Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured sound candidates/Archive 7

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

Does anyone know...

...someone that can convert this MIDI to Ogg Vorbis format? I'd like to nominate it for FS but I don't have the necessary programme(s) to convert it. Thanks, —James (Talk • Contribs) • 11:09am • 01:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure. What license does this need when uploading? Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh - wait... I still don't get the whole copyright law thing about recordings (can someone copyright their version of an out-of-copyright piece of music?), but http://www.trachtman.org/ragtime/copyrit.htm, says "My midifiles are all copyright protected performances. However, I am making them freely available for personal, NON-COMMERCIAL distribution and enjoyment." Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
The author of the midi ("trachtman") put creative thought into the work by selecting tempo, dymanics, rhythmic nuances, etc (presumably), thus they can claim copyright on the "performance". Thus it cannot be uploaded unfortunately. Jujutacular talk 23:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah nuts, I overlooked that :S is there a pianist among the FS regulars who are willing to record a perfomance of The Entertainer as written on the score? Apparently the version we have on the article is not written to the score as you'll see on the delist nomination for it. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 2:29pm • 04:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
As far as I know from what I've read (I've been doing bits and pieces on the Scott Joplin page for a while now) it's not really clear how far there was improvisation in ragtime. Even Joplin himself added bass runs (as is evident in the one true piano roll we have by him). One can imagine that the pianists working in saloons and brothels at the time did improvise quite a bit (rather than worrying about sticking to the score). I don't think that the odd departure from the score is necessarily a delist issue because it's probably what happened in real life. However, I'll keep my powder dry until I see the nomination. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 06:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
D'oh! Just come across the delist nomination for the version of the Entertainer linked to on the The Entertainer (rag) page which dates from April 2007, and it does sound awful. I've stumbled across a very respectable version by former FS regular Adam, here. I'll upload it and replace the version on the WP page when I get the chance. I'm not sure of it as a potential FS though; I'll have to think on it. It's a bit moot until its up on WP though. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
If you have it as a .ogg file I will take a listen --Guerillero | My Talk 23:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll try and upload it as soon as I can; I think the performance is good, but I'd resist putting it in for FS because the piano sound is very artificial. If I can get my old copy of Cubase working I'll try and replace it with something a bit better (Adam uploaded the midi file with the MP3 version at the above site), but that might not be immediate. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I've uploaded the OGG file to

and have used it on The Entertainer (rag) page. I'm still not certain of its worth as an FS but it is much better than what was on that page previously. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like a normal piano... it's got an electric feel to it... don't know the words to describe it, but at least it's played as written. Well done Ben :) —James (Talk • Contribs) • 4:01pm • 06:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Return

I have returned from my yearly summer break. Camp Staff and my trip to sweden went well. In the next week or so I will try to close some things and put some things up on the chopping block. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 01:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Where are we and what do we agree on?

How much progress has been made on this front? Are we agreed on what needs to be changed, it's been 2 months since the early discussions were initiated and we need the criteria to be rewritten based on the above suggestions. It's a good thing we haven't gotten many new nominations in the interim, but when summer in the Northern Hemisphere rolls over, we can expect a lot of activity once again. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:27am • 00:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure, even from the above list of questions, what needs to change and what consensus there is about these issues. It is not clear to me where the community and the current criteria (WP:WIAFS part ways. I think it's obvious that Tony1 has concerns with aspects of what is there at the moment, but I am not at all clear whether enough people agree with some or all of what he said. Ultimately, do the criteria have to be proscriptive and compulsory or can there be areas which are left open to interpretation by individuals (see the last question on the list)? If it's the latter then the community can disagree in a healthy way. While I have to admit to not always agreeing with Tony1's points he is entitled to his opinion and this benefits the process as long as everyone gets involved in a positive way. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, I see. It should be left open to interpretation, the importance of one against another is purely subjective, though I believe both are as equally important, that's not putting into context the historical value of the file, the latter being the most important in my opinion. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 7:41pm • 09:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I will try to make sense of this --Guerillero | My Talk 01:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm responding to a message left on FPC's discussion page that requested input from FPC on FSC's criteria. The above discussion is TL;DR but if there are one or more comprehensive proposals, I'm willing to read them. Pinetalk 09:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I will draft one pine --Guerillero | My Talk 14:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion seems stagnant, I think right now we should go with Tony's suggestion. We need to go through each criterion one by one, it'll achieve more and allow us to pull our resources effectively. I've also put a faux timestamp so the bot will ignore it. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 7:26pm • 09:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

A shame; an inactive notice has been put on this page for understandable reasons. Ultimately few Wikipedians are going to be interested in getting involved in a project which doesn't even know what it stands for. I have vehement disagreement with many of Tony1's points as noted elsewhere, but maybe these can be areas which it is OK to disagree about? I'm really not interested if this becomes a featured compositions page. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
It never was my specialitity, but it always sucks to see content go. Makes me all the more nervous about Wikipedia's recent decay. ResMar 15:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry that it came to this but I needed to tag it as inactive. I think that TNT may be needed here. I estimate that close to 1/4 of all FSes are below what we would call front page standards. The amount of work needed is great and the volunteers are minimal. If you would like to discuss the process with me or my thoughts on it contact me on my talk page or send me an email --Guerillero | My Talk 20:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
We lost all our regulars and interest dwindled, I saw this coming but I didn't expect it to happen so soon, perhaps we could spread word-of-mouth about FSC to former regulars? I don't want FS to become "historical". —James (Talk • Contribs) • 12:39pm • 02:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The last call for contributors was a flop.I think we just need to accept that there isn't a substantial interest in sound files by the general community. In addition, the technology to create high quality free versions of PD songs is still fairly expensive and it is time consuming to learn a piece just for FS purposes. With FP and FA you can make changes. With FS you can't. We rely too much on outside sources because of this fact. Things still need to catch up. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

All very true. In addition I think that there is a lot to learn from FP in terms of their criteria should FS become a going concern again. Sounds do have many issues which don't arise for pictures as soon as you start assessing their value and worth and these should be dealt with clearly too. Badly aged historical pictures can become pristine again with a bit of work in Photoshop, but historical recordings will always have issues which for some can detract from their worth.

