Wikipedia talk:Featured sound candidates/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Update to the nominations template

I've done an update to the nominations template, it now uses intricate parser functions that will support up to 3 files, I'd add more but we rarely get more than 3 files at a time and if a need does arise it wouldn't cause much trouble. Thoughts? —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 11:07am • 01:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I've created a test nomination at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Foo#Foo, I can safely say the new layout works! :) —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 11:18am • 01:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

There was a slight problem with the year parameters, but that's been fixed :) —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 11:22am • 01:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Direct recording

I have finally found software that gives me the option of recording either from the microphone or the speakers. I believe the latter is like recording from the sound card. It is software called CamStudio Recorder (v 2.6). I had previously recorded File:Farewell of Slavianka.ogg from the microphone, which included all background noises. I have now used this software to record from the speakers. However, I am not able to figure out how to save the file that I recorded. Can anyone download this from http://camstudio.org/ and figure out how to save a recording?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I have figured out that it was saving to a temp file. I have now figured out how to tell it where to save the files. However, it seems that I can still hear all my keyboard tapping with this version. What is the difference between recording from microphone, from speakers and from soundcard.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It sounds as though you are recording not just the noise the PC is sending through your sound "out" socket but also the ambient sound from the room too. The only way I've got it to work is by getting a cheap audio jack male-to-male lead and connecting the "out" socket to the "line-in" or "mic" socket of your sound card. That way you can record only the sound your PC is sending to your speakers, like internet-streamed radio for instance, and you don't get the ambient sounds too. It's not perfect because the sound is still going from digital to analog to digital, but for most purposes it's fine. People tell me there are ways of getting the temporary file you're downloading and converting that without playing it, but I've never got that to work, possibly because of my PC set-up and the way it connects to the internet.

If you do use the method I describe, I would advise getting a male to 2 female splitter lead too as you can plug a set of headphones or your speakers into the output and can monitor what it is you're recording. You won't need anything other than a freeware sound recording program with this method. Hope that helps! Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 08:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Will that method still capture keystroke noises and such? Because when I set the CamStudio Recorder to the mode to capture the sound from the speakers, it captured my kestroke sounds too.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The digital to analog to digital method does not. I have a few things on my zune that I capured that way. --Guerillero | My Talk 13:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

So, is the cable that I need the iPod jack that I have in my car to plug it into the auxilary socket?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I have used Audacity to do that before, but I remember recently trying to and failing. I think it was an issue with the OS I was on (I think it worked in Windows, but not on a Mac). What operating system are you on? Jujutacular ^talk 15:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It only works on windows XP and older. @tony exactly that cable. If I have time I may try to use mine. --Guerillero | My Talk 19:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

My new laptop is Windows 7. My old one is XP. I will try to get a clean recording.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

Should we make the nominations template include an evaluation of the file against the criteria? I've been thinking of doing that myself but that might not go so well with everyone. Thoughts? —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 2:34pm • 04:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

What should we decide about multi-part works?

Brought up by Tony1 in a discussion about the Fantasia in F minor, I think he makes a very valid point:

On a broader note, is this a matter that should be dealt with in the criteria? I believe single movements from multi-movement works have been promoted before. Should this be discouraged? I ask without having formed a clear opinion. The Bruckner motet, for example, was promoted as a stand-alone two weeks ago; he wrote a whole batch of them.

Tony's question of whether this should be mentioned in the criteria is a valid one, and I think it should be included once a consensus has decided on the guidelines. On the whole I think whether we feature a work which is part of a larger piece of art depends on whether that piece is usually performed separately (for any UK-based editor reading this perhaps this could perhaps be summed up in the phrase "would BBC Radio 3 play it like this?") For example, as a nomination recently we had a speech from Othello which I think is fine, as speeches from Shakespeare do get performed in isolation from each other. I don't think that separate movements from larger classical work should be featured unless they are known in isolation (the only one which springs to mind as a possible exception is the Moonlight Sonata, where the 1st mvt is well known separately from the other mvts)

Thoughts? Major Bloodnok (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You both do have a point... --Guerillero | My Talk 22:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that single movements out of larger works should be featureable, as long as the movement can be performed as a single unit without modification (which is not the case for the Fantasia nom, as the movements are meant to be performed without a break). I'm not familiar with BBC Radio 3, but per its article it seems to be more selective than Australia's ABC Classic FM, which often plays single movements of larger works, especially in its breakfast and afternoon drive time programs. IMO complete works should be preferred where possible, but a high-quality recording of one movement out of a larger work is far better than nothing. Graham87 04:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem with single movements uploaded; but whether they should be featured ... well, it depends. The whole of Elgar's Serenade for Strings, or Messiaen's Vingt Regards, or Wagner's Ring Cycle (24 hours?) would be over the top. But the slow movement from a Mozart piano sonata would be a bit threadbare, don't you think? And let's keep in mind the bite-size chunks that are most likely to be listened to properly if featured on the main page. Needs input from other editors. Tony (talk) 06:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Presidential Speeches

I picked up a copy of "Greatest Presidential Speeches of the 20th Century" a couple of days ago at a thrift store (for a much lower price than that at Amazon!). The only copyrights notice printed on the sleeve and insert is "Artwork and title ©2004 TOPICS Entertainment, Inc, Renton WA. All rights reserved." There is nothing else to say who, if anyone, owns the copyright of the recordings, or if they are in the Public Domain. Does that mean then that they are or are not PD? Matthewedwards : Chat 00:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think they are but I am not 100% sure --Guerillero | My Talk 01:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

All presidential speeches are PD aren't they? I don't think that the publisher of that CD can claim copyright for something they didn't even make or help to produce. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 2:39pm • 04:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The speech may well be, but what about the recording? The copyright notice on the CDs doesn't say anything about the recording being copyrighted to the company, but that doesn't mean nobody owns it, does it? Matthewedwards : Chat 04:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you acquire a copyright by bootlegging a speech?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope but you can acquire a lawsuit --Guerillero | My Talk 16:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's pretty safe to say that the audio is PD. If it was video, that would be a different story because that would be original creative work. Just audio however consists entirely of a US GOV work, no new creativity was involved. Jujutacular ^talk 17:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

FS Director Nomination

I nominate Ancient Apparition (talk · contribs) for FS director. I beleive that he has acted cluefully in closing discussion over the past few months. I think that he is apt for the task and will excel in it. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Support Agreed. Major Bloodnok (talk) 10:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Support. Tony (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Support.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Since this has been open for over a week and there is no opposition I will add him --Guerillero | My Talk 01:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Late influx onto the log?

