 - Andante.ogg—the piano reduction of the orchestral original is very boring, particularly in the first part. It does get better, but the opening is such a turn-off … And I note that the description page doesn’t even say that it’s a transcription and not the original Beethoven.
    • It's also only one movement of a longer work. This one's ripe for delisting. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


Do not consider for main page but keep featured?


Need to be delisted, in my view

  • File:BuxWV 104 - Was frag ich nach der Welt.ogg—Choked start: Sven cropped it 0.25 s further in today, which does make it slightly more acceptable. But it wouldn't pass FSC nowadays. Pity; it's a good performance otherwise.
    • Unfortunately, the cut also cost us the first harpsichord note. I wonder if more gentle editing could help? Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I cropped at 1.8 s, Sven at 2.5. It might be better at 1.8 s, but the fact is that this dives into a continuous texture, even if there's a kind-of breath between the phrases. The description page doesn't even say what came before, and why this point was chosen. I think it has to be dumped as an FS, just as poorly cropped FPs are dumped. Tony (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • File:Handel - messiah - 44 hallelujah.ogg—The orchestra is not a disaster, but the choir is pretty bad: wheezy. The problem with this musical icon is that people will judge it by the tons of superb recordings available. Why would we embarrass ourselves?
    • Documentation is also horrible. I wouldn't have considered this without a lot more research. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments thus far:

  1. The description pages are lacking. More information of general interest should be supplied for main-page exposure.
  2. I like the chronological order of listing, but could we consider listing in categories? (Opera, chamber, piano, solo voice, etc)?
If you mean on WP:FS, I'm a little against that, as it tends to force a western bias on the listing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  1. Can we consider a bit of repair on a few files?
Depends on the file. Point out any you think need work, and I'll tell you what I think. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Responses to Tony1

I won't weigh in on the list until it's done, but as to your other comments:

  1. When you find a description page that needs work, list it at User talk:Sven Manguard/Sandbox and I will work on them. This offer is not just limited to Tony1, if anyone sees one, stick it there.
  2. I've been thinking of how to do the order. The one thing I worry about is that when we hit the 1800s, it's just a ton of operas. I'd prefer faux random, where it's done in no particular order, and each one is drawn from a pre-approved list in such a way as that it is not overly similar to the two or three immediately proceeding it, if possible (and at the very least, not two overly similar FS in a row.) Ideally, we would do this a month or two in advance, so we can plan out over the long term how we intend on presenting ourselves, and make sure we don't have any regrettable last minute decisions.
    • Order of promotion, I'd say, with some tweaks. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  3. Yes, IMO, we can do repairs, so long as we have someone that can do them correctly.
I'm afraid that the ones mentioned are pre-repaired. I did everything that I could. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for putting in all the effort Tony, Sven Manguard Wha? 09:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Main-page order would have to carefully navigate the themes to avoid repetition, both from week to week and from month to month. Tony (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
If it's not good enough for the main page, it probably shouldn't be a featured sound at all. I don't completely agree with Tony on a couple of his assessments, but, be that as it may, I honestly do think that 90% of our sounds will stand up to scrutiny, and those that don't shouldn't be there. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I would agree with you on that first point; if the sound is not good enough to be on the main page, then it shouldn't be considered as a featured sound. While I am in favour of de-listing the featured sounds which are no longer up to scratch, is it worthwhile considering adding a level of assessment? Currently (and forgive me if I'm wrong) there is either non-featured or featured. Should we not have a "good" category for sounds which (for example) are good recordings of orchestral works but where there is a significant amount of tuning error, archival recordings with more than forgiveable problems, etc? Well done all three of you for your sterling work going through the list, I will weigh in as and when I can. Major Bloodnok (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I honestly do not think that good sounds would be a good idea. We struggle with defining what is and is not an FS, and I think that would get worse, not better, if we had multiple levels. We also don't have the participation at the moment to support two separate processes, especially with our concentration soon to be on getting ready for the main page. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough! Major Bloodnok (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Organized roll call page