Maybe you can leave a notice / send a message encouraging former users to continue putting more sound recordings on WP? If sounds get more visible for regular users then perhaps there is a chance another FS will arise? Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The videos question still hangs in the air. A proposal that could work is a featured media process that included videos and sounds. That may solve the duplication issue. If you would like to add a notice of that sort go ahead. I will not stop you. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I think I mangled my last message (that's what comes from writing messages on WP during the kids' bed-time). I'm happy to write a message which I will post onto the talk pages of former users of FS, along the lines of "FS is no longer a going concern, but please do keep on adding appropriate sound and video to WP as this will help raise the profile of media in the encyclopedia. Just maybe it would contribute to encouraging the development of a sustainable Featured process in the future." I think that there is a bot which can distribute this, but I have no idea how to use it. I can do it manually by going through the list of contributors and adding in anyone who left a message on the project's page recently, but that will have to wait for a couple of days at least because of off-wiki real life. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 10:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and you may as well remove the Maple Leaf Rag delist nom from the front page as well. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

More Maple Leaf Rag - Sorry

Now that I have got my old copy of Cubase to work again I've changed, and hopefully improved, the piano sound for my previous nomination of Joplin's Maple Leaf Rag as played by the composer - in a side-by-side comparison I think the most recent version sounds better. I have not replaced the original on mediawiki, merely added another file and used that instead on relevant pages. I would like to propose a re-assessment of this current FS to ask if the FS status can be conferred onto the V2 instead, but not yet, since there are already two noms on the page of this piece and I wouldn't want visitors to become Maple-Leafed out. Just for reference and interest rather than anything else here are the two sounds:

"Maple Leaf Rag" – played by Scott Joplin (June 1916)
The current FS
"Maple Leaf Rag" - played by Scott Joplin as before but with a different piano sound
The other file without FS status - less of a muddy sound this time.
Problems playing these files? See media help.

I did take a run at improving the piano sound on Adam's performance of The Entertainer, but I couldn't really notice much of a difference whatever I did, so I left it as it was. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Where is the consensus to relaunch this forum?

Adam, have you discussed your changes to the page with anyone?

There still appear to be several significant snags—conceptual and procedural—in the whole phenomenon of featured sounds. And just a minor point: the criteria are most unsatisfactory, as are the instructions. Wouldn't it be a better idea to get people together to discuss whether there's a way of revamping those, first? I'm not optimistic, though. Tony (talk) 14:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It's been discussed in the Signpost comments. However, you kept trying to create criteria that were impossible to fulfil with what resources were available, the doing of which kills off processes long before they can attract the talent that would have allowed your desired criteria to be met; you were unwilling to compromise in the slightest, and your bad behaviour drove contributors off.So, if you would kindly bow out a bit, I'll see if I can't create a process that, through gradual building up, will someday actually meet what you wanted, but have no idea how to get. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
The SP comments underneath a journalistic story are quite irrelevant. It needs to be discussed here. You cannot just lumber in and set it up without consensus. At the moment, the structure and criteria are entirely unsuitable. And I note that the criteria were changed without consensus a few months before the forum fell into a hole. At the moment, I cannot support this relaunching you apparently want; that is, unless five fundamental issues can be solved beforehand. Tony (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, according tot he administrator's noticeboard page, you're literally the only voice in opposition, so... Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
What on EARTH has this got to do with AN? I couldn't give a toss what a few admins think. You need to raise the issue HERE and gain consensus. ... and you need consensus for these weird, unannounced instructions and criteria that no one endorsed. Tony (talk) 09:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Tony, you had a chance to give your opinion at WP:AN, and it was universally rejected. I categorically refuse to have the same discussion on a page far fewer people are watchlisting. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Look, Tony, if you have genuine points you want to raise, raise them. In bulletpoints, giving specific suggestions. But, at the moment, the Administrator's Noticeboard thread shows there's consensus for this to exist.

If you have any changes to criteria, or the like, we can discuss them. But I'm not going to engage in "That much more public discussion doesn't count because I lost it." Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Response. Again, an admins' noticeboard has utterly no status in this matter. I have no idea why you raised it there, nor why no one there said, errr ... ask on the talk page, please. They don't seem to realise that admins have specific roles and responsibilities, of which relaunching featured forums is certainly not a part (they can comment here as individual editors, of course, but your rearguard attempt to gain what you apparently see as "official" support is most inappropriate). I must also ask that you take a more collegial angle in your dealings here ("Look, Tony" is moving a little towards the bossy, frankly).

Now let's look at a few examples—never resolved— of about five fundamental issues that seemed to bring this forum crashing down last time. These need to be resolved first, rather than leaping in unilaterally to open this forum for business as usual. Sounds (particularly music recordings) are much more complex than pictures in a judgemental forum.

    • The brass-band transcriptions that were nominated of excerpts from Wagner operas: profoundly disturbing.
    • The zillions of zed-grade national anthems, superbly performed and recorded under free licence by US military bands.

So, the relationship between quality of subject and quality of photograph in FPC is quite different from quality of subject (the composed music) and quality of performance, and quality of recording in an FSC. This is a very troubling aspect and led to a lot of drama last time. I don't have a simple answer.

Another troubling issue used to be glaringly obvious: unlike FPC, there was some kind of unstated assumption that if a sound was rejected for promotion, it would be lost to the project. There's actually a binary structure in the relationship between sound files and the WMF movement: (1) delete or don't upload in the first place (usually but not always for copyright reasons); (2) upload and use or don't use in one or more articles. Restarting FSC would revert us to a ternary structure, adding (3) promoted to featured status on en.WP. There was far too much bulldozing by one editor, and far too little sense of what the standards of music files should be to promote them. It's much easier for pictures. Tony (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedic value is a criterion at featured picture as well. Your argument essentially boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
Now, there are some valid points: a brass band arrangement of a national anthem is much less valuable than a sung one. A brass band Wagner is much less valuable for Wagner's operas than for discussing Wagner's use in popular culture of the 19th and early 20th century, and, just like at featured pictures, if it doesn't have an encyclopedic value as used in the articles, it should probably go. But I hardly think that this counts as a strike against featured sounds. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't see that reviving this is a process that needs to be rushed. I feel like a discussion on updating the criteria and the process for nominating images needs to be had before nominations are made. (X! · talk)  · @336  ·  07:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Adam, I think per se it doesn't count against the uploading of a music file onto a WMF site (and successful resistance to calls for deletion); but when it comes to promoting files to featured status, it's a whole different matter. Archiving nominated files rather than promoting them affects neither their use in articles nor their availability on the net. But I want to put it to editors that featured sounds should embody the high standards of the movement, just as for featured articles, featured pictures, etc. In my view, it was far too easy to get over the fence before. And I do question why one reviewer in favour and one against, after a week, means that a nomination is over that fence. That needs revisiting before the slightest thought of relaunching this process. (Please see instructions overleaf.) Tony (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I've got to agree with X! that there is no reason to rush this, and with Tony that a "discussion" on ANI supporting this counts for nothing. ANI is not the place to discuss featured content types. J Milburn (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I support the attempt to get FS going again, and I have no idea whether ANI was the appropriate place to discuss this first or not. Before going any further with this project it is important that we discuss the criteria and come to some consensus. While I can understand Tony's misgivings about, say, the number of bad 19th century European marches used as National Anthems and accepted as FSs, I would argue that their inclusion is down to their encyclopedic value. However, this is all old ground which we were discussing at some length before and which went no-where. To agree with Tony again, these are complex issues and maybe there is no easy solution. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
And we are currently holding an entire process hostage because of old battles, without giving the process any chance to rise above the previous issues, because everyone's blocking any start to featured sounds until every old battle is fought to everyone's satisfaction. Seriously, we can't talk about how criteria are being interpreted. They aren't being interpreted. There aren't any nominations. We can't talk about problems with brass band reductions of anthems being nominated. They aren't being nominated. There aren't any nominations. We can't point to problems that need fixed. There can't be any problems or fixes that aren't 100% hypothetical. There aren't any nominations for problems to arise in. 19:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

