Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/A Chantar

A Chantar



 * Reason:This is probably a first, but there's no reason why we can't feature other media as well. This is a beautiful rendition of Beatritz de Dia’s song A chantar m'er de so qu'eu no volria, done by Makemi, who studied vocal performance and has sung professionally. I personally think it would be a great feature on the main page.
 * Articles this image appears in:Trobairitz; Beatritz de Dia
 * Creator:User:Makemi
 * Nominator:  §hanel 


 * Support &mdash;  §hanel  00:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support highly encyclopedic content created by Wikipedian to illustrate an article. I think it's pretty high quality, I can upload a larger version if requested. I believe it fulfills all the non-visual-specific featured picture criteria. Mak (talk)  00:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support because it is a professional-quality recording of an excellent performance of this song. I would also like to point out the second version above. ★ MESSED  ROCKER ★  01:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. This isn't really a first, see Featured_sound_candidates. Also once FSC gets underway I doubt this would be considered featured; it's like the old featured pics, they're crap --⁪froth T 02:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You might prefer to think of more constructive criticisms than calling it "crap" (which it isn't, IMO); the last thing we need to be doing is needlessly insulting people who are going to the effort to create new encyclopedic media (which we don't have enough of). Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 02:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Seconded. We're trying to keep things friendly here, and comments like that don't help at all. Raven4x4x 02:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, you're deliberately missing my point. Like the really old FPs, there's really no standard at the time so a lot of crap gets through. I very much appreciate people uploading new media but I want to warn FC voters that they shouldn't let content through that isn't incredible or we'll regret it later --⁪froth T 03:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No Froth, I believe you are missing the point. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost - calling people's excellent encyclopedic contributions "crap" because they do not meet your interpretation of FPC or FSC criteria does not further the goals of the project. This isn't Fark.com or YouTube - it isn't a forum for snarky, denegrating comments. Let's shape up our act here, OK? Debivort 05:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * WTF, did you even read what I said? Anyway, I won't dilute my words. We're judging content, not the contributor.. if the content is crap then it's crap; it's not saying anything about the person who made it. --⁪froth T 06:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you need to realise the difference between objective and subjective. In your opinion, the audio is "crap". That does not mean it is, and you can't say it IS. That is a common trait of arrogance. Perhaps also you need to take a look at WP:ATTACK and WP:CIVIL and most of all, don't be a dick - Jack (talk) 09:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You're still missing the point. All Froth is saying (and rightfully so) is that accepting content to be featued without a set of hardcore guidelines to abide to is only going to make more trouble for us in the long run. Have you taken a look down in the delist section before? Have you seen what's been featued? And secondly, it was never said that this audio was crap, only that featured pictures that made it through to be featured a long time ago that would obviously never pass today are crap. And that's generally true as well. Joe D 17:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * JDougherty: Even if we adopt "hardcore" guidelines now - it is likely that they will be obsolete in a year anyway - when 10Mpx cameras or 12Mpx cameras become common. To think that we could ever adopt a set of rules that would permit only those FPCs to pass that would remain FPs forever seems too optimistic. Moreover, our complaint regarding Froth's comments is not that he wants high standards, it's that he uses words like "crap" and "WTF" to disparage nominations and comments about them. These words are completely unnecessary and create an atmosphere of antagonism. On a nitpicky note, he did clearly imply this nomination was crap, by saying "it's like the old [FPs], they're crap." Debivort 19:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think the submitted audio is bad at all, but like the now-crappy images that made it through FPC a year ago I don't think that it's going to be FC material when Featued Sound opens for business. It was just a moment where I could clearly see this getting unanimous "Delists" in 6 months or a year from now. --⁪froth T 22:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So, you're going to stick with the "crappy" characterization... I'm simultaneously surprised and not. Debivort 22:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Froth, if you have an actual criticism of this recording, please state it. One of the reasons I proposed this as a possibility for nomination was that it was something that I could re-record if genuine concerns were raised. Mak (talk)  22:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sticking with "Good but probably won't be FC material once we hammer out guidelines for other media". I agree that it's extremely encyclopedic for its article but enc isn't the only requirement for FPCs, and it won't be for other FC media either, so we shouldn't go about featuring content that we have no guidelines for or we're just setting ourselves up for delists later --⁪froth T 23:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see, in my admittedly biased opinion, it's 1. High quality 2. Of a sufficient size 3. Is among Wikipedia's best work 4. Has a free license 5. adds a lot of value to two