Talk:Gramophone record
|
|
| Missing image Cscr-featured.png Featured article star | Gramophone record is a featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute. |
| Contents |
Older discussion
- Older discussion moved to Talk:Gramophone record/Archive1
- Discussion and votes specifically related to the move of this page from the old title "analogue disc record" to "gramophone record" moved to Talk:Gramophone record/Archive2
Unusual types of gramophone record
I moved the disussion and listing of gimmicks and strange types of discs to a seperate article, Unusual types of gramophone record, as this article was getting long and that section was starting to bog what was otherwise mostly an overview of the subject down with trivia. -- Infrogmation 19:31, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
PAGE MOVE
Voting ended. "Gramophone record" with 17 votes edged out "record (audio)" with 13 votes in the run off. The Wikipedia page formerly known as "analogue disc record" is now at "Gramophone record".
Help in finishing the move: Fixing links
I believe I took care of fixing any double redirects. I hope those who offered to help with the move will now get into tackling the links to redirects. -- Infrogmation 00:24, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I've taken care of a number of links, mostly in audio articles which were likely to benifit from a bit more editing than simply changing the link names. See Gramophone record:what links here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Gramophone_record) for the numerous pages where link to "analogue disc record" (and variations) need to be changed to "gramophone record". Thanks! -- Infrogmation 15:45, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- There are about 100 links to fix -- let's get fixing them. I'll do ten. -- Done. -- The Anome 16:53, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Kudos to the fine small group of users who took care of the hundreds of links! A special "Starr" is awarded to champion link fixer User:Kate. -- Infrogmation 15:02, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Our former title in the text?
In the "other names" section, the sentence The neologism "analogue disc record" has also been seen. was commented out with the note -- oh no it hasn't, give me the non-Wikipedia source if it has . That term still has dozens of wikilinks here to it. If/when Wikipedia no longer is linking to "analogue disc record", I have no objection to discussing the appropriateness of dropping the term alltogether; I do object to removing it from the text without first fixing links to it. -- Infrogmation 15:33, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Yay, we seem to have gotten the links situation under hand. Well, I just did a google search for "analogue disc record": 1,880 (and 858 for "analog disc record"). Yep, the Wikipedia article is a the top of the list, and no doubt Wikipedia and mirrors played a big role in spreading the term. None the less, it "has also been seen". I think leaving the single mention of the term in the third paragraph of the "gramophone record" article, as is the situation now, is fine. 2 cents from Infrogmation 15:02, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I don't. I commented it out (not deleting it) because it really doesn't exist anywhere that isn't a Wikipedia mirror. If you think otherwise, provide solid references - David Gerard 16:23, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- "Analogue disc record" is indeed a Wikipedia neologism, which we have now decided collectively was a bad idea. It is thus non-encyclopedic. -- The Anome 23:49, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- "The neologism 'fragglesnot fizblit' has also been seen to describe the Fiji coups of 1987." Well, it has, now that you've read the previous sentence! This fallacy is matched in idiocy only by the original titling of the article, and I cannot believe we're actually discussing propagating it further. Austin Hair 03:43, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Kill it, kill it, kill it! We should not mention it at all in the main article namespace. Wikipedia's own use of this term is not notable, other than as an item of soon-to-be-nostalgic Wikitrivia. Outside of Wikipedia, even if it was ever used at all, by accident or coincidence or whatever, it was never a familiar or important term. Platter, pressing, LP, side, album, acetate, transcription, Victrola disc,... there must be a dozen obscure slang terms that I don't even know that were more common than "analogue disc record." I don't know what professional recording engineers called these things, but I'll bet it wasn't "analogue disc record" (or "analog disk record" for that matter). Mentioning "analogue disc record" in the article makes about as much sense as carefully noting that they were frequently called "Wekkids" by children. The only people who need to know about it are a tiny number of people who read the old article, remember it by the weird name, and need to find it again under that name... and we have a redirect for that. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:21, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Fine then; I drop any objection to having the hated phrase totally absent from the article. -- Infrogmation 20:36, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) ...And now on to the next question....
Are there any other Wikipedia-inspired terms analogous :o) to this, that we have unwittingly (or wittingly) spread throughout the Internet? zoney ▓█▒ talk 21:00, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- That's a good question. I can only think of one other example. Operation Chastise (The Dambusters' raid) existed at "Operation Downwood" for about a year before anyone noticed that it was completely wrong. BY then it had spread throughout the Internet. I argued that this spread was solely inspired by the Wikipedia article and that the redirect should be deleted, but others disagreed. Mintguy (T) 22:03, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Vinyl record
Should the Vinyl record article have its content merged into the "Gramophone record" article and become a redirect?
- I can't see what would be lost by doing so. Make that a careful merge, though - past merges have led to much duplicated content, even in the intro - David Gerard 11:20, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- The gramophone record in the era of digital technology section in this article now encompasses just about all information from the Vinyl record section Vinyl vs. compact discs and then some --Deelkar 04:48, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with the merge idea, but (violating the "be bold" standard) I figure I'll let the editors who've already put so much effort into these two articles do it. That way we'll know it's done well. Also, (not to re-open a huge discussion. . . . ) perhaps the explanation of British vs. American names could be moved directly below the title. This could help eliminate any confusion on the part of us easily-confused Yanks. Soundguy99 15:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)Soundguy99
Playback time of records
Shouldn't the timing of each format (in minutes:seconds) be displayed somewhere in the article?
- The subject is mentioned in the Postwar Formats section under 33 rpm records. It cannot be exactly specified because the playing time is highly variable. It depends on the amplitude of the recorded signal and the amount of bass content as well as record speed (rpm). These first two items vary the groove spacing, thus varying playback time. --Blainster 00:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Link to wow
The link to "wow" (in the disc adapter caption) leads to a disambigulation page, but there isn't an entry for "wow" as it relates to audio matters. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the phenomenon to start an article on it.
Request for references
Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. Further reading is not the same thing as proper references. Further reading could list works about the topic that were not ever consulted by the page authors. If some of the works listed in the further reading section were used to add or check material in the article, please list them in a references section instead. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Taxman&action=edit§ion=new) when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 17:07, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)