[edit] Procedure
[edit] How to add your nomination
[edit] Step 1 - Create subpage
Create a page to place the article on; this page needs to be a subpage of Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates. To create your own subpage, add a title for the sound you want to nominate in the form below (for example Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Memphis Blues) and click the "Create new nomination" button.
If nominating a multi-part work, such as a symphony, copy the "multi-listen" template as necessary for each audio file, or paste in a multi-listen template if one already exists in an article.
[edit] Step 2 - Add your subpage to the candidate list
Add the newly created subpage to the top of Featured sound candidate list (direct link). Use this format: {{Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/YOURSUBPAGE}}
[edit] Step 3 - Mark your candidate!
- Add {{FSC}} to the nominated sound's page. This inserts the featured sound candidate template, to let the original contributor and other interested parties know that the sound is up for voting.
If you have problems formatting your nomination, someone else will fix it, don't worry! If you wish to simply add your nomination to this page without creating the subpage, that is OK as someone else will create the subpage. The important piece of information is the pointer to the sound, and the reason for the nomination.
[edit] Supporting and opposing
- If you think a sound would make a good featured sound, write Support followed by your reasons.
- If you think there's a problem with the nomination, write Oppose followed by your reasons. Where possible, objections should provide a specific rationale that can be addressed.
- To change your vote, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.
[edit] Nominations
Place nominations in this section. Please add new nominations at the top of the list.
This is an example of a speech where Eisenhower stated the need for "a vast new highway program". This program was enacted some three years later as what we know today as the Interstate Highway System. Eisenhower's vision and campaign for such a system has been honored when the system was renamed to the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. I feel that the quality of the recording provided by the Federal Highway Administration meets the criteria. The sound file helps illustrate the vision of the man to create the system, and adds to the article on the Interstate Highway System.
- Nominate and support. Imzadi 1979 → 06:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support - Inspirational speech about the creation of an important but often overlooked part of US history. Dough4872 00:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment—The quality is acceptable, just. Interesting how much higher the standards of public speaking are among modern-day presidents. Sorry to be a bore, but could the documentation follow MOSNUM? "1m18s, 34kbps", all jammed together, should be spaced properly: "1 m 18 s, 34 kbps". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- That can't be fixed, unfortunately. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Articles: Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau, James James (any other ideas?); also in use for the Welsh national anthem pages at the Spanish, Polish and Russian (and now also the Welsh!) Wikipedias.
- Reason for nominating: It is the first known recording in Welsh, and so has historic importance transcending the less-than-brilliant sound quality.
- Nominate (as uploader) and support. BencherliteTalk 22:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Comment—I wonder whether anyone is able to clean up this recording? Even though historical, we'd do it a favour if some of the noise could be reduced—all the more because the level is low. Good to see the performers' names, etc, listed. Tony (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'd be delighted if someone thought that they could improve the current version; I have no technical skills in this area, alas! Any volunteers, please? BencherliteTalk 14:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Shouldn't the copyright tag be PD-US-record? In the USA, neither 1923 nor life-plus-70 are relevant to a sound recording (as distinct from the underlying musical composition.) ReverendWayne (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for this, that wasn't a tag I'd seen before. Well, the composition is out of copyright, so a PD-old tag seems useful; I've changed the 1923 tag to PD-US-record, but I do get the distinct impression from reading through the archived discussions at Commons that this area is a complete confusion. Bottom line is that it's not in copyright in the UK and I'd be amazed if it was somehow still protected anywhere else. BencherliteTalk 00:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I am nominating this video/sound as it demonstrates the usage of the former national anthem of Russia in one instances which is mandated by law. The video/sound is used at National_Anthem_of_Russia#Patrioticheskaya_Pesnya and at Patrioticheskaya Pesnya in the infobox, and comes from the Presidential Press and Information Office and is licenced under CC-BY-3.0. A performance of the singing of the current national anthem is found at File:Russian national anthem at Medvedev inauguration 2008.ogg and is already a featured sound. A video of an instrumental version of the current anthem is also a featured sound (File:Russian anthem at Victory Day Parade 2010.ogg)