There seems to be a flood of promotions from the first week in May, including three vids. I'd rather spread the vids out week by week, and we may just have to put up with a backlog at The Signpost. Tony (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

sounds good to me --Guerillero | My Talk 03:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Promotions are occurring less frequently, so placeholders for following weeks would be good. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 1:47pm • 03:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Internet Archive image file licensing

Resolved

I noticed a couple of Universal Newsreel FSC nominations recently and went to the Internet Archive where these files are sourced from. I looked for some speeches and found File:19630828 I Have A Dream (Martin Luther King, Jr.).ogg. Is it possible that this file is really PD?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The internet archive is a tricky place. While there is some good stuff there posted by the national archive there is a TON of stuff that has been Commons:License laundered. (This is partiality due to the fact that the site is hosted in Egypt, who has very loose copyright laws.) Unless you can find a third party source that verifies that a file is in the public domain, or any other license, or a reputably group posted the file I would first assume that it is infringement. If you want examples of content like this I can produce a few.--Guerillero | My Talk 18:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I have saved over the original with a 30-second sample.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Now I have moved it locally to File:I Have A Dream sample.ogg. An admin can delete the old version. What licensing should I use on the local version?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I have properly licensed this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Busted template

Resolved

Some notifications on my talk page from {{subst:db-fpcfail-notice}} are broken.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolved.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Public Radio

Are public radio broacasts PD?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

They are copyrighted, to my knowledge. --Guerillero | My Talk 10:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Please close when you can

It would be good to focus people's attention on reviews needing consideration by closing out those with a quorum and a consensus (3 supports).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Spanish Dance number 5 and Piano Trio No. 1 in D minor seem to have consensus.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Nominations to be Closed

I see what the problem is with the nomination in the above thread. Someone created the "Nominations to be Closed" section with the instruction to move 7-day old noms with two votes. Historically the policy has been to close when there are either two supports or two opposes. By putting instructions inconsistent with historical policy at the top of this section the nomination got moved incorrectly. I am going to correct the instructions for that section and move the nomination back to the queue for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

We have closed noms with one additional support and an oppose before.--Guerillero | My Talk 15:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated about 50 items and often even after a few weeks at 1 and 1 people have waited for a clearer consensus. It may happen, but it is not common procedure based on my 50 nomination sample. Maybe after 2 months it might be necessary to close for that reason, but no reason not to wait for busy people to give their opinions. We should not make it policy all of a sudden to close so quickly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The British Grenadiers

Why did The British Grenadiers get moved to the nominations to close section? Usually 1 oppose and 1 support plus the nominator is left for further response.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Ben says the story is not much of a problem, however, I disagree. Having read the lyrics the song is telling a story, and like Good King Wenceslas by the US Army Chorus both songs lack coherence (it's common practice to skip verses if you don't have time, but that's often the last verses, not chunks in the middle). —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 6:01pm • 08:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

FS file correction

Both File:20100209 Yolanda Adams - How Great Thou Art at the White House.ogv and File:20100209 Yolanda Adams - How Great Thou Art at the White House.ogg passed recently. However, I noticed that the audio file version passed with some of the Whitehouse.gov clicking sounds. If I were to create a file of the audio track from the video version, which does not suffer from this flaw, would I have to do a delist/replace nomination or could I just save it over the current audio file?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not a major change, per procedure that is allowed. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 5:08pm • 07:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

NOTICE I have swapped files by saving over the preexisting FS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. note that the .mp4 video file at the source is 3:52, while the .mp3 audio at the source is only 3:47. Thus, the audio file from the video version is now a tad longer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Closing sloppiness

I just had a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:FSC&limit=500 and see that there are a lot more files than are currently active. People need to be more careful when closing files.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have cleaned these up.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:PD-US-record

Comments Needed--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC) I'd like to ask FSC regulars to comment on whether this license is acceptable. It is currently on the William Tell recording at FSC and if it is acceptable many more recordings could be uploaded under it. I've seen it stated on Wikipedia and Commons (and I've made the argument as well) that sound recordings made before 1972 (and therefore, before 1923) are not in the public domain unless they have specifically been released to it (such as when Edison's holdings were transferred to the US Government). This is because statutory and common law protection would still apply to them even if federal legislation did not. This license, on the other hand, states that these recordings are allowable since no federal copyright is involved.

This page describes the legislation and judicial history dealing with copyright in sound recordings for the states of Florida and California (our servers are in Florida, so technically the information resides there, and the Foundation itself is based in California). My feeling is that we can host material with this license if 1) we are not breaking the laws of these states and 2) the material is free content. The Florida and California laws look like they permit redistribution of the material as long as it isn't for financial gain.

My gut here says that it would be legal to host the material if our licenses prohibited reuse for the intent of profit, which would conflict with our mission as a free encyclopedia. Since our files can be reused for profit I don't think we are able publish them. The California law book states This section makes any person who knowingly and willfully transfers or causes to be transferred sound recordings with the intent to sell or cause to be sold, or to use or cause to be used for a commercial advantage or private financial gain through public performance sound recordings without the owner's consent, guilty of a public offense. The bolded parts appear to contradict with our mission as a free content encyclopedia, since I don't think we have any allowable licenses that protect the files against for-profit use.

So my opinion on this license is that it is incompatible with our mission. Am I missing something obvious? Or isn't this allowed? Them From Space 14:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Florida law is the governing law for WP, according to Jimbo's commentary in interviews. The file at issue is File:Rossini-William Tell Overture.ogg and the license at issue is {{PD-US-record}} although the policy applies generally to all files for this license.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I will think about this. None of the sources I have seen says that this tag is a safe or smart thing to back. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that this tag should not be valid on commons?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I have opened debate at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Template:PD-US-record.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yea, unless there's something I'm missing I don't see how this could be acceptable on here or on commons. The talkpage for the template on commons links to several discussions where the tag's legitamacy is called into question. I'm suprized that nothing has been done about this sooner, but most of the previous discussions have just fizzled out without a conclusion. Them From Space 01:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

If I had the powerz I would delete the tag. I remember reading an Interesting article about who owns these recordings but I can't find where on wikipedia the link was --Guerillero | My Talk 02:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you guys comment at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Template:PD-US-record. Those guys surely know how to correct this type of problem.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Where is everybody, especially the admins

I have made a suspension request at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/William Tell Overture (symphony) that has been ignored for about 27 hours. The issue involved a license clarification request made during the nomination that has been ignored in the above thread for nearly 28 hours. Additionally, no one is voting. Please vote so we can clear out the queue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Tony I am graduation from high school in 8 days. Tomorrow is my last day of classes. My life is hectic. I will see what I can do --Guerillero | My Talk 17:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Although this is not really the place for this, congrats Guerillero! Hope the future brings you all you strive for. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

