Wikipedia talk:Featured sound candidates/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Archived update (15 April)

The bot archived after 30 days of inactivity:

  • A thread calling on an expansion of "high artistic standard"
  • A tread declaring the roll call system infeasible.
    • Note that Guerillero is working on an alternate "queue" system to compensate for this.

I have manually archived several other threads. Points of note are as follows:

  • Adam has created a new delist template.
  • I contacted the Miller Center. Long story short is that I thought we were in the clear, however WaldoJ has raised some doubts. We will, of course, have to look into this.
  • O Canada (currently up for delisting) became our 200th Featured Sound. The speech by Franklin Delano Roosevelt on the Banking Crisis became our 300th part.
  • Speeches by Wilson and Taft were worked on.
  • I pointed out that there are a lot of speeches by Americans, Christian music, etc. and recommended that we consciously look to diversify our holdings when possible.
  • We decided against deleting the original file when a restored edit is uploaded.
  • We decided that the PD-US-record template (a.k.a. 1972 template) was too weak to be used as proof that an FS was free use.

Ongoing/unresolved issues to think about:

  • Diversification of sounds.
  • Clarification of "high artistic standard".
  • Miller Center recordings. So much for problem solved...
  • Getting on the main page. Yeah, what ever happened to that?

Sven Manguard Wha? 03:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Overture to the Marriage of Figaro

I found a recording played by a full orchestra. Here. There's a few problems, there's no information on which orchestra performed it, what the copyright status is (I'm assuming PD since copyrighted files aren't allowed) and the horrible weeeoooowww like noise during the violin soli. I've found that exporting it as an ogg vorbis file on Audacity reduces that a bit but not by much. I don't like the flute piece that's being used in the article (it's rather bland), I was going to download one from musopen but I forgot my account details :S —James (Talk • Contribs) • 11:48am • 01:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The timpani (and maybe bass drum) are hardly audible too... —James (Talk • Contribs) • 5:55pm • 07:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I suspect that'd be below the minimum documentation for FS, unfortunately. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I know, damn shame too since the recording wasn't that bad (it was just that weird noise in the violin soli). Do you have a Musopen account Adam? If so is the Musopen recording any better than the all-flute piece we have? —James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:36pm • 11:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Marine Corps Band music file usage.

I would like to get some consensus on what pages are eligible for United States Marine Corps Band music files. There has been a lot of negative feedback from WP:Wagner members regarding the files because the band is a brass band. They requested no further brass band file additions to Wagner articles. In a recent talk page comment from Kleinzach (talk · contribs), he has stated that the file should not be used in any Opera or classical music articles. I need advice on this issue based on some sort of consensus.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Also, I apologize to the Wagner people because I think what I did might be like putting Roy Lichtenstein's version up on Bedroom in Arles if I noticed it did not have an image file.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Compositions should be played on the intended instruments, The Marriage of Figaro would sound horrible if the strings got substituted, so too Vivaldi's Four Seasons. I would refrain from putting up any more brass band versions of orchestral pieces on such articles and from nominating them. Do keep up the good work though! —James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:48pm • 11:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Govt PD avoidance

Can a United States Military Band keep its recordings out of the public domain with the following statement: "The music files on this website are intended for official use by Department of Defense and U.S. government offices only. Exceptions to this policy will be considered on a case-by-case basis."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope. If it is about the Navy Band anthems, I already got emails from them saying it is public domain (and sent said emails to OTRS). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Would your OTRS number cover the http://www.navyband.navy.mil/anthems/drum_cadences.htm and other files on the related subpages?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't be a problem. The contact person is the same. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
O.K. so then I upload them to commons and mention a OTRS number and I am good right? What number is that?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't have it on hand. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Do you know what file you created for this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
O.K. it looks like File:God Defend New Zealand instrumental.ogg was from the Navy Band pages. Can I upload mine saying that they are PD as established by the OTRS number of that file?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I believe Zscout is refering to File:God Defend New Zealand instrumental.ogg which mentions OTRS ticket 2009102710061312. Jujutacular talk 18:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Did his email state that the files on all of these subpages were produced by the Navy in their course of duty or that the individual file at issue there was? Does anyone have the ability to see this ticket? If not can I have the contact for the person I need to correspond with?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, I think the main point of that warning is that some National Anthems and ceremonial music may be under copyright, and, instead of acting as copyright lawyers and being at fault if there's a mistake, it's easier for them to put up a warning of that sort on anything produced for internal use. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
The warning is the same on the national anthem page as it is on the ceremonial music page where the issues are probably a bit different. What I need to know is how I proceed with files like the drum cadences. Do I have to write them (which looks like it took 5 months for a response previously) or do we claim to be covered for all this work by that OTRS?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to write them, but presume PD in the meanwhile. We know they're created by the navy from past statements by them, this is more extra caution.
As for the Ceremonial Music page, some of them are in copyright. For instance, "Take Her Down", the Submariner's song, appears to date from the '40s. [1] Same issue. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Usually, the band will say that this recording or composition is under copyright. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I am only concerned about the performance PD element, I think. I will avoid composition PD problems assuming that basic drum cadences preexisted 1923. For other ceremonial stuff, I will just be looking for things notable enough to have articles and composition PD will be obvious. It seems you are saying that we know these were performed by the Navy in the course of their duty. Is that correct.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
So far as I'm aware, yes. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I have sent off an email requesting some authentication for a total of seven Navy Band files. File:Drum - Cadence A.ogg, File:Drum - Cadence B.ogg, and File:Drums - Four Flams.ogg are among those and already available for use on WP.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Voting

We have a lot of under-reviewed FSCs this week; If people can step in, it'd be appreciated. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

What about this one

I have been getting a lot of flack about the USMCB recordings. Does WP want this file, which is a United States Marine Corps Band recording of the Grand March from Aida?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

T:TDYK template

I have "Semper Fidelis (march)" nominated at T:TDYK. I am wondering if there is a small template like {{soundurgent}} that I can use to nominate that the sound be used in place of a picture.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

{{DYK listen}} for audio and {{DYK watch}} for video. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 2:20pm • 04:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Another archive update

Having manually archived a bunch of dead threads I thought I'd leave a summary of the archived threads on this talk page (as per precedent set by Sven):

  • A discussion on whether speeches should be edited to include on the notable portions of the audio file, such as the Monica Lewinsky scandal (the video file which recently got promoted) where Bill Clinton goes on to say "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky".
  • Whether video or audio files are preferred, the presence of videos at both Featured Pictures and Sounds, the possibility of a Featured Videos process and the file size limit of 100MB.
  • Miller Center license tag for recordings from the Miller Center.
  • April 10 Archive update
  • A discussion on audio copyright and where it applies.

