Talk:National Recording Registry

Page Overhaul

This list is undergoing an overhaul according to the recent peer review. In addition to the changes there, I am incorporating stylistic changes that prevail at list that have been selected as featured lists. You can see that I have begun conversion to wikitable format because most articles that reach featured list status are in this format. I hope many of the people who have helped me edit this page to its pre review state will help me improve it to a featured list quality level.

P.S. this list holds a place in my heart because it is the first page I created begining with my 4th edit as a wikipedian. TonyTheTiger 20:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the page needs an overhaul. I think it should be more like the article for the National Film Registry, where all of the selections are part of one table, and the year they were added to the registry is one sortable field. Having ten separate lists is a bit unwieldy.69.67.124.60 (talk) 18:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The following references have been changed

The following references have been changed:

• 6
• 8
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 14

More of the references may have been changed. You may want to check any of the references with "loc.gov"; they seemed to have changed a few oof they're URLs.

GA failed

According to this criteria, the article fails, since GA does not cover lists. Consider taking it to peer review and straight to FAC. --Nehrams2020 18:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

2007 list

When is the 2007 list going to be released?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It was released on May 14, 2008. Finally got around to adding it. — WiseKwai 20:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

New table column

Type of recording. E.g., album, song, speech, field recording, radio broadcast... It'd be handy to order the table contents into groups of recording type.222.152.165.138 (talk) 08:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Repeated Entries in 2010 and 2012

e.g. Prof. Longhair appears in both213.78.155.203 (talk) 06:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Old page history

Some old history that used to be at the title "National Recording Registry" can now be found at Talk:National Recording Registry/Old history. Graham87 11:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Major Revampment Proposal

Hello, everybody. I don't really know if anybody's gonna read this, knowing the last reply on this page was on August of last year, but it's worth a shot. I was browsing through this article, and I was also browsing through the National Film Registry article, when I noticed both had one major difference: the film article has all of the preserved films in one giant table, while the one for this article is split up into multiple tables with multiple headings, taking up too much space, etc. So, I was thinking for a bit, and I suggest that instead of an individual table for an individual year, I suggest we use the same format as the table in the National Film Registry article. Below is a short example showing what the article could look like (I selected random recordings from the article, and a picture as well):

Nirvana are considered one of the modern era's most influential bands, helping popularize alternative rock.

Recording or collection	Performer or agent	Category of recording or collection	Year of release	Year of induction	Natioal Archives	Ref
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band	The Beatles	Pop (post-1955)	1967	2003		[2003 recs letter ref]
Nevermind	Nirvana	Pop (post-1955)	1991	2004		[2004 recs letter ref]
The Fall of the City (Columbia Workshop)	Orson Welles, narrator; Burgess Meredith, Paul Stewart	Radio	1937, 11 April	2005	copy	[2005 recs letter ref]
The Joshua Tree	U2	Pop (post-1955)	1987	2013		[2013 recs letter ref]
OK Computer	Radiohead	Pop (post-1955)	1997	2014		[2014 recs letter ref]
Abraxas	Santana	Latin	1970	2015		[2015 recs letter ref]

Below are some examples why featuring just one giant list would be better over multiple tables:

• The article's size (both in word count AND article size) could be reduced, probably drastically.
• It is (arguably) much more easier to read in this format than the current format in use right now.
• This page would look nearly identical to its sister page, albeit there are differences in the content of the articles.
• It would eliminate the near-worthless text at the start of nearly every individual heading that reads: "On MMDDYYYY, the following 25 selections were announced.", thus contributing to both lessen the word count and support argument #1.