My congratulations Guerillero! :) Re Tony: FSC is not as active as it was in the February-March period this year, perhaps a call to arms in the Signpost is due? —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 3:58pm • 05:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :). I think we should wait a bit on a signpost article. I know we were all hoping to get main page access but I personally have given up on it for the time being. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Windows Movie Maker

Someone has suggested to me that it might be possible to record from the sound card using Windows Movie Maker. Is this true?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

No idea. I try to avoid that program at all costs --Guerillero | My Talk 02:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you can, though WMM is not the best programme to use. I think Adobe Premiere Pro has such an option. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 11:45am • 01:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Nominations to be closed

Last week, Guerillero (talk · contribs) created a Nominations to be closed section. This was a good idea, since it focuses reviewers on unresolved discussions by removing those with satisfactory resolution. However, he included instructions to have the nominations in this section be in reverse order from the nominations in the open discussion section above. I recently tried to change the order to be consistent with the section above it and he reverted requesting consensus. I would like the page to be consistent and look for feedback here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

One support and one oppose

The current FS policy says that items may be closed with two/thirds support of three votes or more (including the nominator) after 7 days. I think if a file has one support and one oppose plus nominator support, it should not be closed before 30 days pending further commentary. 2/3rds including the nominator has the peculiar effect that if an item has only one support plus the nominator and no opposes, casting an oppose vote after 7 days makes it eligible to be promoted, immediately.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe 3/4 support? 2/3 is rather hasty for making such determinations, though I confess to being one of those who has closed nominations which have received an additional support and oppose. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 8:51pm • 10:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think for larger sets of responses 2/3 is O.K., but there needs to be a strict majority not counting the nominator. We should have a rule of 2/3 with a minimum of 3 supports. 3/4 is too strict. 4 of 6 or 5 of 7 should pass, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both of you that we should follow wp:NOTAVOTE a bit more. I am open to anything that would raise our standards. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we change WP:FSC instruction "(iii) has been on this page at least seven days " to say something like "(iii) has been on this page at least seven days (30 days if only 2/3rds of 3 votes)"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

30 days is far too long --Guerillero | My Talk 00:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice if this were too long for oppose opinions to come forth. Look at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/The British Grenadiers. I felt bad that after 19 days they were going to make a decision with so little input on my own nomination. I would have felt bad had it passed or had it failed. I put it back into the queue and it took until the 24th day for us to get a third opinion other than the nominator. Look at the number of nominations in the queue that only have one or two votes after several weeks. The truth of the matter is that even after three weeks there is a good chance that people have just not gotten around to casting enough votes for things to have quorums. Making a decision on something with one support and one oppose prior to 30 days is unnecessary in this environment.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. of course, you could help this environment out by casting a few votes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Really think 30 is better policy, but 21 or 25 would be O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there needs to be a higher minimum support as well as a supermajority. It is too quick and easy for nominations to slip through at the moment. Tony (talk) 09:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- 3/4 majority would improve things greatly --Guerillero | My Talk 04:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  - That would mean two reviewers support, one opposes, and it passes ... not enough for me, but better than one vs one. Tony (talk) 04:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
    - The most perfect thing would be to eliminate the nominators support all together. Thats a major symptom of coi issues --Guerillero | My Talk 04:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, bleedingly obvious, but it's been suggested so many times already, and failed to gain consensus each time, that you wonder WTF. Nominators should nominate, not be judge, jury, and advocate all in one. Tony (talk) 05:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Require at least two supports, not counting the nominator (just remove him completely from voting actually).

I'm going to oppose the main-page display of FSs

The way things are going, there are serious problems with standards, scope, and balance. I intend to oppose any further measures to have FSs appear on the main page. The body of FSs has expanded, yes, and some of it is very welcome. But I find far too much sub-standard stuff is getting through what I believe is a badly flawed voting system and criteria that do not address basic musical and audio quality.

I am sensing that the mad rush to nominate and promote everything but the kitchen sink is driven by two misapprehensions: the first is that there are really only two tiers—not eligible for upload or use in articles; whereas it's really a three-tiered system: not eligible for upload; uploaded but not featured; and featured. And second, that it's more important to build up the number of FSs—to make a push for main-page exposure—than to maintain quality and balance. Tony (talk) 03:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Tony, I have given up on main page exposure. Partly because of some of the things you brought up and partly because the coding requires someone who can wiki code in their sleep. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd sensed that it was off the immediate agenda. That doesn't mean it can't happen in the longer term, and that we shouldn't work to get this systemically right. Tony (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Regrettably, I think that's the right decision for the time being. Let me know when you feel that FS is ready for another shot at the main page though. I'll be happy to assist in whatever way I'm wanted, be that the same role I have taken with Today's featured list, or simply as an extra pair of eyes. Sounds editors past and present did a lot for getting lists onto the main page, and I'd like to do whatever I can to return the favour when the time is right. It will happen. —W F C— 18:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

While I can't code wiki in my sleep, I'm available to take up SOTD whenever you are ready. — Edokter (talk) — 18:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Woah, we're not going to arbitrarily stop the rollout of SOTD on the Main Page, when over 40 people supported this. We should look at which sounds would be suitable for display in this interim period, a sound-by-sound analysis is necessary and the whole process and criteria needs to be overhauled. I'd ask that all contributors refrain from nominating new files until all this is sorted out, but we are definitely not going to make the arbitrary decision to suspend SOTD from appearing on the Main Page, that is up to the community not us. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 2:09pm • 04:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

*shrug* Its the best thing for the time being as we sort out our growing pains. In the end it is our decision. We are the ones that need to do the work to get things live. It will go on the main page when the process is ready. The community never gave us a time frame, just approval. (My backdating says that we could be ready by Halloween 2011 at the earliest) --Guerillero | My Talk 04:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The good news is we can cover advent if we are going at two sounds a week. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The captions need fixing for sure, almost all of them are inadequate. We'll have to sort out the entire nominations process for sure. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 4:44pm • 06:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The estimated timeframe aside, everyone appears to be united: audit, tackle any process issues, ensure that key editors here agree that things are on track, and then full steam ahead with the main page project. The unity in itself is a great start. —W F C— 09:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Memorandum on the Duplication of Featured Sound

Until a formal discussion is held on if sound files that are exact or slant copies of a video file that is a featured sound as of 11 June 2011 or vice versa,all nominations fitting this description will be promptly put on hold by a director.