True, but do we start right at the beginning again? A blank piece of paper - what is an FS supposed to be? I am interested in TTT's suggestion, but I'm not sure that a GS is the answer until we have an idea upon which basis to decide. Should we go back to the old, not very good criteria? The newer, contentious ones, or, actually accept that maybe the best move is to say lets decide on a case-by-case basis whether we think this sound, say a recording of Obama's 2013 State of the Union, or an old national anthem is an FS. It's a subjective decision. Perhaps the thing to do is accept that. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Noone has yet made a single, concrete suggestion for changes to the old criteria. If people want to fix up the criteria before we restart, that's fine, but there's been no movement in that direction, and if the only thing people want to do is complain about them, then let's get started.
Everyone on this page has had the chance to go to the criteria, open a new section and say, for example, "I suggest we change the wording of criterion 9 from X to Y, and putting it to discussion and vote. If people were doing that, I would have no problem waiting.
But noone is. Given that, and given it's perfectly possible to react to any problems with standards that has a real-world consequence by watching nominations, and changing the criteria as necessary, I don't see a point to any of this. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I made suggestions about 2 years ago, but no-one was interested and I don't wish to re-tread old arguments. Thinking about it now, on the whole I would be in favour of compulsory technical criteria (eg "is there a good caption") with a separate set of "foundations" which are non-compulsory (eg "is it of a notable subject", "is it a well-written piece of music", "is it performed well", "is it recorded well" etc), that have to be weighed up against each-other by editors as judging criteria. Any one of these "foundations" can be ignored if the recording is of a sufficiently high quality in the other areas. The advantage of this is that it is not too proscriptive but accepts the contentious judging criteria.
We could of course have a separate "Featured Music Compositions" as this seems to be the issue most people are worried about. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think a process that's a bit marginal already benefits from being split in two, and I don't think we should bring taste into it too much: Something can be highly notable but not very good; for example, the song "Friday", or the more random works of John Cage (not that they'll be freely licensed anytime soon). The primary goal of a Featured X process is to improve Wikipedia, after all, so if we have an article on something, it's fair game for anyone who's willing to put in the work to get a recording for it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I am pretty certain that we will not achieve a consensus on criteria with FS in its current format. There is a polar split between those who want significantly higher standards and those who want the standards to remain as they have been in the past. I think my proposal below is about the only way to handle this situation. All the people who want much higher standards will probably be able to come to an agreement, but not if they also have to listen to all the people who want the standards to remain pretty much the same.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to revamp FS

Just prior to the WP:FS demise there was contentious debate about the abundance of minimum standards candidates and the resulting pollution of the field of featured sounds. A schism arose in which several members wanted to tighten the criteria to achieve higher quality nominees and promoted works. From out of nowhere candidates that were routine, competent and consistent with prior promotions were being failed because there were too many “pedestrian” nominees. Various attempts were made to reword the standards, but this led to further debate. I concur that obtaining FS was far easier than at all other WP:FC, except possibly WP:FPO.
I say we remodel FS as GS/FS. This would enable us to recognize two quality levels, which would ease the conflict between those who want to make the criteria more consistent with other FC and those who want the criteria to remain historically consistent. We could emulate WP:FT/WP:GT, which is a single process that minimizes the necessary manpower to evaluate and administer items for two levels of quality review. We should regard all current FS as both GS and former FS until each is reassessed against a new splitlevel set of criteria. As we reassess all current FS, If an item fails the new higher level criteria it shall remain GS, and if it passes it shall be rated FS. No current FS shall be demoted below GS until the project becomes fully operational and delistings resume. The GS level should be the old FS criteria as applied when it allowed for routine competent works even if they were unspectacular. FS will be a level where the work is special, with criteria to be agreed upon. The project can determine a method to choose its directors.
If people agree to this proposal we can recast WP:WIAFS and write WP:WIAGS based on previous FS requirements. Simultaneously, a schedule shall be set wherein all newly recast GS current FS will be nominated for promotion to FS reevaluation during a 60-day window. About 6 pieces will be renominated a day, which is doable because these nominations should be easier due to familiarity and description pages that are already up to par. Some days the only nomination might be an 8 or 10 part piece. Care should be taken that no day include much more than one hour of work for consideration. Thus, some of the long speeches will have to be paired up with some of the short sound files. Other days a nomination may include a group of similarly themed works (E.G. works by a single composer, Christmas carols or national anthems performed by a specific musical ensemble or renditions of a single work by different ensembles).
Following the 60-day reevaluation, the project will begin accepting nominations for newly nominated and renominated works as well as delisting nominations. Promotion nomination will have two considerations: GS and FS. Support levels for GS would remain as before minimum three supports (including nominator) and majority decision, while FS would require a minimum of five supports (including nominator) and at least 2/3rds. Each reviewer will say whether he/she supports promotion to GS and to FS. If at some future date, the project grows the GS and FS processes can become separate.
I think we should take a set amount of time to consider my proposal. Something like 7 days. During this period, I propose that all former regular members of the project be contacted and given seven days to state whether they support a FS/GS revamp and if they support whether would like to be involved in the decision making for the resurrected project. There would be four types of involvement: 1.) Declaring interest in becoming an FS director, 2.) Declaring interest in designing the new standards, 3.) Declaring interest in scheduling the current sounds to be reevaluated, 4. ) Declaring interest in being a member (reviewer and nominator).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Do we really need good sounds? I think that that specific proposal will go the same path as the Good lists and Good pictures ones. The current standard for both sounds, images and lists cannot be lowered or raised to make a difference like the one that is showcased at GA/A/FA. However, I'd like to see this proposal expanded. Would you mind developing the WP:WIAGS page on your userspace Tony? I designed the WP:WIAGL criteria before proposing its creation, and I think you might benefit from doing the same. — ΛΧΣ21 18:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I think you are missing my point. I am proposing that GS be the criteria that existed about two years ago. I guess something like Wikipedia:WIAGS/mockup, which is a combination of this 13 October 2010 version and this 6 January 2011 version is what I am talking about. It would be the old criteria. We would pass all the faithful and competent but run of the mill stuff as GS like national anthems like we use to pass before the hysteria over the abundance of minimum standards candidates erupted. The audiofiles could then set their own much higher standard for the new WP:WIAFS without being bothered by people wanting to retain the ability to get unspectacular files passed. I disagree that the standards for sounds can not be raised to make a difference. There are many ways that the new FS criteria could be much stricter and refine our pool of recognized content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
      • I have responded at length in the first oppose vote below. I think this proposal is well-meaning, but a complete, automatic delist is a horrible idea, that's frankly insulting to all the people who have put time into this. Plus, we don't even have a single coherent suggestion about new criteria (except the one I just made below), so there cannot be an assumption that almost all featured sounds wouldn't meet the new criteria. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
        • The complete delist is just for the 60-day evaluation period. All exceptional sound files will be restored to featured after re-evaluation. There is really no other way to separate the wheat from the chaff. One-off delistings will never catch up. If you think that a large number, possibly between 20-50%, of the 374 current FS are problematically unspectacular, this solution gets rid of all of them all within the first three months of revamping the project.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Support

