Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by M.O.X (talk | contribs) at 10:05, 20 April 2011 (Updating, with Sven's break from FS all of the directors are busy or away). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Note that all four featured sound directors are away or busy at present. Nominations may therefore take a while to close.
Please consider voting on current nominations, but remain patient if things take a bit longer than normal.
This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.
This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.

The Featured sounds process, which denoted what were considered to be the best sounds in Wikipedia, ceased operation in about November 2011.

See Wikipedia:Media for some information on dealing with audio on Wikipedia. For a general list of sounds on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Sound/list.

Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured sound tools:


Nominations

Place nominations in this section. Please add new nominations at the top of the list.

United States Navy Band - Het Wilhelmus

1574 - Het Wilhelmus
The Dutch national anthem, Het Wilhelmus, played by the United States Navy Band. The anthem itself dates back to 1568 where it was sung on official occasions and important events such as the Siege of Haarlem in 1573, the melody was first written down in 1574. The current melody was recorded by Dutch composer Adriaen Valerius in his "Nederlantsche Gedenck-clanck" in 1626. The history of the lyrics is unknown though a French translation appeared around 1582. There are legends surrounding performances of the anthem, such as in the torture of Balthasar Gérard (William of Orange's assassin) where the guards sought to overpower Gérard's screams boiling pig fat was poured over him. To which Gérard allegedly responded, "Sing! Dutch sinners! Sing! But know that soon I shall be sung of!"

One of the rare occasions where the US Navy Band played a piece intended for a brass instrument, or at least that's what I'm getting from the article, "Trumpets played the Wilhelmus when Prince Maurits visited Breda, and again when he was received in state in Amsterdam in May 1618" ... "the church bells are said to have played the Wilhelmus continuously." Nothing much is said about the original instruments that played Wilhelmus except that, unless we can find a better organ and choir to sing it :P

Promoted United States Navy Band - Het Wilhelmus.ogg --Guerillero | My Talk 01:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drum cadences

Drum - Cadence A
Drum - Cadence B
Drum - Four Flams
Snare drum cadences performed by the United States Navy Band
Problems playing these files? See media help.

The fact that the United States Navy refers to the first two of these as Drum Cadence A and Drum Cadence B, leads me to believe that they are the most basic of military march drum cadences. I am guessing these are the ABCs of drumming. The files add significantly to the following articles:

Cadences A & B
Four Flams

Promoted all --Guerillero | My Talk 22:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The foggy dew

Trad. - The foggy dew
A traditional Irish song (The Foggy Dew) using a penny whistle and percussion.


  • Support - Traditionalists would scoff at the unconventional instrumentation, but it's a good performance, and it's probably the best recording of Irish folk music on Wikipedia. It's the 1919 song, BTW. Graham87 12:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Dancing Willow - Demo-CD 2007 02 - The foggy dew.ogg. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:30am • 23:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sunflower Slow Drag

1901 - Sunflower Slow Drag
"Sunflower Slow Drag", which was co-written by Scott Joplin and Scott Hayden. It was Hayden's most important work. This version performed by the United States Marine Corps Band is a brass band arrangement of a piano original score.

I am nominating this because it adds significantly to several articles that were devoid of musical samples. I am aware that ragtime is not orchestral, but this nom may be a quickfail anyways since the band has no piano, which may be essential to ragtime. Let me know and I will withdraw this nomination if it is problematic in that regard. This file adds significantly to the following articles:

  • Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wary. Pluses are (1) very nice arrangement for its genre (although, ahem, does it say here that it's an arrangement?). (2) Lovely performance. (3) The acoustics work very well and the audio-engineering is professionally done. Minuses are (1) that it is an arrangement, so I wonder about the encyclopedic value to an article on Scott Joplin; in my view, it should not be used in that article—Joplin(/Haydn) was a piano composer. (4) It loses a lot by being taken out of the piano genre in which it was conceived; specifically, Joplin's textures are quintessentially percussive, punchy, pianistic; they have a unique left-hand pattern that is sort of translatable to an orchestra, but it's a shadow of its real self. Some would say a falsehood. It's not to say I wouldn't have arranged it for the band if I'd worked for them—it's a socially/professionally constructed issue. But should WP be marking it as among our best and using it to exemplify Joplin? Tony (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I was going to say, before it got withdrawn, ragtime was indisputably played by bands at the time, often in arrangements such as this. I don't think that fact is controversial. Hence, while we don't want a lot of such arrangements, I do think it's worth having at least one, to recognise the ways the performances were used. Obviously, with careful notes about it being an arrangement, and contextualising.
It's very easy to forget that the popular genres of the early 20th century were generally performed in various arrangements; and the best performers often took liberties far beyond the exact published score, because the scores are written for someone of average talent, and they were better than that and could add all the tricks back in. As I understand it, the original published score to Tiger Rag was nothing like what it was when Louis Armstrong was done with it. But (were he out of copyright) Armstrong's performance would be far preferred. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • On account of this being unwithdrawn, I've unarchived it. If we do promote it, it really must be supported by text per the irregularity of it, even if it's only two sentences saying that sometimes ragtime pieces were later adapted to band setups. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support Sounds great - as long as it is made clear that this is an arrangement of a piano original. BTW, Ragtime originated in Sousa-style marches, so I don't think it's a problem that this Rag has been played by a band. Major Bloodnok (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support Needle Nardle Noo - I mean, per Bloodnok. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ying tong iddle I po Major Bloodnok (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


If the condition for Bloodnok's and Adam's supports are not fulfilled by the 9th I will close this as not promoted --Guerillero | My Talk 22:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It already says "performed as a brass band arrangement of a piano original" on the description page. I will rearrange it and make it look more clear, but I am not sure what else you want me to do.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also both articles say "This is a brass band arrangement of a piano original ". What am I missing?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Scott Joplin's "Sunflower Slow Drag" performed by the United States Marine Band.oga --Guerillero | My Talk 00:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Debussy L 103, No. 1 & 2, Danses Sacrée et Profane

Danse Sacrée L 103, No. 1
Danse Profane L 103, No. 2
Debussy's L 103, No. 1 & 2, Danses Sacrée et Profane, performed by the United States Marine Corps Band Chamber Orchestra. This is a common chamber orchestra arrangement of the Chamber music piece scored for string quintet of violin, viola, cello, double bass, and cross-strung harp.
Problems playing these files? See media help.

