Wikipedia talk:Featured sound candidates/Archive 2

Portal:Featured content/Soundsis not being updated
Portal:Featured content/Sounds is not being updated. This updates the list of sounds that are randomly chosen for inclusion on Portal:Featured content, which is linked to in the navigation portion of the sidebar in monobook. Zginder 2008-09-19T00:07Z (UTC)
 * I go through every so often and make sure all the content types (except lists) are completely up to date; both adding recently featured items and removing those which have been demoted. The featured portals and topics people mostly keep those lists up to date every time something changes, but the other groups generally don't. The update process is fairly self-explanatory if people want to update the list every time something changes. Otherwise, I'll continue making occasional updates when things get significantly out of date. --CBD 11:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Nomination procedure: Proposal
I propose the following change to the nomination procedure:


 * 1. Nominators cannot support their own nominations.
 * 2. Three or more additional supporting declarations, and a general consensus in favor, should be required for the item to pass.

Thank you. -- Klein zach  07:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think we have enough people voting to increase the required number of non-nominator supports at this time, though I may well change my mind in a month or two, if participation increases. However, I think if we were going to go down that route, it would be better to increase the number of supports to 4, and let the nominator continue to vote. It has the same effect, in the end, without causing confusion for people more familiar with the voting systems in use at WP:FPC and commons:C:FPC.
 * On the subject of co-nominations, well... there's a potential for gaming the system if we say that co-nominators don't have the vote, but if the same people with the exact same amount of work put into it don't declare themselves a co-nominator, then they do have one.
 * Finally, the conflict above was on the definition of what a "general consensus in favour" meant. I think that we should define that, but your proposal does not, in fact, do so. The main options are probably simple majority (more support than oppose), or super-majority (at least 2/3rds support). I'd also suggest that a weak oppose or support should not count at full value, maybe as one-half a vote. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 14:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, my proposal doesn't include a longer, more specific, wording of a "general consensus in favour". That might be a good thing, but I think it's much easier to reform the procedure one step at a time. -- Klein zach  01:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Then rule out the nominator's declaration (which is assumed and redundant) and let's be honest about it: two supports are required. Then push it back to three when we feel there are more reviewing resources. Currently, it's just double-speak. I do not support the process until this change is made, and I was the major rewriter of the criteria ?last year. Tony   (talk)  15:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This "doublespeak" is the same as the way featured pictures are run here and on commons, Itðs a format most voters will be familiar with. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. The present arrangement is confusing for new participants. -- Klein zach  22:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for being slow to post here. I think we're all agreed that featured sound candidates needs more reviewers, and most if not all of us have been making substantial efforts to bring in more participants. In theory this should be easy to do: most people in the real world would rather spend half an hour listening to music than spend half an hour reviewing a featured article candidate. The challenge is to bring FSC up to critical mass. The venue has been open for over three years, but until just a few months ago it saw very little activity. Quite a few people have contributed to that upturn, but none more hardworking or dedicated than Shoemaker's Holiday (even if you disagree with him on process issues you'll probably grant him that).

Now my biggest concern is that we may drive off new participants if we appear to be quarreling too much. Featured portal candidates has been lagging for lack of participation lately and I don't want to see this go down the same path--it's discouraging to nominate something and then watch the candidacy languish for a month. So I'll offer a compromise solution. For two months, let's table this discussion and leave the current promotion standards as they are. And let's all demonstrate our commitment to this process by nominating at least one featured sound candidate during that time (in order to avoid an appearance of cabalism I've held off from voting on Shoemaker's recent candidates; I'd love to see more from other people). If at the end of two months everyone in the present discussion has done their best, both on the voting side and the nomination side, and Tony and Kleinzach still agree a change in the consensus procedure is necessary then I'll join them. This compromise proposal probably isn't anyone's ideal solution, but I hope you can all agree that's fair and worth trying. Durova Charge! 01:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. The rules need to be changed now. I don't buy the notion that either changing the rules or debating them will "turn people away". Tony   (talk)  02:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well Tony, if you'll give this a try for two more months and pitch in with a nomination, when it's over I'll join you. I've chewed on this for a while.  Durova Charge! 03:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Durova, can you explain why you want to put off this reform for two months? What is the significance of this time lag? Something to do with writing Christmas cards or something? I hope this doesn't sound facetious, but I'm puzzled by this idea. -- Klein zach  14:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sitting around farting for the sake of it for eight weeks has no rationale or advantage. What is the problem? Tony   (talk)  16:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a reasonable reply to Kleinzach's question, which I will give as soon as Tony refactors his post. This is not the first time in this discussion that discussion has taken a turn toward something less than than good faith and civility. As a general rule, when someone who doesn't have to meet you halfway is offering to do so, it is not a good idea to insult them. Durova Charge! 17:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Durova: I'm not responsible for Tony1's prose style. Please answer my question without any more prevaricating. -- Klein  zach  14:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All right; I withdraw the offer. None of the definitions of prevarication come close to anything I've done here.  I might reextend the offer sometime if my faith gets restored that regular editorial discussion is occurring at this topic, but I see no reason to continue a conversation under these circumstances.  Durova Charge! 23:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. This problem is not going away but we can refer it elsewhere. -- Klein  zach  23:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Approval of opposed featured sounds
I've just put the following message on MZMcBride's talk page.


 * Can you please explain why you promoted two files to which there was considerable opposition. These are:




 * Thanks.

-- Klein zach  07:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * From the top of WP:FSC:
 * If a nomination is listed here for at least 14 days with three or more supporting declarations and the general consensus is in its favor, it can be added to a Wikipedia:Featured sounds list.
 * There were more supports than opposes, so I fail to see how there's a problem here. Changes in the criteria haven't, after all, happened yet. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the text on Featured sound candidates:

"If a nomination is listed here for at least 14 days with three or more supporting declarations and the general consensus is in its favor, it can be added to a Wikipedia:Featured sounds list."

Hunters' Chorus from The Lily of Killarney had 3 opposes and 4 supports (if we include the nominator), so there was no consensus in its favour. -- Klein zach  09:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If I might point out, consensus has many definitions. I'm presuming that you want some sort of super-majority, but majority is also a valid definition of consensus. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Show me one place on Wikipedia where a 4:3 split is accepted as consensus in favour! Consensus may have many definitions but that's not one of them. -- Klein zach  02:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * SM, as I've said before, we don't need to draw on faulty processes, even if they have regrettably been established at features pics. If I had time, I'd go there and rumble for it to be changed. All I want is clarity, and this fiction that three declarations mean something, when it's really only two valid ones, has to change. Tony   (talk)  16:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Tony, you don't get to declare by fiat what's valid. Seek consensus for your changes, and be prepared to be bound by whatever consensus emerges. Because if you're just going to snipe and complain the whole time, attack other people here if they disagree with you, and the like, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to leave. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 10:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday: Asking people to leave is not one of your responsibilities. -- Klein zach  10:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no power to make it stick, but I can ask, if I think their behaviour is being disruptive. Doing it non-disruptively might include a straw poll, a polite discussion, or a neutrally-worded request for comment. However, belittling and attacking everyone who disagrees with you is simply disruptive. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't recognize that characterization of Tony1. Instead of taking this approach, you should address the topic here which is about 'Approval of opposed featured sounds' and in particular my response above: "Show me one place on Wikipedia where a 4:3 split is accepted as consensus in favour!". Thank you. -- Klein zach  10:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, I've been scolded by this school marm. The requirement to generate "general consensus" means that if there are three opposes, the nomination should definitely not be promoted. I believe that the promotions should be rescinded forthwith as a breach of process. Tony   (talk)  12:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What is the procedure for asking for the recall/demotion of featured sounds? -- Klein zach  14:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to get involved...
...with the FSC process, not so much nominations but reviewing, the thing is I'm not sure if I'd be of much use. I'm just a bit worried that I won't be able to tell if a sound meets Criterion 2. 2(a): "high fidelity and is reasonably free of technical faults, such as unintended noise and distortion, and sonic and compression artifacts. The balance, reverberation, frequency response and stereophony are of a high standard." I don't know what the majority of these terms are, and even if I did, I wouldn't know how to judge. 2(b): "Historical recordings are of reasonable quality for their age." Reasonable compared to what? 2(c): "Musical performances are of a high artistic standard." Does this mean if Rachel Stevens's songs were to become PD, they wouldn't be allowed?

