Commons talk:Featured sound candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
New Video/Music player is up, you can enable it from: Preferences ---> Beta features ---> New video player

Proposed: Commons:Featured media candidates[edit]

Please weigh in at Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Proposed: Commons:Featured video candidates or Commons:Featured media candidates!--Pharos (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media of the day[edit]

Dear Eatcha, please, explain me. Will featured sound files be added to the Motd automatically or manually?

I mean the adding audio files to this list, for example: Template:Motd/2019-05. Usually I added audio files to Motd manually, but it will be great, if featured audio files will be added to motd automatically. --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eatcha, one more request. Please, do not remove audio files from the list "Featured sound candidates" at least two days, because I will post today information about this "Featured sound" project in the Wikipedia group (about 100'000 users) in Russian social network vkontakte https://vk.com/wikipedia with link to these sound candidates. Thank you! --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Krizhanovsky, as of now It's done manually but In future(maybe 3-4 weeks) there will be probably a requirement of a MOTD to be a Featured sound or Featured video. Similarly as a POTD has to be a featured picture first, in order to be a POTD. As of now you can add any media manually, there is no requirement of a file to be a featured sound. Thanks --Eatcha (Talk-Page ) 14:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Krizhanovsky I re-added the files that I removed -- Eatcha (Talk-Page ) 14:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Audio quality guideline proposal[edit]

Please refer to Commons_talk:Featured_sound_criteria#Proposal_for_audio_quality. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 06:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requirements for a feature[edit]

I think that the requirements currently are too loose or ill-defined. I would propose the following amendments:

1. For consideration for a feature, all sound files must have specific information about the performers involved. If possible, they should be individually identified if the recording is a solo — or of a small group (5 players or fewer), unless the group is better known by name and has its own Wikipedia page; in that case, listing individual members is helpful but optional. Any soloists should be specifically named if possible, with biographical information provided if there is no Wikipedia page about them, and the same goes for the conductor, if there was one. In the case of field recordings in which the performers are not individually identified, specific information such as the place where the recording was taken (for example, perhaps a particular village in a particular section of some country) or the origins of the performers should be given. The name of the piece, if known, must also be provided, and if there is no Wikipedia article about the piece, a brief program note explaining non-obvious facts relevant to understanding it should be provided (otherwise, this is optional). In cases in which the name of the composer is known, s/he must also be individually named on the file page, with biographical information about her/him provided if there is no article about the composer on Wikipedia.

2. I don't see any maximum numbers of nominations being mentioned. I think we should have the same rule as FPC: 2 concurrent nominations per nominator.

3. I think 3 supporting votes is too few. I'd propose upping that to 5, with the option to increase it again later. There are already many nominations here. It will take time to listen to them all.

What do you all think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging recent nominators/voters for their opinions User:AKA MBG, User:MBozorgmehr and User:Yahya Abdal-Aziz -- Eatcha (Talk-Page ) 11:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]

  •  Comment 1. Author information must be complete for copyright reasons anyway. In the case of music, that may turn out to be pretty complex, as in involves not only performers and composers but potentially also copyrights related to the recording (producers, mixers, whatever). Basically, we need to provide what is (or would be) written in the credits section of the record cover. Regarding 2. & 3., I would say let's just use FP rules as a starter and adjust if that doesn't work. Same for voting period: File:Mozart - Concerto in D for Flute K.314.ladybyron.ogg being closed as "featured" after less than 2 days is ridiculous. --El Grafo (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions:
  1. Quote: "For consideration for a feature, all sound files must have specific information about the performers involved." Please, explain. If somebody posts music with nickname instead of author name (I think it is a usual situation at SoundCloud), then will it make impossible for this kind of music to become featured? Оf course, I agree that more information is better, but it is not always available.
  2. Quote: "The name of the piece, if known, must also be provided…". This (and previous) texts look like recommendations, not requirements. So, I support these recommendations, but I oppose these requirements, since them significantly reduce number of candidates. I prefer that people (and common sense) in every separate case decided - does it should be featured sound or not. Thank you for reading this long and not very fluent passage :) --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you publish something under a pseudonym or stage name, that's gonna be attributed to that name. I don't see any problem there. --El Grafo (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I reverted all the closures. Even 5 is a very small number of votes. I would use the same rule as for pictures. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely can go along with every point made by El Grafo and Yann above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requirements for a feature: content (music)[edit]