  • Make Good Sounds and leave (defunct) FS up to those who want perfection. The wonderful thing about the old FS was that it was driving fundamental submissions themselves and in a category that we had very little of (sounds). I always felt like we should have LOW standards for FS and just tighten them up if the category and size grew to allow it. But given there was a dead ender who wanted super perfection, just better to abandon FS to him and make your own thing. Go GS. Go sounds. It was really sad when FS died and no content came in anymore.  :-(

TCO (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

P.s. I think those national anthems you uploaded were SUPER ENCYCLOPEDIC and would never have come into the Wiki if it were not the incentive of a little gold star sticker.

P.s.s. "Lights", violin version

P.s.s.s. And why do you need some proposal voting candyass BS? Just DO IT. Sheesh...this whole website is so much into nitanoid arguing.

Oppose

  • Oppose: All Featured X's on Wikipedia go through the occasional purge of old material; this is normal and expected as standards improve. They do this through delists, however, not by creating huge amounts of work for everyone. If anyone feels any featured sound doesn't meet the new criteria, they may feel free to nominate it for delisting; but it's just insulting to everyone who contributed to act as if all the hard work put in resulted in nothing but garbage. Secondly, until concrete proposals about the criteria appear, there's no point guessing at what they will be. Frankly, I think the criteria are fairly good; the problematic sounds were usually non-notable brass band arrangements of notable sung pieces, and that can be fixed with a few minor clarifications, for instance, stating clearly that reducing a vocal work into a purely instrumental work is only suitable for featured sounds if the instrumental arrangement is notable in itself (for example, Liszt did many arrangements of operas for solo piano), or if the encyclopedic value of the arrangement is high, as used in articles (say, a brass band arrangement is used in a section of brass band to illustrate a section on how operas often got brass band arrangements.} See, the thing about criteria is? Most of the criteria for a featured process is developed through practice. Of all the processes, literally the only one where an X fitting all written criteria must be passed is Good articles. And I don't think that we could or should try to make featured sounds an exception to this, we should instead react against shortfalls in the criteria when we need to. And, so far, I think a bit of discussion about how a non-typical version of a piece, by default, has low encyclopedic value unless something in the article justifies it should be sufficient to start us off, and to block literally everything anyone has complained about. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Featured sounds is, and probably always will be, a rather small project. There's no need to split it. Valued pictures crashed and burned (and rightly so), the idea of "good lists" is regularly shot down (and rightly so). There are plenty of reasons why articles should be considered separately, and why a two-tiered system is justified there:
    1. We are fundamentally "about" articles, as a project. Articles are what an encyclopedia is made of; everything else is secondary.
    2. A featured article should be, and is generally considered to be, the most difficult type of content to produce. This places it out of the reach of many.
    3. We have far more Wikipedians producing high-quality articles than we have Wikipedians producing, for instance, high-quality sounds or portals.
    4. A large number of articles benefit from the extra step of scrutiny provided by GAC. There is unlikely to be a parallel with a hypothetical "GSC".
Those are a few reasons why a two-tiered system with articles is a good idea, while a two-tiered FS project would not be. As far as I'm concerned, what is needed with the FS project are tight guidelines upon which the community agrees. If that isn't achievable, then the project probably isn't worth reviving. J Milburn (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

This is pointless

Noone has suggested a single, coherent change to the criteria, of the "I think we should add X" or "The wording of Y should be Z", except, ironically enough, me. (I suggested we deal with the apparently only example anyone can think of as a problem - brass band recordings of sung music - by working out wording that will allow examples of brass band music to illustrate articles on brass bands and such, but emphasize that the further one goes from the original, the less presumption of encyclopedic value there is.

This got no response. Instead, there's lots and lots of complaining, and nothing that would actually improve the articles.

Now, the thing about criteria is that most of the criteria for a featured process is unwritten. Read the featured picture criteria and compare it to what's done in practice. You won't see mention of old, damaged pictures being restored in it, but, thanks to Durova, me, and several other people, that's become quite possible, and, as everyone knows it is, it's become a de facto criterion in most cases.

By all means we can make any fixes anyone wants to make. But that's not what anyone's doing, and I don't think most people participating in the discussion actually understand how these sorts of processes work.

We are currently holding an entire process hostage because of old battles, without giving the process any chance to rise above the previous issues, because everyone's blocking any start to featured sounds until every old battle is fought to everyone's satisfaction. Seriously, we can't talk about how criteria are being interpreted. They aren't being interpreted. There aren't any nominations. We can't talk about problems with brass band reductions of anthems being nominated. They aren't being nominated. There aren't any nominations. We can't point to problems that need fixed. There can't be any problems or fixes that aren't 100% hypothetical. There aren't any nominations for problems to arise in.

When the process is restarted, there will be plenty of problems. And we should deal with them as soon as they are spotted. But I see no point refighting past battles, when featured X processes don't have criteria so much as firm guidelines, tempered by a lot of precedent. They're a common law system. Now, obviously, there were problems with the past featured sounds, but after a year of no featured sounds, and probably 2 years since it was active, given it's a common law system, noone without a crystal ball can have any idea what the problems will be with the relaunch, until such time as we actually relaunch. By all means, let's apply a band-aid to the one issue people keep bringing up - brass band arrangements of anthems - but acting as if you can create perfect criteria outside of trial and error is a fool's game.