I'd be more than happy to get involved with this small project if I knew how to judge these technicalities, and I'm wondering if that's what's holding back other people. What can I do to understand the difference between a recording with bad frequency response and good, bad sonic artifacts and good ones? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, do what you can. Not all of the discussion involve a dispute over them. Two, listen to some or all of the current FS's to hear what they sound like to compare. This is a wiki most of us do not have musical training, do your best. As was mentioned a few sections up, we are just starting off trying to reach critical mass where we will then be able to be more critical and enforce those criteria more. Zginder 2008-10-02T17:26Z (UTC)
 * All Criteria 2 boils down to is "Don't promote badly recorded or performed sound files without a good reason, such as age, notability or historical importance." Just use your best judgement.  Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Rachel and Matthew, just as reviewers specialise in matters such as verifiability, prose, copyright and MoS at FAC, here, there is ample scope for reviewers to concentrate on their chosens aspects. Can you suggest where we might promote FSC? There have been two Signpost articles this year on FLC, one of which I wrote. It hasn't resulted in a cascade of activity, has it; perhaps we need to target specific areas of WP. Is there a WikiProject on sound recordings? Articles on such? Tony   (talk)  13:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

On my nominations
At the moment, sadly, this project only has a few regulars. We need to increase the number of regulars, and especially regular nominators. But until that time, we need to give new people an active project to come to, and so please forgive me if I dominate a bit.

As it stands, I'm kind of trapped between the options of nominating regularly, causing me to have a high percentage of nominations, but keeping the project active; or nominating more rarely, which prevents me from predominating, but causes new voters and people attracted to the project to possibly see it as dead.

I've chosen the former option as the lesser of two evils, but would, frankly, rather prefer it if I was just one among many.

I don't know if this helps any, but on my user page, I've put up a section of pre-restored sound files User:Shoemaker's_Holiday. If it helps to lure new blood into featured sounds, I'd be delighted for anyone to take anything from there for their own use for nominations, and will also gladly point people in the direction of the archives I use and my techniques for restoring cylinders. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That is very helpful. New nominators might also be encouraged to become regular reviewers, too; otherwise, it could all become a little incestuous. I wonder whether we need to promote FSC at ... WikiProject Music, on the talk pages of related articles, etc.? Tony   (talk)  13:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There are a number of options available for promoting FSC, but I think we need to reform the procedure first. While this "Nominate and support" thing goes on we won't be able to effectively interest people. No-one wants to get involved with a broken process. I'm reluctant myself to review recordings when any 'oppose' responses are ignored. -- Klein zach  23:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * People get involved with WP:FPC, and it's had that for years. Seriously, I don't see how on earth you think that using the same procedure as a similar and very successful project makes things broken. It baffles me. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 10:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See 'Approval of opposed featured sounds' above. -- Klein zach  23:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

A note about WP:GO
Goings on is a page used by all featured processes, yet strangely for many years all of the maintenance burden there has fallen to Raul and me, in spite of multiple pleas (read the talk page and archive at WP:GO, and I individually approached the other featured content processes the last time this occurred) to other featured processes to please pay attention and help with the work. Gimmetrow finally heard our pleas and set up automated archiving (for which of course he received no recognition or thanks from any other featured process), and yet we still continue to find the burden of maintenance left with Featured articles and Gimmetrow only.

Recently, a featured sound that used a "#" in the title (Eubie Blake - Just Wild about Harry.ogg) bombed GimmeBot, and other featured processes didn't even take notice, rather continued to add their items to the incorrectly unarchived page,  so that when I was ready to archive FAs, I had to stop in the middle of archiving (which for me involves having six to seven tabs open) and correct the error caused by the Featured sound. Here is my response to a query from Featured lists:

Sandy, I just read the thread at User talk:Gimmetrow. I got the impression that the Gimmebot isn't going to maintain it for much longer, and you're frustrated by it. Since WP:FL adds a high number of noms, I don't mind looking after it. What exactly needs to be done to maintain it? Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Matthew, thank you for the offer to help! Here is the history, so you'll understand the issue.  If you read through the talk page and the talk page archives there, you'll see that for years Raul was mentioning that no one else helped do the weekly page archive, and it was a lot of work.  The archiving instructions are in the actual page.  The dates have to be added to the template, etc.  When I came in as FAC delegate, I quickly understood how exasperating it was to maintain this page, particularly since no other process was sharing the burden, and I was having to do it all, every Saturday night at 0:00 UTC; fun way to spend my Saturday night.  If I didn't get to it right away, at midnight Saturday, other processes would just add their promotions, without bothering to archive the page, creating even more work.  So, Gimmetrow eventually wrote the code into GimmeBot to do the archiving automatically on Sat nights.  But there are still issues, and other processes haven't helped.  For example, the dates still have to be added to the template about a month in advance.  We have to watch for errors: the last thing that tripped up the Bot was a sound with a # in the name, but the Sound people don't even notice or check.  I had to manually correct the archiving, and Gimmetrow had to adjust the script to account for the sound files:  who knows what's next?  So, when I come along to promote, I have to correct the page and re-archive, when I'm in the middle of promoting with six tabs open (my circuit breakers pop :-).  If other processes would:  1) help watch on Saturday night that the page archives correctly, 2) make sure the page has archived before adding new entries to it on Sunday or Monday, and 3) help maintain the template dates in advance, it would be most helpful!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC) It would be helpful if other processes would help out, and in particular, since Gimmetrow had to add back in the regex #, please watch that names don't include the pound sign.   Gimmetrow has been fiddling with the bot ever since the # sign issue occurred three weeks ago, and it would be nice for other processes to be aware of and help share in the maintenance of the Goings on page.  Thanks, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Was it the dash in the title that bombed the bot? Shoemaker and I had a discussion about sound file titles with dashes because recently an editor came through with a semiautomated dash 'correction' tool that brought all the dashes in the article into compliance with MoS...accidentally turning the sound file display into a redlink.  As a sysop on Commons I could kill two birds with one stone by removing dashes from nominee filenames.  It takes admin ops to do it because Commons doesn't have a rename function.  I'm sorry to learn this made your hard work harder.  Perhaps that solution will prevent it recurring.  Durova Charge! 01:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's the # sign (something to do with regex numbers): upshot is we have to 1) watch for # signs in names, and 2) watch for things that trip the bot on Sat night. There is no problem with dashes. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If I might explain: The title (not the filename) is, by default, automatically generated using - in other words, if you start the nomination on the page Featured sound candidates/My nomination the title will be "My nomination". This works well most of the time, but if the page name contains certain characters - I believe ' and " and ? are the most common - it will use HTML code for the symbols, for instance - let's see if this works - &amp;#39; for the apostrophe/single quote. I usually fix them when I see them, but it wasn't obviously an issue, so I wasn't very diligent. I'm honestly not sure why that causes problems for the bot. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 11:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a big deal if a pound sign occassionally sneaks through; the only thing you really need to do is to make sure that WP:GO archived correctly on Saturday nights before adding new promotions to it on Sunday or Monday. If it didn't, someone has to stop and do it manually, and the only thing that has bombed the bot lately has been a # in a sound file.  Regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Featured readings
I'd like to propose a new sub-project of this one: Featured readings. This would be primarily for readings of articles, with, perhaps, a certain amount of award schemes along the lines of the 25 DYK medal for pronunciations.

