Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Fireworks

Fireworks[edit]

Fireworks are explosive pyrotechnic devices used for aesthetic and entertainment purposes. These sounds are a result of a mix of different styles of fireworks and other pyrotechnic devices.

There may be some concerns with this file which I would like to preempt. Firstly, the background noise. Adam says that it will be virtually impossible to remove, so be it. In fact, it does add a measure of authenticity to the audio as it shows the "entertainment purposes" of fireworks that the article tries to represent. Another concern that Adam brought up is that it doesn't give enough to the article. Unlike the picture and videos, which give rather nice visual representations of the fireworks, this file gives an audio representation of these devices that wouldn't be immediately available by reading the article. I think that is representation enough. Anyway, let's hear your concerns.

Nominate and support. haha169 (talk) 06:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My point was more that you should check the article and make sure it was well-used. Looking just now, I moved it from a rather poor usage near the start to Fireworks#Noise-related_effects, where it gains a lot of value. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see what you mean. I will be looking around as well to see if this sound can fit in other articles. --haha169 (talk) 04:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as Haha169 has said the background noises does add a certain air of authenticity and reality to the audio file. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 11:51am • 00:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find this to be undesirable as it takes the fireworks out of their context completely. Birdwatchers want to see birds, but bird songs are still appreciated and collected apart from the birds. On the other hand, I've never heard of someone going to a fireworks display to hear the popping, and I don't really thing that it offers much without the visual. I was tempted to nominate File:Fireworks closer view.ogv in place of this, however the attribution captions in video annoy me to no end, especially the middle one, which is bolded and bright yellow. It's a decent recording (although I actually don't like the background noise, 'authentic' or not) but I just don't think it's encyclopedic value is high. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I have nothing to say about that :P. In fact I was kinda expecting it. --haha169 (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oppose per Major Bloodnok. Tony (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC) I like the sounds and the sense of the onlookers. But is there encyclopedic value? I guess it could be used in the article on fireworks. Pity it's so long. Undecided, need to see others' opinions. Tony (talk) 07:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)][reply]
    - Since there is a section on sound effects in the article, I think that a sound recording adds encyclopedic value. --Guerillero | My Talk 16:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm going to go ahead and support, since the video does not cover many of the sound effects discussed in the article. All of our recordings (save a few historical ones) are subject to delisting if a better example comes up, but I don't see a better recording as particularly likely for a few years, unless this encourages someone to try. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure about this one - to echo Sven above, why listen to fireworks when there are videos available? The recording sounds good, FWIW but I'm not sure about the encyclopedic value; it'd be like touching a blacmange rather than eating it, or listening to a trifle... I think I must weak oppose, unless of course it was of an especially notable fireworks display. Major Bloodnok (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a close one (3/2/1). Currently supports are at 55%, just shy of the 60%-70% supports needed to make this a FS. Since there seems to be no consensus in any direction I will go with the being Not promoted --Guerillero | My Talk 17:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]