Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Three European National Anthems
Three European National Anthems[edit]
The nominated sound files seem to be the last of the United States Navy Band anthems needed on WP for European nations. They are from Luxembourg, Malta and Monaco. These file adds significantly to the following articles:
- Luxembourg National Anthem
- Malta National Anthem
- Monaco National Anthem
- Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- As has been discussed elsewhere, these are of interest to FSC because of their EV, not necessarily their musical value (although I suppose the point of them is to stir the spirits of Luxembourgans, the Maltese and the Monaco-ans). The Monaco anthem is the only one which has any life in it really. However, high EV. Well recorded and played. Support all Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose all three. Is every national anthem in the world that has had the good fortune to have been recorded by a US military ensemble going to be featured? The first two are plain and unremarkable music. I could write one of those purely homophonic settings in a morning. A better one, actually. EV is a bottom-line requirement; it doesn't get something over the line. The Monaco one (Monaco is not a nation, BTW) is just straight inappropriate for such an anthem—it would rob an occasion of any dignity. Why are we populating the FS corpus with every tin-pot national anthem? They're not all the notable music that the US anthem is. Something is SERIOUSLY wrong with the criteria if these get through. POSTSCRIPT: All fail Criterion 2: not notable music. Tony (talk) 01:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Tony (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Each nominee is suppose to be evaluated against WP:WIAFS. If each meets the criteria each should pass. Like I said above WP:GA and WP:GT are overrun with The Simpsons and 30 Rock episodes. This does not mean the criteria need to be reevaluated. Of course, we would prefer if WP:VITAL articles got more attention. Nonetheless, we are suppose to evaluate against WIAFS and judge strictly on that basis.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't tend to vote in FSCs, but I have a few comments. Firstly, Monaco is a member of the United Nations. Secondly, relative to the examples that TTT points out, all national anthems being featured wouldn't theoretically be a problem.
Thirdly, I would make the observation that if these were pictures, they would almost certainly qualify as valued pictures, but unless they were exceptional probably not featured ones.Thirdly, this highlights why valued pictures, if it were extended to valued media, may well have had its place on Wikipedia. To be explicit, I'm not supporting or opposing, but I do think this nom is a good case study when we consider the way forward for sounds. —WFC— 17:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC) EDITED —WFC— 17:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC) (shows how in touch I am... didn't realise VP had gone!) - Support. I wish we had a VP and VS (or just a merged VM to cover it all). Or that we uploaded sounds more as a normal course of business, like we do with pics. but we don't. So FS has driven the uploads of just basic sounds. Given all that and this imperfect world, yeah basically I'd give a gold star to any well done national anthem. (performance and recording). And WCF's list of anthems is the bomb! TCO (reviews needed) 21:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- This is Featured Sounds not Valued Sounds or Good Sounds. Nowhere in this discussion has anyone said how any of these files are great sounds or how they fulfill the criteria. A vote count of everyone is 3-1-1; if I just count the non vanished contributers its down to 2-1-1. If this was a deletion discussion, I would go with no consensus. I will close this as not promoted with no prejudice against future nominations if a resounding reason for promotion is found. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)