At the turn of the 20th century, Claude Debussy helped revolutionize the tonality of music. These pieces are chamber music arranged for the harp and strings instruments. This is a common chamber orchestra arrangement of the piece scored for string quintet of violin, viola, cello, double bass, and cross-strung harp. I am of the impression that this is the very common modern arrangement of this piece. These files both add significantly to the following articles:


P.S. These files are not without flaws. This is a live performance instead of a studio, AFAIK. There is a lot of background distractions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Concerned about the arrangements issue, the file name issue, the sound description page issue, and the encyclopedic value issue. Tony (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion at the Classical Music Project is grossly misrepresented by Kleinzach; it was to do with brass band arrangements. This is nothing more than having a few extra copies of the right instruments. Further, putting this in Orchestra was an appallingly bad suggestion; I've removed it.
It is far, far better to leave our readers with some idea of what a work is like, even if we have minor quibbles, than to try and describe the work in text alone. The changes must, of course, be clearly documented, and should a more accurate performance appear, that should likely replace. But, so long as the work being an arrangement is carefully documented, it's downright insane to claim that we better serve our listeners by refusing them the right to hear any version of the work at all, particularly when compared to such a minor rearrangement as this one. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Far, far better". I do not agree. Arrangements are sometimes of interest in themselves, can give a representation of the original, but are often misrepresentations—even perversions—of the original. It does not matter whether it's a large-band or orchestral rendition of what was a Scott Joplin piano rag, or an arrangement that superficially sounds like the original, as here. In fact, I quite enjoyed this recording of the Debussy arrangement, but it is unsuitable as an example in most related articles (perhaps in the article on musical arrangements, but how big should that gallery be?). Just as we don't normally update the language of our 19th-century linguistic quotations into that of the 21st-century—at least not without good reason, and by drawing attention to the morphing—nor is it desirable to illustrate Debussy's style or the work in question with an arrangement. In fact, the intimacy of the chamber original with one instrument per part is lost to a richness, a sonority, that was not intended by the composer. The balance with the harp (not necessary to say "cross-stringed harp", BTW) has been compensated by the audio-engineering, which says it all. I believe reviewers should compare a good recording of the original with this file.

Now, it's a different argument about whether this should be deleted: clearly not. But in promoting files to featured status, we need to see these matters in the context of how the file is used in articles. Tony (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But that's really my point, Tony. We could argue about it not being good enough for FS, and there you might have a point. I'd have to listen to a few more traditional recordings to decide. But far more than that is happening: It's being forced out of the article on the composition, leaving no sort of recording of any sort in said article. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably not inappropriate in the article as long as it's tagged as an arrangement for a larger ensemble. But it would be best not highlighted. Sometimes no file is better than an misleading one or a bad performance. This is a case-by-case call. Tony (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted - No consensus, it's been ignored for the ~3 weeks it's be up here for. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 5:35pm • 07:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kitten on the Keys

1921 - Kitten on the Keys
Zez Confrey's first hit, performed by him.

An excellent recording.

  • Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, can you get rid of the clicking around the 2 minute mark and between 2:45 and 3:05? Also, love the name of the song. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I spent hours trying to do so. They're fairly subtle clicks, not very well-isolated from the performance. I'll keep poking at it off and on while it runs here, but I doubt I'll have much more success than I have. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good for its age, I didn't notice the clicks until I played it second time 'round. Bugger these older recordings require so much effort to improve. :S —James (Talk • Contribs) • 11:13am • 01:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—I'm not so concerned about the audio quality; it's the very uncomfortable instability in tempo at places such as 20 s and 37 s that are negatives. The genre needs a rock-solid pulse. Fluctuations in tempo are important to mark out the phrase structure, the cadences, but not at random, as in a few places. Some wrong notes. Much of it is excellent, but the flaws make me wonder whether that is that enough for a featured sound, as opposed to a sound file that is just used in the appropriate articles? Tony (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, it's performed by the composer. If the composer wants to do that, it's his composition to do it to. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No, no, no. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between composers and performers. Do I need to provide examples? Most composers of orchestral music, with a few notable exceptions, have been incompetent conductors. It does not mean you let them onto the stage. Just because a composer writes a violin (or trumpet) concerto does not mean he can play those instruments. Just because this composer was a painist (he's quite a good one in his own style) does not mean that the performance is uniformly good. When I point out passages in which he uncomfortably pushes the tempo, I do that because it is most inappropriate for him to have done so. It is not a matter of his interpretation in particular: it is a technical and artistic glitch (rather like putting your finger on the vinyl disk and pushing it forward a little for a few seconds, and would be recognised as such by any competent musician. However, whether these two passages I noticed with a wince are bad enough to oppose is another matter. I was suggesting that if there are better examples of rag playing, whether by their composer or someone else, then this would be pipped at the post by them.

