![]() | National Recording Registry is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This list is undergoing an overhaul according to the recent peer review. In addition to the changes there, I am incorporating stylistic changes that prevail at list that have been selected as featured lists. You can see that I have begun conversion to wikitable format because most articles that reach featured list status are in this format. I hope many of the people who have helped me edit this page to its pre review state will help me improve it to a featured list quality level.
P.S. this list holds a place in my heart because it is the first page I created begining with my 4th edit as a wikipedian. TonyTheTiger 20:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the page needs an overhaul. I think it should be more like the article for the National Film Registry, where all of the selections are part of one table, and the year they were added to the registry is one sortable field. Having ten separate lists is a bit unwieldy. 69.67.124.60 ( talk) 18:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
The following references have been changed:
More of the references may have been changed. You may want to check any of the references with "loc.gov"; they seemed to have changed a few oof they're URLs.
According to this criteria, the article fails, since GA does not cover lists. Consider taking it to peer review and straight to FAC. -- Nehrams2020 18:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
When is the 2007 list going to be released?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 19:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Type of recording. E.g., album, song, speech, field recording, radio broadcast... It'd be handy to order the table contents into groups of recording type. 222.152.165.138 ( talk) 08:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
e.g. Prof. Longhair appears in both 213.78.155.203 ( talk) 06:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Some old history that used to be at the title "National Recording Registry" can now be found at Talk:National Recording Registry/Old history. Graham 87 11:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, everybody. I don't really know if anybody's gonna read this, knowing the last reply on this page was on August of last year, but it's worth a shot. I was browsing through this article, and I was also browsing through the National Film Registry article, when I noticed both had one major difference: the film article has all of the preserved films in one giant table, while the one for this article is split up into multiple tables with multiple headings, taking up too much space, etc. So, I was thinking for a bit, and I suggest that instead of an individual table for an individual year, I suggest we use the same format as the table in the National Film Registry article. Below is a short example showing what the article could look like (I selected random recordings from the article, and a picture as well):
Recording or collection | Performer or agent | Category of recording or collection | Year of release | Year of induction | Natioal Archives |
Ref | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band | The Beatles | Pop (post-1955) | 1967 | 2003 | [2003 recs letter ref] | ||
Nevermind | Nirvana | Pop (post-1955) | 1991 | 2004 | [2004 recs letter ref] | ||
The Fall of the City ( Columbia Workshop) | Orson Welles, narrator; Burgess Meredith, Paul Stewart |
Radio | 1937, 11 April | 2005 | copy | [2005 recs letter ref] | |
The Joshua Tree | U2 | Pop (post-1955) | 1987 | 2013 | [2013 recs letter ref] | ||
OK Computer | Radiohead | Pop (post-1955) | 1997 | 2014 | [2014 recs letter ref] | ||
Abraxas | Santana | Latin | 1970 | 2015 | [2015 recs letter ref] |
Below are some examples why featuring just one giant list would be better over multiple tables:
Anyways, that's my proposal to not only organize the article, but to also free up some space and bits from the article. Again, I'm not sure if anybody will read this, and I'm only posting this because I don't want to create a huge drastic difference in the article seemingly overnight; I want to see if I have support from others. So, please, tell any suggestions, support, opposition, any all of that by replying to this new section. Thank you, and have a great day. Redolta 📱 Contribs 07:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
This article doesn't necessarily need an infobox; see WP:Disinfoboxes.
If we really want to add an infobox,
Template:Infobox website isn't the most appropriate one, because the National Recording Registry is not a website; it is a board under the
National Archives
Library of Congress, which is a
government agency; therefore
Template:Infobox government agency would probably be more appropriate.
It also looks funny to see the picture of MLK under the infobox instead of put inside of it; but that probably wasn't done because that isn't really an appropriate picture to illustrate the National Recording Registry; it's just an illustration of one of the notable recordings (albeit possibly the most notable one.)
JustinTime55 (
talk) 19:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
According to this article, the National Recording Registry is "a list of recordings" and says "recordings [are] preserved in the ... Registry ... for preservation in the Library of Congress", and "The list shows overlapping items and whether the National Archives has an original or a copy of the recording." But it doesn't say exactly how the recordings are preserved! Just listing the recordings doesn't preserve them; obviously copies of the recordings must be physically stored in the Library of Congress. JustinTime55 ( talk) 19:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Why do you keep deleting the George Carlin source? Espngeek ( talk) 19:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Espngeek ( talk) 19:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
When adding more tables to the article, please use Template:Date table sorting. Without the template, all the dates that contain the month get sorted alphabetically. The template treats the spelled-out months as numbers so that they are sorted properly. Bait30 Talk? 09:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
This article now has so many accompanying images that the thumbnails extend far beyond the article text when I view the page in my desktop browser and make navigating this list on a mobile browser nearly prohibitively cumbersome. We should consider instituting a limit of, say, two images per decade and paring down the excess. Obviously it'll be a bit painful to lose the (literal and figurative) color they bring, but I think a reduction is needed to make this list accessible.