Anyways, that's my proposal to not only organize the article, but to also free up some space and bits from the article. Again, I'm not sure if anybody will read this, and I'm only posting this because I don't want to create a huge drastic difference in the article seemingly overnight; I want to see if I have support from others. So, please, tell any suggestions, support, opposition, any all of that by replying to this new section. Thank you, and have a great day. Redolta📱 ^Contribs 07:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

One major benefit to sections is in editing. Long tables are very difficult to find and repair errors, with major scrolling needed during previews.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Just passing through: have been a follower of the NRR for years. While it may be true that editing may become slightly more challenging, the current layout is just a lot more unwieldy. The National Film Registry is a much larger chart and is easy to navigate, whereas this page has pictures added every single year that just fall onto the bottom of the page. Do we need to add pictures every single year? The pictures aren't separated on every browser; I use Chrome and this page always looks like a mess in my browser. Sounds of Australia is the same concept but it is condensed into one chart and feels all the better for it. I see this has been brought up before when the Registry was much smaller; at 500 entries, there needs to be an overhaul. I believe there should just be one chart, especially now that the infobox is gone (see below). 216.165.95.166 (talk) 07:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Infobox?

This article doesn't necessarily need an infobox; see WP:Disinfoboxes.

If we really want to add an infobox, Template:Infobox website isn't the most appropriate one, because the National Recording Registry is not a website; it is a board under the National Archives Library of Congress, which is a government agency; therefore Template:Infobox government agency would probably be more appropriate. It also looks funny to see the picture of MLK under the infobox instead of put inside of it; but that probably wasn't done because that isn't really an appropriate picture to illustrate the National Recording Registry; it's just an illustration of one of the notable recordings (albeit possibly the most notable one.) JustinTime55 (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the article doesn't clearly spell out that the registry is actually under the purview of the LOC, not the National Archives (which has its own audiovisual collection), but hints that there may be overlap and redundancy where the National Register recordings are political in nature. Also, Template:Infobox library might be more appropriate. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The National Film Registry page uses Template:Infobox company, though none of these templates are a perfect fit.--2600:1008:B041:5D4C:BCDF:4325:F4A2:3F7 (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Missing an important piece of information

According to this article, the National Recording Registry is "a list of recordings" and says "recordings [are] preserved in the ... Registry ... for preservation in the Library of Congress", and "The list shows overlapping items and whether the National Archives has an original or a copy of the recording." But it doesn't say exactly how the recordings are preserved! Just listing the recordings doesn't preserve them; obviously copies of the recordings must be physically stored in the Library of Congress. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Question

Why do you keep deleting the George Carlin source? Espngeek (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Questionable?

People with multiple entries

• John Coltrane: Giant Steps and A Love Supreme
• Scott Joplin: Ragtime piano rolls and Treemonisha
• Orson Welles: War of the Worlds and The Fall of the City
• Curtis Mayfield: People Get Ready (The Impressions) and Super Fly (solo)
• Louis Armstrong: Hot Five and Hot Seven recordings and Mack The Knife
• Bing Crosby: Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? and White Christmas
• Miles Davis: Ko-Ko and Kind of Blue
• Paul Simon: Sounds of Silence and Graceland
• Dizzy Gillespie: Ko-Ko and Manteca
• George Gershwin: Rhapsody in Blue, Porgy and Bess and Fascinating Rhythm
• Johnny Mercer: Carousel of American Music and Ac-Cent-Tchu-Ate the Positive
• The Carter Family:Wildwood Flower and Bristol sessions
• Jimmie Rodgers: Blue Yodel (T for Texas) and Bristol sessions
• Nat King Cole: Straighten Up and Fly Right and Jazz at the Philharmonic
• Judy Garland: Judy at Carnegie Hall and Over the Rainbow
• Thomas A. Dorsey: Precious Lord: New Recordings of the Great Gospel Songs of Thomas A. Dorsey and If I Could Hear My Mother Pray Again
• Leonard Bernstein: West Side Story and New York Philharmonic debut
• Edward R. Murrow: I Can Hear It Now: 1933-1945 and 1941 broadcasts from London
• Roy Acuff Grand Ole Opry debut and Wabash Cannonball
• Cole Porter: You're the Top and Ella Fitzgerald Sings the Cole Porter Song Book
• Stephen Sondheim: West Side Story, Gypsy and Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
• Rogers and Hammerstein: South Pacific, Oklahoma! and The Sound of Music
• Brian Eno: Remain in Light (Talking Heads) and The Joshua Tree (U2)
• Irving Berlin: God Bless America and Carousel of American Music