That's it. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 2:37pm • 04:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedic Value

We have been promoting a lot, however I think that in our zeal to get our numbers higher, we are ignoring the featured sounds criteria. Specifically, in regards to role. From the criteria page:

Role. The file helps readers to understand the topic of an article. The file is used in at least one article, and adds to the reader's appreciation of that subject.

O Canada should never have been promoted. No one actually looked to see how it was used. It turns out that it's at the bottom of a gallery one one page, and moving it to the top infobox is fiercely resisted for a number of reasons. In its current placement, it's not particularly useful to the article.

Featured pictures uses "encyclopedic value" as a measure, i.e. does it significantly add to an article. More than "is it accurate" the concern of "is it well used/is it useful" comes into play. I think we need that, or something like that. Right now it seems that we're promoting anything that sounds good, and letting the actual use become a secondary concern.

Here are some thinking points I came up with:

Music
  1. If a piece has an article on it (like say Vivaldi's The Four Seasons does) then it can support one featured sound of that piece, provided that it is a mainstream performance, and is used either in the infobox, or prominently at the top.
    If a sound is used to illustrate a notable deviation or component, which is discussed in the article, that would qualify too.
  2. If a piece only is in the article for the author, it must be used prominently and discussed in the article. A gallery of seven different compositions that the composer penned is not significant enough.
  3. If a piece is a significant example of a style or genre, it could be notable there too, provided that it is (you guessed it) discussed in the article.
Speeches
  1. If a speech as an article on it (like say the Checkers Speech, which I'm working on getting a good audio copy of) then it would qualify.
    Having an audio file and a video of the same speech as FS seems silly to me. If the audio quality and coverage is identical or better in the video, I'm fine with using the video. If the audio file is better than the video file, delist/don't nominate it.
  2. If a speech is significant and discussed in the article of the speaker, then yes, it would be valuable. One out of seven different speeches by the same person stuck in a gallery would not be worth promoting.

I see this as a guideline, not a strict by the books rule, encouraged to make us think not only about the file itself, but how it is used. I'd really like for us to reach some decisions on this.

  • Propose and Support - This is something very important to me. It's an issue of standards, respect, and quality. We're not lacking in sound files anymore, it's time to make sure that people look at us and know we have a standard that goes with that star. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose: This is all well and good for classical music, but any of the less-represented genres and artists are going to be horribly constrained by this. Plus, the requirement for the specific piece to be discussed is somewhat difficult when the purpose is to illustrate minor composers, which may only have a page or two of biography - and inserting specific discussion on one specific work would unbalance it.
Consider Oppaneun punngajenki, our only example of Korean music. Used to illustrate a genre of works, would be rejected by your criteria. The Jewish Cantillation is an example of the genre, the recording isn't discussed specifically in Cantillation. Omaha flag song. Again, not discussed specifically in the article. As that is nearly all of our non-white, non-western, non-Christian examples, save some national anthems, the effect of your proposal on Featured sounds would be devastating, and I cannot support such a restrictive requirement in any way.
The fundamental point here is that the large subjects which Wikipedia's various systemic biases affect the most are the ones most likely to only have a single sample to cover an entire genre, or to have a composition only in the composer's article, or many of the other things your proposal refuses to allow consideration of. If the sources are in foreign languages, it'll be all the harder. And yet, those are specifically the sound files Featured Sounds should be supporting the most.
I will, however, point out that I'm fully aware that wasn't your intent.
Looking more broadly, sound files can be significantly educational in and of themselves, even if there's no text describing them outside of the {{Listen}} template. I agree O Canada may have been a mistake; but that's because there's many, many other recordings of O Canada in the same article, at least a couple of which are more significant, not because of where it is in the article. Similarly, the Featured article drive for Tosca moved all of the recordings into one section (although the music is extensively discussed). Does that mean we cannot feature any music from Tosca? I don't think that would be an appropriate response.
One could also ponder the situation where we have an entire recording of a long work, say, The Mikado, or one of the Butterfly Lovers Chinese operas. They're likely to be in 20, 30 tracks. That's probably best handled as a gallery. Does that mean we can't feature them? I'd say "hell no."
I think common sense is better than proscription here. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I meant for this to be a discussion, not a pure vote. Let's ignore vote terminology for now. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the primary problem is that music and speeches are, by and large, self-describing. For example, Harry Truman's Farewell Speech serves to sum up his career very well. It's not described in the article, but it lends weight and explanatory power to the things that are described.
Indeed, I think that's the fundamental flaw. The sound file should almost never be described in the article. It should serve to illustrate what the article describes. If the article describes - eh, random example - David Icke's obsession with lizard people, then a well-chosen rant by him on the subject, if freely licensed, is excellent for illustrating that subject, even if that particular rant isn't mentioned in the article. It gives more weight to points raised.
And that should be our guiding goal. Does it add to the article's informative aspect - not whether it's sufficiently described in article text. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

O Canada

The Gallery is now higher up, it has been since I moved it ~3 days ago. It's unlikely that the gallery will go ignored since it's in a much better position than it was just sitting at the bottom. Cheers, —James (Talk • Contribs) • 2:16pm • 04:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

That certainly is better, however it does not address the other issues with that piece. I was also going for a more general statement on encyclopedic value. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Sven, NONE OF THE PIECES IN THE GALLERY contain the entire anthem in its current revision, there's only the entire anthem in the original English version penned by Weir... Half the God-forsaken gallery's pieces don't have encyclopedic value by your standards. Should we get rid of all the Instrumentals on the articles for other national anthems because they don't contain all the verses? No we don't so why can't we just let this lie? —James (Talk • Contribs) • 11:10am • 01:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
You misunderstand. I was saying that I was making a statement on encyclopedic value in general, for all featured sounds. I was not comparing one rendition of O Canada to another, or comparing anthems in general. The gist of my statement is that all featured sounds, regardless of the type of sound or comparative virtues of the sounds themselves, need to be well used and supported by text whenever possible. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
How is it lacking? Please explain, it's well-played and recorded, so what if only the first verse is played? It's common practice for the first verse of an anthem to be sung. Not to be rude to you Sven, I respect your opinion and well-thought comments and criticism but I don't agree with you on any level with regards to the recording, I just can't see how if it's not the entire piece that it lacks encyclopedic value, that's flawed reasoning. I know we lack a lot of sung anthems, but it seems the instrumentals are used in the infoboxes and it hasn't been a problem. What is your point? The piece doesn't detract from the article. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:30pm • 11:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't this this is "all well and good for classical music". It's too inflexible. But some written-down notion of what counts as encyclopedic value would be good. Tony (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

consolidating the main portal

How about converting the main portal to the {{audio}} template to shrink it down a bit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