On another point, we do have to be pragmatic about this. We do the best process we can do with the resources and people we have. An active project will attract more talented people over time, and criteria should be raised as that happens. And it's totally possible to screw up the process in ways that will hurt Wikipedia. For example, a talented singer might well be willing to record him or herself singing operatic airs for Wikipedia, but essentially noone is going to have easy access to a good orchestra for non-profit events, and theatre rules often prevent good recordings being made of amateur live performances. If we made criteria that absolutely forbid piano-and-voice recordings of operatic airs, I doubt we'd get more than a handful of people making such recordings for Wikipedia as a whole - and they're almost certainly the best we can ever expect in 99.9% of cases. If we allow them, the chances become much higher that we will get high-quality voice-and-piano recordings, particularly if we can give some reward, like main page exposure, in exchange. Hell, I know I'd be uncomfortable asking my more-talented friends for help with this if all I had to offer was "want to make a recording for Wikipedia?" In fact, I am highly uncomfortable, and would become far more uncomfortable if I knew I was going to expose them to abuse in exchange for their help. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I think relaunching with the same criteria that led to the collapse previously is foolish. I don't think anyone believes that we can come to a perfect list just sitting here pontificating, but it makes sense to draft something a little stronger before we kick off again. J Milburn (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
If people were suggesting changes to the criteria, I might accept your point. But noone outside of me is (as I, um, just revised my statement to make clear). Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I can draft a new criteria with higher standards, and then bring it to discussion. What do you think? — ΛΧΣ21 21:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
So long as the criteria are still achievable. That's my one worry - pushing the criteria so far forwards that we can't develop the community that would be able to fulfil them. It might be best to discuss each part of the new standards separately, in its own thread, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
My prediction is that there will be a lot of talking about how to perfect the criteria, but when it becomes apparent to those that don't want the project to go forward with escalated standards, things will break down. I am pretty sure that the only way to revive the project and raise standards is to have two levels of standards. You guys can keep talking because I may be wrong. Maybe, you can get it going again with higher standards, but i doubt it. I look at all the verbiage and it is really pretty confusing. The bottom line for me is whether the spirit of the criteria is to eliminate the pedestrian works that had fidelity, competence and encyclopedic value. Does the work really have to put fire in your loins or not. I have no way to understand what all the words mean until you tell me are brass band national anthems in or out? The project had a ton of them before I got involved and when I started adding to the list Tony1 (talk · contribs) led a revolt against their pedestrian nature. I can't figure out how to resolve everything because I thought a mechanism where he could eliminate all of the schlock from FS and write high standards as I designed would make him and all the audiofiles happy. I am not arguing for brass band Wagner because those never were perceived as having fidelity, but I am trying to figure out what is going on with National anthems.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate sounds

When the conflict erupted prior to the demise of the project there were some who felt only one version of any work should be featured. Others felt that if multiple versions (audio vs. video and/or old vs. modern) are contributing encyclopedic value to WP through use in articles, then each should be eligible for FS. As a result of the lack of consensus, some nominations failed just due to the fact that other versions of the same work were already featured. Do we intend to have a policy that only one version of a work is eligible at a revamped FS?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that if multiple featured sounds exist for a work, they must show different aspects, presuming that being a recording of that work is the source of the encyclopedic value. (One could conceivably have five notable singers for which the only free-licensed recording was the same song.) If the two versions serve to illustrate the same point, only the better should remain featured. Again, the goal is to improve Wikipedia, and if two recordings improve Wikipedia's coverage far more than each one alone, they should both be eligible to be considered (though, of course, whether it actually passes will depend if it meets the other criteria, written and unwritten). We can revisit this if it becomes an issue later.
And, of course, the works need to genuinely be the same. Liszt's Reminiscences of Don Juan and Mozart's Don Giovanni are differnent works, hymns and carols with more than one melody could have a featured sound for each melody, but I think that goes with out saying.Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I am having a little trouble understanding the longish response. Different aspects? I think that sounds like arguments against audio and video renditions of the same event when the audio file only serves the purpose of providing a faster loading version for certain connection-limited users. Am I interpreting you correctly? In the waning days of FS, this issue was contentious. I am also not sure how it would pertain to the two files at Semper Fidelis.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
For example, the Air on the G string is actually a slightly gimmicky rearrangement of one of Bach's works. Having both the arrangement and Bach's original work would let people compare the two, and both would thus add a lot of encyclopedic value. There can also be value in having a historical performance and a modern one, as, in many cases, an early recording is notable in its own right, featuring notable or even the original performers of the piece, but that doesn't mean a modern, high-quality recording can allow a lot more of the details to be heard.
There's also changes in performance traditions to consider, which probably usually justifies including a historical recording alongside a modern one in most cases, as it allows people to compare. As a really obvious example, most early recordings of the song "Tit Willow" from The Mikado play it up as a comic song, when pretty much all modern recordings play it completely straight.
In the case of Semper Fidelis, however, the older recording is from over a decade after Sousa left the USMB, although still within Sousa's lifetime. If the performances were a bit different between the older and newer, it being from Sousa's lifetime might be cause to defend the older one, but as it stands, the main, really noticeable difference is there being much less use of drums in the older one, So I pulled up the parts on IMSLP, and discovered that Sousa wrote extensive use of drums into the score. So far as I know, the recording itself doesn't seem to have been wildly popular, nor does it appear to have been a particularly major force in popularizing the work, and, further, [http://www.loc.gov/jukebox/recordings/detail/id/638/ at least one earlier recording of the piece exists.
So, we look at the other way it can gain EV, from being an early recording by the United States Marine Band, which is, obviously, the definitive performer of the official march of the US Marines. However, the newer recording is also by the USMB, albeit eight or so decades later. So, I checked whether the recording might gain value from being a very early recording, and noticed a recording (of a different march) from a decade before the one under consideration.
As such, I'd suggest delisting it from featured sounds. As an aside, I would probably leave it in the article, but my reasons for that are irrelevant to Featured sounds. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I am totally unqualified to engage in any debate about which of the two Semper Fidelis is more authentic in terms of its fidelity (and thus more encyclopedic). Does the 1904 recording also use less drums than the current FS (1989). Are you saying delist 1989 version or did you think the 1909 version was FS?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Also, you remain silent on the audio only version of a video. This is one of the two major changes in the spirit of the rules that led to a lot of debate about my contributions to the project. When I started, an audio only version for those with slower connections was basically an automatic FS if the video was FS. Then, people started saying only one version could be FS. (BTW, I know WP is becoming much more popular among mobile users and don't know how much an audio only version helps in this regard).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I think the 1989 seems more accurate to the composition as written. As for audio-only versions of videos... Well, we probably allow a slightly-lower sound quality for videos at times, so there's that consideration, but my personal position is that it's worth providing a way to use the audio from videos more easily - video-editing software is not particularly common at the moment - so they could be counted as part of a set with the video. Or we could just put it into the rules that, where appropriate, having an audio-only version of a video is required. This should probably be a separate discussion, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I too would like audio-only versions to be considered part of a set with the full audio-video combo. However, when the winds changed, audio versions of audio-video FS works were shot down as duplicative redundancies. That is the second major issue. As we attempt to help improve WP during its time of transition to a more mobile audience, FS needs to encourage audio-only production. This is my other major point of contestation. We can spend all the time we want writing well-thought out criteria. However, when push comes to shove and we agree to start evaluating content again, we either need to come to an agreement or agree to disagree. My proposal above with an FS/GS revamping is a proposal to agree to disagree. Do you really think we can should pursue an unlikely agreement on these two examples (here and the national anthem stuff above) or do you think it would be better to agree to disagree and have two different quality levels? I ask you to reconsider your opposition to my proposed agreement to disagree.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's worth splitting things off; any project with limited resources can't afford to spread them too thinly. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Who said anything about splitting them off. It would not run like WP:VPICS, which was totally separate from WP:FP. It would run like WP:GT that uses the same resources as WP:FT.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Let's get FS up, then, if there's still issues, deal with a secondary process then. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Why are you in a rush to resume a broken process without agreeing how to fix it?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
We're working on criteria. We can see how that goes before we do the extreme move of blowing it all up and starting over. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I am not proposing blowing it up and starting over. Just determining the new criteria and then reassessing all the old FS. We should reassess everything anyway just to understand how the new criteria are calibrated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Audio-only