Let's start with the first one, as easier to administrate. I'd suggest we could start it simply by adding a new section below the featured sounds proper. This would also have the advantage of pulling people to this page =)

One disadvantage might be the ephemeral nature of these recordings, But I presume we could get around that somehow. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you familiar with the WP:SPOKEN project?--Pharos (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it's mainly as a way to celebrate their best achievements that I thought this might be a good addition. Obviously, it's ephemeral - articles change - but this and other sound-related things, such as pronunciations, while not quite in the Featured sound scope, seem like a good field to at least take note of achievement in. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, then have you seen WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia/Review? User:Macropode has been the leading editor coordinating those reviews.  I think it would be excellent to have a formal system for the "best" of Spoken Wikipedia, but to tell you the truth I'm not 100% sure we could use the "Featured" label in this way.-Pharos (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Featured Sounds on the main page
Discussions are at:
 * Talk:Main_Page
 * Wikipedia_talk:2008_main_page_redesign_proposal

A previous discussion can be found at:
 * Talk:Main_Page/Archive_127

I believe that we have decent levels of support for this change, and, if standards are to go up, and voting changes are to go forwards, we need more people. This will give us more people. Thank god. =) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * We relay need more before we can be on the main page on our own. Combining it with FP will lead to disputes between the FS and the FP contributors as to who gets a spot when.  This may decrease or popularity or make use hated by the community. It may also lead to a merger with FP for our intier process, and I think that is a bad idea.  If anything featured video should be split off of FP. Zginder 2008-10-13T22:37Z (UTC)
 * Zginder, we should be okay on all the points you raise. I've stepped forward and offered to let all of my FPs in the main page queue get put on indefinite delay in order to incorporate featured sounds into a newly renamed FP slot.  My share of that queue is nearly as large as Wikipedia's total supply of featured sounds, so the impact on other featured picture contributors would be minimal.  No one has opened a discussion about restructuring featured content categories; that's not a matter under consideration.  Durova Charge! 22:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I advise caution, but with the right controls in place, I do not have a problem with it. My main concern is that the same editor that wrote a dissertation a few weeks ago that said "Building a community is more important than reaching the top tier of quality at this time", is now saying that the quality is good enough for the main page. This does not exacting jive with me.  Zginder 2008-10-16T02:57Z (UTC)
 * That works hand in hand, as far as I see it (and no I haven't consulted his opinion in writing this). Featured sounds got off on the wrong foot three years ago and didn't reach critical mass.  So while other featured content types--articles, pictures, lists, etc. built up regular contributors and reviewers and developed a broad enough base to raise standards, featured sounds languished.  We're a few years behind the rest, but if we develop the mentality that we're not ready for prime time then we never will hit critical mass and reach the stage where those other featured content types are.  Main page exposure is an invitation to more participants.  With a broader base of contributors, most of the problems we see now will resolve themselves.  Durova Charge! 04:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