  • That's not a good idea, you can't stop recordings used in the audio template, which'd be annoying because you'd have to refresh the page each time you want to listen to something new. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 1:37pm • 03:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
    • What about {{*sound}} or {{soundurgent}}?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
      • {{audio}} should not be used, ever, anywhere, for any reason, if I remember Adam Cuerden's response the last time that template was brought up. It's a broken holdover from when Mediawiki supported sound even more abysmally than it does now. As for redoing the page, that's been on my mind for a while. While will likely happen is that we will find a way of dividing content that is better than the current system, then create a system of interconnected subpages with a master display page, like what most other featured processes do. There are three things to think about with this division:
        • How do we divide up the sounds (and do so in a way that isn't inherently biased towards either American or European conventions)
        • What do we do with videos (do they have their own section or are they integrated with other sections)
        • What templates do we use when putting it all together.
      • I was hoping to hold off on this until we got onto the main page so that we wouldn't stretch Adam and X! too thin on the coding end, but why not now. We just have to wait for everyone in finals mode to resurface. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Probably what we'll need to do is divide it into subpages. I think some descriptions are necessary, to link to articles and whatnot. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Yep. As per my three thinking points, I've been working on the first one, still don't have answers. As for the second, I'd incorporate videos into other sections (speech audio-only and speech video on the same page) rather than have a video only page. For the formatting, I was quite imporessed by what FL was doing, pre-preparing their content in transclude-to-the-main-page-ready format. I think that might be a good idea if we could get it functional and looking good. If not, I donno, I'll look around. Either way, the templates we have now at WP:FS don't collapse videos, so they are effectively broken. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
      • I've got ideas for sections, split music into their respective time periods/categories, speeches have their own section (videos and all) and put miscellaneous sounds/videos in a Misc section. What we can do now is use a 2-col table (by that I mean the {| type tables, not the div-cols, they don't work on IE ._.), it'd halve the current portal size. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 8:11pm • 10:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

(←) How about "Speeches" "Field Recordings" "Miscellaneous" "Pre-17th Century Music" "17th Century" "18th Century" "19th Century" "20th Century" and "21st Century"? I don't think we have enough 16th century stuff to support a page, hence starting at 17th. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is one option, another option would be to put 'music' after each one century one, and seperate off "Hymns and Chants". I am personally worried about that one becuase of bountry issues. Is a capella music or a chant? What about spoken word poetry (which I am trying to get some of)? Sven Manguard Wha? 03:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Split into centuries and have subsections for speeches, music and videos. That way their wouldn't be "Western bias" and everything would be properly categorised. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:41am • 00:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox created

I created a sandbox at Portal:Featured Sounds/Sandbox, I'm going to try and alter the design based on the suggestions above. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 4:15pm • 06:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I woudn't want you to to a large amount of work for nothing, so I wouldn't dive to heavily into it yet. It'll be relatively easy to split out the current list, however we should probably decide on how we're going to present each sound. There is talk of scrapping the multi-listen item template for something else, and I will reiterate my suggestion that we make it as close as possible to whatever we use on the main page so that moving it over is easy.
Of course, whatever we decide, the current templates at WP:FS do not collapse if a video is in the box, so we'll need a workaround.
Either way, thanks for the initiative. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. As I said earlier we should use date periods and have music, video and speech subsections for that time period. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 6:10pm • 08:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Miltary Band performances of classical works

I was looking through the FSs that we have and am curious about the following nominations of military band performances of classical works. Please advise:

Are these up to current standards I am being instructed to follow?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

In short, yes. Military band performances are alright if they're not arrangements but the actual composition itself. Not all military band perfs are bad! —James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:50am • 00:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
So this means that for the noms above, the music was written for the pieces that played it in the nominated performance as opposed to a rearrangement to perform a piece with instruments other than the intended ones. Is that correct?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes that is correct. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 2:20pm • 04:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Some, perhaps, but I am becoming increasingly concerned at the proportion of arrangements that are being nominated, as opposed to original works. Encyclopedic value is typically served by illustrating an article with original works. The misleading file names are also a problem. There is a discussion here. I really do not want to see arrangements of the works of JS Bach at his article, for example, unless they are of very special merit and are related to the history of how his music has been performed, interpreted, arranged. This would not be more than a small subsidiary part of the article. Tony (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Het Wilhelmus

File:Wilhemus koor.ogg needs a lot of work, considering it is the recording used in the infobox, making it the first piece people listen to. The US Navy Band instrumental is further down, I've read the article through and through and all I see is that the piece was played by trumpets, so I'm assuming that the instrumental is the original anthem and not another brass band arrangement. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 4:11pm • 06:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Given the U.S. Navy ONLY does Brass band arrangements of national anthems, it would be very surprising if, by pure chance, they got it right here. I'll clean the file. It shouldn't take long; modern recordings are easy compared to 1910s. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Just cleaned it.Not bad, but there's a high-pitched whine I can't get rid of. (Audacity has no usable tools for dealing with that sort of thing.) Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Link please? :) also March of the Volunteers is a trumpet piece too IIRC. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 12:00pm • 02:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Maurice Ravel - Thérèse Dussaut - Pavane pour une infante défunte.ogg was never closed

Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Pavane pour une infante défunte was never closed although the file page says it passed and the nomination was archived. Zginder 2011-04-20T02:48Z (UTC)

Scaling back from Featured Sounds

Hi there.

I am dramatically scaling back my participation at Featured Sounds for an indefinate (at least a month or two) amount of time. I might stop by occasionally, but I don't anticipate performing any large number of votes or closes for a while, and would appreciate it if you all would refrain from placing Featured Sounds related news or requests on my talk page.

As you may know, my relationship with Featured Sounds and its regular editors has been tenuous at times. Recent events have placed me in an uncomfortable position, and therefore I am extricating myself from the area and waiting it out, rather than wading further into the situation and risking heated conflict.

