Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/June 2011

Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.

• For promoted entries, add '''Promoted Example.ogg''' --~~~~ to the bottom of the entry, replacing Example.ogg with the file that was promoted.
• For entries not promoted, add '''Not promoted''' --~~~~ to the bottom of the entry.
• For entries demoted, add '''Demoted Example.ogg''' --~~~~ to the bottom of the entry.

Use variants as appropriate, e.g. with a large set of files, all of which pass, '''Promoted all''' is fine, but if one of them didn't pass for some reason, make sure that's clear.

Piano Trio No. 1 in D minor, Op. 49 – 4. Finale: Allegro assai appassionato

Reason

To me, this seems like a high caliber and high quality recording of a notable work that has high EV and adheres to the Wikipedia:Featured sound criteria. The trio is one of Mendelssohn's most popular pieces of chamber music and it is performed with the instruments for which it was scored.

Composed by

Felix Mendelssohn

Creator

Whitehouse.gov

Articles in which this recording appears

Alisa Weilerstein, Awadagin Pratt, Joshua Bell, Piano Trio No. 1 (Mendelssohn)

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support - fantastic performance ... maybe it'd be worth cutting out the tuning at the start? I've fixed the filenames in the same manner as I did with Kodály's Sonata for Solo Cello. However, since MediaWiki does not allow colons in filenames, I've substituted that symbol for a comma. Graham87 07:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I could cut out the turn at the beginning. These are just the original source files from whitehouse.gov unedited. The video might be tricky because the title comes right at the very end of the turn (I think one of the turn sounds even comes after the title starts). Would we want the audio and video to have the exact same start point? I think optimal audio clipping would be more than video clipping because of the title. Because of this consideration, I just left the noisy first 3 seconds in both.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I think the video and audio should optimally have the same starting point. The tuning isn't that big a deal, anyway. Graham87 14:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support edit1 As before, removed clicks as far as possible, and trimmed the start and the end as well as adding a fade out.Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Any thoughts on the video?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    • The video looks fine, but given we shouldn't worry about using up the 100MB limit, I think the quality of the image should be increased because we're only using 28MB or so - a higher bit-rate certainly would make it look much better. I currently find it hard to say this was our best work. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
      • For the converter that I use, the choices are a 200MB file at automatic bit rate or 30MB file at 400 bit rate. There is nothing in between, although there are 3 lower bit rates. Thus, to the best of my abilities with the tools we have this is my best work. Maybe with non-freeware you might be able to do better, but I can't.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support original video and audio edit 1--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support audio edit 1 ... much better. I can't comment on the video, since I can't see its output. :-) Graham87 00:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support Version 2 - Higher bit-rate, although the size on the screen is smaller. The converter I have won't allow me to play with the settings in OGV format, but my edit software will. If I can manage a better one, I will. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Version 2 Although I don't notice a quality difference, it took half as long to load on my machine. I regard it as a better conversion for that reason.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't care about the video edits, but all the improved versions should eventually be moved to the Commons. Graham87 14:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support—ooh yah, great playing. Higher bit-rate good. Tony (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Promoting 20091104 Joshua Bell, Awadagin Pratt, and Alisa Weilerstein - Mendelssohn's Piano Trio No. 1 in D minor, Op. 49 - 4. Finale, Allegro assai appassionato edit1.ogg (audio) and 20091104_Joshua_Bell,_Awadagin_Pratt,_and_Alisa_Weilerstein_-_Mendelssohn%27s_Piano_Trio_No._1_in_D_minor,_Op._49_-_4._Finale,_Allegro_assai_appassionato.theora.ogv (video) --Guerillero | My Talk 19:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Repeal of Prohibition

Reason

A great example of a newsreel from an important time in US history. The audio plays a very strong part in the film and uses a very iconic voice. I think that we need to get started on a FV process soon.

Creator

Universal Newsreel

Articles in which this recording appears

Repeal of Prohibition

• Nominate and support. Guerillero | My Talk 16:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support—Can it be used in other articles, too? Newsreels were an important and very different cultural product, even in my childhood. Tony (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support This is a great example of a newsreel.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Promoted Repeal of Prohibition newsreel ca1933.ogv. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 11:21am • 01:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Remarks on the Signing of the Voting Rights Act (August 6, 1965) Lyndon Baines Johnson (audio)

This legislation helped protected rights outlined in the Fifteenth and Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It ended the widespread disfranchisement that prevailed in many regions of the United States. This file adds significantly to the following articles:

• African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968)
• Voting Rights Act