articles 6. it's accurate 7. It is pleasing (it was added by an unrelated editor to the frWP page with the comment "une chanson de Beatritz de Dia, drôlement jolie" 8. it has a good caption and 9. it's neutral. The specifics are changing all the time, but the basics are there, and are fulfilled. And it's not strange or undesireable for the criteria to change and adjust. Just because what we feature now might not be the best content in the future doesn't mean we shouldn't feature it now, or shouldn't have featured it in the past. We have to work with the level of content Wikipedia has right now. Right now, this is among the best of Wikipedia's free music content. I look forward to a day when that's not the case, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't highlight any music now. Mak (talk)  23:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Whether or not this is among the best of Wikipedia's free music content is a matter of contention, not a matter of fact. I think we can separate criticism of using FPC for music files - which to my mind is a perfectly reasonable criticism of this nomination - and criticism of the music file itself.  Pstuart84 Talk 00:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My point was that it can be evaluated by the current FPC criteria. Mak (talk)  20:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment FSC seems pretty dead for the time being. Mak (talk)  02:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Support original (for now, if an actually improved version is submitted I might change, but I don't see obvious room for improvement). Good recording, interesting, obvious encyclopedic merit. --Gmaxwell 02:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per all above. --Bob 02:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. I would like to see more media being featured that isn't static images, and I think this is of comparable quality to the images that get featured. It's a nicely done recording that adds significantly to the articles it's in. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 02:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, this is a high-quality recording. I'd prefer it be released under a more free license, but that's not relevant to the quality. :) — {admin} Pathoschild 03:01:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to consider licensing it differently. Frankly, the many free-ish licenses confuse me, so if you have a suggestion of one that would make it more useful to the project I'm more than willing to look at it. Mak (talk)  03:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello Makemi. Releasing it into the public domain is ideal, but you may not want that if you'd like to reserve some rights. I personally prefer the Creative Commons attribution 2.5 license, which requires that you be acknowledged as the author. Are there other rights you'd like to reserve? — {admin} Pathoschild 04:01:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, basically just attribution. Should I multi-license it, or change the whole license (I can't change the license on MessedRocker's version, I don't think). Mak (talk)  04:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, whichever option you choose, I am willing to license my modifications under that. &mdash;Signed, your friendly neighborhood '''MessedRocker 07:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There are no problems switching to the new license, then. Thanks. :) — {admin} Pathoschild 23:01:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Question How is this a "photograph, diagram, image or animation"?  Isn't that a reason not to feature other media?  Perhaps the criteria should be changed? Michael Connor 09:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - There are good reasons why only visual media are considered on this page. The criteria for evaluating a photograph or an illustration have nothing to do with what makes good audio. This is why there are separate pages to determine featured articles, lists, etc. You should be working to get WP:FSC up and running. This isn't the place for sound files. --dm (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose I cannot judge the focus, exposure and composition of this featured picture candidate... ;-) --Janke | Talk 14:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm all for featured media but this is not the place. There's WP:FSC on its way it seems and I remember an earlier sandbox about featured media. Please don't regard this as an oppose to the sound file in question, just the choice of here as a place to promote it. Pstuart84 Talk 15:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree.  If this is not a photograph, diagram, animation, etc. it does not belong here.  -Midnight Rider 18:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - look, until such time as Featured Recordings does get going there is no earthly reason why we should not use this process as substitute. IAR, anyone? Common sense? The recording quality is perfectly acceptable and the quality of the singing is of the highest calibre. We will not get many better recordings of this type of music and virtually none with what is flawless diction. Rare enough quality among sopranos in my benighted country, I can tell you. Moreschi Deletion! 21:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think it betrays a lack of “common sense” to argue that Featured Picture Candidates should be used for pictures and not sound files. Why not take the opportunity to get Featured Sound Candidates off the ground instead? Pstuart84 Talk 00:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Support I agree with Moreschi in terms of IAR. Seeing as we lack any kind of active FSC project, then why shouldn't it be nominated here? The file is of excellent quality, is encyclopedic and best of all, has a free license. H4cksaw   (talk)  00:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Allowing this would set a very bad precedent.