I will not elaborate on this further, so please do not ask. Here's to hoping that the situation isn't as bad as I think it is. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose that we have no more than 20 1 nominations per person on the page at any point in time, whether they be delists, standard nominations or suspended nominations. Given the spike in activity at FSC this seems appropriate. Also, I propose that we should be allowed to invoke the WP:SNOW clause for nominations with clear consensus to promote, delist/replace or not promote.

  • Support as proposer. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 2:43pm • 04:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I think my newfound interest in FS is the problem. I think the limit should be on any one individual. I think rather than a total limit, an individual should be limited to 10 at one time. This will keep people from fighting everytime the list gets down to 19. 10 at one time is about 1 per day.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think limiting us to 20 is a good idea; if a newbie comes and can't nominate, we've probably lost them. Having a limit of one nomination per person per day would work better to the desired end; the reason it's so long is because of people nominating several nominations per day. Consider: If I have 10 things I want to nominate, under your rules, I could claim up to half the list, if I'm quick, blocking others out. Under a 1/day, I'm kept to a reasonable rate. 2/day might also work; we could try 2/day per person, and go to 1/day per person if it doesn't work. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Good point, I altered the proposal accordingly, also, what about the snow clause closing? —James (Talk • Contribs) • 8:57am • 22:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
      • I personally would like to nominations run the full 7 days --Guerillero | My Talk 23:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
One nomination a week?!?! That's excessively few. One a day is as low as I'd go. Perhaps it shouldn't be this way, but people tend to only go seeking out things when they're ready to nominate; one a week (or longer!) is far, far too slow.
So, Still oppose. Remember, our goal is to increase the number of good-quality FSCs to the point where we can eventually go daily, not to stifle the process just as it becomes successful. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
That was about the SNOW closes not restricting people to one nom a week --Guerillero | My Talk 01:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose There has to be a better solution How about instead we create an overflow procedure that says that if there are more than 25 we collapse the extras until there are less than 25. Better yet, let's do that and make the newest submissions go on the bottom so that the ones that need looking at most urgently are up top? Sven Manguard Wha? 01:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Many, many featured processes go over 25 all the time. FLC is at 42, FAC is at 49. We're making a mountain out of a molehill here. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Do they transculde all of the nominations at once? I'm concerned about length, hence the collapsing idea. I do agree nominally with you though, in the grater scheme of things, Featured Sounds has way larger problems to worry about, (diversity, usefulness of the sounds, getting onto the main page, increasing participation, etc.) so this isn't of too much concern. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
        • They do, actually. Also, I don't think reversing order is wise, because ideally, we want most of th voting to happen in the first couple days; the rest of the time allows concerns to be addressed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Alternate Proposal

Ok it seems people are against the limiting of nominations, but I still think that WP:SNOW clause closes should be invoked on nominations with clear consensus, it's sensible and let's us get on with business as usual.

  • Propose and support. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:14am • 23:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
    • If we consider this, it'd have to be after a reasonable minimum length of time: Look at the recent Obama video, which took some time for the aspect ratio error to be spotted. I could see allowing it on, say, day 5, but not much earlier. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment For sound files with say... 5+ support votes and minor issues SNOW would definitely be plausible and for videos, a 5 day minimum waiting period? That seems appropriate? I know this varies on a case by case basis and that the closer would need to fully take into account the comments on the nomination, so I further propose that SNOW should be invoked on nominations with CLEAR consensus and MINIMAL or NO issues. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 12:21pm • 02:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Seven days is a reasonable amount of time. We should stay with seven days, minimum, in all cases. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Uhhh... the Dial-up modem nom was left there to rot when it was clear it would be promoted, why delay the inevitable? As I said, given the spike in activity by many users (the likes of whom I've never seen before) I think it's more important we leave sounds with issues of some sort or another on the main page, that's where attention is needed, it might help lower the amount of "urgents" we have if we just promote, not promote, delist & replace the noms where there is clear consensus to do so. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 2:13pm • 04:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
      • It was promoted after one day. There are quite a few cases where an issue gets noticed in a file after four or five or six days, and a cascade of support turns into a cascade of opposition. I'd rather have the safety of extra time than have to go through a delisting and wipe the egg off of our faces. Call me overcautious if you want. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
        • That is why I think SNOW should be invoked sparingly and only in cases where consensus is VERY, VERY clear so 5/6 support and no oppose !votes and minor trivialities for issues. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:34pm • 11:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Adam above; enough time should be given for editors to check the pieces. 7 days is not an unreasonable limit, and the Obama video example should make us all wary of acting too quickly. Major Bloodnok (talk) 10:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Snow opposes

On a related subject, but one for which we might come down differently, how about WP:SNOW not promotions, that is, failures? If a piece has 3-4 opposes and no supports outside of the nominator, it's certainly going to fail. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Support. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 11:47am • 01:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Seems sensible; denying a piece FS for obvious issues where there is a clear consensus make sense. By contrast, allowing promotion for sounds without enough time for editors seems a shortcut too far. Major Bloodnok (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Licensing

This copy of William Tell Overture was posted as non-commercial share-alike. It is a 1926 Victor Symphony Orchestra recording. I am wondering if the person who posted it put it under the proper licensing or if there is a way to post this to commons with an acceptable license.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Not to my best knowledge no. Having read wmf:Terms of Use and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy as well as WP:CC-BY-SA it appears only the GFDL and CC-BY are compatible media licenses, that or uploading as fair use to enwp. Commons can only accept PD, CC-BY or GFDL. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:36pm • 12:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I believe we also accept CC-BY-SA, but NOT anything with non-commercial in it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I remember User:Killiondude posting a comment on a request at WP:FFU about a similar or this very license and how Wikipedia can't accept it. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:02am • 00:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
In any case, 1926 is dodgy, copyright-wise. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, 1923 is more preferred IIRC. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:16pm • 11:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I've been told by the Commons experts that it's up to 31 December 1922, to be exact. That was a surprise to me. Tony (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I would not bet on what I am about to say, but I disagree with many PD statements of Adam Cuerden. First remember that a recording can have a copyright on what is recorded and on the recording.
  1. What is recorded. The William Tell Overture is probably PD because I assume it was first published in the U.S. before January 1, 1923. Whether what was recorded was the original PD piece or a later copyrighted arrangement I do not know.
  2. The recording itself. The recording does not and never has had federal U.S. copyright, as recording fixed before February 15th 1972 did not acquire federal copyright. It may be copyrighted in any or all U.S. states under state law and or common law. The 1923 date means nothing for recordings. This applies to all recordings before 1972-12-15 except for U.S. gov. PD, Edison records PD, and PD donation.
My conclusion is that if we can say that the overture is PD and the recording is of the original overture, we can say the work is PD-100 and the recording is PD-US-record.
N.B. Most of the featured sounds have PD-US-record apply to them they are just not properly labeled. Zginder 2011-04-21T18:38Z (UTC)
That is what I was kind of hoping. I will download that and post it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't appear to have a CC-BY-NC license :S so I don't think the file is usable unless the licensee decides to change it to CC-BY-SA. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:51pm • 12:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I have licensed it as File:Rossini-William Tell Overture.ogg, per Zginder (talk · contribs) above. The most interesting of its current uses is at Transcription (music).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