Thanks for your understanding,

--Guerillero | My Talk 06:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Will do. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 4:35pm • 06:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to close all duplicates on sight without prejudice, it is gaming the system and a waste of everyone's time. FP doesn't do it, therefore we shouldn't either. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 5:29pm • 07:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

There was no reason to close such files. The reason FP does not promote duplicates is because one or the other will appear in an article in general. If I take a picture of building x from vantage point y and someone else takes a picture of building x from vantage point y only one will generally be an FP. However, suppose I take one of the building under ordinary conditions and another photographer shows an added element of the same building or buildings under different conditions or showing a subset of the original (different zoom) (E.g., File:Chicago Grant Park night pano.jpg, File:Chicago Skyline Hi-Res.jpg & File:Chicago sunrise 1.jpg) both can be promoted. Basically, at FP, the requirement is that an image be in an article. If both are different enough that they can be in articles on WP, both are eligible to remain on FP. FS should use the same rule. If the files serve different enough and complementary enough purposes that both are used in articles, then both are eligible. Your unilateral removal of candidates for the mere reason that they are similar is not supported by WP:WIAFS. Candidates are judged by WP:WIAFS not your WP:POV on whether they are too similar. I am going to revert all files that you closed based on your WP:POV without a WP:WIAFS-relevant argument. I have presented in most nominees clear explanation that the given files serve different purposes on WP that most reviewers should understsnd that they are independent nominees.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. If you think the files are so redundant that they serve the same purpose, then you should remove them all from WP. Then, it would be entirely appropriate to remove them from consideration here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment on Suspension I forgot to mention that there is a valid consideration for suspension. If you have serious doubt about the stability of the addition of an audio file to an article in the face of a video file you can require that it be in an article for 30 days. Look at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Boccherini's Sonata for Two Cellos in C Major (audio). You have a 1.95MB audio file and 89.18MB video file. Does the 1.95 audio duplicate have value to the encyclopedia? If the encyclopedic value of a file nearly 50 times smaller in the face of the video is zero or negligible, remove it from the article. If you are unsure and believe that there is likely to be consensus that it has no value to the encyclopedia, you could suspend it and wait 30 days.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Your TL;DR wikilawering needs to stop. If it continues I find no other option then to bring this up at AN/I. You have used up all goodwill I have for you. This isn't about improving the process, this is about you stroking your ego and placing another metal on your chest.--Guerillero | My Talk 14:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what TL and DR are, but I know enough about WP to know that what I am doing is not wikilawyering. Please find a relevant argument. Every quality review process on WP has a WIA page such as WP:WIAFS. Each sound file that has a place on WP in an article and has encyclopedic value is eligible for review unless it is a fair use. If you wish you could argue against each individual audio duplicate as trivial encyclopedic value as part of a sound gallery. That is in fact a reasonable position. However each sound file has to be individually determined to fall into this classification. In some instances a two-file multi-listen grouping is not really a gallery. The gallery argument is really appropriate when each file is just interchangeable with a bunch of others thrown together. When a file is one of two primary examples of a concept this is not such a good argument. However, it is probably the argument you want to consider if you are against sound files at FSC. I would accept your argument as valid in many instances of use. For example at Joshua Bell, you could argue that each sound file is part of a sound gallery if you like. Others might disagree that it is really just a gallery of sounds and some might agree. However, one of those sound files is probably not considered part of a sound gallery at Cantabile. Similarly, I only think three of the four audio duplicates at Alisa Weilerstein could be argued against as part of sound galleries. Personally, I would contest a sound gallery argument at American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 because I think it is a main subject that is being presented even though its is used in a way that resembles a picture gallery. As a reviewer, you must determine if all its encyclopedic value stems from sound galleries. It is not an across the board thing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I hope you will use the sound gallery argument appropriately and not just blanket oppose all sound files for that reason. It is in the best interest of WP, if you give each file proper consideration.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

TL;DR: Too long; didn't read - WP:TLDR. The majority of FSC regulars share the same opinion with myself and Guerillero, you've been asked to stop nominating duplicates and many of them don't see the point in having exact audio duplicates. There's enough videos to merit a new FV process. I'll work on a proposal at the Village Pump. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:31am • 00:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

All right I will say it 10 times. PLEASE DON'T RESPOND UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND THE POINT YOU KEEP WP:TLDRing

You say many of them don't see the point in having exact audio duplicates. I say stop writing WP:TLDR and look at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Boccherini's Sonata for Two Cellos in C Major (audio). You have a 1.95MB audio file and 89.18MB video file. Does the 1.95 audio duplicate have value to the encyclopedia? There are tons of readers on slow connnections who prefer audio-only. I have even been asked for such a file on my own talk page. If the encyclopedic value of a file nearly 50 times smaller in the face of the video is zero or negligible, remove it from the article.

We don't need to see this 10 times

You say many of them don't see the point in having exact audio duplicates. I say stop writing WP:TLDR and look at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Boccherini's Sonata for Two Cellos in C Major (audio). You have a 1.95MB audio file and 89.18MB video file. Does the 1.95 audio duplicate have value to the encyclopedia? There are tons of readers on slow connnections who prefer audio-only. I have even been asked for such a file on my own talk page. If the encyclopedic value of a file nearly 50 times smaller in the face of the video is zero or negligible, remove it from the article.

Given that readers request audio only files, it all comes down to what constitutes significant EV and what constitutes a gallery. If it is going to be FS policy that any and all joint use of audio files in the presence of video files constitute galleries with insignifiicant EV then WP:WIAFS needs to say so. That would mean audio use such as Cantabile, How Great Thou Art (hymn), Passacaglia and Fugue in C minor, BWV 582, all count as galleries with insignificant EV contribution by the audio only file. I am willing to have a substantive discussion on what constitutes a sound gallery because that is the relevant policy consideration here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- This fit of rage isn't going to help you at all, we got your point but your response is inappropriate and very, very rude. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:03am • 23:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Featured Sounds Process. Thank you. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a second AN/I three posts below it, entitled "Two topic bans for TonyTheTiger", which may also be of interest. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Soundurgent

I know this isn't strictly FSC related, but it does have to do with an FSC template.