--Runcorn 00:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Vocally abstain, with apologies for unintended pun - If we had featured media or featured sounds, then I'd support straight away. As it is, we have FSC but it's not active. Well, why don't we use this as motivation and get it activated? It does seem contradictory for this to end up as a Featured Picture, but the lot of us arguing about whether or not it's a valid candidate could be spending our time much more constructively in finalising the FSC process. Any takers? --YFB ¿  01:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ooooooh... - At the risk of a hearty slapping from various quarters, I've been bold and opened WP:FSC with this nomination. I also took the liberty of transferring Shanel and Messedrocker's votes, since I didn't think they'd object. I now intend to go into hiding while everyone accuses me of taking premature, unilateral and reckless action and generally being a Very Naughty Boy. Have fun =) --YFB ¿  02:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. Until we get "Featured Sound Candidates" off the ground as someone suggested, I believe we should recognize one of Wikipedia's highest quality sound files and a wonderful performance. &mdash; 70.126.123.153 06:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Should have logged in first before signing votes. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 06:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Pstuart84. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 07:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have removed one comment which was made, most likely by the sock of a banned user, as a result of a request on a Wikipedia attack forum to attack the submitter of this file. I think it is unlikely now that we'll have a fair FPC since there are outsiders trying to influence it. --Gmaxwell 16:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - I'm amazed that there's all this fighting over one beautiful song, sung by one of our own, and I'm shocked that some users have been bitter enough to encourage others to fight this. It's truly a shame. --Iriseyes 18:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. It's a great idea to expand into a few other media, and this is a professional-level performance, worthy of anything you'd find in the early music bin at your local CD shop.  Antandrus  (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It's already at WP:FSC and appears to be gaining a consensus for promotion there. It's nonsensical that a sound could be both a featured sound and a featured picture at the same time. MER-C 06:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Featured Sound Candidates is now open and this sound is the first nomination. I therefore propose that this FP nomination be withdrawn and that those yet to vote at WP:FSC add their opinions there. Happy editing, --YFB ¿  18:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think thats a terrible idea. No only does support have the clear majority here, but we don't currently have enough of other types of media to justify a seperate process for them. --Gmaxwell 21:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This file cannot be a featured picture because it is not a picture at all, it is a sound file. Are you proposing that we should change featured pictures to featured media? --KFP (talk | contribs) 21:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup. For now at least. It's gotten a certain amount of support on the FPC talk page in the past, it just sorta died in committee. Mak (talk)  21:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But surely that process should happen before this is nominated. Would it not be slightly silly to have this as a featured picture? Trebor 21:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We already have lots of FPC'ed animations, which are of course judged by a differing set of criteria.
 * I don't mean to insult the other experienced users who have already opposed here on this basis but really, opposing a great audio recording on the basis of FPC having 'picture' in the name really shows a sign of misunderstanding about how Wikipedia works. If you think the name should be changed because having sound files be featured 'pictures' bothers you, then change the name.. Don't obstruct feature worthy content from being featured because you have an obsession over the name of a process. --Gmaxwell 21:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are you opposed to creating and sustainging Featured Sounds. Other media types would only benefit frm a designatied Freature system. This nomination already has immense suport at FSC, it makes absolutely no sense to keep this nomination up on this page. --Dschwen(A) 22:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How do we know it's feature-worthy? I object to it being a featured picture because it doesn't meet several of the criteria; in fact, it can't meet several of the criteria. If there is featured-quality work not being recognised, then there needs to be a new featured process created (or at the very least an adaptation of an existing one), with new criteria. Without criteria, what are we judging it against? Trebor 22:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I propose that we wait for FSC to take off. It's been active for less than 24 hours. If it is a sucess, we'll merge it with FPC and create Featured Media, and if it stays fairly small, we'll keep the two seperate. --Iriseyes 23:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Let's get this project started! -- Tewy  01:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I only noticed this wasn't on the FSP page until after I voted. I've moved my vote there. -- Tewy  20:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Yeah, let's get this project started... ...at WP:FSC! There is no point in keeping this nomination here, as it only keeps people from going to the proper page to vote. --Dschwen(A) 13:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not a picture. go to WP:FSC -24.128.48.224 03:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please remember to sign in before voting. -- Tewy  03:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)