Espngeek, this change would have the greatest affect on your contributions, so I would greatly value your thoughts in selecting which images are retained. I know I'd prioritize images like those of Ishi, the Bee Gees, and Goria Estefan that have informative captions of direct relevance to the the subjects' inclusion in the registry, but I'm open to other criteria. — jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 16:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
On the subject of the images, I think it is not only the quantity that is at issue, but their nature. Many of the selections (and accompanying descriptions) focus on the artists rather than their works--but it is the works that have been honored by Registry inclusion. Rather than, say, an image of R.E.M. and description of why the band is important, there should be an image of the "Radio Free Europe" single and description of why it is important. (In a case where an artist's entire output was inducted, focus on the individual would seem more justified.) -- 174.221.15.77 ( talk) 01:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
The table's arguably the meat of the article, and you have to scroll down a whole lot of images (in chronological order of induction) to get there. I argue that they would work better in their own section underneath that of the table, providing extra context to the inductees. FreeChurros ( talk) 17:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
National Film Registry article has all its images placed in a separate Commons article: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/National_Film_Registry . I'm wondering if we shouldn't do the same thing here. Those images are taking up a lot of real estate, and they'll keep increasing by the year. I'm worried they're taking attention away from the actual selection list rather than supplementing it. FreeChurros ( talk) 16:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
It's unwieldy and long. I've noticed that on the page for the National Film Registry it only lists the directors with multiple entries. What if, instead of exhaustively listing backup singers, producers and sampled musicians, we only focus on the named artists/agents, artists appearing in compilations/soundtracks that also have solo recordings on the Registry? FreeChurros ( talk) 03:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Apparently, the National Archives column indicates recordings that are also maintained in the National Archives (?). Assuming that there is any importance to cross-indexing that fact (and I'm not exactly clear why there would be), it would be really helpful to the average wiki user if the article explained the column's purpose and the "original"/"copy" content thereof. Most users are not going to intuitively understand it and few are going to delve into 'Talk' in hopes of finding out the what and why. Frankly, in my opinion, a more interesting cross-index would indicate those that are also contained in the Smithsonian's massive collections of culturally important sound recordings. Irish Melkite ( talk) 17:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Examples: Jay-Z sampled Michael Jackson and The Doors on The Blueprint. Espngeek ( talk) 23:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
The recordings themselves aren't inducted in the NFR, they're IN films that have been inducted in the NFR. I think a better phrasing would be "This recording or parts of it appear in a National Film Registry inductee," though I admit that outside of the NFR/NRR relation I don't really see the point of mentioning this on the NRR page, especially next to albums where only one song appears in a movie, sometimes incidentally. It feels more like superfluous trivia. -- FreeChurros ( talk) 05:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
FYI it was featured at the end of Cooley High. You're welcome. Espngeek ( talk) 19:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I propose that sections National_Recording_Registry#Inductees and National_Recording_Registry#Artists_with/who_appear_on_multiple_entries be split into separate pages called List of National Recording Registry entries and List of artists with multiple entries on the National Recording Registry. Both these sections combined, with their lengths, seem to be adding up to a page that is getting off-topic, and these sections are large enough to make their own page. For an example of a case similar this, I direct attention to National Inventors Hall of Fame and its subpage List of National Inventors Hall of Fame inductees. FreeChurros ( talk) 04:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
I think that settles it: proposal denied Espngeek ( talk) 22:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Related to the discussion two sections above. Seeking comment on if notes on National Film Registry should be kept or removed, as discussion came to a standstill. FreeChurros ( talk) 04:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
(invited by the bot) It's hard to learn the points of the debate because I don't see the debate. But the current "notes" section looks fine and useful to me. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 13:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
If these are going to be included they need to have the film named in the footnote or otherwise they're ambiguous and unhelpful. What does listing " Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This)" as this without saying which film it's used in add to this page exactly? Wikipedia footnotes shouldn't be a trivia guessing game. It's not Jeopardy. Doc Strange Mailbox Logbook 21:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Personally, I like cross-referencing even when the songs were used incidentally. Also, why separate? Espngeek ( talk) 13:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | National Recording Registry is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This list is undergoing an overhaul according to the recent peer review. In addition to the changes there, I am incorporating stylistic changes that prevail at list that have been selected as featured lists. You can see that I have begun conversion to wikitable format because most articles that reach featured list status are in this format. I hope many of the people who have helped me edit this page to its pre review state will help me improve it to a featured list quality level.