I'm looking into the possibility of incorporating sounds into List of national anthems, and was wondering if there is currently a mainspace equivalent to {{soundurgent}}? That template's design would be absolutely perfect for use in a list, were it not for the fact that it has a compulsory parameter for the FSC page. I'm comfortable creating the appropriate template if needs be, but I just wanted to check I wasn't making a duplicate first. Thanks in advance, —W F C— 22:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes {{*sound}} is the template you're looking for. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 10:19am • 00:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

That's brilliant. Thanks James! —W F C— 10:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries, welcome to our neck of the woods :) —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:19am • 23:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

All the cool kids are hanging here now.TCO (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Featured Media proposal for Wikimedia Commons

Folks in the FS community may likely be interested in the current proposal for Featured Media on Wikimedia Commons.--Pharos (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Pharos. Now we can stop sacrificing visual quality for audio quality and vice-versa. :) —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 7:47pm • 09:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge with FP?

Just wondered if this place is moribund, what about merging with FP? Would have the advantage of some cross polinization, plus that place is slowing a bit. Also makes media less a question of which should it fit with as well. Just make it all one thing.TCO (reviews needed) 01:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Wholesale rewriting of the criteria

Where was consensus, even feedback, gained for this? I do not regard the criteria in their current form as legitimate. Tony (talk) 11:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Featured_sound_candidates/Archive_5#Tentative_proposal_for_some_enhancements_of_the_FS_criteria. Jujutacular ^talk 19:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

A formal RfC should have been done. *shrug* The new criteria is a step in the right direction imho --Guerillero | My Talk 22:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

We are a relatively small featured sound process, but in the interests of consensus and collegiality I will start an RfC right here, right now. Though in my belief the wording is now sufficient and accurately describes what an FS is. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 5:07pm • 07:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

RfC

Should the current manifestation of the Featured Sound Criteria remain as is or be reverted (to the early May version)? —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 5:07pm • 07:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a really odd RFC, IMO, shouldn't we as a project determine our own criteria. As recently as a month ago, we were extremely active with plenty of opinions. In the last month, things have slowed down a bit, but I still think we can get pretty good opinions from within, coming from people who understand how changes will affect things. I am not sure if other review processes should be tugging at our process to do as they do or would like us to do.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

With regard to the new criteria,

I believe the sound description page should be split out from caption as before.
Since I have probably nominated the most videos here, I can tell you from FSC discussion feedback that the criteria should say that "In all cases, considering sacrificing video or audio quality to meet size requirements present the highest possible sound quality". It might also state something to the effect that it is the audio portion of the video file that is the most important consideration in terms of its EV, and general overall quality.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I also believe that going forward, we should encourage video file nominations to include an audio only file. Many readers do not have the proper technology to take advantage of the video on all platforms that the view WP with. We should, whenever possible, provide the reader with an audio only alternative file that is much smaller and will load much more efficiently.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

If it's reverted, and we start a full discussion on how it might be updated, we could use the current version as a reference point. Either that or we open discussion on how the current one needs to be changed. I see (1) some things I don't think are helpful conceptually, and (2) quite a lot of things that need copy-editing. The matter should be advertised a bit more widely than it was; I wasn't even aware of the changes until I looked in horror yesterday. No offence intended to James and others, who were acting entirely in good faith. Tony (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

None taken, I do see TTT's point about keeping it local, but given the slump in activity we need as much opinion as possible, this is a Featured process, after all. Tony1, if you want you can make a draft subpage. We had multiple drafts, the current FS criteria had a draft subpage somewhere... then we'll make improving the criteria a collaborative project. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 8:47pm • 10:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Tony1's suggestion above of reverting to the previous and using the current as a guide, as well as getting input from others. My activity at WP hasn't been great in the last few months so I'm not surprised I missed the earlier discussion. Matthewedwards :  Chat 15:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

We were a bit rushed. A good copyedit never hurt a process and it is always better to say what we mean now instead of having to amend the criteria in 6 months. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The criteria need to be robust and clear to outsiders. I don't think the previous criteria were adequate to the task, so I would be unable to support a reversion. My initial suggestions were meant to encourage a discussion rather than being final draft per se. I was a bit surprised that they were copied onto the public criteria page as quickly as it did; my thoughts certainly need a thorough copy-editing to make that they are as clear as possible. I look forward to Tony1's suggestions as a basis for debate. Certain parts of the criteria page as it stands currently were based on Featured Pictures Criteria (including the "artistic considerations are secondary to encyclopedic considerations" part, or however it's been phrased).

The improvement of the criteria is an on-going process and will necessarily involve debate and change. Don't revert; this will indicate that you consider the current criteria even less adequate than the previous set. Put the FS process on pause if you must. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

When I have a moment, I will respond in full to Tony1's list of issues to discuss, but for now this will have to do; firstly it is a reasonably good mechanism for debate, but I do object to the assumption that the changes should be reverted (afterall isn't that the purpose of the RfC?), and that engagement in his list accepts that action. Most of what I think is a reasonable way forward was put in the criteria as suggested by me and amended by others (i.e the criteria under discussion).

We should discuss the issue of video quality (bit-rate and image resolution) and how that is judged against sound quality (isn't this a Featured Sound portal?). We should also discuss how important the EV quality of a sound when weighed against other issues: Does it illustrate an article well?

However, we should also discuss whether it is possible in an encyclopedia written by a wide range of specialist and non-specialist volunteers to judge the compositional quality of a piece of music, which is something that Tony1's comments have generally touched upon to a greater or lesser extent. To what extent is the compositional quality of the music important when compared to its notability (and therefore EV)? Last time I checked this was Featured Sounds, not Featured Compositions; I remain unconvinced that we can as a community judge clearly the compositional quality of pieces of music and judge them against a criteria, and that this is the principal bar above which any piece of music (even Tony1's "tin-pot" national anthems) has to climb to be a FS. TonyTheTiger's comments both here on the talk-page and on the Project Page have made the best sence to me in connection with these issues.

I would love to see suggested criteria upon which to judge compositions that could persuade me otherwise.Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

What particularly riles me is this: "A sound's encyclopedic value is given priority over its artistic value." Who dreamt that up? Tony (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who dreamt it up, but it is point 5 on Featured Pictures Criteria, so I think it is a useful method of evaluating sounds (although others may disagree). Rather obviously, we are trying to build up an encyclopedia and on this project find sounds which can illustrate the articles on there. IMO for Featured Sounds purposes what we are essentially doing is saying this is our best work because first and foremost it illustrates in the best way we can the ideas in the articles; we can say that these are our best work.

That does not mean to say that we ignore artistic criticism of (say) a piece of music, as undoubtedly it should be our best work, but that pieces of music which are by themselves not very interesting pieces of music can still be featured if they are notable for other reasons (like being a national anthem) for which the EV of a recording of that sound trumps the artistic value. Again, this is my opinion.