I've created a page for organizing all the featured sounds to assist with the audit of every one. It is located at Wikipedia:Featured sounds/Roll Call. (X! · talk)  · @0100  ·  01:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Having stolen my title from above, could you explain exactly what input you are suggesting? I see that none of my input has been included. Tony (talk) 09:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
What he did was he made a list of every current featured sound and stuck it in there so we would have one page for discussion on all of the FSes. It was done at 1:30 at night and I doubt he did it to slight you, this was more a move for efficiency. I'll transfer your comments now, I didn't do that earlier out of fear of being rude. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I added "instructions." Essentially it's exactly what you were doing, except it's on it's own page so it can get as large as it needs to be (which, considering how large it is now, and that it will only get larger over time, I think was a good idea.) I'm sorry if you felt hurt, that was not the intention at all. As for your comments, I started transferring them over, but it made me feel dirty to move stuff that other people said. Please make the transfers yourself, as we do want to have your opinions on the songs. Thanks, Sven Manguard Wha? 17:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Exactly right. I was not meaning this as a move against you, and I was intending to move your opinions over (until I realized that Sven already did that). As Sven said, feel free to make opinions there. It was simply a place to list opinions for every single sound. (X! · talk)  · @845  ·  19:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • For practical purposes, though, I'd say that any pieces where insurmountable problems are found should be delisted. I'm strongly against the idea of a two-tier FS system. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I am against it too, but we need to take this in steps. Step 1: Find the bad files. Step 2: Delist them. (X! · talk)  · @034  ·  23:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
      • True. Nothing said it was set in stone that we had to keep the bad ones. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources of free files

Wikipedia talk:Featured sound candidates/Sources has been set up as a repository of links to places hosting free sound files. Please add to it if you can, and if you see something that can be used in an article, please upload it to Commons and stick it into the article. We might even get a few featured sounds out of it. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Coming together!

Template:SOTD/2011-02-25, while ugly as hell, is at least a big step towards having a workable backend! =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Impressive --Guerillero | My Talk 17:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
...And now I learn the requirements have been changed, with the FP thing being dropped, and noone bothered to tell me. Going to do minimum work this week while I wait to see what else changes, just getting the things that can't change easily. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
No one told you because the requirements really haven't changed. There was a big huff and a big puff and all semblance of order fell down, but it looks like the three little featured processes are moving to a new house eerily similar in blueprint to the last one. Let's just hope it's made out of bricks this time.
From the main page talk page
The current proposal is as follows:
  • The only section being altered is the horizontal purple box.
  • On all days except Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, the purple box will look identical to it's current form, with one box taking up the full width, containing one featured picture.
  • On Saturday and Sunday, the box will be split into two, with a width ratio of 55/45, identical to the ratio between the green and blue boxes, with the 55% side on the left, identical in width to the green box. The larger box on the left would contain a featured picture. The box on the right would contain a featured sound.
  • On Monday, the box will be split into two, with a width ratio of 55/45, identical to the ratio between the green and blue boxes, with the 55% side on the left, identical in width to the green box. The larger box on the left would contain a featured picture. The box on the right would contain a featured list.
  • The coding would be as such that the width and number of boxes would adjust automatically, based on the day. Featured Pictures would not have to change their preparation process or code.
This is based on the comments by Howcheng, by the coders, and by the community. I hope this clears everything up. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
(1) Why has this suddenly gone to three days a week? I thought the RfC was for two days a week. I was nervous about even that much.
(2) Can people please examine the photograph/template issue at The Signpost's "F and A" this week? My first attempt left disastrous slabs of nothing all over the place. Pity we can't have full-sized pics down the left side adjacent to the right-side sound files. Juju kindly came in with a better solution (embedding a small-sized pic). I'm fine to go with this in today's edition, but there are three issues: the template boxes are now of inconsistent width (I moved Beethoven up to the other two pictured ones to improve this, but it won't always be possible); the pic is smaller than I'd like, ideally; and there's no room for a separate caption as I'd had it. Now, better, and my first attempt, which looks lovely on my monitor, but other people have trouble with gaps and gawky locations, and so do I if I narrow my window past a certain point. Tony (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
And as another device I'd like to have at my disposal, is it possible to arrange the boxes two-by-two? Tony (talk) 09:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Two days featured sounds, one day featured lists, for three days of new material total. Sven phrased it a little oddly. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, got it. And even though I have been critical, thanks for your good work, Adam and Sven, in putting together and pursuing this case. It will mark a distinctive change in the way the project sees these two important aspects of featured content. It probably should have happened some time ago. Tony (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
[unindent] No worries! The SOTD setup is actually 90% done at this point, I'm just waiting on some aesthetic decisions to firm up, because I can't finish the code until I know exactly what's wanted. Lists will simply be the SOTD code stripped down to a minimum. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
So is this official yet, for both FLs and FSs? I ask because I'd like to include an announcement at "F and A" when it's appropriate. Tony (talk) 11:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
PS I wrote this before I witnessed the disgraceful insults on the Frog Legs review page. Tony (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

