Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/August 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.

Mamata Banerjee taking the Oath of office

Reason

Very notable person, event, and recording. Meets FSC. Even made it to ITN!

Creator

Avenue X at Cicero (talk)

Articles in which this recording appears

Mamata Banerjee, Council of Ministers of West Bengal, West Bengal state assembly election, 2011

• Nominate and support. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 07:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
• weak Oppose My Lord... the audio quality is poor and the ceaseless applause detracts further from the recording. Compared to Obama's Oath of Office, during which applause stopped when he began reciting the Oath, this is in stark contrast to Banerjee's Oath of Office. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 2:49pm • 04:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

  Switching to Support, the EV of the recording and its historical value outweigh the poor quality of the recording, given Avenue's explanation and the confusion amongst the audience while the oath was being taken and the fact that this is one of the highest quality recordings available, that is enough for me to support, I do wish that it was of higher quality, though. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 6:43pm • 08:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

  Trust me James, this is the best audio quality you will get in India, check any YouTube video of the oath, or ask any Bengali, they will confirm that this is the best audio recording you can get in 2011 India. Also, you cannot compare the oath of Obama to this. We all know how technologically advanced the USA is (compared to India, that is). USA has HD since I don't know, 2008-09? But HD videos with Dolby 5.1 just started in India in 2010-11. Another reason for the audio being distorted is that the Oath was held in an open hall, with invitees extending to all citizens, rather than having the oath in a closed hall similar to the Ashoka Hall in Rashtrapati Bhavan like the Cabinet of India. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 05:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

  My point on the ceaseless chatter and applause in the background still holds, this is the first Oath of Office I've heard where the audience doesn't remain silent... —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 3:56pm • 05:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

  This, my friend, is my !ncredible India. ;) Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 06:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

  The ceaseless chatter is present because Banerjee wanted to take the oath at exactly 1:01pm (I don't know, maybe she had a strange astrologer come to her house and say, that for the peace and prosperity of Bengal, and for a long term as Chief Minister, you have to take the oath at 1:01pm). And, as usual, the Kolkata Police failed to get the audience seated till 12:45pm. Rather the case was, that even during Banerjee's oath, around 750 people were entering and looking for their seats. Thus, the ceaseless chatter. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 06:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

  Ah, if this is the highest quality recording we have of a rather historical event, I will, because of the EV of the recording, change my vote to that of one in support. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 6:43pm • 08:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• OPPOSE: Historic event?!? India has 28 states. CMs change every 5 years. (Even before that.) Oath of office isnt that a great thing even if you consider the ruling history of communist government. & add to it this poor audio quality. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• It was a historical and important event. CMs change every five years but there has never been a case like this before. I guess you failed to see this diff I provided before. How many election results of just a state in India have been posted? The fact that is was a historical event remains crystal clear. As far as the "poor audio quality" is concerned, I guess you voted without reading the discussion with James above. Also, you said that Oath of office isnt that a great thing. If you believe and say so, why don't you nominate Obama's Oath of Office for being delisted citing your "concern about the Oaths"? Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Glad that i came in here. Actually this isnt exactly the right place to speak it out. But as you all have been on Wikipedia much longer, you can also point out where i should discuss this. But as it does concern somewhat with this topic, here i go........... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for all. A featured article (or sound in our case) means that its something better than the non-featured article. So, when a reader finds a certain article as "featured" & the other related article as not, he obviously thinks that this is more important article. (Note: I am talking about just a reader & not an editor. An editor knows that an article becomes featured if it has a certain quality. The importance of the article also matters, but is not the sole criteria.) So when a stranger for Bollywood finds Priety Zinta's article as featured article & doesnt see Madhuri Dixit's, Madhubala's, Lata Mangeshkar's, etc. articles as featured, he assumes Priety Zinta to be someone at a higher level than these other ladies of Bollywood. (Hopefully, 99% Bollywood-familiar people would disagree with this.) So when this sound turns as featured, it registers to listeners that no other Featured Media exists related to India. So it means that this sound piece is important than Nehru's "Tryst with destiny" speech or Vivekanand's "Sisters and Brothers of America" speech or Rakesh Sharma's "saare jahan se accha". Wait a minute! These sounds arent even present on wikipedia. Oh boy! This Mamata Banerjee's speech should be revolutionary than the Independence speech of India. But is it?!?!?!?
  And ofcourse her election to CM's post was a huge thing. But having a lengthy article about this election doesnt make it historic. & as wikipedia cant be a source by itself, should it be a means of promotion of this sound to "featured" status? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Did you oppose just because you thought a Featured Sound is regarded as one of the most important sounds? Oh boy. Please brush up on the Featured sound criteria and I would suggest you list your vote again keeping in mind the criteria. And Featured articles are considered to be the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, as determined by Wikipedia's editors, not articles that determine the importance of the subject. Also, please do not say what the "common reader" thinks. It is just your personal opinion. The importance of the subject is determined by the importance given at the WikiProject related to the article. For example, articles can be listed as Top-, High-, Mid-, or Low-importance articles.