We need criteria for what kind of musical works are eligible for a feature. E.g. under which circumstances (if ever) is a random song by an unknown garage band feature-able, (assuming non-content criteria like copyright and technical quality are met)? Or a hip-hop version of a folk song by some people from the interwebz? Under which circumstances is a performance of Beethoven's 9th by the a random orchestra worth featuring, and how many modern interpretations of a public famous piece of music can be featured at the same time (again assuming copyright etc. are fine)?

Here's what FP has to say about artworks as a base for discussion (from here):

Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable:

  • Notable in its own right: Works by major artists, or works that are otherwise notable, such as the subjects of a controversy.
  • Of high artistic merit: Works which, while not particularly well known, are nonetheless wonderful examples of their particular type or school of art.
  • Of high historic merit: The historical method values very early illustrations of scenes and events over later ones. Hence, a work of poor quality depicting a contemporaneous historical event can be nonetheless important, even if the artistic merit is relatively low. Likewise, scans or photographs of important documents – which may not be at all artistic – nonetheless may be highly valuable if the documents are historically significant. The reason for the image's historical importance should be briefly stated in the nomination, for those reviewers unfamiliar with the subject.
  • Of high illustrative merit: Works that illustrate or help explain notable subjects, for instance, illustrations of books, scientific subjects, or technical processes. The amount of artistic merit required for these will vary by subject, but, for instance, an illustration that makes the working of a complicated piece of machinery very clear need not be notable as a piece of artwork as well, whereas an illustration for a book might well be expected to reach much higher artistic standards.

--El Grafo (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • These are good. I think I'd add this to "Of high illustrative merit": "for instance...particular repertoires, styles or cultures." Some examples I'm thinking of would be a particularly good and interesting recording of a type of West African drumming, a Balinese legong audio recording or a field recording of any kind of music performed by the Yanomami people of the Amazon. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that these four attributes or criteria — notability; of high artistic merit; of high historical importance (rather than 'merit'); of high illustrative merit — are each independently a good enough reason to feature a particular sound recording. But for each point, and as per User:Ikan Kekek's examples, the descriptive text needs to talk about, and give examples appropriate to, sounds rather than pictures. (The texts for 'historic' and 'illustrative' value both specifically mention types of picture.) Yahya Abdal-Aziz (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's important to include "and are performed at a high level" in "Of high artistic merit". I wouldn't support featuring a recording of some schmuck crapping all over a Bach partita. I also think it's very important to require documentation. I'll cover that in my next post. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[Unindent] These criteria, which I proposed for a Valued Sound category, should apply equally to FS candidates:

1. Is fully described on the file page.

In particular:
  1. When there is a known composer and/or songwriter, they must be clearly identified by name. When there is no known composer, that has to be clearly indicated, too.
  2. In duos and other small groups (such as those with 5 or fewer members), if there is any doubt, it should be made clear which instruments or voice types are being performed by which performers.
  3. The name(s) of the performer(s), and/or the name of the group, must be given unless there are unavoidable extenuating circumstances which have to be spelled out. In the case of large ensembles, they must be identified by name, with the conductor's name also given if there was a conductor. If the work is an instrumental or vocal solo with orchestra, both the soloist(s) and orchestra must be identified.
  4. If the recording is of spoken words, the name of the speaker (unless there are unavoidable extenuating circumstances which have to be spelled out) and the name of the author of the words must be identified. If the recording is of a traditional folk tale whose author is lost to the mists of time, that must also be clearly indicated.
  5. The recording engineer and/or recording company must be identified, against except for unavoidable extenuating circumstances that must be spelled out.
  6. When there is a Wikipedia article about the author/composer/songwriter, the performer(s) or the piece being performed or recited, all such articles, whenever relevant, should be linked in the file description. When there is no Wikipedia article about them, biographical information and a program note should be provided that are sufficient for the listener to understand what they are listening to.