I have tried to tack this on to another discussion of duplicate versions, but since this is a special case let's analyze it separately. WP is becoming more and more of a mobile resource with growth in readership among handheld device users booming. It is pretty clear that we should almost require that any video be presented in an audio-only alternate format for the benefit of connection-constrained users. E.g., a reader would be happy just hearing File:20100209 Yolanda Adams - How Great Thou Art at the White House.ogg even if File:20100209 Yolanda Adams - How Great Thou Art at the White House.ogv is available. This audio-only file to me (the untrained ear) sounds beautiful and I am glad the project was receptive to both versions as FS. Above Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) mentioned that maybe we should accept the combos as a set. My feeling is that any video presented should be presented with an audio-only format that is included in all of the same articles that the video is in and both should be welcome at FS or FS/GS (with the possibility that one only be accorded a GS). There were strong feelings prior to the demise that duplicate files should not be accepted. Almost everyone is being silent on the issue. We should not go forward until we have resolved issues like this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Brass band recordings

I think the logical solution to the problem of brass band recordings of national anthems is to add an encyclopedic value criterion. Some rough wording is below; I suspect people will want to change the exact wording, and possibly shorten it up a bit, but

  1. Gives enclyclopedic value to articles: A featured sound should add to the understanding of articles it appears in. Some common ways that it might do so are listed below; although this should not be considered an exhaustive list.
    • We have an article on the subject of the sound. We have many articles on speeches, musical composition, birds, and the like. Recordings of these generally have encyclopedic value, unless they are highly atypical of the work being represented, for example, brass band arrangements of vocal works.
    • Illustrate an article on (for example) a composer, or a person who gave a speech. However, some selection is required in these cases: A a long gallery of recordings doesn't really give much EV to any of them, and the recording should illustrate something, either explicitly (e.g. the article discusses the subject of the recording), or implicitly (e.g. it illustrates the composer's style). The rule about highly atypical performances also applies.
    • Illustrate an article on a singer, performing group, or similar: Similar to above, except the rule about atypical performances likely doesn't apply, since the focus is on the person who decided to do the atypical performance
    • Illustrate a genre, instrument, type of arrangement or the like: There's a limit to how many illustrations can fit into these sorts of articles, and, as such, the recording should be of very high merit if this is its only claim to encyclopedic value, but such recordings can serve a very useful purpose.


Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


The above seems a very sensible approach. Thanks Adam. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I think a (strong) preference for recordings of the original scoring might be useful, as opposed to transcriptions and the substitution of intended instruments. There might not be objection to uploading a synthesiser performance of Bruckner's Ninth Symphony, but there would have to be specific thematic value to be considered for featured status. On that matter, we need to look at hypothetical examples to work through these issues, I think. An interesting example, assuming copyright weren't an issue, would be the unaccompanied choral performance of an excerpt from one of Mozart's instrumental movements in the film on poet John Keats: whacky in a way, but beautiful too, and of dramatic value in the film. I think this should be considered within the ambit of FS. But what of Kuijken's recording of Bach's Brandenberg Concerto No. 2, where the solo trumpet is taken by a horn? This is more on the fence; but the reason for the substitution would need to be fleshed out in the nomination text at FSC—and not just be at the performers' whim ... don't you think? Tony (talk) 12:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Generally speaking, I think you're right, however:
  1. For pragmatic reasons, I suspect that we should occasionally accept certain standard substitutions, for instance, piano-and-voice recordings of operatic works. The purpose of featured sounds is to encourage more content to be created, and the more people required to make a recording, the lower the chance of us getting that recording.
  2. We certainly don't want to exclude notable reimaginings. The existence of Mozart's scoring of Don Giovanni should not exclude a recording of Liszt's Réminiscences de Don Juan
  3. This should only apply where the original scoring is what is generally used. There is little to no standard practice for things like folk songs, for example, and we'd be foolish to try and apply it. Likewise, basso continuo, and things like substituting out dead instruments that are almost universally replaced, like the Ophicleide. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  4. For historical recordings, particularly ones of the originators of a role, we should be a bit forgiving if the orchestration has been reduced or modified to sound better on a wax cylinder, presuming the historical recording has encyclopedic value.
  5. This should only apply where the recording is meant to illustrate the piece in question; if we want to illustrate a discussion on how the 19th century brass band intersected with popular theatre, that brass band arrangement of Wagner you discussed above would be appropriate (though the caption had damn well make that clear).
Think that should cover all my thoughts on the issue. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
All of the above (and the conversation below) seems very apt and straightforward and most importantly sensible suggestions to theoretical ideas. How are we to construct a set of (readable) criteria which can advise anyone who'd like to nominate a recording? Would a sensible approach be to reduce the criteria to their most essential elements; at the moment the old ones are frankly unwieldy. What are the general principles - High Encyclopedic value? recording quality? Fidelity to the work? Would it not be best to allow these specific issues to be raised in debate about actual nominations? Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd say Encyclopedic value as the primary; quality appropriate for the time of the recording. I think fidelity to the work is a bad general principle, since it presupposes one type of featured sound, and one type of encyclopedic value, but we could put it in as an important consideration for featuresd sounds intended to illustrate a specific work, which is a good proportion. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Maybe we should have a set of general principles, and then put any more specific notes into subsections under them? Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