5th FS Director?

With Sven taking a break from FS and the other 3 directors either away or busy, who's going to help with nomination processing? —James (Talk • Contribs) • 11:43am • 01:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I will be back in 6 days. After that I will have lots of free time to deal with FS things, finish the queue, and finish my GA. --In actu (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
It would be good to have a brief list somewhere at which directors can mark themselves active or temporarily inactive. In actu is Guerrilo, if I've spelled it correctly. James is Ancient Apparition. Tony (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes. I am currently on my declared sock. I put myself under enforced wikibreak to write 3 2 papers for school --In actu (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
It's a good name; I just get confused. Tony (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Here is that list tony. It also includes a contributer list for everyone who spends time at FS. --In actu (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Adam's gone on a LONG, LONG wikibreak. He confirmed this in a private email. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 11:06am • 01:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

With Guerillero as the only active FS director, we're going to have to slow down on nominations :S he can't close everything and neither can we. Given the amount of nominationss to FS participants, closing will take a lot longer than usual. Unless, of course, some regulars hold back from !voting to help close a few nominations. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 11:18am • 01:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem to being confined to mostly mop and bucket tasks. To make closing easier would you please confine yourself to one sound per page. That makes x!'s too alot easier to use. --In actu (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
By "one sound per page", do you mean one file per nomination? On the activity table, I was thinking of directors only. It's quite possible, btw, for any contributor to do the closing where there's no director to do it (if one knows how, which I never intend learning). Tony (talk) 04:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't mind one sound per page now that most of my multis are up. The next 11 things I want to nom are all natural singles. Hopefully in 12 days, we will be a little less backed up.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I've memorised the process having closed ~5 nominations and having Sven teach it to me over IRC. I'll hold back from !voting to help Guerillero. Atm I don't expect more than 3/4 !votes on a nom, given the inactivity of multiple users (and the disappearances of others). @Tony1: 1 nomination per page is what I think Guerillero meant, I think that's a reasonable thing to ask. Also with Adam's extended wikibreak FS will now be further delayed from appearing on the Main Page. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:49pm • 11:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, myself, TTT, Adam, Guerillero, Avenue, Sven and Spongie will have to refrain from posting another nomination until our current nominations are cleared. Though, I don't think I really needed to say anything about Sven or Adam as they won't be here for an extended period of time. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:48pm • 12:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:WBFSN

Is there going to be any content at WP:WBFSN to mirror WP:WBFAN and WP:WBFLN?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

There should be. We could beg the FA or FL bot nominator to add us to its rounds. If they can't do that we could try to get the source code and run a bot ourselves. (Beg X! or I could make a toolserver account) --In actu (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I think X! is going to be away longer than Adam and Sven combined :S —James (Talk • Contribs) • 7:02am • 21:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I just left a query at User_talk:Rick_Bot#WP:WBFSN, since he operates the bot that does WP:WBFAN and WP:WBFLN.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
He replied saying that basically, if we can generate a 2007 list by hand he can train his bot to do it for us. In truth, I am hoping someone else will create the list now that I have found out what we need to do.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll analyse the 2007 archives and I'll post them to WBFSN. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 4:52pm • 06:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Communicate with the bot operator at User talk:Rick Block#WP:WBFSN.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Will do, could you help me as well? I'll do Jan-June 2007 and you do Jul-Dec? We'd get it do twice as fast. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 5:30pm • 07:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
If there aren't too many. Are you going to make a page somewhere where you put together the list?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh right, collaboration will be difficult :S, I'll skim through the archives for Jan-June then post it. Don't worry 2007 was fairly quiet from the looks of it. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 5:39pm • 07:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Done up to June: Wikipedia:Featured sounds promoted in 2007 It's a basic list, I'll format it once the FA version loads. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 6:03pm • 08:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

All done for 2007. I'll leave a note on Rick's talk page. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 6:37pm • 08:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured sounds/Planning this should give you an idea og how many files happened each month --In actu (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Coast Guard Band

The Coast Guard Band put some good music online, but I can not figure out how to rip most of it. Does anyone know how to rip this album.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

If you have a good enough sound card, Audacity allows you to record directly from the sound card. Look it up and see if you can do it that way. (What this means is that it records the sound as it is played, before it reaches the speakers, so it's theoretically a perfect copy. Most desktops have sound cards that can do this. Laptops with integrated sound cards are less likely to have this feature, however some do.) Sven Manguard Wha? 07:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I just hit the record button on Audacity and then the play button on the Coast Guard play. It seems to be working. I'll try to post one before I go to sleep.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it catches my keystrokes so it must not be directly from the sound card.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Test file one File:Farewell of Slavianka.ogg. Feedback welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Woah... that's... so fuzzy. I'll try recording it off Audacity. EDIT: Hopeless :S, my sound card's a bit old to do that. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 6:44pm • 08:44, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
The other one I want to get is File:March Slav.ogg.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't know that I can do much better with my laptop, but I can try not to redo them seeing if I can use any of my volume and equalizer controls.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, they sound a bit... eerie if you know what I mean. It's like putting your mouth against an ordinary mobile phone's speaker and opening and closing your mouth, you'll get that weeooow sound. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 7:41pm • 09:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
If anyone can get a direct copy from the sound card they can just save over my files because there is no reason to clutter commons with crap.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I can use the analog whole --In actu (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what that means, but if it means you can produce a higher quality file, save over mine.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh. Well I forgot to mention this, the default option for Audacity is to record from your built in microphone. There's a drop down menu for choosing the recording source. Look here for details. You might need to check the website for Audacity to learn how to do this. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I just updated from 1.3.12 to 1.3.13 (beta) for windows and I still do not see that drop down. What version are you using?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I just found some new mouseover dropdowns for Audio Host, Output Device, Input Device and Input Channels. Input devices defaults to Primary Sound capture and has options for Integrated Microphone Arra?, Stereo Mix (IDT High Definit?, External Mic (IDT High Defin? What am I suppose to choose?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Voting