2. Is well categorized at an appropriate level.

3. When the file comes from an online source, the source, and a page with documentation for it, if it's a different page, should be clearly identified and specifically linked to with an active link when one exists.

Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting guidelines[edit]

I do think that we ought to have proper guidelines regarding how we should or should not vote, such as this from FPC:

A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above.


Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:


No reason
"I don't like it" and other empty assessments
"You can do better" and other criticisms of the author/nominator rather than the image
Remember also to put your signature (~~~~).


In the particular case of audio files, we should have these as examples:

  1. No reason
  2. "I don't like it" and other empty assessments
  3. "The composition is messy" and other criticisms of historical music compositions
  4. "You can do better" and other criticisms of the recordist/nominator/composer rather than the audio itself
  5. "There was one missed note" and other criticisms of minor flaws in a particular interpretation of a musical piece


― Gerifalte Del Sabana 15:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"There was one missed note" might be significant occasionally. If it's a key note or the like. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that lack of artistic merit of a work or excerpt of a work should be an admissible reason to oppose, as long as a clear explanation of why can be given. I don't plan to vote against submissions purely on the basis of taste in music, though. Just because I hate minimalism doesn't mean I should or would oppose nominations of known minimalist composers' music, for instance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
+1, agreed. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 03:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should start by raiding en:WP:FS? I think all of those are worth consideration here. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added a FS Voting Period counter function in the preloader[edit]

Hi there,

I just want to inform that I added a voting period counter that will automatically add Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. after the 9 days to the new nominations. This is same as FPC -- Eatcha (Talk-Page ) 19:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I hope that this project will not close after 9 days :) --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How many votes do we need to feature a sound ?[edit]

Hello everyone,

I guess it is the time to decide how many supports a nomination needs to get featured ? Please add your support vote to the following, which you think is enough supports to feature a nomination. You are just required to paste {{s}} below the number which according to you is enough to get featured, please do not use {{oppose}} or {{o}}
for your convenience you can copy and paste the following:
*{{s}} -- ~~~~
After Nine days, the number which gets most supports will be selected. Thanks -- Eatcha (Talk-Page ) 09:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.


3 supports[edit]

5 supports[edit]

  • Just thought I'd justify why five and not seven. IMO a project like this could easily be killed at infancy by lack of participation, and thus I think requirements probably shouldn't be too stringent at first - as, indeed, they weren't at FP in its very early days. It is worth pointing out that of the nominations up currently, not a single one would pass at the moment if 7 supports were the rule. This isn't to say we couldn't increase it to seven in time, but only if the project's contributor numbers really take off IMO. Cmao20 (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

7 supports (It is used in FPC, but please note that FSC has very less participants when compared to FPC)[edit]

  •  Comment @Ikan Kekek: That is a well-posited argument. Now I'm absolutely torn between both votes. On one hand, we risk asphyxiating and undermining this infantile project; on the other hand, per your argument, we need efficacious quality control. I will  Abstain from this for the time being, being unable to form a decisive opinion — and perhaps await further input from others. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 16:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Ikan is trying too hard to make nominations foolproof, when we have a delist process. If something shouldn't be featured, we can fix that. If we're a little too permissive early on, while we're getting started, that's easily fixable, but if we put the bar too high and the process fails because of that, we can't fix that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course I want this project to succeed, but the problem is, if we feature recordings on the front page, and some of the featured recordings on the front page are of out-of-tune violinists and people playing only the solo part of a piece for soloist and orchestra while not so described, we'll look stupid and engender disrespect from the larger community, won't we? Do you think the best material we have couldn't get 7 votes now? Some of it already has. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently with at least 7 votes to feature: The 1907 wax cylinder featuring Enrico Caruso, the speech by Churchill, Victimae Paschali Laudes, "Noctuelles" from Ravel's Miroirs, and the set of concertante woodwind quintets by Cambini already has 5 supporting votes and looks to be on its way. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

