|
|
||||||||||||
|
Where are we and what do we agree on?
How much progress has been made on this front? Are we agreed on what needs to be changed, it's been 2 months since the early discussions were initiated and we need the criteria to be rewritten based on the above suggestions. It's a good thing we haven't gotten many new nominations in the interim, but when summer in the Northern Hemisphere rolls over, we can expect a lot of activity once again. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:27am • 00:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm honestly not sure, even from the above list of questions, what needs to change and what consensus there is about these issues. It is not clear to me where the community and the current criteria (WP:WIAFS part ways. I think it's obvious that Tony1 has concerns with aspects of what is there at the moment, but I am not at all clear whether enough people agree with some or all of what he said. Ultimately, do the criteria have to be proscriptive and compulsory or can there be areas which are left open to interpretation by individuals (see the last question on the list)? If it's the latter then the community can disagree in a healthy way. While I have to admit to not always agreeing with Tony1's points he is entitled to his opinion and this benefits the process as long as everyone gets involved in a positive way. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, I see. It should be left open to interpretation, the importance of one against another is purely subjective, though I believe both are as equally important, that's not putting into context the historical value of the file, the latter being the most important in my opinion. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 7:41pm • 09:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- I will try to make sense of this --Guerillero | My Talk 01:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm responding to a message left on FPC's discussion page that requested input from FPC on FSC's criteria. The above discussion is TL;DR but if there are one or more comprehensive proposals, I'm willing to read them. Pinetalk 09:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- I will draft one pine --Guerillero | My Talk 14:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- I'm responding to a message left on FPC's discussion page that requested input from FPC on FSC's criteria. The above discussion is TL;DR but if there are one or more comprehensive proposals, I'm willing to read them. Pinetalk 09:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- I will try to make sense of this --Guerillero | My Talk 01:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, I see. It should be left open to interpretation, the importance of one against another is purely subjective, though I believe both are as equally important, that's not putting into context the historical value of the file, the latter being the most important in my opinion. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 7:41pm • 09:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- The first step is to go through the criteria and negotiate each point. There are a number of sticky issues I don't have an answer to. I think FSC is a much more complex, multilayered concept than the other featured forums. Tony (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- I am working on a proposal that may be the middle ground --Guerillero | My Talk 15:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Discussion seems stagnant, I think right now we should go with Tony's suggestion. We need to go through each criterion one by one, it'll achieve more and allow us to pull our resources effectively. I've also put a faux timestamp so the bot will ignore it. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 7:26pm • 09:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- A shame; an inactive notice has been put on this page for understandable reasons. Ultimately few Wikipedians are going to be interested in getting involved in a project which doesn't even know what it stands for. I have vehement disagreement with many of Tony1's points as noted elsewhere, but maybe these can be areas which it is OK to disagree about? I'm really not interested if this becomes a featured compositions page. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- It never was my specialitity, but it always sucks to see content go. Makes me all the more nervous about Wikipedia's recent decay. ResMar 15:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that it came to this but I needed to tag it as inactive. I think that TNT may be needed here. I estimate that close to 1/4 of all FSes are below what we would call front page standards. The amount of work needed is great and the volunteers are minimal. If you would like to discuss the process with me or my thoughts on it contact me on my talk page or send me an email --Guerillero | My Talk 20:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- We lost all our regulars and interest dwindled, I saw this coming but I didn't expect it to happen so soon, perhaps we could spread word-of-mouth about FSC to former regulars? I don't want FS to become "historical". —James (Talk • Contribs) • 12:39pm • 02:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- The last call for contributors was a flop.I think we just need to accept that there isn't a substantial interest in sound files by the general community. In addition, the technology to create high quality free versions of PD songs is still fairly expensive and it is time consuming to learn a piece just for FS purposes. With FP and FA you can make changes. With FS you can't. We rely too much on outside sources because of this fact. Things still need to catch up. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- We lost all our regulars and interest dwindled, I saw this coming but I didn't expect it to happen so soon, perhaps we could spread word-of-mouth about FSC to former regulars? I don't want FS to become "historical". —James (Talk • Contribs) • 12:39pm • 02:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that it came to this but I needed to tag it as inactive. I think that TNT may be needed here. I estimate that close to 1/4 of all FSes are below what we would call front page standards. The amount of work needed is great and the volunteers are minimal. If you would like to discuss the process with me or my thoughts on it contact me on my talk page or send me an email --Guerillero | My Talk 20:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- It never was my specialitity, but it always sucks to see content go. Makes me all the more nervous about Wikipedia's recent decay. ResMar 15:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
All very true. In addition I think that there is a lot to learn from FP in terms of their criteria should FS become a going concern again. Sounds do have many issues which don't arise for pictures as soon as you start assessing their value and worth and these should be dealt with clearly too. Badly aged historical pictures can become pristine again with a bit of work in Photoshop, but historical recordings will always have issues which for some can detract from their worth. Maybe you can leave a notice / send a message encouraging former users to continue putting more sound recordings on WP? If sounds get more visible for regular users then perhaps there is a chance another FS will arise? Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- The videos question still hangs in the air. A proposal that could work is a featured media process that included videos and sounds. That may solve the duplication issue. If you would like to add a notice of that sort go ahead. I will not stop you. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think I mangled my last message (that's what comes from writing messages on WP during the kids' bed-time). I'm happy to write a message which I will post onto the talk pages of former users of FS, along the lines of "FS is no longer a going concern, but please do keep on adding appropriate sound and video to WP as this will help raise the profile of media in the encyclopedia. Just maybe it would contribute to encouraging the development of a sustainable Featured process in the future." I think that there is a bot which can distribute this, but I have no idea how to use it. I can do it manually by going through the list of contributors and adding in anyone who left a message on the project's page recently, but that will have to wait for a couple of days at least because of off-wiki real life. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 10:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, and you may as well remove the Maple Leaf Rag delist nom from the front page as well. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
More Maple Leaf Rag - Sorry
Now that I have got my old copy of Cubase to work again I've changed, and hopefully improved, the piano sound for my previous nomination of Joplin's Maple Leaf Rag as played by the composer - in a side-by-side comparison I think the most recent version sounds better. I have not replaced the original on mediawiki, merely added another file and used that instead on relevant pages. I would like to propose a re-assessment of this current FS to ask if the FS status can be conferred onto the V2 instead, but not yet, since there are already two noms on the page of this piece and I wouldn't want visitors to become Maple-Leafed out. Just for reference and interest rather than anything else here are the two sounds:
|
The other file without FS status - less of a muddy sound this time.
|
Problems listening to these files? See media help. |
I did take a run at improving the piano sound on Adam's performance of The Entertainer, but I couldn't really notice much of a difference whatever I did, so I left it as it was. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)