Can each of you please voice your opinion of as many of the open noms as you can. All of them are in need of some opinions. cheers --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 00:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Radetzky March, Sousa Marches and Kitten on the Keys are ready for promotion, I'd close them but I've !voted on them all. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 11:43am • 01:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I will do them when I find the time --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 03:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks Guerillero! —James (Talk • Contribs) • 6:57pm • 08:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
If I did not vote or nominate a candidate, could I close it or should I wait for the directors/regs?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
TTT, anyone can close, but since we have Guerillero at hand, let's wait? There's no rush, since the F and A page cycle doesn't close until end Saturday, UTC, anyway.

Could I put in a plea that all nominations give the relevant article(s) and that on closing the file name be printed at the bottom. If a nom is an arrangement, it should really say so in the nom text (and by whom and when). Featured sounds are turning out to be a time sink (per promotion) for us at The Signpost, compared with the other featured content. Tony (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Starting next week through mid-June, if you need something researched I should have the time to do it due to college classes ending. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Woodrow Wilson's speech on American Indians

I'm struggling to find a reference to this in the text of the article, even though the file itself has been inserted. That means I can't highlight it at F and A (I can't contextualise the speech: was it a turning point, the first time Native Americans had been mentioned by a politician in high office?). I do think the FS criteria need to say that a nomination needs not only to appear in at least one article, but that it should normally be contextualised or referred to in the text (or at least the caption). Tony (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that they shouldn't be wantonly inserted into articles. I think that we need to look at the EV of what we are promoting. Maybe we need to relook at the EV of most of our sounds. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Broken link on WP:FS

The line "|filename = U.S. Army Band — Coventry Carol.ogg" should probably be "|filename = U.S. Army Band - Coventry Carol.ogg" You cannot change hyphens in a filename to en-dashes, and spaces to non-breaking spaces, which is why quickly skimming the page after making changes is a good idea. 86.179.216.77 (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 1:04pm • 03:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Clinton videos

Why aren't the 3 Clinton videos in the video section?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Good point. As you bring up the Clinton videos, could the title of the Lewinsky video be changed? It's a press conference about education at the White House - see this page from the Washington Post to confirm it. I think the title (or at the very least the description page) should indicate what most of the video is about. Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I was staying true to the source, which describes it as the Lewinsky video. It is an otherwise non-notable press conference.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
      • That's fine, but anyone watching the press conference for the Lewinsky line would be easily confused. We should indicate what the bulk of the conference was about because thanks to the Lewinsky line an otherwise run of the mill event in the President's diary became notable. For completeness if nothing else. On reflection, I don't think the name of the file should be changed, just the file description should indicate context for the reader. Major Bloodnok (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

White House entertainers

In the spirit of keeping all conversations in the same place, I collapsed this conversation. It is continuing here. If you feel strongly about this topic please comment there. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

When someone is hired to perform at the White House (or does so for free) are they an employee of the United States Government for PD purposes?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I am wondering about videos like this one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
No they are government contractors and their work is not PD. Zginder 2011-04-27T06:50Z (UTC)
At Wikipedia_talk:Public_domain#White_House_Enterainers_not_PD, I got the following feedback: "I don't know that a performer could have a copyright in a recording they didn't make of their performance of a song they don't own, as a performance isn't a "writing." from Postdlf. Let's keep the conversation there. I think I will upload the Yolanda Adams performance of "How Great Thou Art" later today.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

pre 1923?

Resolved

Was Agustin Barrios Mangoré's Waltz Op. 8, No. 4 published before 1923?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Closing

Late tonight EST I will be closing a batch of things. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 23:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

A little note

The Proposal made by Adam for SNOW closes of nominations with clear consensus had three supports (Adam, myself and Major Bloodnook). I understand some of you might have concerns about Featured proecesses not using SNOW, but FSC has never been like any of the other Featured Processes, and it's been a working system for ~4 years now which says a lot. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:08pm • 12:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

White House entertainer videos.

I have done six of the eight White House Evening of Classical Music videos. There are two more with touchy licensing. If anyone is well-versed in licensing feel free to bring the following to fine performances to WP. There is ongoing discussion about their PD nature at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#PD.3F:

File:March_Slav.ogg

File:March_Slav.ogg has been nominated at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:March Slav.ogg. It was in my queue to nominate here. Please come and comment.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop closing nominations that do not have enough comments

We still do not have enough people looking at this page to be closing nominations that lack a quorum. Zginder 2011-05-02T18:06Z (UTC)

Is this happening? Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Remember that a quorum is only three !votes --Guerillero | My Talk 20:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

About one more annoyance away from going back on Wikibreak.

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Suggested_new_user_right:_Ability_to_edit_fully-protected_articles_in_Template_space

I'll try to get the damn code done first, though. But I can't even get the userrights I need to do half the stuff I need to do, without having all the bullshit I've gone through on here getting dredged up. And once that happens, I begin hating myself for having ever returned to Wikipedia. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Dancing Willow - Demo-CD 2007 02 - The foggy dew.ogg

This needs to be local; The Foggy Dew is, at least in its original arrangement, still in copyright in Ireland, and, as that's the original arrangement, I don't think Commons can host it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Atoms for peace u.S. government or UN.

I was about to upload a recording of the Atoms for Peace speech, when I asked my whether UN or US Government applies as it was given at the UN general assembly? Zginder 2011-04-23T22:50Z (UTC)

Both put their stuff out for free so guessing can't hurt --Guerillero | My Talk 04:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

using thumb on videos

According to commons:Help:Converting_video#General_conversion_tips the load on the servers is the same for whether a video is being played in thumbnail or not. It recommends uploading multiple versions and uses the low quality version and link to the large version. We currently have thumbnail our videos. Do I have permission to do this with the featured sound page? Zginder 2011-05-03T05:38Z (UTC)

Sounds sensible, although others may flag up something I haven't thought of. Major Bloodnok (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd suggest the smaller ones can probably be higher quality in turn. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Brass band recordings of National anthems

May I suggest a temporary hiatus on these? I'm wondering whether we shouldn't say that instrumental versions of songs are discouraged, compared to sung. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

rearrangment PD?