@Andrew Krizhanovsky, wait are you talking about the FSC nominations voting or about the this voting that will decide the number of votes required ? I'm confused as you said oppose in your comment and it is stated that you just have to support one out of these 3 option. Regards, -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 11:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thus it is clear we have more votes supporting the number 5, so from today only 5 supports votes are required to feature a sound. It will be raised in the future when number of participants increase. Thanks for voting -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) - ping me 12:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants to invite new user[edit]

Hi there,

If you want to help in then expansion of Featured sounds, you can do it by inviting new users. You just need to copy the code in this ( https://pastebin.com/raw/MQ0r8p4M ) link and paste it in the users talk page of the user you want to invite. This will work in all Wikimedia projects Thanks -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerifalte, yes it would be very nice. -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 05:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for Valued sound candidates[edit]

I don't know yet whether it makes sense to have a "Quality sound candidates" category, but I think it's clear that there are sound files that are valuable but because the recording quality, performance or both are problematic, shouldn't be featured. I'd encourage everyone to look at Commons:Valued image candidates. There is also the Commons:Valued image criteria page, but I think we will have to substantially change the criteria to apply to sound candidates. I'll try writing some criteria off the top of my head, and then let's please discuss this and try to come up with something.

Valued sound criteria[edit]

A valued sound file:

1. Is the most valuable illustration of its kind on Wikimedia Commons.

2. Is nominated as being the most valuable within a coherent, valuable scope.

This can be as general as "Traditional Russian a capella folk choral singing" and as specific as "Recording of the Tchaikovsky Concerto for Violin and Orchestra by Jascha Heifetz and the New York Philharmonic", if such a recording could ever be released from copyright.

3. Must illustrate its subject well.

This could include a flawed performance or very old, damaged recording of a rarely-recorded but significant work, but it still has to be reasonably listenable.

4. Is fully described on the file page.

In particular:
  1. When there is a known composer and/or songwriter, they must be clearly identified by name. When there is no known composer, that has to be clearly indicated, too.
  2. In duos and other small groups (such as those with 5 or fewer members), if there is any doubt, it should be made clear which instruments or voice types are being performed by which performers.
  3. The name(s) of the performer(s), and/or the name of the group, must be given unless there are unavoidable extenuating circumstances which have to be spelled out. In the case of large ensembles, they must be identified by name, with the conductor's name also given if there was a conductor. If the work is an instrumental or vocal solo with orchestra, both the soloist(s) and orchestra must be identified.
  4. If the recording is of spoken words, the name of the speaker (unless there are unavoidable extenuating circumstances which have to be spelled out) and the name of the author of the words must be identified. If the recording is of a traditional folk tale whose author is lost to the mists of time, that must also be clearly indicated.
  5. The recording engineer and/or recording company must be identified, against except for unavoidable extenuating circumstances that must be spelled out.
  6. When there is a Wikipedia article about the author/composer/songwriter, the performer(s) or the piece being performed or recited, all such articles, whenever relevant, should be linked in the file description. When there is no Wikipedia article about them, biographical information and a program note should be provided that are sufficient for the listener to understand what they are listening to.

5. Is well categorized at an appropriate level.

6. When the file comes from an online source, the source, and a page with documentation for it, if it's a different page, should be clearly identified and specifically linked to with an active link when one exists.