P.S. this list holds a place in my heart because it is the first page I created begining with my 4th edit as a wikipedian. TonyTheTiger 20:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the page needs an overhaul. I think it should be more like the article for the National Film Registry, where all of the selections are part of one table, and the year they were added to the registry is one sortable field. Having ten separate lists is a bit unwieldy. 69.67.124.60 ( talk) 18:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
The following references have been changed:
More of the references may have been changed. You may want to check any of the references with "loc.gov"; they seemed to have changed a few oof they're URLs.
According to this criteria, the article fails, since GA does not cover lists. Consider taking it to peer review and straight to FAC. -- Nehrams2020 18:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
When is the 2007 list going to be released?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 19:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Type of recording. E.g., album, song, speech, field recording, radio broadcast... It'd be handy to order the table contents into groups of recording type. 222.152.165.138 ( talk) 08:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
e.g. Prof. Longhair appears in both 213.78.155.203 ( talk) 06:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Some old history that used to be at the title "National Recording Registry" can now be found at Talk:National Recording Registry/Old history. Graham 87 11:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, everybody. I don't really know if anybody's gonna read this, knowing the last reply on this page was on August of last year, but it's worth a shot. I was browsing through this article, and I was also browsing through the National Film Registry article, when I noticed both had one major difference: the film article has all of the preserved films in one giant table, while the one for this article is split up into multiple tables with multiple headings, taking up too much space, etc. So, I was thinking for a bit, and I suggest that instead of an individual table for an individual year, I suggest we use the same format as the table in the National Film Registry article. Below is a short example showing what the article could look like (I selected random recordings from the article, and a picture as well):
Recording or collection | Performer or agent | Category of recording or collection | Year of release | Year of induction | Natioal Archives |
Ref | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band | The Beatles | Pop (post-1955) | 1967 | 2003 | [2003 recs letter ref] | ||
Nevermind | Nirvana | Pop (post-1955) | 1991 | 2004 | [2004 recs letter ref] | ||
The Fall of the City ( Columbia Workshop) | Orson Welles, narrator; Burgess Meredith, Paul Stewart |
Radio | 1937, 11 April | 2005 | copy | [2005 recs letter ref] | |
The Joshua Tree | U2 | Pop (post-1955) | 1987 | 2013 | [2013 recs letter ref] | ||
OK Computer | Radiohead | Pop (post-1955) | 1997 | 2014 | [2014 recs letter ref] | ||
Abraxas | Santana | Latin | 1970 | 2015 | [2015 recs letter ref] |
Below are some examples why featuring just one giant list would be better over multiple tables:
Anyways, that's my proposal to not only organize the article, but to also free up some space and bits from the article. Again, I'm not sure if anybody will read this, and I'm only posting this because I don't want to create a huge drastic difference in the article seemingly overnight; I want to see if I have support from others. So, please, tell any suggestions, support, opposition, any all of that by replying to this new section. Thank you, and have a great day. Redolta 📱 Contribs 07:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
This article doesn't necessarily need an infobox; see WP:Disinfoboxes.
If we really want to add an infobox,
Template:Infobox website isn't the most appropriate one, because the National Recording Registry is not a website; it is a board under the
National Archives
Library of Congress, which is a
government agency; therefore
Template:Infobox government agency would probably be more appropriate.
It also looks funny to see the picture of MLK under the infobox instead of put inside of it; but that probably wasn't done because that isn't really an appropriate picture to illustrate the National Recording Registry; it's just an illustration of one of the notable recordings (albeit possibly the most notable one.)
JustinTime55 (
talk) 19:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
According to this article, the National Recording Registry is "a list of recordings" and says "recordings [are] preserved in the ... Registry ... for preservation in the Library of Congress", and "The list shows overlapping items and whether the National Archives has an original or a copy of the recording." But it doesn't say exactly how the recordings are preserved! Just listing the recordings doesn't preserve them; obviously copies of the recordings must be physically stored in the Library of Congress. JustinTime55 ( talk) 19:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Why do you keep deleting the George Carlin source? Espngeek ( talk) 19:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Espngeek ( talk) 19:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
When adding more tables to the article, please use Template:Date table sorting. Without the template, all the dates that contain the month get sorted alphabetically. The template treats the spelled-out months as numbers so that they are sorted properly. Bait30 Talk? 09:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
This article now has so many accompanying images that the thumbnails extend far beyond the article text when I view the page in my desktop browser and make navigating this list on a mobile browser nearly prohibitively cumbersome. We should consider instituting a limit of, say, two images per decade and paring down the excess. Obviously it'll be a bit painful to lose the (literal and figurative) color they bring, but I think a reduction is needed to make this list accessible.