Please remember that this is not a AfD—these nominations will all remain WP or Commons files and used in articles. Here, we are scrutinising them carefully for technical and artistic excellence. The standards need to be reasonably high. If a rag composer wants to have a drink or two before a recording is made, fine, but the consequences are disappointing where we are being fussy. If you don't want to be fussy, this process is for the bin I'm afraid. Tony (talk) 03:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really, really fail to think that you understand Encyclopedic value. It must be an awful world you live in as well, where the smallest flaw in a recording makes it impossible for you to listen to it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. I am on cloud nine. But that doesn't stop me examining content under a microscope. People will disagree with how much digression from some notion of perfection is acceptable for promotion. The US military ensembles often present close to perfect performances, IMO. I would like people to advise more on how EV can be defined. It seems to work well for featured pics, but sounds present a different challenge; it seems to be a very important issue for this process. Tony (talk) 12:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"It must be an awful world you live in as well..."—what a horrid thing to say, and you (Adam Cuerden) should assume good faith when you debate on a talk page. As Tony1 states, he is not suggesting that the piece be nominated for deletion, rather whether (with tempo issues noted by more than one editor, and even "some wrong notes") this piece is representative of the best WP has to offer. Regarding your "I really, really fail to think...", it's not whether the piece has "Encyclopedic value" (something no one has denied), it's how the piece is used in an encyclopaedia that concerns this page. Exactly which part of Tony1's lucid comments led you to the conclusion that this was a piece to which Tony1 found it "impossible to listen"?  GFHandel.   21:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should read the only phrase you haven't commented on, which I think makes the point clear. I think Tony can be incredibly picky about these things, to the point of rejecting things as good or better than many commercial recordings I have owned. It's a major division in classical music, particularly vocal: The difference between note-perfect but lifeless, or somewhat deviating from the score, but full of character. John Reed, for instance, is often wildly inaccurate compared to the score, but noted for his ability to get character across, which is considered by his fans to make up for it. In opposition, compare the 2004 Hyperion commercial recording of Contrabandista (opera), which is note-perfect but completely lifeless, yet other people seem to like it, even though I find it removes from the piece anything that makes it worthwhile. Tony is very strongly on the note-perfect side; I bear somewhat towards the overall effect side, and this is fairly irreconcilable. However, he has a tendency to look down his nose superciliously, and all but call anyone who disagrees with him an idiot. This is constant, and there's no point saying "AGF" when this is about the 50th time he's acted this way. You obviously don't know the situiation, GFHandel, because this is your first comment on FSC ever. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Every thread must stand on its own at WP. A simple apology from you for your "awful world" comment would have sufficed.  GFHandel.   22:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're assuming bad faith about my statement, while encouraging me to assume Tony does not have ridiculously high standards that are of a type on the complete opposite side of the spectrum to mine? Adam Cuerden (talk)
Thanks, but I don't agree to the collapsing of this box. Now, your role as one of the four FSC directors is not to bully reviewers, but to make sure the mechanics work and to do other good things. You do those things, so please stop squabbling with the reviewers. No one has to agree with anything I say, but you seem to be trying to censor me in the first place. Tony (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not assuming anything as your introduction of "It must be an awful world you live in as well..." into a debate is abhorrent and against the spirit of Wikipedia. If you don't agree with Tony1's assessment of the efficacy of the piece for FSC, then say so—with on-topic debate (not with personal supposition).  GFHandel.   20:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sounds good for its age. The clicks don't concern me overly as it's part of the nature of the type of recording. The recording itself it notable too, despite some wayward tempo in places.Major Bloodnok (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Impressive actually for its age.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support It is poor quality even for its age. It sounds like the original was fairly soft. The noise floor of the medium is about the same, originally, for all well made recordings. When it was transferred the same signal to noise ratio was maintained. The performance is not very good; however, if available, I think that a performance by the composer always has EV and the trumps criterion 2. Zginder 2011-05-01T03:13Z (UTC)

Promoted Zez Confrey - Kitten_on_the_Keys.ogg --Guerillero | My Talk 22:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two Henry Fillmore marches

The Circus Bee (1908)
"The Circus Bee" is a circus march written in 1908.
Problems playing this file? See media help.
Rolling Thunder (1916)
"Rolling Thunder" is a type of circus march described as a screamer written in 1916.
Problems playing this file? See media help.

These are two circus marches by Henry Fillmore performed by the United States Marine Corps Band and the United States Air Force Band, respectively. Both are used for openings and encores of public forms of entertainment. The files add significantly to the following articles:

The Circus Bee
Rolling Thunder
  • Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • First one: I'd avoid descriptions such as "technically advanced". Actually, it's a pretty basic style that any talented student in a composition course should be able to turn out. Fine for its genre, and a great encore for a band appearance. Superbly performed. Need to listen again properly, but it's probably a support. But let's watch the balance of styles and genres: if there start to be more than a certain number of similar files, stylistically, just because they're lucky enough to be US govt. free, one might start to be choosy. Tony (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think these are our first circus marches. All other marches are military marches, I believe.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Afraid not, Tony. Troopers Tribunal is a circus march. Still, though, do you have any idea how many composers of marches there are? Tony - I'd best use full nicks - Tony1's advice is somewhat counterproductive, and should probably not be obeyed, since we have hundreds of articles which need sounds. We do not want to hurt Wikipedia just to get more variety in the project meant to encourage improvement of Wikipedia's sound coverage. That is precisely backwards. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Afraid not, Cuerden (if you want your put-down returned). Just what this is directed at is unclear: circus march seems to be irrelevant to my comments above. What are you talking about? Your advice appears to be "counterproductive", especially when it is unclear. Who is going to "hurt" WP? Your remarks are offensive. Tony (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Calm down please guys, Tony1 the first line of Adam's statement was directed at TTT (the afraid not and circus march bits), I don't see much harm in adding sounds to articles that don't have any, they add to the article and if they're quality perfs/recordings then all the better. Sure coverage on WP atm is shite (over 80% of sounds are from the "Western" world) but heck aren't we all here to contribute more? With the current increase in participation at FSC we'll more than likely get more promotions this month than FP!!! —James (Talk • Contribs) • 8:18pm • 10:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Promoted all Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Radetzky March

Radetzky March
Johann Strauss I's magnum opus, "Radetzky March", performed by the United States Marine Corps Band

Johann Strauss I's magnum opus, "Radetzky March", was dedicated to the Austrian Field Marshal Joseph Radetzky von Radetz. Here it is performed by the United States Marine Corps Band. It adds significantly to the following articles:

  • Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good performance and quality. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:15pm • 11:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Support—This nomination, the description page, and the file name, ignore that fact that it is not the original. It is an arrangement. The full orchestral score is linked to from the article. When these aspects are fixed, I'll listen to the recording. Tony (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was unaware how different a band arrangement the March was scored for than this performance. I have cleaned up the description page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, nice, and I've further edited the Commons descr. page; hope that's ok with you. I'm willing to support this because it's a superb performance, as usual from these people, and because as long as it's marked as an arrangement wherever used, it's not toooo far from the original in mood and feel, even if the backbone strings are gone. If a good performance of the original turns up, I think this should be defrocked in favour of it. Tony (talk) 09:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Did you mean support or support? Also, do you think this arrangment is by Strauss?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, well that's different. How can we confirm that it's by Strauss, I wonder? If it is, the fact needs to be included in the caption wherever the file is used in articles, and on the SDP. Tony (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I doubt that he did that exact arrangement. That is just the combination of instruments put together to perform an album by the band. That ensemble was not selected for this piece and this piece was probably arranged for that ensemble. I would have no problem surrendering to a more proper ensemble.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support definitely among the best sounds on Wikipedia —innotata 13:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Promoted Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sousa Marches

The following files are John Philip Sousa military march compositions from the United States Marine Corps Band album Semper Fidelis: Music of John Philip Sousa. It is not clear in the CD Booklet if they were all recorded in the same recording sessions.