What I just found.

I just stumbled upon Wikipedia:Sound of the day, an old project from 2007. Does anyone see anything of value to raid from it? Sven Manguard Wha? 21:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting! Sixteen Waltzes for piano, four hands has a lot of promise; File:Cotton-EyedJoe.ogg might be alright, though it's pretty bad for its relatively recent age ( http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?lomaxbib:2:./temp/~ammem_mHxn::] [*] might be better); File:Toque-de-angola.ogg is mostly someone fooling around with said instrument, so I'm not really convinced, but I guess... maybe? I don't think any of the others are good enough, though, for various reasons. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

[*] Not sure if that link is permanent. Search for Cotton-Eyed Joe here if it isn't. two should come up, one's identical to the one we have, one ain't. =)

Coders needed, setting up the templates.

I've been working with templates to try and get something along the lines of

Sound of the day|2011-01-15}}

which is supposed to function like FP's

Picture of the day|2011-01-15}}

and well, I don't have the techincal knowledge to pull it off. For the coders, the resources that I think are needed are Template:SOTD, Template:SOTDlink, and of course Template:Sound of the day. These are, at the moment, little more then clones of the FP pages of the same functions (Template:POTD, Template:POTDlink, and Template:Picture of the day) with the values subbed.

Can anyone get these to work like FP's does? Is it worth it to do so? Finally, what do we do with the other 21 pages left over from the failed 2006 process of the same name? Sven Manguard Wha? 07:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It should work if the SOTD exists. It uses an #ifexist function to check, and the handling of that is surprisingly strange - I think it's meant to handle some archaic PotD formats we don't really need. I've made a small tweak that makes it default a bit more gracefully. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Notes

  • Please, please, please everyone go to Wikipedia:Featured sounds/Roll Call and weigh in!
  • It would also be nice if you all could flush out Wikipedia talk:Featured sound candidates/Sources
  • That thread above for the musopen account has languished for a while. This is something you all really could use at FS. There's a suspended nomination waiting for it now, among other things.
  • I changed the archive time to 30 days so conversations that were still relevant stopped getting lost. Remember to archive manually. I also pulled two things back from the archive, although the second of the two Adam says is mostly done anyways.