I am not sure if I have improperly licensed File:Paraguay National Anthem.ogg. I think I may have and want a second opinion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ribbon

I made a ribbon for the newish barnstar. link cheers--Guerillero | My Talk 03:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Cool, good work Guerillero :) out of interest, do ribbons have a template? Since I'm not so familiar with ribbons. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 5:44pm • 07:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
There is no template. They are just a condensed way to show off what barstars you have been awarded --Guerillero | My Talk 19:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah ok then. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 8:00pm • 10:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

FS Directors

Due to some personal issues both sven and adam have left the position of FS Directors. That leaves X! and myself. I am just keeping you guys in the loop. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 22:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Are we going to have replacement directors for the interim? —James (Talk • Contribs) • 6:52pm • 08:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure yet. We need to consider if it is wise to have tons of directors or have something like the right to close discussions. --Guerillero | My Talk 06:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, we'll need more participation though. There are TONNES of sound files just waiting to be promoted, all we need is more people who'll be willing to nominate them. April was the best month for FS, I want to see EVERY month be the best month for FS, but alas participation has slumped... we've lost newbies and old-hands and now it's just a handful of users who chime-in here and there, but that's basically it. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 7:59pm • 09:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Is there anyway we could do a recruitment drive? --Guerillero | My Talk 17:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Whenever the mainpage thing goes live there will be publicity that should naturally bring in more help. I would also check with WP:POST and see if they could feature our project when the main page thing goes live.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
While I do wish Sven and Adam well, and hope that they are able to sort out whatever it is which made them leave (and hope that they will be able to return in due course), what is the state of play with the FS on the Main Page? Adam's recent frustrated message about templates and his lack of rights to change them seemed to imply there is work still to do and that he was finding it difficult to find a resolution. AFAIK he was the person doing all the coding. Is there anyone able to pick up from where he left off (there must be someone who understands the internal workings of WP somewhere on the internet), or should we just wait? In answer to James's point earlier, I for one would love to do more here, but RL time is very short at the moment. Major Bloodnok (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
@Bloodnok He was the one doing most of the coding. I have a sketchy idea of what needs to be done but I don't know all of the subtleties of the code. I can do little things but nothing huge. If X! returns, he would be the first person to ask. If we can not find a suitable person to do the necessary coding we will need to push main page exposure back indefinable. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah, well. Fingers crossed then. Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought Adam emailed you the code before his "long wikibreak"... I'll leave a note on the talk page for the main page... —James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:28am • 23:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a stab at it. I recently did a cleanup of the main page, so I'm quite familiar with it's inner workings. I just need to know what goes where and when, etc. — Edokter (talk) — 00:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
@James. At the time I thought I had everything I needed but the more I look at It the less I know.
@Edokter I will shoot you an email. --Guerillero | My Talk 16:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Urgent box

Can we please limit the number of sounds in the urgent box. If we list half of the active sounds it looses all meaning. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should set the threshold for what is considered "urgent" at... 2 weeks or more without any discussion. If a nomination has some comments but has largely been neglected thereafter, I'd say 2 weeks after the last comment would be a reasonable amount. Participation at FS is neglible in comparison with other featured processes so I really think 2 weeks is not much to ask for. Thoughts? —James (Talk • Contribs) • 6:50pm • 08:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Tentative proposal for some enhancements of the FS criteria

I'm slowly putting together some of my ideas of how to improve the FS criteria; specifically issues connected to the "High Quality" of musical performances here on my user page. While by no means complete or my final thoughts on the issues, any criticisms or additions / comments or suggestions would be welcome. I hope some of the things I've put down meet with approval from the community. Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I would underline the adds to the understanding phrase. I beleive that we forget about that too much. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to read that immediately, and I may well have a few comments on it. The low standards here has been a sticking point for me for a while. The last thing that anyone wants is for FS to be seen in the same way that VP was, as a rubber stamping of decent but not outstanding material. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Suggestions from Sven
  • In the subsection "Sound description page", below point (vii) I would add the following
    • (viii) Proper licensing templates for each component of the recording. Recordings of nature sounds and a limited number or other pieces need only one template, as only one party had a significant hand in the creation of the file. Most musical recordings, however, need at least two templates, one for the original composition and another for the performance. The templates should be labeled to indicate which component they refer to. See this Featured Sound for an example of how this would look.
  • Near the bottom where it says "(ii) Could the performance be regarded as a "typical" performance of a work?" I would add at the end:
    • In some rare cases a performance is notable for being atypical. If this is the case it must me mentioned in the nomination, file description page, and the text of the article where the sound appears.

Thoughts? Sven Manguard Wha?

The current criteria is inadequate and fails to describe what is expected of Featured Sounds. This would be a welcome change. Also, per the sub-section below, our stance on videos is unclear. Will FS and FP share videos or will videos be moved from one featured process to the other or a separate process created altogether. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:24am • 23:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with your suggestions; there may be discussions from earlier threads that we could mine for ideas - my main concern in the first instance was the terribly vague "good quality" criteria. On the other hand I don't want to get too prescriptive as that eliminates personal taste and judgement, and also makes it harder for newcomers. I think "Assessment Objective" can be changed to "Assessment Criteria" throughout (I was thinking of some of the exam marking that I've got coming up)Major Bloodnok (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with your suggestions james. --Guerillero | My Talk 17:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I've added your ideas and moved a couple of things around. It would be great to add more links to sound clips (both FS and delisted or refused ones for exemplar purposes) to help illustrate the points made. I'm thinking of linking to one of the denied Moonlight Sonata recordings (the one with all the wrong notes) to illustrate the musical quality point. Perhaps one of La Pianista's Featured recordings too. Any preferences? Major Bloodnok (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
They were Sven's idea, I was agreeing with his proposal, I've added his sig after his comment to prevent confusion. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 4:45pm • 06:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I have copied my proposed criteria changes to Wikipedia:Featured_sound_candidates/proposed_criteria_changes so others can edit and amend them if the urge moves them... Major Bloodnok (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Lets not reinvent the wheel and use FP's EV explanation

  1. Adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article.
    • The image is used in one or more articles.[1] It is preferable to wait a reasonable period of time (at least 7 days) after the image is added to the article before nominating it, though this may be ignored in obvious cases, such as replacing a low-resolution version of an image with a higher resolution of the same image.
    • A picture's encyclopedic value is given priority over its artistic value.[2]
  1. ^ An image has more encyclopedic value (often abbreviated to "EV" or "enc" in discussions) if it contributes strongly to a single article, rather than contributing weakly to many. Adding an image to numerous articles to gain EV is counterproductive and may antagonize both FPC reviewers and article editors.
  2. ^ While effects such as black and white, sepia, oversaturation, and abnormal angles may be visually pleasing, they often detract from the accurate depiction of the subject.