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support Crikey. LBJ wasn't a very inspiring public speaker, but this speech does illustrate a very important moment in US history, so great EV. There is background noise, but on the whole I can live with it as it's the sound of 1968, and I think any work to remove the noise will lower the fidelity of the recording. Major Bloodnok (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support as per Major Bloodnok. Spongie555 (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Promoted Remarks on the Signing of the Voting Rights Act (August 6, 1965) Lyndon Baines Johnson.ogg--Guerillero | My Talk 03:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Two Hispaniola National Anthems

These two countries share Hispaniola. The music for the Dominican anthem was set by 1883 although the lyrics took a few more generations to be finalized. Both are the same caliber United States Navy Band performances that we have seen here several times at FSC. These files add to the following articles:

Dominican Republic National Anthem

• National Anthem of the Dominican Republic

Haiti National Anthem

• La Dessalinienne
• Nicolas Geffrard

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support all As usual, accepting Tony1's reservations elsewhere. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose both—Unbalance in the collection rapidly becoming an issue; very ordinary music. Can't be considered "our very best work." Tony (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• promoted all --Guerillero | My Talk 03:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The British Grenadiers

This is a military march that is the official or authorized march of numerous British Commonwealth military regiments. This file adds significantly to the following articles:

• The British Grenadiers
• Grenadier Guards, Regimental Quick March
• Honourable Artillery Company, Regimental Quick March
• Royal Engineers, Regimental Quick March
• Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, Regimental Quick March
• Royal Gibraltar Regiment, an authorised march
• Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery, an authorised march
• The Canadian Grenadier Guards, an authorised march
• The Royal Regiment of Canada, an authorised march
• The Princess Louise Fusiliers, an authorised march
• 5th Battalion Canadian Mounted Rifles, an authorised march

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment for EV purposes can you please show that this is the march of those units. I did a quick SRS of the units and neither of the pages mentioned the march. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 00:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Is this what you mean?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Strong support Good quality performance. I could listen to this forever and still not tire of the tune. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 6:56pm • 08:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Incomprehensible storyline, after reading the article it skips verses 2 and 4. It's just like that recording of Good King Wenceslas that Adam posted on the talk page a while back. If the song is a story, it should be the entire story or at least the first 3 parts (verses). —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 8:12pm • 10:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support Great quality, good EV; I'm not terribly concerned about the verses that are missed, as I don't think these verses constitute a narrative, unlike the case of the Wenceslas carol a while back. Major Bloodnok (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Query and request to be moved back into main FSC area Generally policy has been to wait until something has either two supports or two opposes (in addition to nominator), whichever comes first. Why is this nomination different.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I have determined that the "Nominations to be Closed" section was created with instructions inconsistent with policy, which led to this being incorrectly moved. I have corrected the instructions and moved this nomination back to its proper place in the candidate queue for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
• I see that the main instructions allow an item to close as an FS with only two out of three supports including the nominator. I think I have experienced about 40 FS promotions and do not recall having had one closed with so little clarity of consensus. I am hoping someone else votes, but will put this back in the to be closed list this weekend if there is no further commentary. I remain uncomfortable calling this a valid close. In all prior noms, practice has been to await further feedback with one support and one oppose.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose agreeing with James that this is verz incomprehensible, stating something, without explaining it; and I've seen plenty of better ways to cut the verses. Not sure what would be good to represent the British Grenadiers, but this isn't very good. --—innotata 16:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Not promoted --Guerillero | My Talk 03:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Debussy - Sarabande from Pour le Piano

Reason

For once, an almost perfect recording, note-wise. :p

Composed by

Claude Debussy

Creator

La Pianista (talk · contribs)

Articles in which this recording appears

Pour le piano

• Nominate and support. — La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 09:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Tony (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support Enjoyable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Promoted --Guerillero | My Talk 00:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Gross National Happiness

Reason

Good quality sound and footage. Helps explain Gross National Happiness and give alittle history on modern Bhutan towards the end.

Creator

Simpleshow

Articles in which this recording appears

Gross National Happiness

• Nominate and support. Spongie555 (talk) 04:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The tone throws me off as unencyclopedic for some reason.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per TTT. The tone, the music, the graphics trivialise/dumb down the topic. Quite a few things said in the commentary are gross oversimplifications; in text, they would need serious referencing. This issue of how we consider newsreel and other commentaries in vids—let alone featured vids—requires input from other parts of the project. Tony (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• Not Promoted --Guerillero | My Talk 00:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Central American national anthems

These are the last four PD-eligible Central American national anthems. They add significantly to the following articles:

Panama National Anthem

• Himno Istmeño
• Jeronimo de la Ossa

Costa Rica National Anthem

• Noble patria, tu hermosa bandera

Honduras National Anthem

• Carlos Hartling
• National Anthem of Honduras

El Salvador National Anthem

• National Anthem of El Salvador

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
• Suppport The El Salvador anthem was the only one with any life in it, but for all that, played well by the Army Band as usual. High level of EV. Major Bloodnok (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment—It concerns me that the corpus of FSs needs to avoid significant imbalances. Are we to promote every single national anthem played superbly by the US Navy Band? Another issue is that some of these national anthems are, in my view, musically very non-notable. The Cuban one recently promoted starts with a fairly empty rat-tat-tat, which is acceptable I guess, then moves from a pretty ordinary national-anthemy type of genre to a something rather more akin to a popular genre (I cannot believe this was written more than a century ago, but there's no information on the arranger. If FSs are to appear on the main page, we'll end up with 10% of them being military band performances of national anthems. Vomit. (You know I'm not casting aspersions on the performers, of course; it's a confluence of their excellence and the US government's forsight in making its own productions copyright-free.) Tony (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with you that the pieces of music are not notable musically. However, I believe they are notable and have high EV because they are national anthems and that therefore this makes the music notable for reasons other than the inherent quality (or lack of it) in the composition. I also agree that FS should be more than a repository for brass-band national anthems, but we can't disallow a candidate on the grounds that we have too many similar pieces like this already. The more FSes there are the better in my view. Oh, and I also agree that the US government has much foresight in making its work public domain. If only other governments did the same more widely. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. I note that recent massive changes to the criteria have no consensus. Major, "The more FSes there are the better in my view."—this is something I fundamentally disagree with, as I did at FAC in 2005 and 2006, when the standards left a lot to be desired in the rush to raise the proportion of all articles that were featured. Featured status per se rather than quality was seen to be The Good Thing. Now, FSs do need to be "among our best work". That means notable music, too, unless there's a compelling reason (historical, etc) for accepting ordinary stuff any commercial composer could dash off in an afternoon for a fee (give me a fee and I'll write a better one, frankly).

On the contrary, notability is required for use in an article, not for featured status. Tony (talk) 10:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You disagree - that is fine and surely is the point of this part of WP. As to how the criteria was amended, I'll leave that to the talk page. I don't see why having more sounds rated as featured quality by the community can be a bad thing, but you are entitled to your opinion. IMO having a high EV is a very important criterion in determining whether a sound should be featured. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Promote all No doubt tony has a point, but neither the wp:featured sounds criteria v1.0 or v2.0 have a pervision to fail these. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Liberia National Anthem

Reason

This is a national anthem the adheres to all Wikipedia:Featured sound criteria.

Composed by

Olmstead Luca

Creator

United States Navy Band

Articles in which this recording appears

All Hail, Liberia, Hail!
Olmstead Luca

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose—it is such boring music. I am strongly opposed to featuring crap music, just because it's well played. Sure, it's notable in the Liberia article, so shouldn't be deleted. But FEATURED? Tony (talk) 03:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose this has to be the most canned and robotic national anthem that I have ever heard.--Guerillero | My Talk 03:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Hardly music. The first four notes are promising, but it all goes downhill from there. Graham87 03:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose This arrangement is pretty dire. This youtube video of the anthem from another source includes strings and seems to make much more sense musically. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 09:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Not promoted Invoking WP:SNOW-clause close. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 2:16pm • 04:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

America The Beautiful

This is a very beautiful recording of a patriotic song that is important for WP to have. It meets all WP:WIAFS criteria. This file adds to the following article:

• America the Beautiful

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support Nothing short of stunning. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support, but shouldn't the date be 2007? I'm not entirely sure about this... Also, could you link to the Wikipedia article on Encore! (if there is one?) since I'm having trouble finding this particular album. --haha169 (talk) 06:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • There is not an article. This is a low volume military production. The year is the year the song was written.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Promoted America (US Army Brass).ogg —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 4:55pm • 06:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Roast Beef of Old England

This file contributes to the following articles:

• Ancient Fife and Drum Corps
• Henry Fielding
• Richard Leveridge
• "The Roast Beef of Old England"

