Wikipedia talk:Featured sound criteria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Not clear 2 Description 3 Moved from candidates page 4 Question

[edit] Not clear

The criteria on the main page completely fail to explain what makes a sound in this case. Is a spoken article version considered a "sound"? How about a pronunciation? Or audio recordings of an event? -Amark moo! 21:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not sure I agree with this, it is now clear, at least. -Amark moo! 22:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

In response to your crossed out comment, spoken articles should not be candidates, nor should pronunciations. In my opinion, they wouldn't have any significance, really. As for an audio recording of an event, if it falls under the "significant" criteria, then sure. Those that wouldn't may include a wonderful (but uneventful) commentary of the woman's Olympic team table tennis event in 2008. Unless it has (or will have) historical significance, then it lacks importance and therefore should not be a FS. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  22:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• The "historical, social, or current significance" criterion is still unclear to me. Exactly what kind of significance do you mean? --KFP (talk | contribs) 23:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps what I am suggesting is redundant, but here's what I think: a great sound of a walrus making whatever noise they make--without the "significance" clause in effect--could potentially get into FS. Now, some people may think this is OK, but myself, I believe that the sound, as nice as it is, could not possibly be "1 in a million." In other words, I could go to my local zoo with a high quality recording system and prod a walrus until it makes a noise, and upload it to Wikipedia. The sound would be similar to the first, but still not significant. See what I mean. On the other hand, a famous speech, or a special performance, or a sound that is unique in some way should qualify. FSs are just like FPs because you wouldn't want something that's so-so. You want something that could not easily be recreated, or something that has some significance in history/society. But others say that this is already a "built-in feature" of wikipedia in that things here should have some significance, but I think it wouldn't hurt to accentuate this fact. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  23:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think it would be far better to require the sound to be encyclopedic, without this very fuzzy "significance" requirement. Mak (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• It seems that that may be far better. Because using the word "significance" means something totally different to multiple people, while encyclopedic is more defined. But encyclopedic has significance built-in, sort of. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  23:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, anyone could also go to their local zoo and take a picture of the walrus instead. That would certainly not guarantee the photo a place on FP today. The key thing to remember here is, evolving standards. In the future, an FS of a walrus may well be a sophisticated radio piece explaining their whole system of communication.--Pharos 01:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keeping with the ways of FPC, I think the criteria should emphasize high quality and encyclopedic value. This means that rare or historical subjects can be of lower quality, and more common subjects should be exceptional, i.e., a scratchy recording of a famous speech and a clear recording of a walrus could both be made featured. These basic criteria should be the starting points, and as the ball gets rolling more specific requirements may be added. But trying to enforce strict requirements this early in the game isn't going to attract possible candidates. Start small. --Tewy 01:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• I totally agree - if someone does a) happen to have some high-quality recording equipment they don't mind taking to a zoo, b) manage to get the zoo's permission to take it in, c) manage to get a walrus to make some characteristic noises without poking it and then d) decide to upload their high-quality, encyclopaedic recording here under a free license, then it would probably make a very good Featured Sound - after all, the particular walrus doing the talking doesn't need to be "notable" for a recording to be highly encyclopaedic. I doubt we'll find ourselves in a situation where we have a vast excess of walrus-noise nominations anytime soon, though. I expect that, if we make the criteria relatively flexible to start with, then we'll encourage plenty of nominations and can see where consensus takes us in terms of tightening up the requirements (and potentially delisting any early noms which no longer seem to make the grade) as we go along. --YFB ¿ 02:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Description