It's very late and I need to sleep, but let's please discuss this more and see what we can come up with. Some of these criteria would be good for FSC, too, but with the addition of excellent sound quality, a very high performance level and probably wow. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that it is too early. --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point taken. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 14:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, we can revive discussion at some point in the future, but what that means is that some nominations should simply fail on grounds of sound quality, quality of the performance or both, even though they are otherwise useful or valuable, and I think it's important to maintain high standards and not feature files that should be VSs but not FSs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ikan Kekek this is an interesting discussion. Would you say that a sound recording that falls below the bitrate standards should always be a 'valued sound', not a 'featured sound', even if it's really important or unusual? I was considering nominating this at featured sounds , on the basis that we sometimes promote FPs that are below the minimum resolution standards if there are strong mitigating reasons and the image is completely irreplaceable. After all we're never going to get another recording of this so I think the low bitrate is IMO not that important. But it sounds on the basis of this discussion that the file I linked to would be more like a Valued Sound than a Featured Sound. Would that be your understanding? Cmao20 (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We probably need more descriptions...[edit]

Unlike FP, glancing at a sound file won't say what it is, and filenames don't seem particularly descriptive. I'm going to suggest we switch over to using the {{Listen}} template, and a short description, stating what the work is, similar to en:WP:FS Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please, give me a link to good example of using this template. --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 09:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam Cuerden, I want look at an example first. Eatcha (Talk-Page) 11:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Adam Cuerden, try nominating a File and see the difference. I hope I didn't disappoint you. Thanks, Eatcha (Talk-Page) 15:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

en:WP:FS[edit]

Does anyone mind if I just go through with one nomination every day or two until we've reviewed all the en-wiki featured sounds? It seems like a good start to our project to use some pre-vetted content. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment@Adam Cuerden, very good Idea, IMO it is required as we can't let this project crash this time too. -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 07:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Strong Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 07:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Great! --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 08:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Sounds great to me. It's a shame English WP Featured Sounds failed; by the looks of it, it did work quite well while there was still participation. Cmao20 (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Strong Support.--Vulphere 05:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Featured template request[edit]

Look at this file at the text of the description: 

"This is a featured sound… If you think this file should be featured on Wikimedia Commons as well, feel free to nominate it."

I don't understand. How we can again to feature this file?! Does this template was copied from Wikipedia?

And one more quotation: "If you have an image of similar quality…" Please, could you create a new template for featured audio file, not image. --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 08:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Krizhanovsky, I guess some one messed up the template {{Assessments}} in these 10 years, I will try to fix this messy template, but I am not sure as it's way too messy. But if it does not get fixed we can create a stand alone template for FS. Thanks for pointing out the error BTW if you can understand it you can do fix this at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Assessments&action=edit -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 11:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew Krizhanovsky, what about this ? Eatcha (Talk-Page) 15:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Featured sounds This is a featured sound on Wikimedia Commons and is one of the finest sound files.
If you have a sound of similar quality that can be published under a suitable copyright license, be sure to upload it, tag it, and nominate it.
Good work! I like this template, especially the logo! Thank you! --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like the logo too. But perhaps the text should be a little bit smaller? Just a suggestion, but it looks a tiny bit overpowering at the moment to me. Cmao20 (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cmao20, it is 25px now, how much reduction do you prefer ? You can edit it yourself too at Template:FS_promoted -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 20:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eatcha thanks for the link. I've reduced it a bit more - this is more like it for me. But please revert if you don't think it's better. Cmao20 (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good.--Vulphere 12:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What caused en:Featured sound to fail ? and why Featured sound on commons was a failure since its starting in 2008 ?[edit]