Espngeek (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Date sorting

When adding more tables to the article, please use Template:Date table sorting. Without the template, all the dates that contain the month get sorted alphabetically. The template treats the spelled-out months as numbers so that they are sorted properly.  Bait30  ^Talk? 09:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Image overload

This article now has so many accompanying images that the thumbnails extend far beyond the article text when I view the page in my desktop browser and make navigating this list on a mobile browser nearly prohibitively cumbersome. We should consider instituting a limit of, say, two images per decade and paring down the excess. Obviously it'll be a bit painful to lose the (literal and figurative) color they bring, but I think a reduction is needed to make this list accessible.

Espngeek, this change would have the greatest affect on your contributions, so I would greatly value your thoughts in selecting which images are retained. I know I'd prioritize images like those of Ishi, the Bee Gees, and Goria Estefan that have informative captions of direct relevance to the the subjects' inclusion in the registry, but I'm open to other criteria. ​​​​—jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 16:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry about overloading, just a lot of empty space to fill IMO; hope I fixed the article and thanks for telling me. Espngeek (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

On the subject of the images, I think it is not only the quantity that is at issue, but their nature. Many of the selections (and accompanying descriptions) focus on the artists rather than their works--but it is the works that have been honored by Registry inclusion. Rather than, say, an image of R.E.M. and description of why the band is important, there should be an image of the "Radio Free Europe" single and description of why it is important. (In a case where an artist's entire output was inducted, focus on the individual would seem more justified.) --174.221.15.77 (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• It all depends on the copyright status of said image of "Radio Free Europe". Espngeek (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Place the images under the table?

The table's arguably the meat of the article, and you have to scroll down a whole lot of images (in chronological order of induction) to get there. I argue that they would work better in their own section underneath that of the table, providing extra context to the inductees. FreeChurros (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Great idea Espngeek (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia Commons

National Film Registry article has all its images placed in a separate Commons article: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/National_Film_Registry . I'm wondering if we shouldn't do the same thing here. Those images are taking up a lot of real estate, and they'll keep increasing by the year. I'm worried they're taking attention away from the actual selection list rather than supplementing it. FreeChurros (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Reduce the "People with multiple entries" section to just "Artists?"

It's unwieldy and long. I've noticed that on the page for the National Film Registry it only lists the directors with multiple entries. What if, instead of exhaustively listing backup singers, producers and sampled musicians, we only focus on the named artists/agents, artists appearing in compilations/soundtracks that also have solo recordings on the Registry? FreeChurros (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Not sure I fully understand the suggestion being made above but it would definitely be more useful and user friendly if it were alphabetic. Irish Melkite (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

National Archives

Apparently, the National Archives column indicates recordings that are also maintained in the National Archives (?). Assuming that there is any importance to cross-indexing that fact (and I'm not exactly clear why there would be), it would be really helpful to the average wiki user if the article explained the column's purpose and the "original"/"copy" content thereof. Most users are not going to intuitively understand it and few are going to delve into 'Talk' in hopes of finding out the what and why. Frankly, in my opinion, a more interesting cross-index would indicate those that are also contained in the Smithsonian's massive collections of culturally important sound recordings. Irish Melkite (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Do samples count on Artists with multiple entries section?

Examples: Jay-Z sampled Michael Jackson and The Doors on The Blueprint. Espngeek (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

My stance is no. FreeChurros (talk) 05:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I think they count; how else would they get the royalties? Espngeek (talk) 07:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd also err towards not including this information. It feels like WP:CRUFT to me to include that on there. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Rephrase "also a National Film Registry inductee"?