General principles of the project should be our prime focus at the moment - I think it should be in terms of "A Featured Sound should be...". These principles should be ones which all FS should have, with the caveat that there may be occasions where a recording can be accepted as an FS without, say, complete faithfulness to the original work as long as the other principles are present and followed to a high enough quality. In general, these exceptions should be rare. We shouldn't be too specific in the criteria because that was our problem last time. Keeping to music for the moment I think Tony1 is asking for consideration of the compositional quality. While I have a problem with that as a general principle, perhaps that should be at least discussed (although Featured Pictures is able to show a photograph of something unpleasant and it can still be a FP - why not music?). Don't forget that we should also be other material like speeches, recordings of events, bird-song and the like. How are we to assess these? Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 08:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Major Bloodnok, Principles of the letter of the criteria is important, but it is the spirit and substance of the criteria that really matter to us. If you are interpreting Tony1's intention correctly to emphasize compositional quality, then we have a issue. The issue is much like the difference between Grammy Award for Song of the Year and Grammy Award for Record of the Year. I did not even think I understood the difference between the two until about the time that I began working on my second most recent WP:FA Here We Go Again (Ray Charles song). Getting back on track here, emphasizing the compositional quality is wrong for FS, IMO. This is where the major rift about brass band National Anthems comes from. Tony1, led the charge to suddenly say certain National Anthems were boring and thus virtually ineligible for FS. Previously, a national anthem that was faithful to the composition was an automatic FS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Adam, tick to all of your five responses (I think). How to express these simply and briefly in the criteria? Some detail is clearly required. TTT, the Yemeni national anthem was a shockingly weird composition; many others are ... let us say ... musically very plain and undistinguished (= boring ... and I don't think I'd have trouble convincing people of that, by comparison with, say, the US national anthem, which is pretty swank). Judging compositional quality in music is not easy. You can't write it into the rules; reviewers might give their opinions on a case-by-case basis, and gain consensus or not. It's easier to judge by consensus the interest factor in pictures.

One of the challenges for judging FSCs is that music became highly professionalised during the 20th century, abetted by leaps in recording and reproducing technology, generally higher standards of training, and the impact of mass marketing. We now have such extraordinarily high expectations of music performances in real life that it can't help but affect the benchmark for giving stars to sound files. Photography is much more accessible to amateurs, and the demarcation between professional and amateur in FSCs is not nearly so great. It does not take 20 years of dedicated professional training to be able to produce excellent photographs, even though we can still admire the beautiful work turned out by our best Wikimedian photographers. Tony (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of weirdness, plainness and undistinguished nature, a national anthem is notable and a sound file of it has such high encyclopedic value, I think it is a disservice to WP and FS, in particular, to say any national anthem is ineligible to be an FS. Your decision to suddenly deride assorted national anthems as so boring as to be beneath FS and my disagreement with this is probably the single most important element of the demise of FS. You view it as me bulldozing piles of schlocky works and I view it as highlighting notable and encyclopedic works. I view this disagreement as the whole crux of the problem of FS. This is precisely where the project has to either come to a consensus or (as I proposed with two levels of quality) agree to disagree. If the people at FS insist that we come to a consensus with one set of criteria to judge work then I don't think we will ever get FS up and running. The reason that I proposed a two quality level project is that I think it is much more likely that the project will agree to disagree and move forward with two levels of recognized quality than it is to come to a consensus. There are enough people who feel all national anthems are notable enough and encyclopedic enough that a faithful rendition should be recognized that if we don't agree to disagree with two levels we may never get back up and running. I ask you to again seriously consider supporting a solution where we agree to disagree.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I think that the quality of a composition can matter, in these circumstances:
  • When used to illustrate a composer or performer (for example), it is reasonable to compare it with other works they have done/performed, and, if it's far below their usual quality, reject it as not a good illustration.
  • For some things we'd want to have at featured sound, such as folk songs, no standard arrangement exists. We should feel free to reject bad arrangements.
  • Where it's sole use is to illustrate a genre, a concept, or the like, its compositional quality is the primary consideration.
However, where a piece of music has an individual article on it (with, perhaps, a little judgement allowed in case of newly-created stubs), it comes back to the purpose of Featured sounds being to improve Wikipedia, and illustrating any article very well is a goal we should promote.
That said, I think I can reassure Tony1 a bit: The problem with national anthems has largely disappeared, as we seem to have general agreement that a vocal work should not be represented by a brass band arrangement, particularly for countries that lack a brass band tradition, like Yemen. I mean, one could at least see circumstances where a brass band recording of the U.S. National Anthem was decided to be a really good example of a performance by a U.S. Military branch's band, and thus suitable for Featured Sound. Unless Yemen has some sort of nationally-supported brass band, though, I cannot see the Yemeni national anthem passing under that criteria.
Since the only reason national anthems were getting nominated in such numbers was that we found a source of freely-licensed brass band recordings of them, I suspect the issue won't arise much. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Adam, I think you are misunderstanding the problem. At FS, traditionally, National Anthems were considered significant enough in terms of notability and encyclopedic value that they were basically an automatic pass. You have stated that there is an understanding that brass band recordings of vocal works should not be passed. However, I have eight national anthems that were failed when the winds changed. Several of these are works where the music and lyrics were composed by different individuals at different times, thus making an instrumental performance eligible to be a faithful rendition of the music from a national anthem. They were merely failed because the composition was in a sense boring. If music and lyrics were composed together with an intended vocal arrangement, then there is a case to be made that an instrumental arrangement is not faithful. The brass band source that you mention has provided FS with dozens of its works. I don't think there has been a previous consideration of whether the original arrangement was a vocal work or whether there was a musical composition with separate lyrical composition. I do believe that almost all national anthems have lyrics, but we have many at FS and I just don't think the vocal arrangement criteria was a previous consideration. Beyond national anthems FS will lose a substantial number of works with this seemingly new criteria that a brass band arrangement of a vocal work is ineligible.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Um, Tony? this is a discussion bout changing the criteria. One of the changes that has reasonable support is that instrumental versions of vocal works should only be accepted in much rarer circumstances than before. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I interpret vocal work to mean a work that was composed as a vocal work. When a poem is set to music that was written separately, the authentic music is instrumental isn't it?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Further on vocal work. Surely a reader stumbling upon File:Oh Susanna.ogg will be a bit disappointed that there are no lyrics since the lyrics are commonly sung with the music and the two were written together. However, take something like File:Turkey in the Straw.ogg that is commonly performed as an instrumental. Does that classify as a bastardized vocal work by the new rule?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • "Regardless of weirdness, plainness and undistinguished nature, a national anthem is notable and a sound file of it has such high encyclopedic value, I think it is a disservice to WP and FS, in particular, to say any national anthem is ineligible to be an FS." First, I didn't say that national anthems should be ineligible for FS status. Second, I couldn't disagree more with your assumption that notability and high encyclopedic value (in the context of an article ... here on Yemen, I suppose) trump crappy music. Again, judging the quality of musical composition is going to be a problem, but I'm not going to sit by and watch rubbishy music, beautifully performed and recorded, promoted to featured status. It can stay uploaded and used in articles, but awarding special status should require a different level of value-judgement. Tony (talk) 10:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
      • (ec)That Yemen one might sound O.K. as an instrumental. I didn't say you said they all are ineligible. You could pick any particular one and say it is rubbishy, like this Yemen one or the 8 (Paraguay, Luxembourg, Fiji, Liberia, South Africa, Malta, Monaco, and Federated States of Micronesia) that I nominated that you made sure did not pass. This difference is the type of thing for which we should have both a FS and GS. You audiofiles could set your own standards and the GS people would respect well-performed and well-recorded works. You and I butting heads on this issue represents larger groups of people butting heads. We would server WP better with a two-part sound promotion system. You really haven't explained your objection to my proposal because it gives you a chance to oppose works willy nilly. The fact that they might get recognized as a good sound shouldn't bother you if they are well-performed and well-recorded.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
In the interests of moving on: Do you agree that that sort of thing shouldn't be in the criteria, however? I mean, people can always vote oppose to anything, for any reason, (as I've said a few times, I think that most de facto criteria for a featured X project isn't written down anywhere) but I don't think that should be an official reason. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Theoretically, you are only suppose to be able to oppose for reasons listed at WP:WIAFS if the project is well-run. Things got very loosey-goosey before the downfall, but in theory that is how it should work.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 10:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
That really has never been true at any featured process. Indeed, it can't be: you can never cover every single case. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
You are asking me to agree to a soap bubble test of a process, meaning this is now becoming like after the reconstruction era when all men had the right to vote, but black folks first had to pass a test of demonstrating how many bubbles are in a bar of soap. I joined FS at a time when National anthems were automatic, and duplicate audio-only and audio-video versions could pass as a set. When I got good at finding FSes, people started complaining that I was bulldozing crappy national anthems and redundant work through the process. Now you are saying lets design a set of criteria with a Bubble test and resume.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I do understand that from one perspective there is a general attempt to raise the standards, but from my perspective this looks like you are going from 1.) help get us some national anthems, they are surefire FS works, to 2.) well only get us those that are compositionally pleasing, to 3.) find ones that are compositionally pleasing and are vocal versions, to 4.) who knows whats next.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Instrumentals versions of vocal songs

