Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/January 2011

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

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

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

United States Navy Band - Inno e Marcia Pontificale

I am nominating this file because the sound quality is clear and crisp, the band as a whole is in time, no one section stands out which is good and because overall this is a fantastic file that really does add to the article.

• Nominate and support. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 8:43pm • 09:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support per the nomination. Imzadi 1979 → 22:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Conditional support Looking at WP:FS?, the sound description page needs to give the composer and date of composition; if the date of recording and the name of the conductor are available, those ought to be added too. If this is added, I will support promotion. Bencherlite^Talk 13:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I have added these details. Bencherlite^Talk 08:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support But there is absolutely nothing wrong with individual sections "standing out." That is often the composer's intent. Has the nominator ever composed, directed, or performed a work for band? Edison (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I understand that, what I meant was one section is not the ONLY thing you hear, in every piece there needs to be balance and I have been participating in band for 6 years now. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 1:29pm • 02:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Question How do we know the recording is the work of the U.S. Government? The links provided do not indicate the source. Zginder 2010-12-24T22:17Z (UTC)
  • At a guess, The band's home page says "National Anthems and Ceremonial Music performed by the Ceremonial Band", which links to this then to this where the file comes from. The nominator may be able to help further, I suppose. Bencherlite^Talk 08:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Based on what I see, the legal status of this submission is not or is no longer an issue. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

My guess is as good as Bencherlite's, it says performed by the Ceremonial Band. Also re copyright this is from their http://www.navyband.navy.mil/Disclaimer.shtml disclaimer]:

All information on this site is public domain and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested. Unauthorized attempts to upload information or change information on this website are strictly prohibited and may be punishable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 and the National Information Infrastructure Protection Act.

—Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 1:29pm • 02:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• So what does that mean? I was under the assumption that the current copyright information listed for the image was correct. It's clearly the Navy band. No obvious signs that this is excluded from the Public Domain. Is this still an issue or not? Sven Manguard Wha? 02:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Appropriate byline is used in the file description I believe and no, it's not an issue. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 1:20pm • 02:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support It appears to meet all of the requirements. Zginder 2010-12-30T02:41Z (UTC)

Promoted United States Navy Band - Inno e Marcia Pontificale.ogg --Sven Manguard Wha? 01:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau

• 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. Bencherlite^Talk 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? Bencherlite^Talk 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. Bencherlite^Talk 00:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I've had a go at cleaning up the noise on this recording - any further comments, please? Bencherlite^Talk 12:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support based on clear historical interest. Probably cleaned up about as well as it could be, given the source recording. ReverendWayne (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose A very tentative, faint and thready performance. Find one recorded later with a little more volume and confidence. The volume of the transfer is also very low. And what is the purpose of 5 seconds of dead silence at the end? Edison (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Did you notice that it was recorded in 1899 and was nominated for its historical importance as the first known recording in the Welsh language? Saying "find one recorded later" suggests you didn't: one recorded later wouldn't have the same historical importance as this one, would it? Bencherlite^Talk 00:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC) (later: sorry if this comes across as a bit "snarky", that wasn't my intention, it's just I don't understand the point you're making in the light of the reasons for nomination)
  • From WP:FS? on recording quality: "(b) Historical recordings are of reasonable quality for their age. Exceptions can be made for importance when it is unlikely that any better-quality copy of the same recording could be found." I think that this file is one of those exceptions. It is highly unlikely that anyone in possession of another 7-inch disc of the same recording would be able to extract a starting point any better than the National Library of Wales can. Bencherlite^Talk 01:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Primitive as recording technology was in 1899, it seem that this was not a good rendition by the vocalist. Any average church choir then or now likely has vocalists who could do as well or better. That is the substance of my objection. Let' have a good rendition, rather than the earliest recorded rendition, unless reliable sources say that this recording was somehow influential. Edison (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, you and I are clearly not going to agree on whether the first known recording of any type in the Welsh language is the stuff of Featured Sounds, so I'll leave it there and give up trying to persuade you. Bencherlite^Talk 01:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
        • I just cannot find a guideline that says "the first recording in any language is inherently notable" regardless of its merit in terms of the quality of the performance. Edison (talk) 20:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Notable because it is historical. Zginder 2010-12-24T22:09Z (UTC)
• Comment I suppose I can close this rather soon. I'd like to get a few more voices in, but at over six months, this nomination is long overdue for a closing. Personally, I only close things that if I were to vote in instead of close, my vote would not change the outcome. If I were to vote, I'd have to say I am leaning towards supporting it, but I really don't know. Also, I'd much prefer if the dead time was cut off the end, and when I wake up tommorow, I need to stick the sound in the article for Evan James. All that being said, I must reiterate, this really needs to be closed. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Promoted Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau.ogg --(X! · talk)  · @144  ·  02:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Necesito que ayuden a encontrar a una persona que emigración avaro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.229.162.195 (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Ave Maria