The recordings themselves aren't inducted in the NFR, they're IN films that have been inducted in the NFR. I think a better phrasing would be "This recording or parts of it appear in a National Film Registry inductee," though I admit that outside of the NFR/NRR relation I don't really see the point of mentioning this on the NRR page, especially next to albums where only one song appears in a movie, sometimes incidentally. It feels more like superfluous trivia. --FreeChurros (talk) 05:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

They do intersect each other Espngeek (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

But, like, do they intersect enough to merit extensive cataloging on this Wikipedia page every time a song plays in an NFR inductee? I can't see that. The Library of Congress website doesn't do that, actually it keeps the Film and Recording Registries relatively separate (give or take a few occasional mentions if a soundtrack album gets in the NFR). --FreeChurros (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with FreeChurros on this one too. How it's worded now is very vague and it probably could be removed or limited only to specific items. When I see this on an entry like "Reach Out, I'll Be There", I have no idea what it's referring to or even what film registry entry it's connected to. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Plus it's not like you could then mention EVERY SINGLE FILM with a song that also happens to be in the NRR. That'd be overkill. --FreeChurros (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

FYI it was featured at the end of Cooley High. You're welcome. Espngeek (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

It feels like we've reached an impasse, so I've set up a dispute resolution to avoid conflict. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#National_Recording_Registry FreeChurros (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

I propose that sections National_Recording_Registry#Inductees and National_Recording_Registry#Artists_with/who_appear_on_multiple_entries be split into separate pages called List of National Recording Registry entries and List of artists with multiple entries on the National Recording Registry. Both these sections combined, with their lengths, seem to be adding up to a page that is getting off-topic, and these sections are large enough to make their own page. For an example of a case similar this, I direct attention to National Inventors Hall of Fame and its subpage List of National Inventors Hall of Fame inductees. FreeChurros (talk) 04:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I oppose such a split. A full "List of artists with multiple entries on the National Recording Registry" article would just be WP:CRUFT, moreso than the actual table on this page. At this point I think the collapsible table currently on this page is a better choice than splitting it off, if those are the two options available. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

One more thing. I very much oppose splitting the inductees section off this National Recording Registry page. That list is the entire crux of the page and the reason for its inclusion as a featured list. Without it, this page would just be a couple paragraphs long. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree. A can agree that List of artists with multiple entries on the National Recording Registry would definitely encourage even more cruft that is already there. Historyday01 (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't have a particular opinion on splitting or not, but I think that the inductees list os by far the more important of the two, and probably the most important part of the page overall. The "artist with multiple entries" section is definitely secondary, and at least a little arbitrary due to the criteria used (main artist, featured performer, composer, producer, work was sampled, one part of an ensemble, their song was sampled but they don't play on the part that was sampled, etc.) Sbb618 (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I think that settles it: proposal denied Espngeek (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment on keeping or removing trivia notes on article

Related to the discussion two sections above. Seeking comment on if notes on National Film Registry should be kept or removed, as discussion came to a standstill. FreeChurros (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean the footnote? It's not that intrusive. Some reader might find it useful. Why not? CurryCity (talk) 08:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

"Useless" trivia can actually be pretty useful :) Espngeek (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

They would be more useful if there was more context attached to each footnote, particularly what NFR entries are being referred to in each instance. A Wikipedia footnote shouldn't be a guessing game. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. They should be improved, not removed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

(invited by the bot) It's hard to learn the points of the debate because I don't see the debate. But the current "notes" section looks fine and useful to me. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

This recording or parts of it appear in a National Film Registry inductee listing

If these are going to be included they need to have the film named in the footnote or otherwise they're ambiguous and unhelpful. What does listing "Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This)" as this without saying which film it's used in add to this page exactly? Wikipedia footnotes shouldn't be a trivia guessing game. It's not Jeopardy. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Espngeek: I think it might be better if you put this information into a new section in the article instead of putting these in footnotes. It's a bit of a confusing mess as it is now, and doing a section might be a little clearer. Maybe something similar to the table in the "Artists with/people who appear on multiple entries" section with the movie in question clearly named? Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 23:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Found some sources to help you with your problem Espngeek (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

That's not quite it: I'm suggesting this information about the Film/Recording Registries might work better on this page as its own section, not a series of footnotes that do not specifically name the films in question. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 00:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that an entire list of films that incidentally used cues from the Recording Registry that just so happened to be inducted into the Film Registry would add more bloat to the article, but I feel that way still about the overloading of citations in an effort to name every single film. If you ask me, this is the concern I tried raising almost exactly a year ago bearing fruit. I'm still of the mind that the cross-referencing to the National Film Registry should be either restricted to the See Also section.