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• Conditional Support Sounds great, good EV, but the description page should explain who is performing it. Major Bloodnok (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The description page already said United States Navy Band. I have move that from the author section to the description section of the description page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Procedural restart - This nomination is not getting any attention at the bottom of the page. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:19am • 00:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Do original votes count?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes original votes count, it's just the voting period that got restarted, on May 31st the sound can be promoted if there is another vote, it doesn't matter which way since we need a 2/3 majority. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 11:22am • 01:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
      • DO you realize the ridiculousness of that statement. Zginder 2011-05-28T22:37Z (UTC)
• !Vote To allow closure. Zginder 2011-05-28T22:37Z (UTC)
  • Since this is a 51 second audio file, why don't you take 51 seconds and decide whether you feel it should be an FS so we can get to a quorum of either two supports (other than myself) or two opposes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, first, while huge changes to the criteria made recently have no consensus, and second, because there is a risk of serious imbalances in the corpus of featured sounds. Already, doing the Signpost page, I've noticed an awfully big skew towards certain genres, performers, video themes, styles, countries. We need to stop and take account of what kind of breadth featured sounds will end up with. Tony (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Explain how that applies here. There is little or no fife and drum music in the current range of FS selections.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
• oppose the song is originally from an opera. I can't see how a drum and fife version of this adds EV. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Not promoted The concerns raised by those opposing outweigh the support vote, fife and drum is fine but not when the piece is centuries old and NOT intended to be played as such and in the context of FS such music has little value, no matter how well the rendition is played. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 5:06pm • 07:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oh for fucksake, grow a set. This wasn't even related to your other nominations... —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:52pm • 11:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC) I have no idea what that was about and I forgot what pissed me off, so please ignore my little hissy fit. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:30pm • 11:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Address Before a Joint Session of Congress (February 24, 2009, Barack Obama)

Reason

Previously, when the video of this speech was nominated this audio's nomination was closed as a redundant and dominated nominee. However, it has since come to my attention that audio only alternative files serve and important purpose for readers on slow connections or who are otherwise unable to take advantage of the video technology. At 32.6 MB this is more than 60MB smaller than the 95.04MB featured video. Surely it serves a distinct purpose for people with slow connections by reducing the download time by a factor of three. This file deserves independent evaluation against the Wikipedia:Featured sound criteria, which it clearly meets.

Creator

Miller Center of Public Affairs

Articles in which this recording appears

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, February 2009
First 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency
Presidency of Barack Obama
Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama (2009)

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose—an hour-long rambler again? This free-for-all nominating full, unedited speechs by favourite presidents, just because they're a president, has to be re-examined. What makes this among our very best work? Why would we want this to appear on the main page? Tony (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • This was Obama's first major speech as President.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, that is a plus. But apart from the enormous length, think of usability for a moment. How do editors know what he is rambling through? Which themes? It's not documented. It has to be used in full in any article on one of the themes he deals with. this is very cumbersome. The apparent blanket ban on chopping up such monster files into more functional parts makes them of little use in most articles. Then think of listeners: very few will trudge through an hour of this kind of politician-speak. It is plain boring unless you're a researcher or journalist who needs to locate something within it. I have a horrid suspicion that these speeches are being nominated solely because they are symbols. This is not very practical in an encyclopedia. The other problem is that it sets a precedent for nominating many many of the ?million political speeches each year made in national parliaments alone. My local MP gets onto his hind legs and bangs on about climate change; OK, let's nominate it. What are the boundaries to protect the body of FSs from becoming all-inclusive, with thousands of political speeches? Tony (talk) 08:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
      • This speech was the equivalent of a State of the Union address (I think Bush delivered the official one a few weeks earlier). The complete text is available at the file description page. That should help readers/listeners find what they want within the larger file. This speech's WP:N is established by the fact that it has a WP article. Most importantly it is established by the fact that it has an official Republican response (see main at Bobby_Jindal#Republican_response_to_President_Obama.27s_address_to_Congress). Only a couple speeches by the President each year are accorded an official response by the other party. That makes this one of the most important speeches that WP could present to its readers. We want the whole thing on WP, not just soundbites.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Suspended per Wikipedia talk:Featured sound candidates#Memorandum on the Duplication of Featured Sound. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 4:40pm • 06:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Not promoted Pointless waste of time. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 5:28pm • 07:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• • TTT, please do not strike through other editors' comments. This is unacceptable, and you know it. If you have a problem, discuss it politely, or take it to the appropriate forum. Tony (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Bill Clinton audio files

Reason

These files are all audio files that correspond to recent video FS promotions. They meet all Wikipedia:Featured sound criteria. As I have said in other nominations, the reader often is unable to use video technology and even if he is may be on a slow connection where the significantly smaller audio files are more valuable to him.