This was also a smaller part of a larger topic above. It has been stated that there is a general consensus to begin rejecting instrumental versions of vocal works. I need clarification of this on two fronts. First, there are songs that are technically vocal works such as File:Turkey in the Straw.ogg where the song is probably more commonly performed as an instrumental work where this might not be appropriate. Second, if the music and lyrics of a song were composed separately at different times, it would seem that an instrumental version of a song is an authentic performance of the original music. When one sets a poem to separately composed music is that now going to be defined as a vocal work with respect to this new consensus?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The default should be that a vocal work performed instrumentally is unacceptable, but there may be exceptions; for instance, the standard bagpipe repertory includes many folk songs, a number of which are better known in their bagpipe versions. Likewise, the German National Anthem has a rather important instrumental arrangement by the composer, as well as a few other notable instrumental versions. However, the point is that these are exceptions.
However, most works set to separately composed music are set to other vocal works. Turning the vocal work To Anacreon in Heaven into The Star-Spangled Banner doesn't make the underlying melody an instrumental work. Also, you rather exaggerate the instrumentality of Turkey in the Straw, the lyrics are still quite well-known, though I will buy that instrumental versions have entered the standard repertoire, through its use in cartoons, so it could well get a pass. (Although, if we were judging it today, I'd probably say we should bulk out the section about instrumental uses of Turkey in the Straw in the article on it, to make this value clear.)
Come to think of it. FS should have a retention section for cases where the related article or description page are at issue due to a change in the criteria. This would also be true for videos if we can come to a consensus that an alternate format audio-only file should be presented wherever the video is presented. It should be something like Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria#Retention.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
That said, the brass band arrangements may well have an easy way to bring them back into FS territory. See, they're Public Domain, meaning you can do what you like with them. Such as get one or more singers to record a vocal line over them. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
You are talking about taking the melody of one vocal tune and using it with music for another vocal tune. What about an instrumental music composition that is added to lyrics produced separately? In that case, isn't the melody an instrumental work regardless of whether the joint piece with vocals is also known.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
In regards to the instrumentality of Turkey in the Straw, it is recognizable to most as an instrumental. I don't think I exaggerate. The article has a lot of uncited stuff in that regard. I don't research music much, so I will stay out of trying to bulk up articles to make works seem like FSes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Point of clarification: I believe "works set to separately composed music are set to other vocal works" is incorrect. I believe that you mean to say that when a work is set to separately composed music, that separately composed music has other vocal works set to it. FWIW, this to me says that the separately composed music is notable enough to have multiple works set to it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
No, I do not: there are fairly few notable vocal works based on works that were originally wholly instrumental. Kismet (musical) is the main source of these that I can think of. Generally speaking, people choose a work that is already a vocal work and give it new lyrics. If the original work is a vocal work, and the revised work is a vocal work, how has it become an instrumental work. However, it may be the tune was used in an instrumental work - Deutschland über Alles uses a vocal work as its base, but Haydn used this vocal work as a theme in one of his concertos. But that isn't a carte blanche for any bad instrumental arrangement to be featured. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
The long and the short of it is if there is just going to be FS, I don't support that high of a standard, but if there were to be an FS and a GS, then I would be unopposed to any criteria changes for FS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
If you want to contest the instrumentality of Turkey, what about Hail to the Chief. Have you ever heard the vocals to that? It is almost always performed as an instrumental, even in the most formal affairs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_sound_candidates/Archive_7&oldid=1089919801"