Manhattan Beach
"Manhattan Beach", a commemorative march by John Philip Sousa.
King Cotton
"King Cotton", a 1895 Sousa military march.
The Gallant Seventh
"The Gallant Seventh", was Sousa's most popular march in the 1920s and is distinguished as his only march with two breakstrains.
Problems playing these files? See media help.

"Manhattan Beach", a commemorative march by John Philip Sousa, performed by the United States Marine Corps Band was penned to for Manhattan Beach, Brooklyn. This file adds significantly to the following articles:

"King Cotton", a 1895 Sousa military march, performed by the United States Marine Corps Band. It was penned for the Cotton States and International Exposition in that year. This file adds significantly to the following articles:

"The Gallant Seventh", was Sousa's most popular march in the 1920s and is distinguished as his only march with two breakstrains. This version is performed by the United States Marine Corps Band. This file adds significantly to the following articles:

Promoted all Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous, different nom
Address Before a Joint Session of Congress (February 24, 2009) Barack Obama (video)
Barack Obama's February 24, 2009 Address Before a Joint Session of Congress in which he discussed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 among other economic-related issues during the Late-2000s financial crisis.

This is a video version. I previously nominated an audio version below at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Address Before a Joint Session of Congress (February 24, 2009) Barack Obama. This was not an official State of the Union address. The speech was delivered on the floor of the chamber of the United States House of Representatives in the United States Capitol in a joint session of the United States Congress. President Obama discussed the recently passed $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 as well as the Troubled Assets Relief Program, the state of the economy, and the future of the country as it emerged from the Late-2000s financial crisis. Transcript and video available at the source. This file contributes significantly to the following articles:

  • Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't say whether a more experienced video editor could create a significantly better file, but I can relay the difficulities that I encountered. Basically, the original file is so large that it was difficult to produce a .ogv that was less than 100MB (the commons max). I had gained my first experience at creating video files with File:Ich bin ein Berliner Speech (June 26, 1963) John Fitzgerald Kennedy trimmed.theora.ogv, but that file was so small that there were not significant challenges to creating a basic file. Following the same procedure I had gone through with that file produced a 300MB file in this case. So I began tinkering with custom settings of the Moyea Video4Web Converter 3.1.0.0. I had previously learned that outputting a .mp3 filetype resulted in no audio in the .ogv and had produced .mov filetype. However, after trying over a half dozen settings combinations and finally going with mininmum settings across the board except for frames per second, which I kept at 15, I was still at about 130 MB. If I used the .mp3 audio setting no audio seemed to be produced, so I could only use the AAC. Oddly the program seems to ignore the frames per second (looking at the file properties in the right-click from Windows Explorer). After having such difficulty getting a small enough output, I then tested the .3g2 profile and was able to produce files under 100 MB. I then tried several custom settings combinations which retained the most quality and remained under 100 MB. The final custom settings are on the description page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: EV high; demonstrates this man's brilliant skills as an orator. There's a lot of fluff, but heck, he is a politician. Tony (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I can't find any faults with this. The recording is clear, that playback is smooth, and its a great example of Obama's abilities as an orator. --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 03:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Fine example of Obama's oratorical skills. Good quality too! —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 6:07pm • 08:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query Is the aspect ratio right? It looks somewhat horizontally compressed to me. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I output 4:3. I am having trouble seeing if I started with 4:3 or 3:2. If the original was 3:2, then the output should be too. How can I tell what the original .rm file's dimensions were?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe the original is 4:3, but can't say for sure.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will try to produce a 3:2 nonetheless.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just tried to change the output from 320x240 to 352x240 (in both the auto aspect ratio mode and the 16:9 ratio mode) in the Moyea software and it just added some black borders to the sides. It did not change the aspect ratio.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I dunno, Obama's thin, but is he really THAT thin? Anyone able to reassure me? Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've just played with the file in Media Player Classic, and the aspect is wrong on the WP file: it should be 16:9. Neither of my versions of Pinnacle will do OGV files (by the looks of things even AVID won't touch it!). A quick search has shown that various Linux-based editors will. Time to reinstall Virtuabox I think unless anyone knows of a windows-based editor which will do it... If the aspect can be fixed, then I will support. Oppose for now given that the aspect is wrong. Major Bloodnok (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per Major Bloodnok. When this is fixed, I'll change my vote. Until then, wrong is wrong. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Bloodnok. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about the suspension of this nomination, but I am trying to convert a WMV version of this speech in the correct aspect into OGV using Miro... and it is taking an age. I don't like the 10-second delay before the video proper starts, but I guess we'll have to live with it; I don't really want to have to edit it and then generate another file which will have to be converted. OGV files are a real pain. Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Miro failed to achieve anything positive on this occasion; I think the problem is that the file which the Miller centre got was in 16:9, but had been put into 4:3. The Miller centre put their ident on the front and the watermark onto it too (the square image on the bottom left) without correcting the issue. The ident is in the correct aspect, but the rest of the file isn't - I'll see if I can do anything in Pinnacle with the WMV file. Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, the White House web-site has a section of high quality video and here is the speech in question. Perhaps the best move would be to make our own version and upload it. Good news - the site uses MP4 and MP3 formats. Hurray! I'll see what I can do, but I won't be able to upload it until some point tomorrow. Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've put the first 15 seconds up at a quality which will allow the whole speech to be uploaded to WP under the 100MB limit. For reasons best known to WP the White House titles which make up the first 5 seconds don't come out. It worked on my machine before I uploaded it. Major Bloodnok (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll upload it tonight.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great news! Major Bloodnok (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
President_Obama_address_to_Congress_24th_Feb_2009_resized (52:20)
A reproduction of the above with 16:9 aspect ratio and the complete speech.
President_Obama_address_to_Congress_24th_Feb_2009_resized (52:20)
Better audio and poorer video than above.
Problems playing these files? See media help.
New file added nominate and support.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per my !vote above, looks better than the previous version. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 2:43pm • 04:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per my comment above.Major Bloodnok (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For procedural reasons, I'm restarting voting on this. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just added a second version with slightly higher quality audio. I left the video size at original and it looks funny on the description page, so I will redo at this maximal audio quality with smaller video size and save over this version.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have posted the proper second version now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I kind of have to ask: The second version has such poor video, that is it actually worth it, just to have some very blocky images with the sound?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs) 20:46, 15 April 2011
        • Do you think the video/audio combo of Major Bloodnok (talk · contribs)'s clip above is better. Maybe he could produce a full version for us to look at.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • With a speech which lasts a long time I think we are at the limit of video quality, given the 100MB file size limit set by WP. It is certainly an issue we should address. On the whole I am willing to excuse the video quality given the sound quality and the historical importance, although I could be persuaded to vote the other way. The full file I made is actually larger than 100MB, even at the lowest settings on my video editor, so I won't able to upload it (the editor estimated it would be 98MB before it rendered it). I don't have the time at the moment to render another one, and I think the difference would be marginal at best. A shorter video of, say 20 minutes, allows much better quality than it does here. Major Bloodnok (talk) 06:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think that we should view these as an opportunity to have audio augmented by some sort of video. Admittedly for long files, we will not be able to produce high quality videos to go along with the audio. I personally prefer to see the speeches along with the audio and feel the videos are valuable for that opportunity.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, fair enough. Make sure the source is very clearly documented; if the file upload size increases, these will need to be redone. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this speech to two more pages. Now, this file contributes significantly to the following articles:

  • Question Why can't we split it into multiple files and then use a higher bitrate. Zginder 2011-04-23T22:45Z (UTC)
    • Imagine three or four screens in place of one for each of its uses in articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • This would certainly make technical sense, but the problem would be an aesthetic one; I agree with TTT above. Major Bloodnok (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do have a problem with a 52-minute video. And the res means it has to be so small it's little better than hearing the audio alone. So much of it is politician's pap (that's politics, not an anti-Obama observation). TTT, can I ask whether you envisage a whole raft of similar nominations? My concern is, what is the theme of the address? It might be of greater EV, as well as solving technical issues, to produce a number of files from this huge one, each with a theme. I don't care if each is just 15 seconds long (or a couple of minutes); they'd be more focused for use in articles. Tony (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have put forth the FS equivalent of the FP panorama. A small clip would be like a picture of a building in that panorama. It would need to go through its own WP:FSC and would be considered distinct from this file. For a blurb, check WP articles that may quote from the speech.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Promoted = Address Before a Joint Session of Congress (February 24, 2009) - Barack Obama (WhiteHouse.gov).ogv Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overture di ballo

1870 – Overture di Ballo
Overture di Ballo, which predates all of Arthur Sullivan's collaborations with W. S. Gilbert, is regarded as Sullivan most successful orchestral work. This is a military band arrangement, performed by the U.S. Marine Band.

As stated above, Overture di Ballo, which predates all of Arthur Sullivan's collaborations with W. S. Gilbert, is regarded as Sullivan most successful orchestral work. This piece is part of the band's 1991 recording, Overtures. This file adds significantly to the following articles:

  • Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My God! I've worked on most of the G&S articles on Wikiepdia, and would never have expected to find this. =) Will give a review tomorrow, when I've had time to run it against the score. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Description page issues - What does trans. mean, anyway? I've been presuming transcribed, but it could be transposed or several other things. It'd be useful to know. Other than that, Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • My experience with the word comes from having had a cousin (who was my roommate at the time) who transcribed Jelly Roll Morton recordings and such for Wynton Marsalis and Lincoln Center when he was in graduate school. Basically it means to put the audio into written form. Lincoln Center has tons of recordings, that have never been put into sheet music form. Suppose the audio was a recording of a twelve piece band. My cousin would listen to the audio and write the respective sheet music for each of the twelve pieces. So he would sit there and write note for note all the trumpet music, then all the piano music, then all the alto sax music, etc. Eventually, he would have the sheet music for an entire recording of twelve pieces. He would then give this to his boss (Marsalis) who might then arrange it for his Lincoln Center band that may or may not be a 12 piece band. Alternatively, Marsalis just might have his band play almost exactly what my cousin transcribed. I don't remember if the Lincoln Center band arranged the music or just played what my cousin transcribed. I was just excited to go watch them play all the stuff my cousin use to sit in my living room writing on paper. P.S. once my cousin took me with him to Wynton's apartment for gumbo after a Lincoln Center performance. I am pretty sure eating gumbo has nothing to do with transcribing or arranging, however.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, I see that the Richard Wagner booklet you link above says "transcribed" in full. I suspect, given that a full score was published for this, that it's just crediting the person who did the slightly less difficult, but just as arduous task of transcribing a set of parts from the full score - which means this is the original, and that's wonderful. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Just ran this up against the full score. Some of the repeats are meant to be for strings, but strings don't appear, so this is a military band arrangement. That needs mentioned, but it's otherwise very good. Given there's whole sections of this which are woodwind and brass alone, that's less of a problem than it might be. So long as it's noted, this is well worth featuring. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—The SDP says "transcribed", but I suspect it had to be arranged (that is, the notes changed, redistributed, rather than just cut and pasted for performance by non-string instruments of equivalent pitch-range. Does the caption say it's an arrangement in the articles in which it appears? Tony (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sullivan's scores were generally published in many arrangements; I'd presume this is one of these arrangements, which someone turned into band parts for them. I believe the arrangements were generally done by the publisher, though no arranger is generally credited. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Arrangements can have their own copyright, so even through the original composition is in the Public Domain does not mean this arrangement is. Zginder 2011-05-01T02:44Z (UTC)
        • But anonymous 1870s arrangements are (and that's presuming it wasn't done in house by the army). I can't actually find any publication details for such an arrangement, so, as we know that the Army does things in house, we should probably presume this was one of these. Most military bands that have been around a long time have whole libraries of hand-written arrangements by long-gone band members, for which no credit could ever be assigned by now (I've sung with the British Navy's band occasionally). Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sounds good, played well, and notable. The only thing which would concern me is the nature of this arrangement; Adam's comments have reassured me on this point. Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Overture di ballo.ogg —James (Talk • Contribs) • 12:57pm • 02:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: United States Navy Band - O Canada.ogg

United States Navy Band - O Canada.ogg
The United States Navy's rendition of O Canada

Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/United States Navy Band - O Canada

I know this is right after the promotion, but it seems that this file has had longstanding issues that we were not made aware of. First, there is heavy resistance to this being prominently used (it's been relegated to a gallery near the bottom.) Second, it's not the full anthem. Third, it is a significant reinterpretation of the piece.