Creator

U.S. Government/Miller Center

Articles in which this recording appears

Lewinsky: History of the United States (1991–present), Impeachment of Bill Clinton, Lewinsky scandal, Presidency of Bill Clinton
NAFTA: Bill Clinton, North American Free Trade Agreement, Presidency of Bill Clinton
Inauguration: Bill Clinton, Federal holidays in the United States, First inauguration of Bill Clinton, Presidency of Bill Clinton, United States presidential inauguration

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
• While I understand why you are doing this, I am not sure I can support making every audio only version of our videos a FS. The best version of these is the video. No doubt that these should be created but I have some reservations to duplicating works verbatim. --Guerillero | My Talk 18:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • For a portion of our readers videos are not viable. Although these may be lacking added benefits of visual presentation, they should be evaluated against WP:WIAFS and passed if they meet the standards. There are numerous types of content for which we have multiple versions (that each depict the content differently to the reader) of nearly identical content regardless of whether one is better than the other. If both meet our FS criteria, both should be FS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm most uncomfortable on this doubling up. Both video and audio can be uploaded to Commons/WP, but why must both be featured sounds? Tony (talk) 09:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
      • It is not that both must be. It is possible for one to be featured and the other not. However, I feel we must evaluate nominees against WP:WIAFS. If both pass the criteria and contribute differently to the audiences of WP readers, both should be promoted. I am not starting a revolution, just suggesting that both be fairly evaluated against WIAFS. If you have ever participated at WP:GAC and WP:GAR, you might be familiar with the concept of the criteria. If people fail an article for reasons not in the criteria, you are suppose to seek a ruling having the decision overturned at GAR. All candidates must be evaluated against the criteria. If a video passes the criteria, it is possible (if not likely) that the audio passes the same criteria.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• Suspended per Wikipedia talk:Featured sound candidates#Memorandum on the Duplication of Featured Sound. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 4:44pm • 06:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Not promoted Pointless waste of time. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 5:27pm • 07:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Othello (I. iii) audio only

Reason

This weekend I was contacted on my talk page by a user who could not view the video file. This brought to my attention that many readers may be limited to audio files or may prefer a 3.53 MB audio version to a 40.75MB video version because of the speed with which it might load on slower systems. This file is actually the audio track from the .mp4 video file (rather than .mp3 file at the source, which has clicking sounds) that was promoted to FS, so it has already met all Wikipedia:Featured sound criteria. There are numerous instances of mulitple similar versions of the same content at FS and there is no reason for this not to be promoted along with the video.

Creator

Whitehouse.gov

Articles in which this recording appears

Othello (character), Soliloquy, James Earl Jones

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment—I need to listen again, but I watched the vid of this and found a few unsatisfactory things in his reading. It was underwhelming in some ways. Again, this doubling up of vid and audio needs addressing at a higher level: the criteria need to deal with it. Tony (talk) 09:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Feel free to bring execution flaws to the attention of other reviewers. Just evaluate the audio against the same WP:WIAFS that all other files are judged against.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
    • or he could ignore the rules if it would benefit the project as a whole--Guerillero | My Talk 05:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Suspended per Wikipedia talk:Featured sound candidates#Memorandum on the Duplication of Featured Sound. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 4:44pm • 06:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Not promoted Pointless waste of time. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 5:27pm • 07:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Osama Bin Laden Death Statement audioonly

Reason

This is a tremendously important/historic speech of extreme encyclopedic value. For many readers on slow connections having a version that is more than 5 times smaller makes the difference in whether it is useful to them. For others video does not work regardless of its size. There are numerous types of content for which we have two nearly identical versions at FS. This file meets all Wikipedia:Featured sound criteria.

Composed by

Office of the United States President

Creator

Whitehouse.gov

Articles in which this recording appears

Death of Osama bin Laden, Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama (2011), Presidency of Barack Obama, Barack Obama

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Suspended per Wikipedia talk:Featured sound candidates#Memorandum on the Duplication of Featured Sound. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 4:45pm • 06:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Not promoted Pointless waste of time. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 5:27pm • 07:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Boccherini's Sonata for Two Cellos in C Major (audio)

Reason

This 1.95MB audio complements the 89.18MB video file that has been selected as an FS by providing the reader with a slow connection a much more readily available method to hear this sound. This file is actually the audio track from the video file as opposed to the distinct audio file at the source, which has clicks. This file meets all Wikipedia:Featured sound criteria.

Composed by

Luigi Boccherini

Creator

Whitehouse.gov

Articles in which this recording appears

Alisa Weilerstein
Luigi Boccherini

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• Blanket Oppose to this exploitation of a loophole in the FS process. Each file gets only one shot at being a FS. Only one. That is the spirit of the criteria. I am getting to the point where my reserve of good faith is running out. This is getting seriously close to WP:GAME. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Not promoted Pointless waste of time. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 5:28pm • 07:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)