Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry/archive1

List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry edit

This is a self-nomination. The page is a high search engine result for many of the entries on the list. My intent is that this page will include lists until 2009 and then a new page for 2010-2019 will be created. The first 100 edits represented my wikipedia initiation starting with my 4th edit as a wikipedian. All but 4 or 5 (I may be the I.P. address) edits are mine. The next 26 edits document corrections by the numerous people who chanced upon this list in search engine results. The remaining edits since are mostly preparation for and responses to a peer review. I believe the list is an important one based on the number of corrections made by wikipedians who stumbled upon it in search results. TonyTheTiger 22:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are fair use problems with some of the images. Rmhermen 00:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can images be found to fill in the spots were there are none? Also, all album covers should have a fair use rationale written for them. -- Underneath-it-All 04:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Unfortunately, many of the older recordings have no clealy applicable images based on looking at all the linked pages. There are a few artists who have images of album covers in their article other than the one for which they are included on this list. I was not sure what to do about such cases. I chose not to add an image. A possible solution would be to include such images, add captions to all images and clearly describe images that are only tangentially related. As far as fair use rationale goes, I did not post any images myself. I just looked at linked pages to see what relevant image were out there. TonyTheTiger 19:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oppose per excessive use of fair use images. Renata 23:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment All fair use images removed. TonyTheTiger 22:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then there are further issues: small lead (with the first sentence being really ridicilous), inconsistent table widths, bad reference formating (you don't really need the in-line refs for general references; right now it looks like refs 2-5 go to reference only one sentence and the rest is not referenced), "The following is a list of recordings... " is self-reference, why some entries are in italics or in quotation marks while other are just plain? Renata 12:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Entries in italics are album names. Song names are not in italics. This convention was agreed upon by the music afficionados that stumbled upon this web page as a search engine result. I believe it would be like book names being in italics, and chapters being in regular font. The references were added based on the peer review. TonyTheTiger 17:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Question would you like to see the information from National Recording Registry and National Recording Preservation Board merged into the lead of this list? TonyTheTiger 17:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Will work on column widths soon. TonyTheTiger 13:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC) Done 19:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I hope to revisit the lead and references this weekend. TonyTheTiger 18:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are the objectors satisfied with the recent changes? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose a number of dubious links (recording, musical composition...), also, the layout with tables, then text in a similar subdivision makes no sense. Also, no need whatsoever to link the second instance of National Recording Registry in the lead (which is linked TWICEthere too). The second intro paragraph in underlinked (not "July 1rst", but "July 1") and clunkily written (Why reiterate the entire law title in two sentences following each others?).Circeus 19:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Apparently, you don't understand the text. In the intro I mention that in several instances recordings overlap with the National Archives' audiovisual collection. The text at the bottom elaborates on this overlap, which some readers of the list may find interesting. Please review the text with this understanding in mind and tell me if it still makes no sense to you. TonyTheTiger 21:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not clear enough why it's pertinent to mention the Archive's collection. Do both collections have similar aims? And I definitely think the text should be merge in the sections. The simplest option would be to add a column to indicate when a recording is duplicated in the NA's collection. Said text contains a number of unlinked dates that should be linked too.Circeus 00:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is not up to you or me to say what is important. Wikipedia is a tertiary resource meaning we report what others report as important. Every year there are press releases describing the overlap. Thus, as a wikipedian we must view it as a pertinent fact. The National Archives' objective is to make a public record of things that support American Rights. Thus, things like Fireside Chats, Kennedy's Inauguration, and MacArthurs speaches overlap. They will tend to overlap on the more politically oriented recordings as I understand it. TonyTheTiger 00:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Explain what is meant by dubious links. TonyTheTiger 00:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Irrelevant or poorly made ones. I put 2 above. Try to keep them relevant. Circeus 00:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]