Sven Manguard Wha? 23:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

    • I'm highly busy IRL these next few days, but I'll weigh in when I get a chance. (X! · talk)  · @008  ·  23:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I've taken a quick look at the University of Virginia page, and the Presidential speeches section looks very interesting and a rich source of recordings. The problem is I can't see any mention of licencing anywhere, nor in fact any indication of where the recording comes from. Can anyone who has used these pages shine any light on it? For example, the 1st inaugural address of FDR here would be great to have, but it sounds as though it has come from a variety of sources and has been stitched together crudely. Major Bloodnok (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I'm just being dense, but what exactly is the purpose of Wikipedia:Featured sounds/Roll Call? Are we discussing whether it will stay a FS at all, or whether it should go to the main page? Jujutacular talk 23:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Technically, it's whether it should go on the main page, but there's an undercurrent of "if it's not worthy of the main page, it shouldn't be a featured sound." Sven Manguard Wha? 05:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Need a Myrrha sound

Where do I request a sound? And will someone please make a sound related to some of the music from Myrrha? Perhaps Myrrha Gavotte by Jp Sueza? TCO (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as places go for requesting music, this works. As for the request I see one performance, Cincinnati Pops of Myrrha Gavotte for $0.99 on Amazon, but nothing for free. That being said, the number of sources I know of for free music is limited. If the article on Myrrha is correct, the composition would be PD. I'm not sure about performances though. I do know that if you have a "Professional" (i.e. paid) Musopen account you can request performances, although I don't know how effective that really is. Sorry I can't do more. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't mind paying the money, but how do I figure out if it is legit to upload the performance?TCO (talk) 04:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
there is a sample on amazon, btwTCO (talk) 04:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Chances are high that if you're paying for the performance, they haven't released it public domain. Sorry, I'll keep looking though. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
It's not at Musopen or at the USMC band downloads. Meh. I hate copyright.TCO (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to the digital generation, you know, the one that illegally downloads just about everything. That's actually part of the problem, in that some people see that as so common a practice that they don't understand why they can't do it for Wikipedia. Well, all I can say to you is that we're slowly adding to Wikipedia talk:Featured sound candidates/Sources and that it might be in one of those places, or someplace that will get linked to from there as that page fills up. Good luck. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Free Downloads or Bach organ but uncertain licence status

I've come across this site http://www.blockmrecords.org/bach/ which hosts a complete set of Bach organ works recorded in various churches around Germany by a musical Professor at the University of Michigan. Although they are described as free downloads, the licensing is not mentioned. I've listened to the Toccata and Fugue in D Minor - BWV 565 - and it sounds miles better than the recording we currently have listed. I found this site through the IMLSP Petrucci Library. I am a bit of a newbie when it comes to music licensing and the requests through the OTRS system; could anyone suggest which license to propose (we would need to contact the performer himself through this page in order to do so) it would be a great resource to have on WP if we could use some or all of his recordings. Major Bloodnok (talk) 08:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I have asked User:J Milburn to help, as he has handled a lot of OTRS license release situations. Jujutacular talk 08:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I've just realised that this thread should have an "of" rather than an "or" in the title. Rats. Major Bloodnok (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
We'd really have to consider them non-free at this current time. There's a very big difference between "free download" (offered by almost all musicians) and "this work may be used or modified for any reason, even commercially". It's possibly something we could get released with a few emails, but the fact the copyright notice refers to the university may make it difficult. J Milburn (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Thus far you're the only person I know of that's gotten works released like this, and I'd love to know your secret. On a related note, would you be willing to contact this organist? Our current copy of Toccata and Fugue in D Minor is so bad it's up for delisting right now. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at it; I couldn't find any copyright notice (I may just have not been looking carefully enough). If it were possible to have even just one of these then that would be great to have - a professional musician is not necessarily likely to want to give his work away to the world entirely free and without restrictions on use, so someone with knowledge of the proper systems and licences is best placed to assess the situation. If you would be willing to contact this organist that would be fantastic for the project. Edit I now see the copyright notice at the bottom of the page, but I took that to be the notice for the page, not the downloads themselves. Major Bloodnok (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy Proposal

We're taking a (comparatively) absurd amount of room up at Template:Announcements/New featured content. I move that we switch templates there from "multi-listen item" to "audio". Compare the two templates below:


The 11th-century "Victimae Paschali Laudes", traditionally attributed to Wipo of Burgundy, is one of the few traditional Latin "sequences" still used by the Roman Catholic Church today.

and


If we use the audio template, it'll make that template page much more reasonable shaped/sized, which might increase the number of people using it (which is a good thing for us). At the very least, it's courteous.