If it's not going to be used prominently, its' encyclopedic value is poor. If it's not correct, its' encyclopedic value is even poorer. This should be delisted.

  • Nominate to delist Sven Manguard Wha? 03:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's the only modern instrumental we have, that's of good quality and it's at the gallery because the article's major contributors think that's an appropriate place for the sound and the ENTIRE anthem is rarely ever played... from the recordings in the gallery, only 2 verses are sung at most... I'm assuming you're talking about the US Navy Band and not that horrid performance linked in "Previous nomination". —James (Talk • Contribs) • 2:33pm • 04:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed that link, blame Adam's template for that (:D). As for your oppose, what do you think about the accuracy concern? Sven Manguard Wha? 05:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Accuracy concern? How come this concern hasn't been raised here Sven? Please explain. If you mean lacking the entirity of the anthem then that exists throughout many instrumentals in the articles on other national anthems, then I don't see much of a problem. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 11:12am • 01:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you mean that it doesn't do multiple repeats of the same tune? I think that's awfully nit-picky. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have been clearer earlier. It has to do with liberties taken with the melodies and the drums. This is taken from Talk:O Canada:

I completely disagree. I will say the recording quality is better, but it takes liberties with the melody adding harmonies into song that are not official. Also, it's only a single verse long while the anthem, and the recording is three verses long. Finally, the drums are personally repulsive. It makes it feel like a Sousa march or military processional and Canada is not as militaristic as the United States is, and hopefully never will be. Couple these faults with the nationalistic bent and proud sense of heritage and you have solid reasons for not making the navy band version the lead version of the hymn. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Reading that was part of the reason I went for the delist. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was so nationalistic on so many levels... but true, :S I'll try find the "correct" version of the anthem. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 5:22pm • 07:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: A brass band performace is probably one of the least-valuable of the possible types of performances, only beat by that weird clock-chime performance. One with lyrics is much more valuable, and we have two of those options. Since this is just part of a gallery, don't think it's shown sufficient value to overcome the inherent problems of an instrumental performance of a vocal piece. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand your concerns, but may I say that the performance is not of a bad quality and doesn't detract from the quality of the article, it's one of the highest quality performances in the whole article. Unless you can find a better performance, which I have failed to do. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:43am • 00:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—unless I can understand what "official" harmonies are. Tony (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted that this is the "official" U.S. Department of Defense arrangement that is used by all U.S. military bands for ceremonies involving Canada. --Adam (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is the best version and still meets the criteria. Zginder 2011-04-25T06:31Z (UTC)
  • Keep So... someone doesn't like the arrangement. The one used as the official US Dept of Defence. I don't really understand the problem. The piece still passes muster and I think should still be an FS. Of course, should another less controversial version arise, then we can vote on that too. Major Bloodnok (talk) 10:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IIRC, the DOD gets their sheet music for their national anthem performances directly from the government of each country. So this performance is based on sheet music the Canadian government provided. It's used during official state visits and is thus about as official as it gets. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 08:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The FS is kept. The consensus appears to be in that direction --Guerillero | My Talk 05:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amar Rabbi Elazar

1919 − Amar Rabbi Elazar
A traditional setting of the last passage of the Talmudic tractate Berakhot, which describes how scholars of the Talmud create peace in the world. Performed by Cantor Meyer Kanewsky in 1919 for Edison Records.

A fantastic performance, which has aged fairly well. Plus, it's a type of music we need far more of.

  • Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Quality is there. Headline file for one page, headline sound for another, so usage is good. It's a pet peeve of mine that copyright templates are in the "Permission" section, but none the less the description page checks out. Sven Manguard Wha?
    • Way I figure it, if they didn't want you to use the permission section, then they shouldn't have included it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Could you edit it to increase the volume of the chorus, they sound muffled. But otherwise I like the quality, it's quite good for its age but at around 1:11, there's a scratching noise, could that be removed? At that point in the piece there's a rest I believe. This unsigned comment was added by User:Ancient Apparition (James)
    • The chorus being muffled is an artefact of how recording worked at the time - you have a horn, and sang into it. If you wertre right next to the horn, you'd be pretty clear. Otherewise, you sound muffled. Only way to get a chorus to really sound good is to have it be made up of very few people, so they can duck in front of the horn when the main person isn't singing. Recording was almost as much choreography as singing at the time. As for the scratching noise; I don't think so. It's just too long of a noise; removal of that sort of thing is rather all-or-nothing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah... thanks for clarifying that Adam, either way, for a recording of its age it's pretty understandable! —James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:31am • 00:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • It also comes down to preservation to some extent. The LoC have copies that were played very, very little, while being stored very safely. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • True, but then how do they digitize the copies if they're rarely ever played? —James (Talk • Contribs) • 4:24pm • 06:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Only have to platy them once for that; and there's actually needleless ways to play them nowadays. You scan the groove, I think using a laser. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Omar Rabbi Elozor.ogg --Acather96 (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attention

Attention (bugle call)
Attention bugle call performed by the United States Army Ceremonial Band

This file adds significantly to the following article:

  • Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support But I should warn most of these bugle calls are getting grouped into one day on the main page. They're too short to do otherwise. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very nice :) 1 day of bugle calls, my heaven :P —James (Talk • Contribs) • 8:34pm • 10:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any chance we can date this one? If not, tell me and I'll run this through promotion as undated, I just don't want to do that if I don't have to. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say mid 2000's. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 11:04am • 01:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't we date by composition and not performance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's true, I thought if the composition date was unknown it'd be dated by performance. It could always be added as an unknown. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 2:46pm • 04:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Zginder 2011-04-19T23:49Z (UTC)

Promoted Attention.ogg --Acather96 (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Keep the Home Fires Burning

1914 – Keep the Home Fires Burning
Keep the Home Fires Burning, a World War I-era patriotic song by Ivor Novello and Lena Guilbert Ford, performed by Frederick Wheeler for Edison Records in late 1915.