Hi dear participants,

I want to make sure that this time Featured sound is made fail-safe. How can we do it, any suggestions ? Any warning ? And most importantly why did en:Featured sound failed ? I don't want to repeat those mistakes. Any Idea how to Increase user base ? Any other Ideas ? -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 20:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible create one-click plugin to upload music with open license from SoundCloud to Commons? From time to time I found good music at SoundCloud, see my profile (I select at SoundCloud only the music with open licenses). Though in really not every melody could be used to illustrate the pages of Wikipedia, so no every audio file with open license should be uploaded to Commons. --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 02:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
En-wiki's FSC basically died when I had to leave the project for a while after some issues. It was about to go onto the mainpage at that point, having been voted to be put there, but the person who had promised to do the coding flaked, and the project basically fell apart, because the big push wore the contributors out, and no new ones were coming, then it kind of got taken over by the quality police, who wanted to throw out all work done because they thought the standards weren't high enough (to the point that very very good amateur recordings were being criticised for not being professional CD quality)... and, well, you can't run a project if you put its barriers to entry higher than the community can support. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a matter of getting it right. Look at the first few years of featured pictures on here. We can probably jump a certain amount forwards with sounds, but if we go too far, the community doesn't form, you don't get people able to help newcomers raise up their recording quality, and people are hardly going to get passionate about it. As well, during en:WP:FSC's lifetime, I discovered a lot of techniques for restoring old cylinder recordings. But I've hardly used them since its closure, because, for example, a major cylinder library closed access up during it. They were, apparently, willing to hold things open for FSC, but it's probably way too late now. There's US military band releases, but those are only put up for a year then archived, so we've missed out on a lot. And, y'know, if it's clear no-one's going to appreciate the work on sounds I did, but they will appreciate my picture restorations, why would I work on the former?
Basically, the problems with FSC have cost us rather badly, and the base knowledge of where the archives are that we can use, and such things will have to be relearnt at this point. Getting people like, say, La Pianista, who was our best musician on en:FSC, will need recruitment efforts. It took about 2 years of hard work to build up FSC on en-wiki, and one instance of wiki-bullying against me (its biggest advocate) to kill it. Let's do better this time. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As for why it didn't really start up on Commons? ...Honestly, there's a lot of work involved starting up a project like this, and the efforts were all getting put into en-wiki's FSC, followed by burnout. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The primary reason is that recording sound, apart from music, is an obscure hobby in general compared to photography. Good microphones are harder to find (but cheaper!) than a medium-spec DSLR and some lenses. Anything that isn't music doesn't have the same profile and awareness on Wikimedia sites. How many recordings of birdsong to we have on Commons? Now compare that to the number of FPs of birds. What fraction of those pictures are used on articles with sounds in them? The nonsense about sound copyright in the US (now sorted, we'll be getting PD music in a few years time), WMF developer neglect and being limited to a niche file format (OGG) for a long period of Wikimedia's existence don't help. We are missing out on a lot of encyclopedic value by neglecting sounds and can reverse some of the obscurity by running FS on the main page both here and on en.wp but this is an internet wide phenomena. MER-C 17:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree music is focused on, were terrible at that too. We could have fairly easily driven multiple school or university choirs, orchestras, talented pianists, etc, etc, etc, to be contributing to us by now had we made this important early on. Jimbo has liased with museums aand libraries about releasing images. Has anyone connected to the WMF ever, for instance, talked to a single university music program? We could have changed the internet culture. It may not be too late. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At some point, we need to restrict Commons:Media of the day to use only featured sounds, videos and animations. Getting content on the main page will help with visibility and give contributors extra kudos. Conversely, not being on the main page is one of the reasons why FSC failed on en.wp. MER-C 12:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We'll need a decent backlog first, though. I'd say somewhere in the range of 3-12 months (90-365 files) depending on how quickly new ones are coming in. We do NOT want a situation where we have to stop MOTD for a bit, or remove the restriction. Since we can only really do one file at a time on the main page, we should probably count sets as however many viable mainpage files they represent. (I say viable because, for example, if we had something like Handel's Messiah as a set, we might not be able to reasonably mainpage some files which were just short recitative.) Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FSC BOT ?[edit]

What to do about the FSCBot ? I guess we'll be needing a bot to the bot work soon, I'm writing a BOT using the source of another bot that I will maintain (the User:FPCBot). But does anyone know how to implement the bot at wmflabs tool server ? I'm very new to that place and biggest problem is that you can't install everything on you computer to test it (dependencies sucks). Can anyone please tell me how to install the script and add cron jobs ? I came to know that FPC bot pulls the source from a version control website, any Idea how to do it ? -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 15:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Anyone interested in pushing rights to this bots (User:FSCBot) source ? If you are interested in computers and if you have an account on GitHub I'm willing to provide you pushing rights on its repository. This will allow you to modify the codes which should be useful if I'm not around. Your account should at-least be auto-patrolled on commons. Thanks -- Eatcha (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"This sound will be added"[edit]

Hi, everyone. Would anyone object to tweaking this language?