Or, as a compromise, maybe a paragraph in the Statistics section of inducted soundtrack albums and single releases in the Statistics section that were written for, or made to be explicitly associated with and/or to promote films inducted in the NFR, instead of incidental usage? So the soundtrack albums to Super Fly, Star Wars, Saturday Night Fever and possibly Buena Vista Social Club, as well as songs like "Over the Rainbow" for Wizard of Oz and "The Rainbow Connection" for The Muppet Movie. FreeChurros (talk) 12:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I like cross-referencing even when the songs were used incidentally. Also, why separate? Espngeek (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I know you like doing it. I'm just stating my belief that it distracts from/hurts the article in the long run. And though I disagree with Doc Strange's solution to separate, he's expressing a sentiment that's similar to mine. Mentioning that a song was in a film in the NFR without saying what film it is isn't useful as trivia, but overloading on citations or having a list of films tacked onto this article doesn't work either, so I'm of the mind that it should be excised. FreeChurros (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

My idea of the separate section is more of a compromise, really. If you think the footnotes should go, FreeChurros, I wouldn't be against it. The footnotes feel incomplete and either assume the reader already knows what films are being referred to or them having to stop reading this page to figure out which film it is. Wikipedia footnotes shouldn't feel like a Sporcle quiz, which these do. If they are to stay, I like FreeChurros' idea of only keeping recording that were "written for, or made to be explicitly associated with and/or to promote films inducted in the NFR" instead of incidental music used only for a few moments. And I think that works better as a section than a series of footnotes too. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I concur with Doc Strange. Also agree with FreeChurros's main point: "Mentioning that a song was in a film in the NFR without saying what film it is isn't useful".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

How the page looks now looks good to me. That's about as many of those NFR footnotes that should be here. Thanks! Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Links to Edison Exhibition recordings

@Cassiopeia, I am trying to add links to the very first entry in the National Recording Registry, namely the Thomas Edison Exhibition Recordings. Most of the other entries are linked to pages giving further information, and the very first entry has no explanatory links. Can you please address this matter here, rather than reverting? Thanks. - Antiquated (talk) 02:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Antiquated Good day, you wrote to me here and your talk page. Thus, I will reply you on your talk page. Cassiopeia talk 08:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia, I am replying here, because this concerns edits made to this page. Your note to my talk page stated: "I have removed your edits on the above page. Pls note that utube or any social media is considered not relaible source. You can add the info in if you have independent, reliable source suh as from the newspaper or books. Thank you." To this I reply that the links in question were not added as sources, but simply as links to illustrate the musical pieces in question. Two of the links are to Youtube videos which simply play the recordings in question, thus there is no issue of reliability: the links function as audio links and allow the user to hear the recording that is mentioned in the article. The third link is to the Wikipedia page of the composer of the piece, which in turn has a link to a Youtube video of a recording of the piece. Most of the other pieces named in this list are linked to Wikipedia articles. Thus I think you are being overzealous and mis-applying the principle of reliable sourcing. Accordingly I am reverting your reversion. - Antiquated (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

OK, I created a Wikipedia page for the *song* "Pattison Waltz", so that link should be OK with you now I hope. As for the others, it would be onerous to create pages just on those recordings. - Antiquated (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Antiquated I have reverted your edits and I understand your intention to illustrate the musical pieces but it is against the Wikipedia guidelines to add external unsourced info in the article. Pls note that not only the source is unreliable but there are also considered external spam links. Pls do not add them back and if you continue to do so then you will be eventually blocked. Thank you. Cassiopeia talk 03:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)