A resource for Featured Sounds
It gladdens my heart to see how far Featured Sounds has come after the initial, not quite successful, first phase I was involved in starting. Kudos to the Featured Sounds community! (Of which I've been a rather negligent member.) I'd like to point you folks to a page I created way back, which you may not be familiar with: Free sound resources. Not only do these sites host quality free audio, but they are home to free audio creative communities which might be won over to the Wikimedia cause, if someone ever initiated channels of communication with them. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the link. Very helpful. :)  Durova Charge! 21:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Archiving
I've set up an archive. Someone may want to make it a bit prettier. I don't think I archived anything active, just pull it back out if I did. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Objection. You've just archived a message I posted 5 minutes ago (23:51, 15 Oct.). You should only archive when a discussion has been closed for an established period of time, normally a week or more. I'm surprised by the 'cavalier' style of a small group of frequent participants to this project (e.g. the support of self-nomination and promotions ignoring opposition). Sadly this was another example. -- Klein zach  00:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, bring it back, please. In relation to that discussion, I'm announcing my loss of faith in the FSC process. I suggest that it be fixed soon. Tony   (talk)  02:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have restored the page, and archived discussions prior to October of 2008. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @  02:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good solution, Gonzo. Durova Charge! 18:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Call for the deletion of this process
The process is corrupt broken and I have lost any confidence in it. I will call elswhere for it to be disbanded and deleted. Tony  (talk)  12:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say "misguided" would be a better description, but I do agree that there are problems that need to be addressed in the process. « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @  16:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Corrupt' or 'misguided'? The word I used before was 'broken'. The problem is not the process per se - which could easily be cleaned up - but the individuals who are resisting change. The frustration felt by Tony1 and myself is with the lack of any reasoned argument from the other side. Opposition to reform seems purely for the sake of opposition - and fragile ego maintenance. -- Klein zach  22:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Reminder of why we are here
We are here to write an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia that is free for anyone and everyone to read, change, publish, etc. This encyclopedia along with a dictionary, textbooks, a library, etc. is to be the "sum of all human knowledge." In order to compile the sum of all human knowledge we need more than text, and sound recordings are one of the things a perfect encyclopedia would have. This project is to encourage the production of free sound recording on the encyclopedia by rewarding the best recording with the title of Featured Sound. We may disagree as to how to get there, but we can agree this is a worthwhile process. Can we stop the name calling, threats, and noncooperation? Let us let cooler heads prevail. Zginder 2008-10-16T15:30Z (UTC)
 * Very well stated. Thank you, Zginder. :)  Durova Charge! 18:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on the process
I have been watching this page for a while now, commenting a few times here and there. But mostly I have just sat back and thought about this situation. I have a few thoughts that I want to share, just 5 things that I have been thinking about: To explain a little bit: Some things I feel need to be corrected: I would very much like to see this process continue, and prosper. I greatly enjoy sound files on Wikipedia, and wish one day they will spread like pictures did many years ago. I second Zginder above, we need to stop, and focus on our objectives of our process. We need to start commenting on the content and the process. I encourage the editors here to open up the lines of communication and have a serious, focused, and open discussion on how we can improve. Well, thanks for reading to my blurb. :) « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @  19:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Obviously, with so many objections, there is a flaw in the process.
 * We, as an encyclopedia that strives to be a "compendium aiming to convey information on all branches of knowledge" (WP:ENC), cannot knowingly sacrifice quality for the sake of expansion of the WP:FS community.
 * 1) Without a strong, knowledgeable, and dedicated community we cannot create a proper encyclopedia.
 * 2) As a featured content project, our main goal is to distinguish and recognize the very best content within out scope.
 * 3) Our secondary goal is to encourage editors to create superb content, by properly reviewing, critiquing, and yes, not promoting content that is not superb.
 * 1) - Fairly obvious; when some well-respected, diverse, and experienced editors express concern, there is probably something wrong.
 * 2) - Another editor pointed out above that the WP:FP process started out with some, well, not-so-superb content, arguing that the process started out by focusing on expanding the community, knowingly sacrificing quality for the sake of expanding the FP community, thus creating the necessary base that has grown into the great FP process we have today.  I find this argument lacking, as the FP process started out in time a (2004-ish) where there were was around 1,500,000 (guess) less articles, and a very small amount of total pictures on Wikipedia (remember, Commons was created in 2004!).  Our WP:MOS, quality standards, etc. were far less than what they are today.  Basically, when WP:FP started, that was the best they had and they could do.  No one could have ever foresaw the huge amount and quality of pictures that would be uploaded to Commons and Wikipedia.  This can also be seen with WP:FAs, no one could have ever seen how good articles could become back in 2004.  They may have promoted less-than-superb featured content back then, but they did this unknowingly, honestly believing it was the best quality.
 * 3) - Although we cannot sacrifice quality for the sake of the community, we cannot just forget about the community.  We must make it as easy on them as possible, in order to foster growth.  We can do this by having a straightforward, clear, and strong criteria and an overall good process.  When someone clearly understands what is feature content, then they can go and create featured content.  We should not cut our standards just to make the community happy though.  That would undermine our most important goal of recognizing the very best content.
 * 4) - Straightforward.
 * 5) - We as a featured process, are meant to encourage.  I mean think about it, if a piece of content is good enough to be featured, why should we care if it is "featured" or not.  There is no editorial, quality, or content changes when a page becomes featured.  We do this to recognize and encourage better content.  Now encouragement comes twofold; first, we encourage by rewarding, and second, we encourage by correcting.  When a sound is superb and clearly meets all the criteria, we reward it with the acknowledgment of the community that this is superb content and that wonderful star.  But as a community, we must also encourage superb content by truthfully telling nominators that there content is not the very best it can be, correcting any flaws, explaining how the content can be improved, and giving them the ability to make the necessary changes.
 * The criteria needs to be stringent. We need to review, alter, explain, and define our standards, making it very clear what is and what is not feature content.
 * The procedures for promotion/archiving need to be clearly stated, and only unbiased editors should close and promote/archive nominations (unbiased = not participate in the discussion, no prior biases on the FS process). An alterbative to this process would be the election of a director, who would be unbiased and would make the promotions/archives.
 * If we continue to allow nominations to be promoted/archived by anyone, then we need to expressly allow the good-faith reversion of a promotion/archival (i.e. WP:BRD).
 * Thank you for a very thoughtful post. I agree with several of the points raised and thoroughly appreciate a soundly reasoned, respectful, and polite articulation of your position.  To address just a part of the matter, perhaps it's a matter of perspective: if Shoemaker's argument is framed in terms of 'building a community' then yes it looks quite weak.  I'm not one for touchy-feely stuff: we're here to build an encyclopedia; Facebook is thataway.  But I also happen to think he's right.  Not right about everything (suddenly archiving this talk page was almost guaranteed to antagonize), but right in most of the essentials about the best long term approach to improve the pool of quality audio files at Wikipedia.  As a contributor who has done featured work in five of Wikipedia's six featured content types, there are some points I'd like to raise.
 * Featured content credits are basically a trophy--a thanks for hard work. A large part of their function is motivational.  People generate encyclopedic content to a defined standard because there's a certain satisfaction to earning recognition in return.  When editors submit work and receive an outcome within a reasonable frame of time, they either earn the right to put a little brag about the achievement into their user space, or they gain feedback to make improvements and try again.  Once a featured process hits critical mass it usually sustains itself.  I was active in featured lists around the time when critical mass occurred (the site had fewer than 100 FLs then) and saw the dynamics that made it successful.  I am also occasionally active at featured portals--a process that's currently struggling--and one of the reasons featured portals are not as successful is a shortage of reviewers: nominations sometimes languish for a month and when that happens it takes the wind out of people's sails.  I don't mean this in a touchy-feely sense, but from the pragmatic perspective that talented people tend to exert themselves where their efforts are valued.
 * During the time I've been active in featured picture candidates--which is the featured content process I rate as most successful in terms of its ratio of productive results to drama--I've had the pleasure of seeing something happen that doesn't take the shape of a featured credit or a barnstar but it more meaningful--the satisfaction that comes from having raised the bar. Historic image restorations undergo a stricter level of scrutiny now than they did a year ago: people want to see scratches corrected and histograms adjusted now--things they didn't used to expect.  And more people are doing work of a higher caliber because work that meets that standard is getting submitted and promoted consistently.
 * The featured sound process faces a unique challenge: for nearly three years it was promoting material at an average rate of less than one every two months. At that rate it didn't hit critical mass.  Promotions were too slow to draw many contributors and candidacies were too few to draw many reviewers.  Despite abstract talk about high standards, FS was not successful at improving the site's pool of quality audio media.
 * For the past several months that has changed, due more than anything else to the hard work of Shoemaker's Holiday. I do not agree with all of his choices.  Most importantly, throughout that time I have been worried that he was too trusting that the community would assume good faith.  He has been cavalier about actions that might generate an appearance of impropriety, and pooh-poohed my concerns that other editors may construe mischief, and now that some actually have the backlash doesn't surprise me.  I'd like to engage in a productive dialog, but in the openly hostile environment this talk page has become that really isn't possible.  I'm strongly tempted to take my energies elsewhere.  Durova Charge! 21:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with the points raised. I do want to point out, I believe Shoemaker has done an amazing job here, and I fully support him/her.  To address the community part, I do wholeheartedly agree that we need an active and and strong community (per point #3 above), and we should try and focus on making things easier and more welcoming to the community.  My main point is that there are many things we can and should do before we sacrifice quality.  Thank you for your response.  « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @  22:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Gonzo_fan2007: thank you for your analysis. Looking through your post, I can't find anything I disagree with. But this is not the first time concerns have been painstakingly expressed about the operation of this project. The question is: where do we go from here? Do we reform the process now or do all the participants agree that reform is impossible here - in which case we should start a centralized discussion involving a broader group of editors, perhaps at Village pump (proposals)? -- Klein zach  22:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You present a false dichotomy, Kleinzach. By casting aspersions on the most active FSC contributors and turning a blind eye to other insults directed at us, you have played a leading role in generating the present impasse.  Not all participants agree that reform is even necessary, let alone immediate reform.  And, meaningfully, those who have done the most to breathe life into the process are least convinced of the need you assert.  In different ways we have proposed instead that you first become more active in the process by offering nominations.  Often, firsthand experience in generating featured content is the best route to insight about how to run a sustainable and useful featured content process.  Durova Charge! 23:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Let's clarify this. You oppose any reform and essentially disagree with Gonzo_fan2007's analysis. Is that right? Yes or no. (If we have an impasse here there is no point in belabouring it.) -- Klein zach  23:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that is not an accurate summary of my position. Durova Charge! 23:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Tell us what your position is - preferably in three or four clear sentences - I'd like to know. I hereby assume good faith. Any suspicion that you are here to play games with us is dismissed forthwith straight to the back of my mind. Go ahead! Tell us! -- Klein zach  00:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you don't intend to appear patronizing, but it's rather hard not to be taken aback by that post. Site policy is assume good faith, not challenge fellow editors to express themselves in 50 words or less upon penalty of bad faith.  I have voluntarily proposed to put dozens of my own featured picture credits on indefinite hold in order make room to run featured sounds on Wikipedia's main page.  Consider that each of those featured picture credits represents 5 to 30 hours of labor.  There was no need to doubt my good faith at the outset, but if that doesn't earn a fellow editor's trust then there can be very little value in it.  Things have reached this impasse because I despair at being taken at face value.  I have a rather nuanced position, and generally speaking people who are predisposed to assume bad faith are apt to misconstrue nuance as game playing.  Please tell me why it is worth my time to risk further unwarranted damage to my reputation by prioritizing this discussion over other featured content drives.  Durova Charge! 00:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Because if you can tell us where you stand you'll be able to stop writing these interminable paragraphs and get back to work on the featured sounds. -- Klein zach  01:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think you and Tony are short on firsthand experience. Everyone's a critic; please walk the walk and nominate.  After you've gone a mile in those moccasins, maybe you'll see how the view looks from here.  And if the view still looks the same to you as it does now, at least it will be somewhat easier to interact.  It doesn't reflect well on anyone, least of all yourself, to brush aside hundreds of hours of top-quality volunteer contributions with a sarcastic response.  Other content types beckon where my presence and contributions are respected.  Durova Charge! 01:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's get back on the topic: process. Should the TSC nominator vote for/support his or her own nomination? -- Klein zach  02:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts at the bottom of the page: I don't know how to help you all solve the problem, since everything eveywhere on Wiki is "short-staffed" these days, but I think it's a bit apparent that if you have only two independent editors supporting something, well, you don't really have a "featured" anything. It's more like a Good article, that one editor can pass. Does any other featured content process pass things on two Supports (I hope not)? The only time I've observed this process, by the way, was when a sound was promoted on three supports over an actionable oppose, so that's not a good sign. On the other hand, I've been begging for people to take one of the Dispatch slots, so if you think that will help you drum up some reviewers, pls weigh in over at WT:FCDW. Perhaps renaming it as Good sounds, as part of Good articles, until you can build up something similar to other featured processes would be one option. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the offer, Sandy. I'm spread quite thin already but would be glad to make time for you if the deadline isn't too tight.  Do you have a suggestion?  To Kleinzach, you repeat a question I've answered already.   Durova Charge! 04:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by User:Seddon
I thought whilst I had a moment, I would comment here. Firstly so that it is clear, I do not think that FSC should be gotten rid of. It is a process that can work. However atm there are some issues. Firstly the pool of people taking part is too small, it is however growing. The activity that has gone on recently should not simply be brushed aside beside it isnt good as is all too often attempted on wikipedia. What we need to do is to make it work. I think that one of the issues sandy brought up is correct. That is the number of supporters passing featured sounds. I agree completely and think that it is a problem that needs to be addressed. I think that getting more people involved here is the way forward. I think getting FSC ion dispatch would be good. Also having featured sounds on the main page would be another way forward. The quality of the sounds is another issue, but like all processes on wikipedia, the standards increase as time goes by and more people take part. Sedd&sigma;n talk Editor Review 12:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If we had more people, I would support increasing it to 4 (inc. nominator), in line with featured pictures. At the moment, we don't. So I think the best way forwards is to carry on for now, and we can always clear out sounds later on, as standards increase and more material and people are found.
 * However, I would like to say something here: A bit above, there is an accusation that people involved with the nominations or votes are promoting. This is not true. I have found an impartial admin to make all judgements on featured sounds I am involved with, MZMcBride. My role in these nominations is simply the gnome work: If promoted, I put it on WP:FS, WP:GO, and so on, to make things easier on people helping us out. I have attempted to be careful to avoid impropriety, and am upset that people are nonetheless claiming that impropriety is happening anyway.
 * Featured pictures can pass with four supports (including the nominator) and a 2:1 ratio of supports to opposes. I would like to move towards this level, however, there is no point in increasing the number of voters until we can consistently reach that number of voters in a reasonable amount of time. I imagine that this should be possible after the sounds begin appearing on the mainpage. Alternatively, if the people participating in these discussions would care to nominate, vote, und so wieter, then we could probably manage it even sooner.
 * It is, however, a little annoying to those of us working very hard to build featured sounds up to have our efforts denigrated and attacked by people with minimal or no participation in the process. I would certainly like to improve standards here, but, frankly, if I'm doing actual work and research trying to get the best recordings possible, it is frustrating to have people who have never nominated any featured sounds tell me, in effect, that I'm not trying hard enough to meet thestandards they feel it should be possible to meet. It feels belittling, and I believe most of the time said standards could only be reached if featured sounds became large enough to attract professional symphonies and opera companies to release their work to Wikipedia. If we insist on standards that no-one currently participating in the project can achieve, then featured sounds is dead. If we are pragmatic, provide the best work currently possible, and promote the hell out of them, we can attract more people, and develop pools of expertise that will allow standards to slowly improve, eventually reaching the desired levels. But we cannot just jump to the ideal when we have neither the community nor the clout to acquire things at the desired standards for this ideal. We have to reach critical mass first.
 * Now, by all means, I'd encourage people to prove me wrong, and show that higher standards could be consistently achieved by finding and nominating sounds up to their desired standards. However, such requests have been met with a point-blank refusal every time they have been proposed, which, whatever the intent, belittles the people doing the work, and makes it seem like the people are more interested in bossing around the people trying to improve the quality of work than doing anything to actually increase it themselves, which creates a certain amount of resentment. I'm reasonably sure that this isn't the intent, but it's very hard to tell my emotions that.
 * Can we meet half-way on this? If the people who want to improve things were willing to do some practical work - either researching possibilities for those experienced in clean-up to fix up, finding sounds themselves, or the like, then, in addition to showing they know what's currently possible, it would also add some much-needed new blood to the project. This would allow us to then discuss ways of improving standards that were practical, pragmatic, and in the realms of current possibility, and would go a long way to getting both sides what they wanted. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Eh, most of these changes seem unnecessary. It might make sense to add bureaucracy if featured sounds had a lot of people editing it, but frankly, most of these ideas seem more like process for the sake of process. And I didn't see any filing at Requests for process. Shoemaker and Durova seem more or less correct here. I'll try to expand on this remark later today when I have more time. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Having slept on it
SandyGeorgia is right: three votes really are too few for a featured content promotion. And in a few other candidacies the opinions were close enough that the discussion ought to have remained open or closed without promotion as no consensus. That's a situation we can solve without bureaucratic change. Here are my featured sound credits. None of them is more important than my reptuation for integrity. If anyone at this page considers any of these to be borrowed feathers, please name which ones and I will put them up for review and possible delisting. To the closers, in future please be more conservative about promotions. More featured sounds is good, but not at the cost of actions that create a backlash. Durova Charge! 18:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree we need to move to four as soon as possible, but we don't seem to have the voters to make it practical this very moment. If everyone is willing to vote to the bottom of the current list, and keep reasonably up-to-date, then we could, of course, begin that now, but I cannot support that proposal if it's going to mean a return to the old system of sounds languishing for 3-4 months, waiting for enough interest to accrue. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * With Sandy's offer of another slot at the dispatch and the prospect of sharing main page time with featured pictures, This process could gain enough participants to make four votes feasible. It does appear to be the most reasonable of the expressed concerns.  Durova Charge! 22:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If we can do it, I'm all for it. My one worry is that we do it, then promptly get abandoned, I suppose. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Durova, "three votes"? No, it's two; we cannot possibly count the nominator's/nominators' "vote". And I do object to the use of the term "vote". This is a consensus-gathering exercise, not a straight vote. "Declaration" is probably a better term. Tony   (talk)  01:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's clarify then. I'm in favour of a 'nomination plus 3 supports' system (in which the nominator does not support his or her own nomination). My understanding is that this is now also the position of Durova and Tony1 plus others. Is that correct? -- Klein zach  01:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I will not support (indeed I will work against) a process in which a nominator "votes". That is the job of reviewers (to declare "support" or "oppose", or to "comment"). Tony   (talk)  01:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm surprised Kleinzach surmises that postition from my posts here. I've been quite clear, but allow me to elaborate: neither Shoemaker's Holiday nor I created the existing parameters in which a nominator counts as a support for a candidacy. Now when someone proposes a change to an existing standard I look at the argument they present. Tony's argument appears to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. He supplements that with a stated intent to nominate the featured sound process for deletion if he doesn't get his way. Well I have no particular desire to enter a conflict with Tony, but as to the likelihood of that sort of approach working I'll just point out that Daniel Brandt tried something along those lines on me and a new clause to the banning policy was all Mr. Brandt gained from the attempt. Kleinzach's response was at least within the realm of normal editorial discussion, but I really didn't find it convincing. You see, featured sounds mimics the standard used by featured pictures in this regard, and if I understand correctly, Kleinzach's response was to deprecate featured pictures as a process. I'm not sure upon what experience he draws that conclusion; I don't recall seeing him there. As I've stated above, I consider featured pictures to be the most successful of all Wikipedia's featured content processes as a comparison of promotions to drama. That experience comes from having earned featured credits across five of this site's six featured content types and from having collected 112 featured picture credits. I have deliberately minimized my participation in at least one other featured content type in order to avoid episodes such as this, which are generally initiated and furthered by those who contribute little, at the expense of productivity among those who produce the most. Now Sandy is perfectly fair in expressing that three supports is too few, and out of line with the norm for featured content processes generally. That is the most reasonable of the points set forward here and I have agreed that it would be fair to raise that minimum to four. That is all I have agreed to, and it disappoints to see more than that construed. Durova Charge! 02:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Durova enjoys infinitely more leisure than I possess in writing these highly nuanced blocked paragraphs. Nevertheless there is a strong and widespread desire here for reform of the process but if there's a determined will to frustrate it then we should look for another venue. -- Klein zach  02:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Nominators should not support their own nominations: Proposal/first discussion
Those who nominate featured sounds currently vote for their own nominations using the Nominate and support formula. This is, to say the least, highly irregular. It leads to Featured sound candidates appearing to be run by a self-congratulatory cabal of mutual back scratchers. I propose the practice be discontinued as follows:


 * 1. Nominators should nominate but not support their own nominations.
 * 2. Three or more additional supporting declarations, and a general consensus in favor, should be required for the item to pass.

Thank you. -- Klein zach  02:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely agree: support is obvious in the nomination, and to continue this redundant, symbolic practice is to encourage the "voting" mentality over one that concentrates on addressing critical comments. There's also a problem when there are conominators (or three nominators, in one case: game, set and match, no reviewers needed). Tony   (talk)  04:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, supporting your own nomination is definitely unnecessary. Gary King ( talk ) 04:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Featured pictures and portals allow nominators to support. I think all the featured content types do. Why should sounds be different? Durova Charge! 04:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Because (1) it's assumed, and therefore redundant; (2) avoids sending the message that it's a vote; (3) takes the lead from better processes, not worse ones—FAC doesn't allow it; and (4) dangerously reduces the emphasis on reviewing, given that there's a numerical quota. Tony   (talk)  04:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Then we should change it to where it is obvious (since there are a lot of folks who don't think it is obvious" to where the nomination line ask for a signature, change it to "nominate and support" then the signature. Almost like how Featured Pictures does it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What I'd really like to do is focus on drawing in more reviewers rather than on this proposal. After three years of languishing, featured sounds got revived by a small number of people who put forth a very large amount of time and tried to publicize this. To see a proposal whose opening post presumes a cabal is--to say the least--disheartening. I've asked for reviewers at the community portal, asked for them during Not the Wikipedia Weekly episodes, and posted to the Signpost tipline. People start tuning out the message if the same person keeps beating that drum. Kleinzach and Tony, how about helping to get the word out and nominating more featured sounds yourselves? This isn't a closed shop. Durova Charge! 06:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have already posted to four music-related projects, urging people to get involved - but let's keep on topic and get back to discussing the improvement of the nomination and supporting process. -- Klein  zach  07:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, please begin improving it by withdrawing the bad faith accusation of cabalism. Durova Charge! 08:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no accusation of cabalism. Do you have any further comments on the actual proposal above? The substance is in items 1. and 2. -- Klein zach  08:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would really like to see it rewritten on a good faith and civil premise before proceeding. Courtesy costs nothing.  Durova Charge! 17:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The mechanics need to be transparent. If you really want to retain this fiction of nominators' explicitly supporting, then the number of support declarations required should be raised to four and co-nominators' "supports" officially disregarded. But it's so silly. I say: explicitly disregard supports by nominators and adjust the number of required supports if necessary—we don't need to play arithmetical games. Tony   (talk)  10:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It's important that other editors have confidence in the process, so nominators should not support their own nominations. Have we now established a consensus to change the text on the 'project page'? -- Klein zach  10:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As much as I would like to see a minimum number of supporters, some sounds are being promoted with less because there as not enough reviewers. Zginder 2008-09-30T17:01Z (UTC)
 * If the process was slower and more measured (with better information provided about the files), if the relevant projects were consulted before and not after the vote, and if the process itself was more transparent, then there would be more reviewers. The popularity of a project ultimately depends on how well it is managed by the regular participants. -- Klein zach  00:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think, that, before we up the necessary number of supports to 4 - which is what this does, in effect, by no longer counting the nominator's vote -  we need to have enough reviewers that things are getting consistent levels of discussion.
 * Secondly, there are avdvantages to having the noiminator vote: If they provide two options, they can support one, and weak support or neutral the other. Similarly, if someone edits the sound while it's up, they can oppose it, and support the original. Without allowing them to support, but only to oppose new changes they dislike, the nominator - often the most knowledgable person on the file - has his or her vote degraded.
 * Thirdly, if this is to be the case, it would need to be changed at WP:FPC as well, to avpoid radically different systems being in play for similar featured content projects. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If WP:FPC are not following normal, transparent procedures like the rest of WP, that's a problem for them. I'm not involved in that project so I have no opinion about it. -- Klein zach  00:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What is abnormal or non-transparent about the procedures? Zginder 2008-10-01T01:57Z (UTC)
 * Could you possibly take the time to read what I wrote? I said "I'm not involved in that project so I have no opinion about it." -- Klein zach  02:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to move forward with this, then everyone voting support needs to A. Nominate a sound, and B. Vote on every candidate currently up. Because if you aren't willing to do this, then your vote is, frankly, a vote to make more work for me, who, in order to try and keep FSC viable, has been having to advertise FSCs like mad just to get a minimum number of voters and nominations.
 * In short, put up or shut up. Do not add to the stress of someone trying very, very hard to keep FSC viable, if you aren't willing to put any effort into FSC. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What does that mean? "Put up or shut up". I have 'put up'. I've put up a proposal - for a clean, transparent procedure. It's been supported. Are you Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday for it or against it? Please stand up and tell us honestly: are you for reforming the system or keeping it as it is? -- Klein  zach  00:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologise, I'm not feeling at all well today. Basically, the proposal could be reasonable, but presumes we have sufficient voters to be increasing the number of votes needed. Actually, we're struggling on that account, and neither you, nor Tony, vote consistently or nominate sounds, so it just puts more stress and difficultyon those of us building it up and trying to pull people in. If we wanted to move forwards with this, which dos make things more difficut for me and others pulling people in, then we'd need a strong commitment on the part of others to help me out in this, because if I'm trying to hold this together along - as it ften feels - then anything that makes it more difficult I can only oppose. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting really uncomfortable with the tone that this is taking on both sides. Please step back and have another look at what you're saying, guys. I think we all want this area to grow. Bickering with each other isn't a good way to draw in new people. Durova Charge! 03:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. Maybe it would be a good idea if we all stepped back from this and referred it to other editors to decide. A centralized discussion or an RFC or something else? What do you think? -- Klein zach  03:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (I wrote something different here but thought better of it.) We shouldn't be in opposition to each other.  For three years featured sounds languished; they were averaging barely one promotion every three months.  A few months ago featured sounds woke up and started becoming active.  I'd like to see the area reach critical mass and we aren't quite there yet.  Before going further, I'd like to invite you to our next Not The Wikipedia Weekly recording (or just chat informally).  Text misses tone of voice and it can be easier to find common ground when editors have a regular conversation.  Durova Charge! 07:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My answer is the same as I wrote above (00:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)). All those currently joining in this discussion are contributors to the project, so we have that in common. If we can deal with the procedural irregularity (of nominators supporting their own nominations) we can then move on to other things. -- Klein zach  00:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there's no conclusive reason to suppose this constitutes any procedural irregularity: other featured content types use the same method as this currently uses. If you withdrew the insinuation of impropriety in the opening post I might be willing to explore the merits of the proposal.  I don't see why you've refused to reword it, since you've already stated that impression was unintentional.  Nonetheless, that is a commonsense reading and you can hardly expect those of us who have worked very hard creating nominations these last several months to tacitly endorse that notion.  Moreover, I would advise against opening a request for comment, etc. based upon the present wording unless it were your actual intention to harm our reputations in return for our efforts.  If it sounds like I'm a bit sensitive in that regard, I am.  Yesterday a thread on AN closed where several people made wholly unfounded bad faith accusations regarding my intentions (I had been starting a new article for DYK; they assumed it was an excercise in inclusionist WP:POINT although I'm not even an inclusionist).  I don't need more rumors like that; there's no need for them and you say you don't intend to create them.  Then walk that walk, please, and do me the courtesy of taking my concerns seriously enough for a refactor.  I shouldn't need to ask for it in the first place, much less ask repeatedly.  Durova Charge! 00:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. I am happy to make my proposal again without any preamble. (See below.) This doesn't mean I agree with your points. It means I am trying to see if we can remove an altogether unnecessary road block. -- Klein zach  07:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :) Durova Charge! 07:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Counter-proposal
I now submit from your most excellent review, my counter proposal, free from bias and cabal. The nominator can not vote, support nor can anyone else. Only comments, questions, opposes, and responses are allowed. If there are no opposes then it is promoted. If there is an oppose then anyone can discuss the relevance of or fix the problem. If an oppose is actionable and is not fixed or adequately explained then and only then is the sound not promoted. Sincerely, Zginder 2008-10-01T02:09Z (UTC)
 * I quite like this idea: anything that gets us away from a vote. Tony   (talk)  02:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think we have the resources to do this at this time. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How do we determine whether 'opposition' is relevant or actionable? This seems to be a potential weakness of this proposal. -- Klein zach  04:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The same way it is done at FAC. Zginder 2008-10-01T04:21Z (UTC)