Espngeek, this change would have the greatest affect on your contributions, so I would greatly value your thoughts in selecting which images are retained. I know I'd prioritize images like those of Ishi, the Bee Gees, and Goria Estefan that have informative captions of direct relevance to the the subjects' inclusion in the registry, but I'm open to other criteria. — jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 16:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
On the subject of the images, I think it is not only the quantity that is at issue, but their nature. Many of the selections (and accompanying descriptions) focus on the artists rather than their works--but it is the works that have been honored by Registry inclusion. Rather than, say, an image of R.E.M. and description of why the band is important, there should be an image of the "Radio Free Europe" single and description of why it is important. (In a case where an artist's entire output was inducted, focus on the individual would seem more justified.) -- 174.221.15.77 ( talk) 01:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
The table's arguably the meat of the article, and you have to scroll down a whole lot of images (in chronological order of induction) to get there. I argue that they would work better in their own section underneath that of the table, providing extra context to the inductees. FreeChurros ( talk) 17:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
National Film Registry article has all its images placed in a separate Commons article: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/National_Film_Registry . I'm wondering if we shouldn't do the same thing here. Those images are taking up a lot of real estate, and they'll keep increasing by the year. I'm worried they're taking attention away from the actual selection list rather than supplementing it. FreeChurros ( talk) 16:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
It's unwieldy and long. I've noticed that on the page for the National Film Registry it only lists the directors with multiple entries. What if, instead of exhaustively listing backup singers, producers and sampled musicians, we only focus on the named artists/agents, artists appearing in compilations/soundtracks that also have solo recordings on the Registry? FreeChurros ( talk) 03:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Apparently, the National Archives column indicates recordings that are also maintained in the National Archives (?). Assuming that there is any importance to cross-indexing that fact (and I'm not exactly clear why there would be), it would be really helpful to the average wiki user if the article explained the column's purpose and the "original"/"copy" content thereof. Most users are not going to intuitively understand it and few are going to delve into 'Talk' in hopes of finding out the what and why. Frankly, in my opinion, a more interesting cross-index would indicate those that are also contained in the Smithsonian's massive collections of culturally important sound recordings. Irish Melkite ( talk) 17:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Examples: Jay-Z sampled Michael Jackson and The Doors on The Blueprint. Espngeek ( talk) 23:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
The recordings themselves aren't inducted in the NFR, they're IN films that have been inducted in the NFR. I think a better phrasing would be "This recording or parts of it appear in a National Film Registry inductee," though I admit that outside of the NFR/NRR relation I don't really see the point of mentioning this on the NRR page, especially next to albums where only one song appears in a movie, sometimes incidentally. It feels more like superfluous trivia. -- FreeChurros ( talk) 05:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
FYI it was featured at the end of Cooley High. You're welcome. Espngeek ( talk) 19:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I propose that sections National_Recording_Registry#Inductees and National_Recording_Registry#Artists_with/who_appear_on_multiple_entries be split into separate pages called List of National Recording Registry entries and List of artists with multiple entries on the National Recording Registry. Both these sections combined, with their lengths, seem to be adding up to a page that is getting off-topic, and these sections are large enough to make their own page. For an example of a case similar this, I direct attention to National Inventors Hall of Fame and its subpage List of National Inventors Hall of Fame inductees. FreeChurros ( talk) 04:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
I think that settles it: proposal denied Espngeek ( talk) 22:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Related to the discussion two sections above. Seeking comment on if notes on National Film Registry should be kept or removed, as discussion came to a standstill. FreeChurros ( talk) 04:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
(invited by the bot) It's hard to learn the points of the debate because I don't see the debate. But the current "notes" section looks fine and useful to me. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 13:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
If these are going to be included they need to have the film named in the footnote or otherwise they're ambiguous and unhelpful. What does listing " Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This)" as this without saying which film it's used in add to this page exactly? Wikipedia footnotes shouldn't be a trivia guessing game. It's not Jeopardy. Doc Strange Mailbox Logbook 21:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Personally, I like cross-referencing even when the songs were used incidentally. Also, why separate? Espngeek ( talk) 13:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)