- Nominate and support. Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 12:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support. A much-needed illustration to the article. Informative, illustrative, and of a good quality.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 7, 2010; 14:27 (UTC)
- Support and bonus points for sorting out the permission. Very informative material for the articles, and of a high standard. BencherliteTalk 07:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Leaning towards oppose. For a modern recording, it's not all that flash. The balance is OK, but the quality of the brass is just not great. Also, the players are not always in tune, amazingly. The documentation doesn't say where the recording was made, or who made it (Russian state TV?). The source is in cyrillic script; can we have a translation of the piped text in square brackets after it? The fact that it's freely available as a propaganda piece on the presidential website doesn't fill me with enthusiasm as to making this featured content on a WMF site. Tony (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
| Pleasant Moments (Rag) - Piano Roll played by Scott Joplin, 1916 |
|
|
| A piano roll recording by Scott Joplin of a Rag "Pleasant Moments" from 1916. This rag and the roll it comes from was thought lost, until discovered by a collector in New Zealand, in 2006. This piano roll recording is one of the few that Joplin made in his lifetime, although the session this comes from was subject to heavy editing in the production process, so is not a true reflection of Joplin's abilities at the piano during the last stages of his life when he was suffering from Syphilis. The recording was made from a player piano and posted online by the NZ collector, and converted by me to OGG format. More information from a 1994 biography of the composer by Edward A Berlin. |
Add your reasons for nominating it here; say what article(s) it appears in, and who created the recording.
A rare recording of Scott Joplin's piano playing. There are limitations in the "truthfulness" of the recording, but for all that and given the piano roll was thought lost and the recording we have is of high quality I think it should be recognised.
- Nominate and support. Major Bloodnok (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support strongly! A very rare recording of an influential artist performing his own work, presented in good quality. This pushes the bar higher for our featured sounds. ThemFromSpace 08:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Do we feel that this recording correctly qualifies as public domain? Scott Joplin recorded onto a piano roll in 1916. Worn Axles used that piano roll recently to create this recording by running it through a player piano. Does that constitute a new artistic work? I will support if there is consensus that this recording is in the public domain. Also, this file may work well in the player piano article. Jujutacular T · C 01:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- A very good point, and one which did concern me initially; I was concerned that the performance of the roll was augmented by the operator of the player piano - on refection I did consider that the artistic input was highly limited, and was more akin to transfering a picture from one format into another, tweaking it in the process and tidying up flaws in it (therefore not adding to the image). There was a conversation about this on the Scott Joplin talk page about this - the collector himself gave the opinion that the recording was in the public domain for the reasons explained above.Major Bloodnok (talk) 08:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would tend to agree with you. It could probably also be likened to restoring a historical image. I'll wait for a third opinion. Jujutacular T · C 23:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support, as long as consensus dictates that this is public domain. Jujutacular T · C 21:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I am surprised to see editors expressing opinions and even voting on an issue that is a simple factual question that undoubtedly can be resolved by research. I am reminded of that U.S. state legislature that voted many years ago on a reasonable value for Pi. David Spector 00:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
-
- Trust me, I've looked. The case is a relatively obscure one so it is undoubtedly difficult to find precedent for such an issue. I'd welcome any research you've turned up. Jujutacular T · C 19:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support—Good recording. There is utterly no problem in transferring the piano roll data to mp3: they're both "digital". Historical significance. And it's good to listen to. Please fix the spacing of the duration and bandwidth on the doc page. Tony (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
| Maple Leaf Rag - played by Scott Joplin 1916 |
|
|
| A recording made by Scott Joplin in 1916 of his most famous Rag, the Maple Leaf Rag. The recording was made on piano roll in June 1916 just prior to the composer's death from Syphilis in April 1917. The recording demonstrates his physical deterioration from the disease has affected his ability to play the piano smoothly. The roll was scanned into a MIDI file by a collector in New Zealand, then converted into a Piano soundfile by Major Bloodnok using Cubase |
One of the few recordings of Joplin by Joplin we have. It also demonstrates his physical condition prior to his death.