For the year, it's a very good recording. A modern recording would lack the same value of being one of the recordings of a WWI song from the WWI era Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good quality for that time period. Question: Can this be edited a teeny tiny bit more, the crackling does get a little bit annoying. —James (Talk) • 3:45pm • 05:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I do, the vocal quality falls off too noticeably. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's no big problem, the recording is superb for its age, nonetheless. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 11:28am • 01:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support seems to be a true renditions and good quality for its age.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportMajor Bloodnok (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Tony (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Keep the Home Fires Burning - Frederick Wheeler.ogg --Guerillero | My Talk 05:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: Fireside Chat 1 On the Banking Crisis (March 12, 1933) Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Fireside Chat 1 On the Banking Crisis
Franklin Delano Roosevelt's first Fireside Chat on the Banking Crisis (March 12, 1933)

This was the first of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's famous Fireside chats series made during the Great Depression. It discussed the Banking Crisis and its March 1933 bank run. This article adds significantly to the following articles:

I should have attempted to do some noise reduction. Here is what I should have produced in the prior nomination:

Fireside Chat 1 On the Banking Crisis - edit 1
Franklin Delano Roosevelt's first Fireside Chat on the Bank

Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Fireside Chat 1 On the Banking Crisis (March 12, 1933) Franklin Delano Roosevelt

  • Nominate to delist and replace. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nicely done! What did you do, blend together several noise reductions taken from different sections of static? I wouldn't have guessed you could do much with this. I would blend in a little of the staticy version at low volume, though: It's a slight strain listening to this, but the static, though you wouldn't think it, actually makes it easier to listen to, even at a low volume. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original starts at about 3.9 seconds. With a lot of static before that. I sampled the first three seconds (actually probably from about 0.5 to 3.7) for the noise profile and used default noise reduction parameters for the whole file. It was pretty simple. I don't know how to blend. Also I just chopped off the first three seconds that are now almost silent so a blend would require synchronization, which probably is not that big a deal.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep original The "sss" and "zzz" sounds are barely audible at average speaking volume, I'd rather have background noise with audible pronunciations than little background noise and inaudible pronunciations. When he says "What the next steps are" it sounds like "what the nect teps are", and it sounds like someone's muffled the microphone because some of the speech becomes fuzzy. —James (Talk) • 3:42pm • 05:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you give me a time marker for the point that you are illustrating.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found it and am not so sure the original is any clearer for this particular point. Interested parties may listen at about 36 seconds on the original and 33 seconds on the edit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist and replace The sizzling is worse than the slight change in the tone of voice of the president. As for the "what the nect teps are" thing, I found it to be the same in both versions. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I performed some noise reduction of my own, including machine and hand edited click removal and some lite machine noise reduction with a less edited track remixed at -15dB. Zginder 2011-04-19T23:46Z (UTC)

Fireside Chat 1: On the Banking Crisis - edit 2
Franklin Delano Roosevelt's first Fireside Chat on the Banking Crisis (March 12, 1933)

I think that this edit does not change Roosevelt's speech much while reducing noise greatly. Zginder 2011-04-19T23:46Z (UTC)

  • Comment The "s" noises are inaudible if they weren't (by which I mean if the s's were audible) I'd support either of the edits, though at this stage I'm leaning towards the second edit primarily because it doesn't sound like someone wrapped a dishcloth around the microphone. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 11:06am • 01:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally prefer the first edit because of the lower level of distracting scratches and hisses.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • While the first edit is not bad, it doesn't have that air of authenticity to it. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 7:53pm • 09:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist and replace with Edit 2 - a more sympathetic noise reduction which does not remove entirely the authentic sound of 1933.Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist and replace with Edit 2, Sven makes a good point, the problem with the audibility of s sounds exists on the original as well and because this edit doesn't sound like the microphone's been muffled with a dishcloth. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:57am • 23:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per James and Major B. But could I ask, at nearly 14 minutes, much of it is a yawn. If it ever appeared on the main page, what bits could one point people to as being the kernel of his message? I suggest that adding a few of the critical word-strings to the SDP would add value to the file and help subsequent editors who are considering whether or not to include it in another article.
  • Can you please stop adding files to random articles. If this wasn't important, iconic, or groundbreaking it shouldn't be a FS. We are slipping on our EV and letting any good sound slip by. This discussion has been open for 20 days and does not seem to meet the quorum. There is no clear consensus about this except that the original is not worth of being a FS. I am going to close this bloated discussion without any future prejudice against either edit. Edit two is close but not close enough right now. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Marcha Real

It is good quality and is used in the infobox of the Marcha Real article.

  • Nominate and support. Spongie555 (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Marcha_Real#Copyright_issues is troubling as far as the copyright status of this is --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 03:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Which harmonisation is this? If it's not the version purchased by the Spanish Government it should be PD from what I can see in the article itself, the performance isn't bad but until the copyright issue is cleared (by that I mean when someone finds out which harmonisation this is) I will suspended this nomination. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 4:45pm • 06:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It'll have to be uploaded under a different name, the Commons version is used on multiple Wikipedias. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 3:06pm • 05:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • From my last talks with the US Navy Band, they receive sheet music from the government, then fix it up to where it could be played by the band (this is what happened in the case of Montenegro). I still feel having this recording might be questionable (and now we got two, which one is going to be the one that we will keep or not?) User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1770 - Marcha Real
Marcha performed by the United States Navy Band. Marcha Real is the national anthem of Spain. It is one of the oldest national anthems in the world as it was adopted in 1770. It is also one of the few national anthems without words. The composer of the music is unknown to date.