I think this is a key issue which we should address, and as I said above, I remain to be convinced that there is any form of words which will allow a community of experts and non-experts to rigorously evaluate compositions.

I guess this does raise another issue: should there be a hierarchy of criteria so that a sound can be made featured without attaining all of them, or should every sound achieve every criterion? To cite the argument over the national anthems again, Tony1 obviously thinks (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the compositional quality of these recordings is more important a factor that the fact that they are notable pieces of music for reasons other than their compositional quality. That's to leave aside his argument over the list of FS being dominated by brass-band recordings of European-style marches, to which I'll defer to TonyTheTiger's response. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 09:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll add my thoughts as TL:DR versions of the above and of the criteria as they stand at the moment; despite my reservations about the process going on I should engage in it in good faith in order to help remove any unclarity. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

We need to re-examine the criteria in the light of the evolution of FSC

No consensus was sought, let alone achieved, for the hasty revisions a few weeks ago. The criteria need to be reverted to where they were. This is a good time to do so, since as FSC evolves, we are uncovering a few interesting issues that need to be resolved. Just off the top of my head, editorial opinions are needed (not just from regulars here, either) on at these matters below. These are not simple issues, and we need to work through them. I don't have ready answers. Please add others beneath if you wish, and sign. Tony (talk) 10:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The notability of the actual music. What role should this play in assessments of fitness for promotion (as opposed to the performance and audio-engineering)? For example, should every tin-pot rat-boring national anthem that has been superbly performed and recorded be promoted? Tony (talk) 10:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
1. - Comment: I pretty much think every national anthem passes the notability (encylopedic interest) test. Would evaluate them off of this rather than off of their inherent quality. For musical pieces where the emphasis is as a piece of music, then some emphasis of notablity makes sense. At least if there were a way to encourage or reward more impportant pieces (perhaps excusing some minor flaws on other areas) if they are famous works of art like Beethoven's Fifth. (I think this is how FP would think of it...and how FS should as well.)TCO (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  - comment Isn't this a core fundamental part of the problem here at the moment? My impression of Tony1's comments recently is that he considers the compositional quality (as separate to the performance and recording quality) to be the most important criteria when assessing music. He is entitled to his opinion, and it is important to discuss this issue. His expertise and experience are important and valuable, but I think he is missing the point that we are here to illustrate an encyclopedia in the best way possible, with Featured status being conferred on any sound which illustrates WP to an "our best work" standard. That does mean, to be sure, that compositional quality should be taken into account but also that the EV quality is primary, as ultimately raising the EV of WP is what we are all trying to do.
  - This part of the Criteria "A sound's encyclopedic value is given priority over its artistic value" (which caused some consternation) is directly from WP:WIAFP and I think is a valuable addition. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  - Pictures are very different from musical performances. I've seen no case why this artistic-comes-second-to-EV idea is applicable to both. We haven't even defined what EV is for sounds. All of a sudden, artistic value (such as excellence in performance and composition) play second fiddle. While notability allows a file to be uploaded and used in an article, for featured status, something more is required. Otherwise, we may as well make every single sound file at en.WP and Commons featured, right now. And there was no consensus or examination of the issues first. Tony (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Speeches. The length of speeches: (a) May they be edited down and/or split up to cover single themes? (b) What is the viability of placing a speech lasting more than an hour on the main page? Should (long) speeches be documented in greater detail on the SDP so that readers can get a grip on which themes they deal with, and at what point in minutes and seconds these themes start and end? Should any well-recorded speech by a national politician be promoted? A local politician? What extra benchmark of "notability" should be applied to ration the doling out of FS status like toilet paper? Tony (talk) 10:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
1. - Comment:Speeches should not be edited, unless third party scholarly sources edit them. E.g., Clinton's Lewinsky speech. Yes. the media often presented the favorite sound bite, but our scholarly source presents the whole thing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  - It depends on the speech. Host speeches should be kept as a full unit; however, if there is a famous (or infamous) part of a speech that people are about I am all for cutting things down. In the (very) paraphrased words of Giano: "Make things interesting." --Guerillero | My Talk 03:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  - Comment Come on Tony1, there is no finite amount of Featured status "drink concentrate" which we have to dilute in order to add another sound to the FS list! That sounds an awful lot like the lump of labour fallacy. Ultimately, it all depends on the notability of the speech, of the politician, and of the event they were speaking at. State of the Union addresses are key parts of the US political calendar, so they are notable as a result (although some are more noteworthy than others), however multiple recordings of the same politician delivering their "rat-boring" stump-speeches aren't. To have high level of EV we should have the whole speech; that doesn't necessarily mean that we have put it on the front page (FP don't put all of their pictures on the Main Page for various taste reasons). There is no reason we can't have clip of the noteworthy phrase on WP (eg President GW Bush's "Axis of Evil" in the 2002 State of the Union), but I don't think it could be featured as it's a small part of a larger work. Although there may be exceptions (while a brief clip is currently featured, I'd love to get a more complete moon landing sound recording for example). Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Vid/audio doubling-up. Should both video and audio versions of the same speech or musical performance both be elegible for promotion? If so, under what conditions? Tony (talk) 10:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
1. - Comment: Both should pass when both meet WP:WIAFS. Once one has passed it does not change WIAFS for the other.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  - I am highly opposed to doubling up videos and sound files. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  - It is standard policy on WP that all content that has encyclopedic value, is eligible for quality assessment through the appropriate candidate page with eligibility determined by the WIA page. If an audio file has no encyclopedic value to an article it should be removed. Those that are included in articles for which they have encyclopedic value shall be evaluated against WP:WIAFS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  - I am sympathetic to both sides of the argument, and I think it is important to discuss it as there is some community disagreement over the issue. I also think that as per comments elsewhere individuals should stop nominating these until there is consensus. That being said, WP:CMF#Video has some very useful things to say, including suggesting using a custom wikitable offering multiple bit-rates which I think could be a model for a Video or audio playback option. In general terms, if the video is FS, and a separate audio file has the same audio information, then it should be Featured as well (assuming it passes the criteria too). There is no reason why we should not have a tidier way of presenting it though. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  - I personally disagree that nominations of audio only duplicates of videos should be suspended. I only have one more left anyways. However, I will. I just don't think we are going to have consensus. Thus, we should just evaluate files against our WIA page (WP:WIAFS like all other quality review processes do). basically the only difference with audio files is that a determination needs to be made if their encyclopedic value is largely derived from sound gallery uses. If not, they should be valued as independent files contributing independent EV worthy of evaluation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Vid commentaries. What is the status of the commentary on newsreels, commercially motivated vids, and documentary vids? Does it need to be judged according to WP's RS, POV, verifability, and plagiarism policies? When such vids are used in articles, to what extent does the caption need to distance a commentary from WP's own voice? Tony (talk) 10:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