And ofcourse her election to CM's post was a huge thing. But having a lengthy article about this election doesnt make it historic.: You are forgetting one thing, having a lengthy article about the election doesn't make it historic, rather, such a historic event about this election makes it a lengthy article.

So it means that this sound piece is important than Nehru's "Tryst with destiny" speech or Vivekanand's "Sisters and Brothers of America" speech or Rakesh Sharma's "saare jahan se accha". Wait a minute! These sounds arent even present on wikipedia.: As I mentioned, Obama's oath is a featured sound, but not having George Washington's oath doesn't make the Founding Father less "important", does it?

Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, you forget one more thing. This result made it to ITN. Now, we all know how toigh it is to get a news listed at the main page. So, the "importance" criteria of this audio is already satisified. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Thats what my 1st point was. This doesnt necessarily concern with this particular sound. So you can please direct me to a better forum of discussion for this issue. & obviously Washington's speech & Madhuri's contibution dont become of lesser importance. But thats not what the star at the right corner state clearly. & we obviously dont make readers go through the requirements. When we use adjectives, we compare things of same category & thus automatically put other members to a lower level than this one.
  And any article on wikipedia doesnt become lengthy just because of its importance. It becomes lengthy if the content on it is not challenged & deleted on grounds of not having sources. So you are likely to find new-age articles to be lengthy than the older ones because internet wasnt that popular, or even existant, then.
  Plus, looking at WP:FS?'s clause "The recording should add encyclopedic value to an article, and adds to the reader's appreciation of that subject", this sound doesnt seem to fit here. The content of the sound is a common thing that every CM says in his oath. This sound also doesnt add value to the article Mamata Banerjee or even to the article West Bengal state assembly election, 2011. However, the point of this being historic event can be used to elevate the article West Bengal state assembly election, 2011 to a featured status, but not this sound. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• You are opposing this candidature failing to understand what a featured "foo" means. You probably thinks that it gives importance to a particular case but it doesn't. Even Obama's oath was similar to his 43 predecessors, yet it is a featured sound because Obama's election was a historical event. Even this year, India had five elections yet only one result was posted at ITN, and I rarely have seen results of the elections in states (as opposed to countries) being posted at ITN. And yes, the recording does add encyclopedic value to an article, because every office is incomplete without the oath. Also, how can you say that this sound does not add encyclopedic value to an article even when it does? Also, articles on Wiki do become lengthy just because of their importance, because if the subject is not important, reliable sources will not extensively cover the topic. So the importance of an article does determine its length. "Old-age" articles can be featured if they are important, because of the former reasons. Personally, I do not feel your oppose is justified as you have voted saying that "When we use adjectives [in this case the adjective "featured", I suppose], we compare things of same category & thus automatically put other members to a lower level than this one." Even though this is completly false. Once again, FA displays the best articles Wiki and Pedians have to offer because many, many, many Pedians have worked on it. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• While the audio quality is not very good, I would be prepared to forgive that given the EV is high. It does stop very abruptly; is there more which we can use to add a fade out / in? It is a concern that this is an English-language encyclopedia and the sound is in Bengali (is it? I'm not sure) without a translation. The caption should indicate which language / dialect is being used, and there should be a link to a translation / text of the oath of office for WP readers who don't speak Bengali. If this could be rectified I would be happy to Support Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC) OK, I've just seen the translation; the caption should indicate where the translation can be found, and both the caption and the file description should indicate the language originally spoken. It's great that we are able to have a non-Anglo-American-European-centric piece of media here. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. It went up on ITN; this is not some event occurring routinely, the Communists went out of power in WB after 34 years, very historic event. Lynch7 12:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Promoted Mamata Banerjee Oath of Office.ogg I believe this is the concensus of the discussion. While there was an oppose, with a decent reason. The volume of supports outweighs it. --Guerillero | My Talk 19:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Kodály's Sonata for Solo Cello

Reason

This is a fine complement to wikipedia that auguments several articles.

Composed by

Zoltán Kodály

Creator

Whitehouse.gov

Articles in which this recording appears

Cello sonata, Alisa Weilerstein, Cello, & Zoltán Kodály

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
• I got an email from Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) that this must be marked {{PD-US}}, but that it can not be on commons. I do not understand why. I thought PD-US was sufficient for commons.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • No, all files on Commons must be public domain both in the U.S. and in their source country (in this case Hungary). The file is not in the public domain in Hungary because works do not fall into the public domain in the European Union until 70 years after the author's death. Hungary is in the European Union and Kodaly died in 1966, so this file will not be in the public domain in the EU until 2037 (the start of the year after the composer has been dead for 70 years). Graham87 07:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Wow, I never knew a cello could sound like that! There are a couple of intonation problems here and there in the higher registers, but these are to be expected. However the files must be renamed to "File:20091104 Alisa Weilerstein - Kodály's Sonata for Solo Cello, Op. 8 - 3. Allegro molto vivace.ogv" and its equivalent for the audio-only version. The same is true of other similar files that you've uploaded. Graham87 07:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• NOTICE swapped in local files (identical to original submissions).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I've marked the original files for speedy deletion on Commons. Graham87 03:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• NOTICE I have just saved the audio portion of the video file over the audio nomination to eliminate some clicking sounds.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support Sounded and looked great - while I could not make head nor tail of the music it has a high EV. Well done. There are some digital artifacts on the video, especially where she cellist moves her hands fast, but I can forgive that given the technical limitations of video on WP. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support audio only. could not get video to play. Decent recording and lots of EV. Can't say I'm crazy for this kind of music, but that is just preference.TCO (reviews needed) 02:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Promoted Both It appears the concensus is in favour of promoting both with some prejudice against the video due to playback issues/ compression artifacts. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Two Oceania National Anthems

Reason

This is another fine United States Navy Band national anthem rendition that meets all the Wikipedia:Featured sound criteria.