 * Opposition has to be interpreted now, as does consensus. "Supports" are of little use; like FAC, we should explicitly focus on comments and critiques, and the addressing of those. Tony   (talk)  04:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ...Tony, have you every looked at WP:FPC? That's the nearest equivalent to this project on Wikipedia, not Featured Articles. For one thing, the nominator has much less control over a recording than an article. Articles can be edited in response to almost any reasonable complaint, but recordings, short of finding a completely different public domain recording, cannot be. Given that, this proposal - particularly if we devalue supports completely, as you suggest - would turn every FSC into a contest where the opposers have to be shouted down. FSC can be hostile enough at times, I really don't think that removing the option of "agree to disagree" when nothing could be done in most cases to deal with opposition would lead to good results. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 05:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Building a community is more important than reaching the top tier of quality at this time.
This is one of the first featured pictures:

That's full resolution. Here's the nomination page: [].

Here's a recent Featured picture. This one is shrunk, because the full thing won't fit on this page.

Standards can build and improve at time, but they require a community able to fulfil those high standards. When featured pictures was young, there were no professional photographers working for Wikipedia. There now are, and it's considered prestigious.

We have about 58 featured sounds. There are 1367 featured pictures, 972 Featured lists, and 2,255 featured articles. We are at the stage those other featured content projects were at several years ago. Now is not the time to raise standards to be the equal of the other projects, it is the time to make our project viable, and develop a strong community. What we need to do is be welcoming, invite people in, achieve some sort of decent throughput, and plan on re-reviewing everything later.

Featured pictures has developed a community of professional-level photographers who can provide it with content. We do not have that here, put bluntly. We have a couple people able to edit sounds to some extent, and... that's pretty much it. We may well be able to grow in time, but we're starting several years behind featured pictures.

What all the attempts to raise the standards have actually done is drive people away from this project. We can afford to let some things that are merely good through. The project will self-correct if it is allowed to grow. But we need to get the project to sufficient size that we have featured sound producers - musicians, and so on - able to provide us with more content of increasingly higher quality. Then we can begin to ratchet up the standards, pushing them to improve their work, and removing featured status from previous work.

By having overly-grandiose ideas of what featured sounds should be right now, the community never grows, the experts that could provide us with the top-quality content never find out about us, and everyone loses. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 05:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Secondly, here's why removing soound files from articles without providing a replacement is counterproductive:

Once sound files become common, then people working on articles without them will seek out sound files. This gives us a large group of people working on improvidng audio content, and, while there may be a lot of piano-and-voice recordings of somewhat low quality for a while, people, faced with the low quality, will seek out replacements. And things will ratchet up, until eventuallyw e'll have really high-quality sound files.

This is precisely what happened with images on Wikipedia, and is why Wikipedia is so well-illustrated. But what's happening now, is someone goes through a lot of work to get some sound files onto Wikipedia, then people remove them, claiming they aren't good enough. Person gets frustrated, never seeks out any more audio files ever again. His skills at searching for audio files never improves. He has no reason to buy new recording equipment to get a better recording of, say, his oboe.