There you go. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 3:18pm • 05:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added the file you uploaded because you readded the current nomination file. Also sorry I havnt been looking at the nomination I been busy an I didn't see it till I got the message today. Spongie555 (talk) 05:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry about that, thanks Spongie. I support the local version. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:34pm • 12:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't this need an OTRS? What are the sources for authorship?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support local version. Zginder 2011-04-24T21:58Z (UTC)
  • Support local version. Major Bloodnok (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grudging supportOppose for local either version: the piece is about as boring as national anthems ever get. I cannot endorse such boring music as "among our best work". Tony (talk) 10:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Promoted United States Navy Band - Marcha Real.ogg Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First Inaugural (January 20, 1993) Bill Clinton

First Inaugural (January 20, 1993) Bill Clinton
Video of Bill Clinton entire 1993 presidential inauguration address on Janaury 20, 1993.

United States presidential inaugurations are historical events and even Federal holidays in the United States. This is an encyclopedic addition to wikipedia. This file adds significantly to the following articles:

  • Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Same as for NAFTA where is the 640 by 480 from? Zginder 2011-04-21T19:13Z (UTC)
    • I used the .rm. I could not tell the original dimensions. Did I upconvert? Should I redo?
      • I think you probably did up-convert it. I would be more comfortable with an original resolution version. Zginder 2011-04-23T21:59Z (UTC)
  • Support. looks and sounds good.Major Bloodnok (talk) 06:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted First Inaugural (January 20, 1993) Bill Clinton.ogv. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 9:31pm • 11:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks on the Signing of NAFTA (December 8, 1993) Bill Clinton

Remarks on the Signing of NAFTA (December 8, 1993) Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton's December 8, 1993 remarks on the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement

The North American Free Trade Agreement was signed by the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States, creating a trilateral trade bloc in North America. It resulted in the current largest trade bloc in the world by combined nominal purchasing power parity GDP of its members. This file adds significantly to the following articles:

  • Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. More than 20 minutes, and the first huge tract is thanking everyone on the planet including the dog: it goes on and on and on. Part of the process of creating featured content is to edit, select, trim back, speeches, I think, so they have more EV. Much of this is plain boring; some of it isn't. (The link to the full speech vid is on the SDP, which should, BTW, state that the transcript is at that location too). Can vids be edited easily? Why, for example, can't it start part-way in with "This whole issue", or better "I believe we have made a decision"? As an aside, it's amusing that they used voice recognition to produce the transcript, and no one bothered to correct horrors such as "I'd also like to web come here the representatives from Mexico and Canada." Tony (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am new to FS and am unsure what is proper protocol. It seems to me that presenting part of a speach might be like doing a panorama of a notable skyline and saying "Well I only like the buildings in the middle of this notable skyline so I will just present those when the entire skyline is a more encyclopedic contribution." In prior successful FSCs, have people chopped out portions of speeches? Choosing part of a speech like this just seems POV. Additional seeing all the preliminary thanks provides a window into the character of the man. Compare the preamble here with that of the Obama video that is currently a nominee where he sends a shoutout to his wife.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • In general editing of speeches is frowned upon at FS. Zginder 2011-04-21T19:01Z (UTC)
  • Support, presuming the audio quality is as high as possible. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question what version from the Miller Center was used for the conversion? Zginder 2011-04-21T19:01Z (UTC)
    • I can only find 320 by 240 versions. Is the 640 by 480 somewhere else or was it up-converted? Zginder 2011-04-21T19:07Z (UTC)

Promoted Remarks on the Signing of NAFTA (December 8, 1993) Bill Clinton.ogv —James (Talk • Contribs) • 12:18pm • 02:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Suspended nominations

Nominations that have been suspended pending the resolution of problems (such as copyright)

Templates

Templates

Closing procedure

Promoting

Tool assisted
  1. Go to X!'s FSC assistant
  2. Enter the filename of the sound - without the File: prefix - and the subpage name of the nomination - for example, "Foo" for Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Foo - into the relevant sections.
  3. Follow the instructions
  4. If a sound file is on commons, insert {{Assessments|enwiki=3|ennom="Subpage Page Name"}} on the commons file page.
  5. If the file is within the scope of a project that uses the new Featured Media classification place {{Wikiproject "name"|class=FM|importance=NA}} on the file talk page
Manual
Manual closing instructions
  • Place "'''Promoted Promoted file name.ogg''' --~~~~" at the bottom of the WP:FSC/subpage
  • 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 Portal: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 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.
  • Add a notice to Wikipedia:Goings-on, using this format: {{*sound|File.ogg|Title}} by pasting in the template from the featured sounds page.
  • 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 May archive. This is done by simply moving the line {{Wikipedia:Featured 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.

Not promoted

  • Place "'''Not promoted''' ~~~~" at the bottom of the WP:FSC/subpage
  • Remove the {{FSC}} tag from the file and any other suggested versions.
  • Move the nomination entry to the bottom of the May archive. To do this, move the line {{Wikipedia:Featured 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.

Delisted

  • Place "'''Delisted Example.ogg''' ~~~~" at the bottom of the WP:FSC/subpage:
  • Replace the {{FeaturedSound|Sound name}} tag on the file with {{FormerFeaturedSound|Sound name}}.
  • Remove the delisted sound from Portal:Featured sounds (if doing a replacement, instead replace with the new file, updating the description as needed) and add it to Wikipedia:Former featured sounds.
  • Add a brief note to the nominator's talk page to let them know the result.
  • If doing a replacement as well:
    • Mark the new featured sound's description page with {{FS|delist/nomination name}}. For example, if the delist nomination was Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/delist/Foo, use {{FS|delist/Foo}}.
    • Put the new featured sound on Portal:Featured sounds, replacing the old one.
    • Replace the old featured sound with the new featured sound in articles, where appropriate. Update the description (if necessary) to cover changes in performers and so on.
    • Optional If the new featured sound is substantially different from the old, add the file to Template:Announcements/New featured pages and Wikipedia:Goings-on.
    • Optional: If appropriate, notify the uploader of the new featured sound with {{subst:UploadedFS|Filename.ogg|Title for the sound}}
  • Move the nomination entry to the bottom of the May archive. To do this, move the line {{Wikipedia:Featured 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_sound_candidates&oldid=424997821"