Thoughts? Sven Manguard Wha? 21:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Nominate and Support: FP dosen't thumb their promotions, because that's not the proper place to do so. Why should we take up so much space then? Sven Manguard Wha? 21:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I think it seems like a sensible thing to do. EDIT Adam's proposals below seem to make sence of all this, most of which is not an issue I know much about.Major Bloodnok (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Absolutely. I've always felt it was bad. Jujutacular talk 00:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support it's been that way on my user for a while. :p — La Pianista  01:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I totally did not discover the template there. I totally knew about it before hand. Err... Sven Manguard Wha? 03:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support that is the nice thing to do --Guerillero | My Talk 03:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support—and thinking of using them at The Signpost, too. Tony (talk) 07:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose as a disservice to our users The reason we use multi-listen item is because using another template would require far more work in an already complicated closing procedure. Plus, Audio is one of the least user-friendly templates in existence, requiring the user to download the file - and many of our users probably cannot play ogg without Wikipedia's support. Outside of us, Ogg is neither a common nor particularly well-supported filetype, and Wikipedia's use of it is ideological, not any actual service to our users. Really, the Audio template should be considered depreciated: It's a hangover from the period before Wikipedia had any actual support for Ogg (though it still insisted on its use). Now thatw e have a way to play oggs, we should use it, not use the increddibly obnoxious {{Audio}}, which lacks basic functionality. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Huh? How does it require users to download the file? When I click on it, it just brings me to a screen that streams the file as it would if it were embedded on the page. Jujutacular talk 20:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Firefox, right? No other browser (to my knowledge) supports it, but Wikipedia convinced Firefox to include native support. try it in, for example, Internet Explorer, and you'll see how broken it is. Adam Cuerden ([1] ) 20:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
        • I see. Chrome supports it actually, just checked. But Safari does not, and yeah I doubt IE would. Jujutacular talk 20:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Opera, FireFox, Chrome and their derivatives; sea monkey, rockmelt, etc; natively support ogg source. Java, vlc and quicktime have plugins to play the format that fit in most browsers. So if you want to be able to play the file all you need to do is a bit of work. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, unfortunately, per Adam. Maybe we could put the {{listen}} template into a collapsible box of some sort? I think everyone can agree that the sounds take up way too much space. Jujutacular talk 20:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
So yet again, we have to bow and scrape to the crappiest browser that there ever was: IE. Tony (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
It's Wikipedia's fault, really. They refuse to allow MP3s, so we have to look into OGG support - which is pretty much only offered as a courtesy to Wikipedia. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
So given the narrow browser support, is there any way I can reduce the clunk on the FS listings at "F and A"? Tony (talk) 09:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

{{*sound}}, robably. Or you could tell me what you want in the template, and I could tell you if it's possible. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Another option

How about we use the "*sound" template, with just the title field filled in. It allows for direct play without being as large. BTW, it looks like this:

Victimae Paschali Laudes

Again, the idea is to shrink our space to something proportional to what everyone else has, which will make that page look better. I tested it in that page, and it looks much better with ten *audio than with ten multi-listen. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Nominate and Support - Doth this solveth thy problemo? Sven Manguard Wha? 20:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment That was used, but for manual closings - the only practical way to close large batches of nominationss- having too many completely different formats is awkward. Suggestion: Why not create a modified {{*sound}} that takes the same formatting as {{multi-listen item}}. Then you need only switch the first line instead of reformatting everything (the "description" parameter can be simply ignored). Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Multi-listen item

The 11th-century "Victimae Paschali Laudes", traditionally attributed to Wipo of Burgundy, is one of the few traditional Latin "sequences" still used by the Roman Catholic Church today.