I think that for right now the description requirement is a bit too harsh. I think it's good for the image discription page to describe what the piece was performed from (so that we can be sure that the performance can be freely licensed), if music is in question, but it's quite likely that someone could perform from a not-yet-digitized public domain score, and I don't think we should necessarily expect the uploader to digitize it. Also, I'm confused by "sufficient to explain the contents of the file for users who cannot play or hear it." I don't think I could give the entire meaning of a music file in prose, nor do I think an uploader should. Perhaps "A descriptive caption" should be the requirement for now, with more specifics when we run across them? Mak (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, although it would be very useful to have digitised music scores available if they exist. Perhaps that could be suggested but not stipulated as a requirement? I think "a descriptive caption" is sufficient for now - going back to the walrus example, it'd be difficult to describe the contents in any more useful detail than "typical vocalisations of the male walrus in confrontation with rivals" or whatever... perhaps some attempt could be made to characterise the sound (e.g. "a deep, breathy grunting noise") but obviously that wouldn't be possible for a piece of music. I think it'd be better to leave that requirement quite open, and for people to make whatever improvements they think are appropriate during the nomination process. --YFB ¿ 00:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Yes, I saw the "sufficient to explain..." line and wondered if it was really necessary. The simple description, "three violins and cello playing a rare rendition of..." or similar, would be fine to at least inform users what to expect. Any details would probably be in the article. --Tewy 01:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll agree to hold off on a strict score requirement, for say, three months, when things mature and I can master GNU LilyPond to do it myself. But even if we don't have the score on Wikipedia, we should make every effort to link to the score if it exists somewhere else online. I agree with YFB and Tewy re: the depth of captions, at least for now.--Pharos 01:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from candidates page

The text below from WP:FSC was essentially covering 'criteria'. To cut down the space of the intro I have removed it to this page.

Featured sounds may be music, "sound portrait"-type illustrations of articles, or possibly historical recordings, but Spoken Wikipedia articles are not appropriate as featured sounds as they are basically text-based (though of course they would benefit by the incorporation of these sounds).

Sounds listed here should be either in the public domain or covered by the GNU Free Documentation License or a similar license. Since a sound archive is of limited educational value (a requirement for fair use) fair use sounds are not appropriate candidates for inclusion in the featured sounds gallery.

In general, recordings should be of high fidelity and technical quality. However, exceptions can always be made for recording taken under extenuating circumstances.

It looks like we cover most of these conditions in the existing criteria, but some of this wording might be used in place of what we have currently. --CBD 12:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I originally wrote this stuff on the model of the Featured Pictures candidates page back in 2005, when that page itself was somewhat more elaborate. I think most of the current criteria we've worked on recently are probably more specific and medium-relevant. I guess the most important thing to be incorporated on criteria now would be the Spoken Wikipedia thing.--Pharos 13:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

What is a sound portrait? >Radiant< 14:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• It was the best term I could think of for a sonic "illustration"; i.e. a recording of the ambient environment– a bird singing, a locomotive running, an avalanche crashing. The term is used somewhat regularly on National Public Radio in the US. If you know of a better term, please share it.--Pharos 15:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I suppose it's a reasonable term but you should probably either add a description on the main page here, or create a brief article on it and link to there. >Radiant< 15:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmm... on second thought, do you think perhaps I should replace this with field recording? It's a more academic term, anyway.--Pharos 15:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
      • If google is any judge, yes, that'd be a good idea. >Radiant< 15:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
        • My understanding, and the article seems to bear it out, is that a "field recording" is generally used for recordings of people, in the field of ethnomusicology, mainly. I have not heard it used for, for instance, birdsong, so "sound portrait" may be more appropriate, as it could include field recordings and other recordings of non-musical sound. Mak (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
          • After a little research and a little reflection, it seems to me that the term "field recording" is primarily used in academic contexts; i.e. both Alan Lomax-type stuff and biologists' recordings of animal sounds. "Sound portrait" may be more common in certain radio contexts, especially for some more purely evocative sounds (there is generally little scientific demand to do recordings of locomotive engines). "Field recording", from my very cursory examination, also appears to be a popular term of art among internet hobbyists (potential contributors). On balance, I'm leaning toward some qualification like "environmental field recording", but we should improve field recording on the more general definition in any case.--Pharos 17:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)