Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/Burleske
Burleske[edit]
Still feeling a bit ill, which meant I wasn't feeling up to the intense, concentrated, and extended effort of coding, but I made a breakthrough on something I've been wanting to nominate: There were insufficient details about this excellent performance, which meant I didn't feel it was suitable for FS. After 4 hours picking at research, I've filled in the gaps.
- Nominate and support. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support - Fantastic research, nice performance. Graham87 08:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support—Interesting piece (not deep, but it's colourful and energetic). Recording quality is just OK. Nice to have a more complete description page. This is going to be a fly in the ointment for many FSs chosen for the main page. We really DO need to furnish the information for visitors, where at all possible. On the nerd side, thank GOD we finally have a proper dash in the year range. And just why hyphens dot all of the file names is hard to fathom. The geeks who seem to object to proper dashes have never come up with a proper argument against them. IMO, "Richard Strauss - Neal O'Doan - Burleske" is second-rate. The typography should be professional, and there is no excuse for squidgy little hyphens: "Richard Strauss – Neal O'Doan – Burleske". Tony (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
- Filenames really do need to be simple ASCII, since they CANNOT be redirected to in any meaningful way, and some users downloading them will run into awkwardness if we use too many unusual characters. Everywhere else, you have a point. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- "some users downloading them will run into awkwardness if we use too many unusual characters"—why? What is "too many"? " they CANNOT be redirected to in any meaningful way"—how do people search for a soundfile, then? Surely they are in categories. The file names are often so bizarre that the whole business of file names is dysfunctional for pure searches. Won't the search function respond to single search words such as "Beethoven"? Why does proper typography interfere? Who is going to search for items with typography anyway? I would like answers to these questions. Tony (talk) 07:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, Tony, but you really don't seem to understand the difference between filenames and text. Filenames can cause problems if users take them to other devices which do not support Unicode, however, all modern browsers DO support Unicode. What's possible in text is not necessarily possible if you want to, say, have the file on an MP3 player (not that we support MP3 players that well, but that's because Wikipedia's decision-making sucks when philosophy and usability collide.) Now, perhaps I'm coming from a perspective of someone who started on computers in the early 80s, and the restrictions are gradually lifting, but we need to be conservative on this point for things that may be used in fairly cheap, unstandardised equipment, and sound files are one thing that a lot of users want to be portable, and may well use in such equipment. In particular, I don't think en-dashes are particularly widely supported on older equipment. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Right. Policy says we should support users on 800x600 screens, so it also makes sense that we should support users that have a need for ASCII-only filenames. Jujutacular talk 15:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- "some users downloading them will run into awkwardness if we use too many unusual characters"—why? What is "too many"? " they CANNOT be redirected to in any meaningful way"—how do people search for a soundfile, then? Surely they are in categories. The file names are often so bizarre that the whole business of file names is dysfunctional for pure searches. Won't the search function respond to single search words such as "Beethoven"? Why does proper typography interfere? Who is going to search for items with typography anyway? I would like answers to these questions. Tony (talk) 07:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
- Filenames really do need to be simple ASCII, since they CANNOT be redirected to in any meaningful way, and some users downloading them will run into awkwardness if we use too many unusual characters. Everywhere else, you have a point. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm a bit concerned I wasn't able to find a specific link to this file in the Pandora Repository. Could someone help me out? Jujutacular talk 03:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- http://music.ibiblio.org/pub/multimedia/pandora/vorbis/piano/O_Doan/Liszt%2cStrauss/index.html Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Also, the "licensing info" link: [1] seems to be dead. Jujutacular talk 02:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- http://music.ibiblio.org/pub/multimedia/pandora/vorbis/piano/O_Doan/Liszt%2cStrauss/index.html Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Fantastic piece. Jujutacular talk 03:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support The start caught me off guard there! The transition to the piano was rough, though I'm not sure if that was the composer's intention or not. Otherwise, it's a marvellous piece. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 6:12pm • 07:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support My god it's just fantastic. Now someone go get Guerillero or X! to close this :D Sven Manguard Wha? 21:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Promoted Richard Strauss - Neal O'Doan - Burleske.ogg None of you could find any major faults with this and neither can I --Guerillero | My Talk 06:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)