Beautiful little piece I found in my travels. Clear, well executed, and under a free use license. Used in a few articles, central, of course, to Ave Maria (Bach/Gounod). Figured I'd toss this one out here and see what you all think. Enjoy, Sven Manguard Wha? 21:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Nominate and support. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The sound description page is severely lacking information about the performance. Zginder 2010-12-30T17:29Z (UTC)
  • I will try to contact someone with OTRS access and get that information, if possible. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Support I think the decription has greatly improved. N.B. I removed the mention of the OTRS from the caption as it "should be appropriate for use in the featured sound portal." Zginder 2010-12-30T23:45Z (UTC)
      • Just an update: I sent a rather lengthy email to Raul654, who an OTRS member informed me was the ticket handler. If anyone has more information on this, it would be him. We'll see if he gets back to us. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Just another update: Raul654 got back to me via email. I think everything checks out. Of course, it's kinda a moot point now, but I figured it might bear mentioning anyways. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support: Lovely sound quality, sensitive playing. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 05:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Promoted JOHN MICHEL CELLO-BACH AVE MARIA.ogg --Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah! fuyez, douce image

While I was (thus far unsuccessfully) trying to locate the FSC archives from before 2007, I stumbled upon this. Nominated and withdrawn in 2008 by the now retired Shoemaker's Holiday, this seems to have only been withdrawn because there were too many submissions at the time. For a record over 100 years old, the sound is pretty good. It's used in the articles Jules Massenet and Manon, as well as the selected audio section of Portal:Opera.

• Nominate and Support Oppose --Sven Manguard Wha? 21:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I listened to it again and decided that while I will keep the nomination open, I am no longer supporting this. Yes, it's 100 years old, but the quality is poor, and I am unconvinced that there is sufficient historical importance in this recording to warrant playing the quality-override-for-historic-files card. If this were performed by Massenet, or conducted by Massenet, or even performed in front of Jules Massenet, that argument could be made. However, in this case, there is no inherent encyclopedic value that would be lost if this were replaced by a modern rendition. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
• Weak support. Singer is better than the band, which is pretty raspy and out of tune. The composition is ... OK. Tony (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose If the recording itself is not notable it must be of high technical quality. Zginder 2011-01-08T16:41Z (UTC)
• Neutral It's old, so it isn't going to sound all that great. That being said, I feel like this could be cleaned up a bit to better standards and resubmitted. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Not promoted --(X! · talk)  · @156  ·  02:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Ashes

Ashes, a 2010 album by Josh Woodward.

All tracks are written by Josh Woodward

No.	Title	File	Length
1.	"Let It In"		4:01
2.	"Cherubs"		4:16
3.	"Infinite Horizon"		2:43
4.	"A Thousand Skins (Part 2)"		3:21
5.	"The Handyman's Lament"		3:50
6.	"Anchor"		3:26
7.	"Already There"		3:41
8.	"Together on Our Own"		4:56
9.	"Pompeii"		3:36
10.	"Swimming in Turpentine"		3:22
11.	"A Thousand Skins (Part 1)"		6:29
12.	"Motionless Land"		3:31
Total length:			47:09

Myself and others got very excited when the whole of Pulse of the Earth was nominated for featured sound status, but, hopefully, it is to be the first of many. I now bring you Ashes, by Josh Woodward. I had never previously heard of Woodward, but he is a big name in the world of Creative Commons-licensed music, and has released all of his albums under Wikipedia compatible licenses. I have also discovered Jamendo, a website for musicians releasing their music under CC licenses. Now, not all of those musicians will be notable, and not all of those licenses are Wikipedia compatible, but this could be a real goldmine for the featured sound project. At the very least, we have the rest of Woodward's albums to look forward to. J Milburn (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment -- Nice find, and I don't have a problem with the files, per se, rather the related articles. I don't want to begin an AFD discussion here, but I've just read Wikipedia:Notability (music) and Josh Woodward doesn't indicate any notability for Josh Woodward. Of the 6 sources, half are to his own website, one shows he participated in Song Fight! (does that mean he's notable?), one is a reader-submitted article, and the last is offline. For Ashes (Josh Woodward album), there isn't even one ref to indicate why the album is notable in accordance with WP:NALBUMS. I appreciate your attempt to search out more files of this type, but there seems little point in promoting a series of sound files for articles that appear as if they could be CSD#A7/A9ed at any moment. If the articles were expanded I could support, but right now I can't. (Not that I'm opposing at the moment either, though.) Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Perfectly reasonable. I will note, however, that if the artist is notable, his albums can effectively be considered to be notable. I will look into this. J Milburn (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I've rewritten the article, trying to base it on the reliable sources I could find. He's also featured on a notable show on national radio. I think he's notable, but borderline; if you aren't convinced, nominate it for deletion (I won't be offended!) J Milburn (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't nominate the artist for deletion, because it has three-ish sources, but I question as to whether or not the albums are notable. Ashes has no third party sources, which means that unless we find some coverage on it, it fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. I'll search for some sources when I get the chance, but until the album meets all the requirements, we can't be sure that the sounds will have a home, something that the criteria require. That, or at the very least we can have them in the artist's page for the time being. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we could merge the album pages, and add all the covers and sounds to the newly formed list. J Milburn (talk) 11:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That works. Also, on the matter of this artist, the song already at his page, which got featured on the Ubuntu 10.10 release, would help with the notability of the artist, assuming we can find a good source for it. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose this nomination can be considered withdrawn for now. J Milburn (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• It pains me to kill close this one, but at this time, the host article isn't stable. Once it gets a few good sources, we can revisit this. In the mean time, I am about to nominate Swansong, also by the same artist, as that one seems to make the cut, being released with Ubuntu 10.10 and all. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Bright College Years