It says everything I have been trying to say over the past few weeks --Guerillero | My Talk 21:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


Videos

What is our stance on videos? Do we prefer them or straight sounds? Guerillero | My Talk

Videos are good, but per Adam's previous comments on noms the sound layer is harder to edit without slightly impairing the visual quality. That said, most modern videos are of substantial audio and visual quality, take the video we have of Obama's announcement of bin Laden's death for example, the quality of that video is superb. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 4:45pm • 06:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Videos can be valuable, but we have to be careful how we discuss the video quality issue; I think with the Obama address to congress we were at the lower limit of what we could accept. Can anyone come up with a form of words to add into a re-write of the criteria? I will try when I can later.Major Bloodnok (talk) 06:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you. However, there's been no discussion on the status of videos before and as this is an important discussion, I have placed video nominations on hold. People are free to comment on videos, however, until consensus on the matter has been establish future nominations of videos should be postponed. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 5:00pm • 07:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Videos should be a part of this project to the extent that their audio content is encyclopedic. I personally prefer a video to a straight sound, but we often have to sacrifice video quality for FS. Nonetheless, even a poor video with high quality sound is preferable to just the sound, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you, a standalone sound file is insubstantial because you can't see what's happening that's a loss for speeches as facial expression is particularly important as is body language, though past nominations have already established that the sound should be of optimal quality and the visuals, an acceptable quality so that much shouldn't change.

Since past discussions have largely ignored this question or consensus on the matter did not exist, it is largely unclear as to whether or not FS should incorporate video files. Should we or shouldn't we? —James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:43pm • 11:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I have only been here less than 6 weeks, but I recall discussions saying that although a separate project might be desirable in the future, they either belong here or at FP for now. In cases, where the sound file is the important part of the video, previous discussants have said that they belong here. Most video files have significant audio content as all current FSs and FSCs do. Unless a video does not have significant sound content, it seems to automatically belong here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
On the whole I think we should have video and yes, in the long-run I would expect a FV portal to open. I'm undecided whether we should currently be concerned about an overlap with FP, but I'll go with TTT's summary of the earlier conversation as a good basis for continuing. Sorry, I was getting ahead of myself when I said lets's formulate some guidance without discussion.
The key question for me is what the base-line should be. On the whole, I think (possibly stating the bleedin' obvious) that the video should be of the highest quality (highest bit-rate and resolution) and largest size possible. We can obviously hit the 100MB file-size limit with large video files, which brings up the other key question - should we be concerned about large file sizes? Do we need to consider the demands on WP's bandwidth, especially for a large video file on the Main Page? I did see a page somewhere on WP which did state that file sizes should be of smallest size possible - I cannot now find the page.
If we have a responsibility not to create enormous demands on WP's servers with very popular video files then we can't really allow files to go near the limit, and that potentially has an implication for the quality of some of them.
On the other hand, if we were to consider that video files were merely an augmentation of a sound recording (at least for FS purposes), then lower quality would be fine, although that does beg the question "why bother?" if the quality of the video is low. Major Bloodnok (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
What is the status of this discussion? I have more videos I would like to nominate.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
It seems no one has a problem with FS and FP sharing videos. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 12:50pm • 02:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
This wasn't meant to be anti-videos, it was meant to start a discussion if there are other criteria that are needed for videos that may need to be added to the criteria --Guerillero | My Talk 03:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my suspension of video nominations were to get an idea of what is considered appropriate for FS. It's been agreed that:

  1. Files should be of a high quality, however:
    The audio quality should always be superior in the case of historically important recordings (Presidential adresses for example) or:
    Both the audio and visual content are of a high quality and minor blemishes, if any.
  2. Given that video editing is quite problematic and may have undesirable effects:
    Where it is not possible for the audio quality to be at its best (of a slightly below standard level), but the visual content is at a high/optimal level then the file would be more appropriately suited for FP, making sure it satisfies the FP criteria
    Where the video quality is not of the highest quality (but of an acceptable level, ideally not blurred), but the audio quality is clear and lacking in faults then the file would be more appropriately suited for FS, making sure it satisfies the FS criteria

That's what I've been getting from this and past discussions. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 4:42pm • 06:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

All of the above seems like a productive way forward. Should we be concerned about file size at all, given that quality and image resolution are roughly in proportion to size of the file produced and there is potential for high load on WP's servers? Major Bloodnok (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
We should ask the develpers/server admins if this is an issue and what they think about it before we make a decision --Guerillero | My Talk 13:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I've reformatted the proposed changes to the FS criteria and changed a fair amount in the process while attempting to stay with the spirit of what was there before. The page now looks more like the Wikipedia:Featured_picture_criteria page (I did use some of the material there too). I have also added James's video criteria. Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I like it, the draft you've written is certainly more substantial and defines an FS better than the current criteria does (which is not very clear on any points really). If no one has any objections, I'll copy-paste the criteria and leave a redirect from there for attribution purposes. Also Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance :) —James (Talk • Contribs) • 4:30pm • 06:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
That's great. I'm glad it meets approval. I think there is potential for adding more example sounds to the criteria (as footnotes perhaps). Also good news on the server issue. Here's to lots of 100MB video files on the main page then :) Major Bloodnok (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Hear hear! :) I've redirected the proposal page to the criteria page and pasted its original contents over the old criteria. Thanks Bloodnok and Sven! —James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:06pm • 11:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Criteria

I've now anchored the FS criterion, so WP:WIAFS#1 links to the first criterion and so forth. When you have concerns about a certain file don't forget to refer to the criterion, it's now even easier! Anchors work like section links so you won't have to scroll down :) —James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:17pm • 11:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_sound_candidates/Archive_5&oldid=1086030842"