Composed by

File 2: Charles Austin Miles

Creator

United States Navy Band

Articles in which this recording appears

File 1: Patriots of Micronesia; File 2: God Bless Fiji

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support As per my comments elsewhere about national anthems. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support.Oppose, but with work would change. I like the music and recording and think anthems are important almost intrinsically. I think these files should be in other articles (at least the country artilces, perhaps others like composer or the like). If you can do some (justified) work to fill out the article, usage, I would then support (you can even change the vote yourself).TCO (reviews needed) 02:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Please, no more extremely ordinary hymns-as-national-anthems, just because they're well-played by the US Navy Band: this is becoming ridiculous. Both fail Criteria 2 ("the content of the recording is notable in some way"). Oh, and just as an example, the Micronesia track has parallel fifths between the treble and bass lines at 7 seconds. OMG. Tony (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• This is in the discretionary zone (2 net supports counting TCO, 1 net support if you don't). After reading the discussion, no one has stated any reason why this should be a FS. I am going to reject this file and not promote it. If you have an issue with this closing you can appeal it to myself or MOX.--Guerillero | My Talk 02:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Three European National Anthems

The nominated sound files seem to be the last of the United States Navy Band anthems needed on WP for European nations. They are from Luxembourg, Malta and Monaco. These file adds significantly to the following articles:

Luxembourg National Anthem

• Ons Heemecht
• Jean Antoine Zinnen

Malta National Anthem

• L-Innu Malti
• Robert Samut

Monaco National Anthem

• Hymne Monégasque
• Théophile Bellando de Castro

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• As has been discussed elsewhere, these are of interest to FSC because of their EV, not necessarily their musical value (although I suppose the point of them is to stir the spirits of Luxembourgans, the Maltese and the Monaco-ans). The Monaco anthem is the only one which has any life in it really. However, high EV. Well recorded and played. Support all Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose all three. Is every national anthem in the world that has had the good fortune to have been recorded by a US military ensemble going to be featured? The first two are plain and unremarkable music. I could write one of those purely homophonic settings in a morning. A better one, actually. EV is a bottom-line requirement; it doesn't get something over the line. The Monaco one (Monaco is not a nation, BTW) is just straight inappropriate for such an anthem—it would rob an occasion of any dignity. Why are we populating the FS corpus with every tin-pot national anthem? They're not all the notable music that the US anthem is. Something is SERIOUSLY wrong with the criteria if these get through. POSTSCRIPT: All fail Criterion 2: not notable music. Tony (talk) 01:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Tony (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Each nominee is suppose to be evaluated against WP:WIAFS. If each meets the criteria each should pass. Like I said above WP:GA and WP:GT are overrun with The Simpsons and 30 Rock episodes. This does not mean the criteria need to be reevaluated. Of course, we would prefer if WP:VITAL articles got more attention. Nonetheless, we are suppose to evaluate against WIAFS and judge strictly on that basis.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• I don't tend to vote in FSCs, but I have a few comments. Firstly, Monaco is a member of the United Nations. Secondly, relative to the examples that TTT points out, all national anthems being featured wouldn't theoretically be a problem. Thirdly, I would make the observation that if these were pictures, they would almost certainly qualify as valued pictures, but unless they were exceptional probably not featured ones. Thirdly, this highlights why valued pictures, if it were extended to valued media, may well have had its place on Wikipedia. To be explicit, I'm not supporting or opposing, but I do think this nom is a good case study when we consider the way forward for sounds. —WFC— 17:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC) EDITED —WFC— 17:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC) (shows how in touch I am... didn't realise VP had gone!)
• Support. I wish we had a VP and VS (or just a merged VM to cover it all). Or that we uploaded sounds more as a normal course of business, like we do with pics. but we don't. So FS has driven the uploads of just basic sounds. Given all that and this imperfect world, yeah basically I'd give a gold star to any well done national anthem. (performance and recording). And WCF's list of anthems is the bomb! TCO (reviews needed) 21:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• This is Featured Sounds not Valued Sounds or Good Sounds. Nowhere in this discussion has anyone said how any of these files are great sounds or how they fulfill the criteria. A vote count of everyone is 3-1-1; if I just count the non vanished contributers its down to 2-1-1. If this was a deletion discussion, I would go with no consensus. I will close this as not promoted with no prejudice against future nominations if a resounding reason for promotion is found. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)