Switch "{{multi-listen item" for "{{*sound"

11th century – Victimae Paschali Laudes



  • I like this version, if the announcements template is kept. Jujutacular talk 17:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I like the more compact thing. Tony (talk) 08:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment

I don't think that said page should exist; WP:GO does what it does better, and the spageviews for it are so low that it doesn't appear anyone uses it unless they're adding content.

I have opened a proposal to shut it down, redirecting to the more successful option. Until then, I see no reason to spend even the slightest bit more work maintaining an unused page. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to tell people...

I forgot to tell people about a new tool that I developed: ~soxred93/tools/fsc. You enter the filename and the nomination name, and it fills in the templates, so it's just a copy-paste. If closers actually used that, it would invalidate all the concerns about "remembering another template". (X! · talk)  · @185  ·  03:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The link dosen't work X! --Guerillero | My Talk 03:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I fixed the link. I've used the tool a couple of times. I love it, personally. It's not perfect (the initial nominations need to be formatted properly, and for multi part closings it dosen't do everything for you, you still have to think) but it's better than the old system, and it makes closings more accessible. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
P.S. There are closings to be done now, if anyone wants to test it out for themselves. I'd be happy to double check everything if anyone's not comfortable going it alone their first time around. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Can I try out one non-controversial one? --Guerillero | My Talk 04:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Of course. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
It's not very helpful when doing large batch closures, which are only going to get more common. To make it more practical, it'd need to A. Allow loading up of more than one page at once. B. It'd need an intermediate page which allowed editing of descriptions and titles - 90% of nominations have some sort of problem that needs fixed, such as missing out basic details like composer. C. Then present the batch, ready to be pasted into each page. (Obviously, WP:FS will need some extra work.)
We must think about scalability, but that tool does not scale at all (manually pasting the list of things to promote into a word processor for reformatting scales better than it), and so doesn't solve the problem of too many file formats. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Obviously, the above is not meant to attack X!'s excellent work; I'm simply pointing out that we're not at the level yet where multiple formats stops being an issue, because we only have a pre-processor tool for individual promotions, taken one at a time. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The fact that we are now using a diffrent template on Template:Announcements/New featured content needs to be talken into account. Outside of that, I found the tool to be very helpful for my first time closing a FSN. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
My objections are solely to it being used as a reason for why we don't need to worry about how complex promotion is. It's an excellent helper for single promotions, but it'd be awkward if you had a list of 5 to promote. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Taking the day off

Because yesterday's RL events were very, very tiring. However, one more day of work should finish things. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Something I should know about? You're not keeping anything from me, hmmmm? Tony (talk) 09:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured sound

Is Wikipedia:Today's featured sound one of your pages? If not, please address. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I already said it was. It'll get set up as soon as the front end is coded. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
So let me get this right: it can be announced in this week's edition of The Signpost? If so, I'd like to source the info, interesting details, etc. Tony (talk) 05:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh no no no. If you want remotely reliable information, including a timeline, talk to Adam Cuerden. Making that page when I did was just me foolishly assuming that everything would be done in a week. I drasticly underestimated how long it takes to get things done around here. Ah well. It's not hurting anything, and it's going to be used... eventually. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Good: I'm work-stressed until next weekend, and I'd like to announce both FLs and FSs on main page together in a short piece at F and A, with a few quotes from TRM and one or two of you. Just let me know in advance. Tony (talk) 07:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Will do. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Moonlight Sonata

This is a bit of a confusing mess, to get out of it, I propose we:

A. Delist everything currently promoted

B. If anyone feels one or more of the files are good enough for FS, nominate them next week.

Any disagreement? If there's no disagreement in three days, I'll close this as stated. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Support proposal I can't make heads or tales of the situation and if one of the desisted sound files is up to par it will pass through easily --Guerillero | My Talk 22:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Featured sound log

I've clanged the count to being one month in arrears. It's just much easier to tally data at the end of the month than to have an undocumented running tally on a page otherwise not used as part of the promotion. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)