1. - Comment: As long as the description / caption says "this is a newsreel from year x which illustrates the event y" I think it should be clear that this is not WP's opinion. The Nazi propaganda page does clearly label the Nazi propaganda images as such for example. It is a useful guide to follow. I don't think we should worry about the POV issue most of the time, although there may be individual cases which would require careful thought (to name just one example, imagine if a POV newsreel was discovered about the still-thorny issue of the Armenian Genocide for example). In general terms, we should be wary only if the commentary / images are about a highly controversial issue. However, FS does not mean we endorse the message in the video, just that we think it has high EV. In a controversial case we should consider getting input from interested editors of pages. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Single movements of musical works. What is the line on the nomination of individual movements from a larger work? (I can see the potential for unsatisfactory results, but sometimes it seems to be good; when would it not be good?) Tony (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
1. - Comment:My opinion is that unless a single movement would leave the casual WP reader feeling as if something were missing, it should pass. My real problem is that the experts here might pass movement 1 and movement 4 if nominated separately, but find it problematic if a performance omits 2 & 3 to perform 1 & 4 consecutively.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  - Again, we need to think of what the general rule should be - for me, I think we should have complete symphonies, cantatas, hymns, scenes, speeches, etc, etc, etc for a FS. However there will be exceptions to that, where the piece of music (or whatever) is notable in its own right separately. Examples I could include would be Neil Armstrong's "One Small Step", Beethoven's "Moonlight" Sonata 1st mvt, Kennedy's "Ask not what your country can do for you...". However, I do think that in these cases the complete work should be hosted if possible. It does depend on the EV of the recording. Again, why not consider the wiki-table with multiple playback options? In these cases, a reader would have the option of listening to the whole work, or just the short clip in one space. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
File-names. Should FSC set standards for file-naming? As you know, files are slapped onto Commons and en.WP with egregiously misleading and/or inadequate names. Just one issue is the typical absence of any indication that a performance is of a transcription or arrangement of the original musical work. Tony (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
1. - Comment: My grammar is horrible (one of my few pieces of article work as proof), but I would be open to moving around files if someone has a better idea for a name. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  - Interesting idea and maybe something FP should concern themseves with as well. I guess really we may want to consider more of the general File view content (e.g. is description well done), not just permissions established.
  - I thought that part of the current criteria under discussion was that a sound did have a good and thorough description. Or is that TL:DR as well? Yes, there it is - point 4: "Has a good caption". On the matter in hand, FS should have a standard file-name syntax. Possible suggestion:
  1. - Composition / recording year - Composer / subject - performer (if different) - work Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  - It's hard to have file names that are accurately descriptive and useful enough to satisfy everybody and it would be difficult to come to one standard (though perhaps something could be suggested as a standard for new files and renaming badly named ones, outside the criteria). Commons has a guideline on renaming (which has been copied to the English Wikipedia), which does not support moving from names which are not problematic in their descriptiveness and accuracy. —innotata 12:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  - I don't think it's for sounds to unilaterally set standards for file naming: the same standards should apply to pictures (and videos, if they become a separate process in future). —W F C— 13:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  - This is a commons issue, not a wikipedia one. I'd oppose anything except "should have a descriptive filename". I'd oppose it so long as a small circlejerk of commons administrators are the only ones that are able to rename files, waste of time renaming stuff to conform to some standard otherwise. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Balance of the FS corpus. To what extent does the overall balance of the corpus of featured sounds matter? Do we care if brass-band arrangements of opera arias are over-represented? Is a bias towards American content an issue (I don't know.) Tony (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
1. - Comment:Our file hunters are volunteer labor. They will hunt for what interests them. FS will natuarlly be overweighted toward what intersts those that do the hunting and things that are easy to find. WP:GA and WP:GT are overrun with The Simpsons and 30 Rock episodes. We can't get people to do WP:VITAL articles. Nonetheless, the process is working. The process evaluates what the file hunters bring back to the village. They should be evaluated against WP:WIAFS. Files should not be evaluated for lacking diversity, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  - I would probably just let people submit what they want and not change the quality standards for diversity. However if there ever is front page content that should strongly be emphasized to notability and diversity (in the sense that if there is a category we have a lot of, we just pick less of them). Really, given the low inventory and size (and even quality debates), I think when you go front page, that one a week would be the best start. That way, you can get stuff that is clearly top notch out there.TCO (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  - In the long-run it probably is a concern, but not yet. I agree with TCO - if the sound is considered Featured status it should be an FS. ("Oh, no. Not another Bach cantata"). By all means lets be selective when it comes to the Main Page, but hopefully exposure there will bring in all types of sounds.Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  - Unfortunately, the sounds that are public domain in the United States or otherwise free to use are very unbalanced, even more so taking into account what is easily available, so it's difficult to get a more diverse corpus. —innotata 13:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  - Lists probably have an even bigger issue with representation than sounds, so I wouldn't panic just yet. It's important to stress that there must never be any sort of "easy" criteria for files, simply because they happen to be underrepresented. That said, where files from/of underrepresented countries/fields exist and are of FS quality, we should make sure that they go through FSC. I would also point out that it is not automatically the case that a file recorded in the US is necessary a West-centric file. Many of our national anthem files were recorded by the US Navy, including quite a few from relatively obscure countries, such as the national anthem of Benin. —W F C— 14:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Video quality assessment How should we approach video quality? Are we as a community happy with the formulation as it stands on the WP:WIAFS page, section 7 (This essentially empasises the importance of the audio quality over the video quality)? Should we do it differently? Should we consider ignoring Video altogether once Featured Videos get off the ground?
1. - Comment:I would keep your stuff to sounds. I think we need a Featured Videos eventually. It is just criminal how bad our use of videos is on Wiki with the whole ogg requirement and all. But hopefully, if they ever get a featured process, the fact that more than 50% of browsers can not watch our videos will drive some changes. Also WMF is very serious about changing our inability to display videos well. For now, I would give a home to a sound/video if you want (like a music video). I imagine most informative videos have more a home in Featured Pictures. In terms of video quality, I think eventually it would be great if we require high standards on the video, but for now we need to be realistic. The standards can rise with time, as they have at FA and FP. But for now you need to give stars (I think same with audio quality as well).TCO (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Hierarchy of criteria This discussion has been going on since 4th June and... I'm not sure it has got terribly far. However, something that Tony1 said above got me thinking; specifically should we have a hierarchy of criteria - or possibly more clearly, are there criteria which an FS has to fulfil, and a number of criteria which it could fulfil some of and still be considered "our best work"? Could we have a situation where an FS has to have a good caption and be free for example, but where the standards of EV and the musical quality of the recording can be weighed up by each editor? Put another way, does a sound have to have a high EV and a very high musical quality (in terms of composition etc), or can the relative importance of these two categories be left vague in the criteria and decided on a case-by-case basis? The recent spate of national anthems as nominated sounds has rightly caused debate. The importance of EV and of musical quality are high in the criteria but which one is more important for the community (all other things being equal)? Does it matter? I know I am concentrating on these two issues but they seem to be the ones which are causing most difference of opinion. Others may think differently. It would be useful to know!
1. - Comment:

Message on behalf of TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs)

Copied from my talk page: diff

I am currently topic banned at WP:FS. As a FS director, could you please copy this discussion to WT:FSC on my behalf. I have been having problems with Moni3 (talk · contribs) over the Amazing Grace article. She was the WP:FA author and I believe she has WP:OWN issues with regard to the article.

In April, I tried to add File:Amazing Grace (USAFB strings).ogg, File:Amazing Grace (USAFB brass).ogg, and File:Amazing Grace (USAFB jazz vocal).ogg. She has insisted that they do not belong because the versions presented are not discussed in the text. After an extremely volatile disucssion in which the FA director Raul654 (talk · contribs) expressed a concurring opinion and FA delegate SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) was in opposition, Moni consented to including the jazz version.

By June, I reminded her that I had previously suggested a good location for the two instrumental versions. Recall that at that time in June 44 of my last 56 nominated files had been promoted (79%). Meanwhile, the year to date FSC pass rate was 133/178=75%. So I had learned how to be a above average FSC contributor and learned what types of files the audiophiles considered valuable to wikipedia. I tried to explain to Moni, in a discussion on her talk page that I now understood at a basic level what the proper consideration were for sound file contributions and felt that the two instrumental versions would be useful in the section discussing the melody.

Do the Featured sound people believe that the newly-promoted File:Amazing Grace (USAFB strings).ogg and File:Amazing Grace (USAFB brass).ogg should be included in the Amazing Grace article (probably in the section discussing the melody since they are instrumental versions)?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

—James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:11am • 23:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I refuse to do anything until I return from Sweden. (Guerillero who can't log in with a swedish keyboard) --194.236.80.55 (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I've taken a brief look at this and I think there is a problem here; but it's not what TTT would like to think. I think an FS should be used to enhance WP, and that the sound recordings should be used to give added value to an article in collaboration with the editors who have worked on the article in question already. Any FS should be our best work in service of that; we shouldn't say that we've decided a sound is an FS and must therefore be added to specific articles on WP as that is using an article in the service of a sound recording and the FS community. In addition, the argument between TTT and the editors in question seems to have got pretty heated - there are normal channels to resolve these sort of things and last time I checked FSC wasn't one of them. Without wanting to delve too deeply into the course of the argument, WP is a collaborative project and we should be careful to encourage collaboration rather than name calling.

This specific argument does raise another issue; while WP:WIAFS does say that a sound should be used on an article, does the community have to remove the FS status of a sound if that recording is no longer used? Probably a worry for the long-run and not now I would have thought. If these "New Britain" recordings in question were not being used anywhere on WP I would have to reconsider my support of them (although that is probably too late now) Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Copied from my user page:

I am a bit bewildered by your response. You rambled quite a bit and I see no opinion on whether you feel the files I raised an issue about would be well-suited to the article. However, you gave what appears to be a pro-WP:OWNership statement "I think an FS should be used to enhance WP, and that the sound recordings should be used to give added value to an article in collaboration with the editors who have worked on the article in question already." If I am interpreting the statement correctly, it means that when an editor spends a lot of time on an article the does sort of OWN it in the sense that rather than considering what is best for the article we actually consider their preferences. Am I reading this correctly that the preferences of people who spend time on an article are more important in this regard.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't brief enough, but not really - the short version is that use of sounds should service WP rather than the other way round (which is what you seem to be implying by asking the FSC community about using a sound in a specific article). Editors don't own an article, but they generally have a very thorough understanding of the subject matter (especially FA). I understand why you want these sounds used on the Amazing Grace page, but you and the regular editors of that page should come to a consensus about how best to use the sounds. I am, of course, talking about my opinion - this does not necessarily mean others on this page will agree with me. I'm not really sure I want to get drawn into the argument which you have got yourself involved in. Best of luck. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 08:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. As I understand it, you basically feel that extensive involvement in an article is often associated with topical expertise and newly involved editors should not make lightly-considered changes to well-conceived pages such as FAs. I also gather that you consider yourself not qualified/interested enough in the specific song and files at issue to state an opinion on whether the files at issue should be included as I suggest. Basically, I consider you neutral out of deference to a likely topical expert. I hope to get some opinions one way or another from other audiophiles, but I understand. I also agree that the author knows more about the article subject than most. However, this remains the only time in my use of over 200 sound files that I have contributed to Wikipedia where I continue to disagree with other editors on the inclusion of a file. Thus, I remain hopeful that someone at FSC is enough of an expert to provide an opinion one way or another.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply; my hesitancy is basically because I have a time / resource problem at the moment. Real life has taken its toll on the amount of time and effort I can spend on WP. Good luck in your efforts. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Can you post my last reply above at FSC so that people might be clearer on what I am looking for. You may want to add your reply on my talk page there as well.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The first of the three recordings linked is pretty awful: a plodding feel. What genius thought of arranging the piano in unison with the other instruments. The bass line is a yawn. The second is a lovely arrangement, but with very modern harmonies; very well played; the third is really in your face, but in its genre is a high quality arrangement and performance. The first doesn't belong in the article for aesthetic reasons, IMO. The problem with including the second or the third in the article is that the arrangements themselves detract from the original subject of the article—they take on a life all of their own.

Tony (talk)

04:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe the USAFB were trying to go for a tranquil serenade type rendition for the strings. Were the piano to be taken out of the equation, I think the piece itself would be better off. The brass band arrangement to me is quite... meh, I always think of trumpets as being majestic instruments yet here their audibility is reduced to near silence until halfway through the performance and even then the overall pitch of the music is not up-to-par with the score. Having heard fantastic renditions of the piece in services and elsewhere, the brass band rendition isn't quite what I hoped it was. I completely agree with you on the third piece, as well. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 2:54pm • 04:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)