- Nominate and support. Major Bloodnok (talk) 10:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I can't say I'm an expert on piano playing. However, I do fear that the peculiar sound of his playing may simply be due to the fact that it was recorded on piano roll and then converted into midi. The source of the file doesn't mention anything about the playing that I could see. Jujutacular T · C 18:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would generally agree with you; conversion from one format to another can throw up peculiarities and the copy may not match. In this case, however, we have a very good source (Joplin's first biographer) who heard the original roll and thought that it was "distressing" and "disorganised"; further information is on the Scott Joplin page. There is an issue about how accurate Piano Rolls were, but there is another roll from the same year, again cut by Joplin, which is much smoother (although it feels as though it's been corrected in the editing process). Should there be more about this on the description page? Would that help? Forgive me, but this is the first time I've done this!Major Bloodnok (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, now I see that information in the Scott Joplin article, thank you. Wanted to make sure we weren't conducting original research. I think the file description page is fine, as long as the statements are cited from reliable sources in the article. Jujutacular T · C 20:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm aware of original research and reliable sources. As far as possible the article attempts to show the various points of view about the nature of piano rolls, and this one in particular, and letting the reader make up their own mind. Thanks for your help! Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral If there was a more realistic sample of this file in quality condition I'd support without a doubt but I'm not sure I can support a MIDI file as a faithful example of a music recording. Normally I'd oppose but the fact that the original recording is on a piano roll (and therefore subject to different authentic playbacks) complicates things. I have to think about this for a bit. ThemFromSpace 01:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- There is another sound file on the Scott Joplin page - another rag he wrote, which has since been discovered by the same collector who had the Maple Leaf Rag. This time it's a recording of a player piano. It's interesting mainly because it was thought lost. I'll nominate that when I get a chance.Major Bloodnok (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, that would be a valuable addition! Its scarcity alone would make it a prized sound file. ThemFromSpace 12:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per the lack of realism mentioned by Themfromspace. If a more advanced software piano was used to create the sound, or the piece was run through an actual player piano like your other nomination, I could possibly support. Jujutacular T · C 21:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Support, I disagree about the realism. It sounds pretty good to me, actually better than the other nomination. In terms of EV, the context within an article would be important. In the Scott Joplin article there is reference to the fact that Joplin wasn't directly recorded. So the expectation of having this file be generated from a player piano seems excessive. The player piano and the computer are equally unable to reproduce the quality of the original. Case Craver 2010 (talk) 10:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support. I know player pianos. The rolls are "digital", as it were, and there is no issue to my mind in transferring them to mp3. This is a valuable historical artefact. Tony (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
One of Rachmaninoff's most popular works, performed by a notable interpreter of his works.
One thing I must ask, though: File:Prelude_3_2_Rach_playing.ogg is the original. Can you be hard on the restoration, particularly the timing of the first three chords, which had some extra damage, and which I think I fixed successfully. If there's problems, I want to know and fix them, not coast by, so please, double-check my work and don't let me get away with anything.
- Nominate and support. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 213 FCs served 20:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- ? Lots of background white noise in there. Is this an old recording? Nezzadar ☎ 02:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- 1919, but, of course, later recordings wouldn't be public domain recordings of him playing his own work. Added year of performance to the description. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 213 FCs served 09:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comments 2:08 - 2:25 seems to have more clipping than the original, an artifact of restoration? In that area, I actually prefer the original recording. Also, is there a reason the original is 194kbps but the restoration is 66kbps? The timing of the chords at the beginning sounds fine to me. Jujutacular T · C 20:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support Excellent for a 1919 acoustic recording. The fact that it is an interpretation by the composer, in his prime, is especially compelling. Edison (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per Jujutacular. I noticed the clipping and then listened to the original and did not hear it. It could be a compression artifact as 66 kbps is small for so many notes are being played simultaneously in that stretch. Zginder 2010-03-16T16:12Z (UTC)
- Support. Is there much difference in the "clipping"? I find it hard to detect. This is a valuable recording. Tony (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Conditional support: I agree that this is a valuable recording, and very much worthy of featured status on that basis. I was picking up some distortion myself a bit. I'll let better ears weigh in on that, but I'm inclined to support otherwise should the others come to a consensus on that point. Imzadi 1979 → 23:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Suspended nominations
[edit] Nominations for removal
Place nominations for removal in this section. Please add new nominations at the top of the list.
