featured Sound Candidates/Central American National Anthems

They add significantly to the following articles:

Panama National Anthem

• Himno Istmeño
• Jeronimo de la Ossa

Costa Rica National Anthem

• Noble patria, tu hermosa bandera

Honduras National Anthem

• Carlos Hartling
• National Anthem of Honduras

El Salvador National Anthem

• National Anthem of El Salvador

• Nominate and support. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Suppport The El Salvador anthem was the only one with any life in it, but for all that, played well by the Army Band as usual. High level of EV. Major Bloodnok (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment—It concerns me that the corpus of FSs needs to avoid significant imbalances. Are we to promote every single national anthem played superbly by the US Navy Band? Another issue is that some of these national anthems are, in my view, musically very non-notable. The Cuban one recently promoted starts with a fairly empty rat-tat-tat, which is acceptable I guess, then moves from a pretty ordinary national-anthemy type of genre to a something rather more akin to a popular genre (I cannot believe this was written more than a century ago, but there's no information on the arranger. If FSs are to appear on the main page, we'll end up with 10% of them being military band performances of national anthems. Vomit. (You know I'm not casting aspersions on the performers, of course; it's a confluence of their excellence and the US government's forsight in making its own productions copyright-free.) Tony (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you that the pieces of music are not notable musically. However, I believe they are notable and have high EV because they are national anthems and that therefore this makes the music notable for reasons other than the inherent quality (or lack of it) in the composition. I also agree that FS should be more than a repository for brass-band national anthems, but we can't disallow a candidate on the grounds that we have too many similar pieces like this already. The more FSes there are the better in my view. Oh, and I also agree that the US government has much foresight in making its work public domain. If only other governments did the same more widely. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I note that recent massive changes to the criteria have no consensus. Major, "The more FSes there are the better in my view."—this is something I fundamentally disagree with, as I did at FAC in 2005 and 2006, when the standards left a lot to be desired in the rush to raise the proportion of all articles that were featured. Featured status per se rather than quality was seen to be The Good Thing. Now, FSs do need to be "among our best work". That means notable music, too, unless there's a compelling reason (historical, etc) for accepting ordinary stuff any commercial composer could dash off in an afternoon for a fee (give me a fee and I'll write a better one, frankly).
On the contrary, notability is required for use in an article, not for featured status. Tony (talk) 10:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You disagree - that is fine and surely is the point of this part of WP. As to how the criteria was amended, I'll leave that to the talk page. I don't see why having more sounds rated as featured quality by the community can be a bad thing, but you are entitled to your opinion. IMO having a high EV is a very important criterion in determining whether a sound should be featured. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Promote all No doubt tony has a point, but neither the wp:featured sounds criteria v1.0 or v2.0 have a pervision to fail these. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]