For those of you asking for higher standards, I ask you this: Find, say, five files that meet your standards, and nominate them here. This will both make it clear that you know what fulfilling your requests require in terms of work, and will demonstrate that it is, indeed, possible to raise the standards to your desired level at this time. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree - comprehensively. WP has established standards. We have many good articles and they should not be compromised with non-essential, low-quality ancillary material. Please read Encyclopedia. It's very short but it's relevant: what Wikipedia is not. -- Klein zach  07:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I too disagree. Please do not sacrifice quality for any reason. Quality is what will bring good people here. Mediocrity will bring mediocre people. Tony   (talk)  13:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We are not here to build a community, we are here to build an encyclopedia. We should never, ever sacrifice quality for the benefit of the community.   « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @   18:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I support Shoemaker on this one. We are not sacrificing quality of the encyclopaedia we are improving the encyclopedia as we nominate sounds. Not all sound recordings are featured nor should they be.  What Shoemaker as saying is that we have to promote recordings that might not be the best they could ever be, but are Wikipedia's best work in the sound recording area.  Notice that no one took him up on his offer and nominated five files that meet higher standards. Zginder 2008-10-07T22:33Z (UTC)
 * Why are you "improving the encyclopedia as we nominate sounds"? Why does this process make the encyclopedia better? If we could clarify the purpose of the process, perhaps we can talk about reforming it? -- Klein zach  22:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The title makes me puke. "Building a community is more important than reaching the top tier of quality at this time"? Why counterpose these as at loggerheads? "Building a community needs to be based on high standards from the start". You're just concocting excuses to let through ordinary nominations. Tony   (talk)  00:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal at Village pump
I have made a proposal here to end the practice of 'nominate and support'. Please contribute to the discussion. Thank you. -- Klein zach  00:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It would seem simpler to decide whether we want
 * three supports including the nominator
 * three supports plus the nominator
 * some other value.


 * I have ventured to write in the first of these. Since there seems general agreement that we should also require general sentiment in favor of the nomination, it doesn't seem that a low bar is particularly harmful. But if someone wants to raise it, I won't object to any reasonable proposal. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, as explained before, I favour :*three supports plus the nominator. (It should always be plus the nominator.) -- Klein zach  00:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Can you contextualize your question so my answer will contribute positively to this discussion? -- Klein zach  04:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can speak jargon; but I will not. I repeat: why should it always be plus the  nominator? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In a word 'transparency'. Your question has been answered several times by several people. (Please read from the second section (Nominators should not support their own nominations: Proposal/first discussion) on this page downwards. You will find plenty of informative opinions. -- Klein zach  10:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the "several" opinions here (I see two, but I have not been meticulous); what transparency requires, almost everywhere else in Wikipedia, is that the nominator declare when he is supporting himself, usually done with the six characters "as nom". The difference between plus and including does not even rise to a transparency issue. If there is no other reason to insist upon this rule, sure to be flouted in sheer inadvertance, I oppose it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How many instances have there been of a nominator nominating a featured sound candidate that he or she opposed? (The question may be ridiculous but I'm keeping an open mind on PMAnderson's opinions.) -- Klein zach  02:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I asked for the Booker T. Washington speech to be withdrawn after seeing the comments, and doing more research on it. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's something different - 'withdrawing' not 'opposing'. -- Klein zach  23:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Three supports, not including the nominator. If desperate, two supports not including the nominator, but I think that is just TOO easy. I'd much rather have an official Director with no number requirements. Someone like Klein would be good. Tony   (talk)  00:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A staff of volunteer closing admins, as at WP:RM, would be much preferable, although we should be able to do without them. This page provides a yes/no question, and (even with only half-a-dozen interested parties) it should be easy enough to see when there is general agreement, especially now nom + one support have been excluded. Directorships are signs of a failing process. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you to Tony1 for the compliment, however I would be perfectly happy to see a staff of volunteer closing admins. It's important that the closing admins are disinterested and not working with the nominators - that's all. -- Klein zach  23:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Anderson—would you like to take the task? I'm keen for a disinterested outside party to do it (if you feel you have the skills).  Tony   (talk)  13:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A most ingenious form of flattery; I thank you, Sir. But I would rather be on tap as a third opinion, whether on the existence of consensus or the quality of the sound. Therefore, when any of you feels that a promotion was wrongly handled, or a new ear is helpful, feel free to write my talk-page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Flattery perhaps, but there's utility in it: the only imponderable is whether you have the background for judging musical/acoustic stuff; but you do have experience in featured-content processes and expertise in at least two fields, and you come with no particular allegiances here. It was just a thought, and I understand why you prefer to remain more distant from the matter. Tony   (talk)  02:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Does this page need a moderator right now? Are there real open questions, as opposed to proceedure for proceedure's sake? If so, please put them in below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for a new voting system
This proposal will run for one week.

In featured pictures, I believe the following is used:

Support = +1 Weak support = .5 Oppose = -2 Weak oppose = -1. Total up the values [including any votes by the nominator(s)], and if it comes out greater than or equal to zero, the file is promoted.

This works out to a supermajortity (2 supports to each oppose) but with self-declared "weak" votes counting as half a vote. Shall we impose this here?

Id probably allow some use of judgement where the result comes out between -1 and +1.

Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a (complicated) voting system. I suggest you first propose going over to votes rather than consensus, before proposing a scoring system. -- Klein zach  00:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't understand your comment. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 01:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well there are a lot of Wikipedia documents you can read about voting and consensus, e.g. this. -- Klein zach  01:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Kleinzach, you've objected when a proposal with 3 supports and two opposes passed. By the standard ways of determining consensus, that's well within the closer's perogative, e.g. at WP:AFD. What we need is some rules about votes, not about consensus, because our goal is not to judge whether everyone is in agreement, or if one side has better arguments, but to see if we should promote things based on the votes provided. You want more transparency, and that means working out ways of deciding NOT based on the closer's view of the consensus and merit of the arguments, but on the number of votes and self-declared strength of opinion, such as "Weak" or "Strong". Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 05:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday: can you please try to be more straightforward about this? Some intellectual integrity and rigor is required to speedily resolve these issues. Accordingly I am going to ignore your tendentious first two sentences. Passing over to your third sentence I'm reminded that Tony1 objected to a voting system so we should ask his opinion now. I am relaxed myself a voting system - providing it is not used to rubberstamp approval - but it would still have to be introduced by consensus because that is the WP way. Anyway let's hear from Tony1. -- Klein zach  07:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I´m only occasional participant at the Featured sounds candidates, actually, I was disconcerted by the featured status of this recording:

(I´ve left my opinion on the talk page of that file)

...and therefore I´ve started to interest more in voting here. I´ve also never nominated any file, and I´m maybe incompetent to express my opinions here. However, I think, that nominating is not the only important thing, I just want to help to decide with my vote to promote really featured sounds. Of course, I don´t want to play down or to devalue the work of others, but I think, it´s important to determine the high standard and to promote really good recordings. I agree with Kleinzach, nominators shouldn´t support their nominations. When you nominate something as a good or featured, it´s obvious - you support it. Or can you write: Nominate and oppose? On the other hand, the assessment should stay independent, without the vote of nominator (particularly, when we need only three votes to promote). The current situation is not entirely transparent in my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I support the delisting of Ten Biblical Songs, see talk page. -- Klein zach  23:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. Tony   (talk)  02:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Too complicated. We need to appoint someone who will close nominations, and who is disinterested. There's the smell of corruption, otherwise (whether there is corruption or not). Tony   (talk)  14:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)