[edit] Older nominations
Old nominations should be archived when they are removed from this page.
When PROMOTED, perform the following:
- Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FSC/subpage:
- '''Promoted Example.ogg''' --~~~~
- If there are multiple files promoted, e.g. a multi-movement symphony, list all the files promoted. (You may use Promoted all if no alternative versions were suggested.)
- Replace the {{FSC}} tag on the file description page with {{FeaturedSound|"Sound name"}} ((the "Sound name" parameter will link back to the FSC discussion)) and remove the {{FSC}} tag from any other suggested versions.
- If an alternate version of the originally nominated file is promoted, make sure that all articles contain the Featured Sound version, as opposed to the original.
- Add the file to the appropriate section of Wikipedia:Featured sounds and update the count. For symphonies and other multi-part works, create a new section for them. Use the multi-listen template as provided in the nomination. If necessary, tidy up the description to make it more accurate, informative, and interesting. If in a section that organised by year, add '''YEAR''' – before the title.
- Add a notice to Wikipedia:Goings-on, using the same format as on the featured sound page.
- Add the file to Template:Announcements/New featured pages (newest on top). For multi-part works, just use *[[Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Nomination|Title (in X parts)]]. Otherwise, just paste in the information from the Featured Sound page again.
- Notify the nominator with {{subst:PromotedFSC|Examplefilename.ogg|ExampleTitle}}. Be sure to notify all co-nominators.
- Example: {{subst:PromotedFSC|Turdus-migratorius-003.ogg|Song of the American robin}}.
- If the creator of the sound file is a Wikipedian, notify them with {{subst:CreatedFS|Examplefilename.ogg|ExampleTitle}}.
- Example: {{subst:CreatedFS|Turdus-migratorius-003.ogg|Song of the American robin}}
- If appropriate, notify the uploader of the file as well, using {{subst:UploadedFS|Examplefilename.ogg|ExampleTitle}}.
- Example: {{subst:UploadedFS|Turdus-migratorius-003.ogg|Song of the American robin}}
- Once all the above is done, move the nomination entry to the bottom of the August archive. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Feature sound candidates/Sound name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
- If the archive is empty add {{FSCArchiveBar}} to the top of the archive.
When NOT promoted, perform the following:
- Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FSC/subpage:
- '''Not promoted''' --~~~~
- Remove the {{FSC}} tag from the file and any other suggested versions.
- Move the nomination entry to the bottom of the August archive. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Feature sound candidates/Sound name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
- If the archive is empty add {{FSCArchiveBar}} to the top of the archive.
When DEMOTED, perform the following:
- Place the following text at the bottom of the WP:FSC/subpage:
- '''Demoted Example.ogg''' --~~~~
- Replace the {{FeaturedSound|Sound name}} tag on the file with {{FormerFeaturedSound|Sound name}}.
- Move the nomination entry to the bottom of the August archive. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Feature sound candidates/Sound name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
- If the archive is empty add {{FSCArchiveBar}} to the top of the archive.
For OTHER SITUATIONS:
- This section sets out basic advice for votes that replace a pre-existing featured sound with a new file, and similar.
- Generally, if a new file is now a featured sound, even if it replaces an old one, go through the full promotion procedure for it unless it's only a minor change to the old file, such as a slightly-improved restoration. In that case, just notify the nominator.
- Do what seems appropriate, based on the vote's outcome, using the instructions above as a rough guide. Try to notify anyone affected.
- State what happened at the bottom of the nomination page, in bold, and sign it.
- Move the nomination entry to the bottom of the August archive. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Feature sound candidates/Sound name}} from this page to the bottom of the archive.
- If the archive is empty add {{FSCArchiveBar}} to the top of the archive.
[edit] Templates
|