"This sound will be added to the FS category"

I think it should say this: "This sound file will be added to the FS category", because it's never just one sound. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: , I  Support this lang. change. -- Eatcha (talk) 07:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Eatcha. Any other opinions? I'd love to have a consensus of more than two users before we tweak the language. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think no-one else really cares. Let's make the change. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's similar to early days of COM:FPC, see here no reply/comments after months. -- Eatcha (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Align FSC with FVC[edit]

I propose aligning the FSC requirements with the recently agreed COM:FVC requirements detailed here. That is:

A sound needs at least 7 supports to be featured. A nomination can stay active for at most 27 days, but if at least 9 days have elapsed and there are at least 7 support votes or 4 oppose votes, the nomination can be closed and decided based on a 2/3 threshold.

Is everyone OK with this? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with this change, but I don't see that many users really participating who voted there. Maybe we need some bots to vote based on the bit-rate and other potential identifiers , don't take it too seriously. :-)
Take a look at the following videos that didn't had a single oppose vote but they didn't get featured due to this 7 supports requirement.
Any Idea/Plan how to deal with this ? I don't mind that these failed as I know that we don't have that large participant base, but such issues can discourage users from nominating videos. They were just one or two votes from getting featured! -- Eatcha (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's why we're giving people nearly a full month to vote. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also want this to succeed. I'm in  Support, but if it backfires we may need to revert it. If no one else comments in for the next 7 days, we can try it.-- Eatcha (talk) 05:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose 7 seems way too many, given current participation. We have a certain amount of a tradition of video on Commons - en-wiki even accepts them at FPC - but we are still building a sound community. We literally JUST had a vote on this last month where 7 was rejected, so this would also overturn a widely discussed consensus. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the current standard (5 supports in 9 days) is even harder to reach than 7 supports in 27 days. Regardless of whether 5 or 7 supports are needed, the number of days must be increased. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like some people have lost interest in the project. 7 would in fact be a nearly impossible standard, I now see. Even getting 5 people to vote is hard. I'm not sure what further could be done to increase interest in this project. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Increase visibility: Keep advertising so people don't forget about it and remember to watchlist it. Keep mentioning it in discussions on Commons and the Wikipedias. Keep nominating things so it keeps popping up on the watchlists. It doesn't really matter how many nominations are successful, rejected or don't get enough votes right now. The goal now must be to gain a critical mass of people who contribute regularly. Don't slow down now, or it will die. The same goes for FVC. --El Grafo (talk) 09:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The User:FSCBot is now approved, but I didn't used the job scheduler to operate at regular intervals.[edit]

If no one objects to it I will start the Cron-Job after 24 hours. After which the bot will run automatically without my command. I can add a button by which anyone can start the bot if you need it, this can be used to Kick-Start the Bot if job scheduler malfunctions. Thanks Eatcha (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done -- Eatcha (talk) 08:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should we Increase the active nomination period to 30 days like on COM:FVC ?[edit]

Hello everyone, I've been noticing that the 5-support-9-days rules isn't working anymore, should we increase the voting period to 30 days ? 30-days-5-support is working there. -- Eatcha (talk) 08:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Votes (Increase voting period to 30, 5 supports required, 2/3 rule applies and 9th day featuring if 5 supports and 0 oppose )[edit]

  1.  Support -- Eatcha (talk) 08:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Support yes, this is a low traffic page compared to FPC, there's absolutely no reason we can not take it slow. --El Grafo (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Featured media candidates[edit]

See Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#Featured media candidates for a proposal to merge FVC and FSC into a single "Featured media candidates". Please leave any comments there. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please be advised that we have moved on to a survey phase to gauge community support of this proposal. Your input is appreciated over there. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal has been implemented. Please participate in a survey designed to refine the scope of FPC. FMC will subsequently be defined to include all files which do not fall within the scope of FPC. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Featured_sound_candidates&oldid=427358445"