This is a very high quality recording of the Yale Whiffenpoofs, a prominent collegiate a capella group. This is the first recording of the Whiffenpoofs featured on Wikipedia, and possibly one of the only recordings of the collegiate a capella style of singing. The recording was originally released on the group's 2006 album "Songs of Yale". This file is currently incorporated into the articles on the Whiffenpoofs and on the song, "Bright College Years".

The version here (Bright_College_Years.oga) is full fidelity, stored in Ogg FLAC. The version used in the articles is a friendlier Ogg Vorbis transcoding (Bright_College_Years.ogg). If it would be more appropriate to nominate that compressed version, please let me know.

• Nominate and support. Oconnor663 (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment "..possibly one of the only..??" How can you be so confident? Edison (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment If this is indeed the better version of Bright College Years, then it should be used in place of File:Bright College Years.ogg. At the moment, this version, File:Bright College Years.oga is not used in articles. Also, at this moment, I am not able to get this file to play, however I am able to get other sound files from Wikipedia to play. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • This version is encoded in FLAC which is lossless. Mediawiki is only capable of playing Vorbis encoded ogg audio. Vorbis is lossy and so in a perfect world all audio on Wikipedia would be in FLAC. You most likely need it download the file and play it in a player that has the FLAC codec. Zginder 2010-12-30T02:50Z (UTC)
    • Oppose superseded by Oppose .oga regretfully. I even tried the gadget that worked on other files, but I am unable to play this file at this time. As such, I must oppose it. If the average viewer cannot listen to a sound, that sound loses its value on the Wikipedia pages where it is hosted. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Lossless is not always good. Sometimes, the space requirements are far more important than getting a small amount of higher quality. Bandwidth concerns for slow connections, compatibility, etc are some of said reasons. Additionally, over at FP, JPEGs are the most commonly promoted picture, a highly lossy format. Often times, the originals are in TIFF, a lossless format, and often uploaded separately. However, the JPEG is promoted for the same reasons I gave before. (X! · talk)  · @917  ·  21:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - I have added an alternate version, which is regular OGG-encoded. (X! · talk)  · @097  ·  01:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I had heard that one earlier and was debating doing the same thing. I'm no fan of this style of performance, but my preferences have no place here. The .ogg, which mind you is what's actually in the articles to begin with, meets all the FS requirements. Therefore, I suppose I must amend my votes accordingly as follows: I oppose the .oga file and Support the .ogg version only. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment—Can't access the first file, which is in ? what format? Good performance and recording, certainly; could be just a fraction faster. Who was the composer? Goodness me, don't they know that "poof" is an offensive term for a male homosexual in much of the anglosphere? Tony (talk) 12:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  • According to Zginder, this is FLAC, which I suppose the best comparison is that .oga (FLAC) is to .ogg as .tiff is to .jpg in images. It so happens that there is a prototype media player tool in the gadgets section, however that dosen't work for this file (but does work for other files that don't play with the default player, such as Japanese Emperor Hirohito's speech in 1945). Lossless is good, I suppose, and nothing will stop us from reexamining this when the default player can handle this file, but until then, I'd still rather promote the one that everyone can play easily and without fiddling with the settings. Accessibility is important. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support This is the kind of recordings we need, high quality modern recordings. Zginder 2011-01-08T16:31Z (UTC)

Promoted Bright_College_Years.ogg --(X! · talk)  · @182  ·  03:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)