This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Phonograph record article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Professional sound production, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sound recording and reproduction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Professional sound productionWikipedia:WikiProject Professional sound productionTemplate:WikiProject Professional sound productionProfessional sound production articles
Phonograph record is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article refers to all recordings made on discs, not just LPs and 45s. Prior to 1947, phonograph records were almost invariably pressed on shellac, a very different material from vinyl. Because of that, it would be inaccurate to refer to all phonograph records as "vinyl records". —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's sound. But every time I come to this page I get a WP:RASTONISH surprise, and I suspect the effect is true of the general Wikipedia readership. Popcornfud (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for mentioning that! I've corrected the redirect to target vinyl record to LP record. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is more than 50 years of commercial history of phonograph records before vinyl records came along (some earlier experimentation, but not commercially mass produced until after WWII). Please note that "vinyl record" is not synonymous with LP records either - in 1948/1949 vinyl pressings of two new formats hit the market, the 45 rpm single backed by RCA Victor and the 33 LP backed by competitor Columbia. Both are vinyl records (the term refers to what the record is made from, and is not a single format nor catch all term for disc audio records) - as are some late examples of what were formerly called "standard" records (78 rpm). -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deepest thanks for your comment! Would it be better if I redirected "vinyl record" to a disambiguation page instead of an article? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the article, I think some rewriting of the section at and around the header "New sizes and materials", as commercial switch to vinyl and the new 45 single and 33 LP were all late 1940s developments (the earlier experiment with LPs in the 1930s is perhaps given misleading undue weight here, as it was not a commercial success, and is more of an interesting temporary dead end - like the Edison Disc Long Play records of the 1920s). Let me look and think for a day. I don't think we have a need for a separate "vinyl record" article, but showing it more prominently in the late 1940s history section might be good. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been "bold" and gone ahead and done a quick rewrite, and retargeted "Vinyl record" to a rewritten subheader of this article, "New sizes and materials after WWII: 45 rpm singles, LPs, and vinyl records". Name is a bit long, but section deals with various related significant changes. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Improving the article
I've moved the section on the "World" brand variable speed records to Unusual types of gramophone records (where it was already mentioned). Such tangents are interesting and should be covered somewhere - but in examples such as this, which were a commercial failure that did not contribute to future development of the form, I don't think it should be detailed in this article, which I think should be an overview of the topic. Further improvements can certainly be made; parts of the article are by chronology, parts by topics, and IMO still with some material that seems tangential to a general overview. More thoughts? -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the material in the "Predecessors" seems like it should be elsewhere, perhaps a "History of recorded sound" article. I see we have a Sound recording and reproduction article. Thoughts on how best to restructure this? -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of why I undid a recent Nightscream revert
I have undone a well meant revert by Nightscream, which the the user addressed on my talk page at User_talk:Infrogmation#phonograph_record. I think it would be more useful to have all discussion here, where others interested in improving this article can also see it and if they wish add their opinions/suggestions. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Phonoautograph has it's own article, and is also discussed in the history of recorded sound article. A long detailed discussion of it, duplicating material already covered elsewhere, was an irrelevant tangent in an article that was supposedly about something else. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was at first going to move the tangential material en bulk elsewhere, but looking at the other articles I made sure nothing was lost that wasn't already duplicated elsewhere. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At my user talk page I was chided for lack of citation for what I mistakenly thought was a very well known fact for people who know a bit of the history of recordings; I added it back with a reference quickly found in a web search. If anything I have written seems to be in need of citation, I would prefer it be tagged with a a request for citation, rather than be unilaterally removed without warning. Thanks much. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nightscream was correct to remove the uncited material. All claims require citations. WP:V is a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia policy.
Per WP:BURDEN, The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.
The proper way to proceed is to find a reliable secondary source for information before adding it. We should be using sources to determine what belongs in articles — not writing articles and then finding sources later. Popcornfud (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Be aware that there is a slow moving unresolved disagreement regarding this editing pattern. If anyone with ample free time is interested, I can link to past discussions. My feeling is that there is not a policy consensus that WP:BURDEN allows editors to summarily delete unsourced material in the first place. These deletions are arguably disruptive and they do not improve the encyclopedia. ~Kvng (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I invite other editors to remind themselves of our WP:VERIFY policy: All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable ... Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed.
Nightscream is following policy. Popcornfud (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also ...any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation. The editing pattern under dispute is editors who "challenge" unsourced statements simply because they're unsourced. The argument about this goes circular and I won't waste any more time going around it again here. ~Kvng (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although the recent additions of sources are appreciated, they don't appear to be high-quality sources. For example, what makes this a great source for Wikipedia? We can't simply throw in any website that has the info. There's a list of reliable music-related sources at WP:RSMUSIC that could be a good starting point. Popcornfud (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The Phonoautograph has it's own article, and..."
It doesn't matter. You can't add or leave material in an article without citations. Period. If you wanted to leave a summarized version of that info, that doens't mean that WP:V/WP:NOR/WP:CS does not require citations.
"there is a slow moving unresolved disagreement regarding this editing pattern."
A lie. It was resolved last year. A group of policy violators implemented a series of four failed attempts to get away with their policy violations by reporting me to various WP talk pages, the last of which was closed on Septmber 8, 2023 by an administator who wrote in their closing comment "Further relitigation of the same points is unlikely to be helpful, and the relevant policies have been repeatedly explained." Looking through that discussion will show that members of the community who participated in it upheld my position, which is that policies state that uncited material cannot be added/restored to articles, a point that none of you even addressed, let alone falsified. Popcornfud also seems to understand this.
Your refusal to accept this, and to falsely claim that it's "unresolved", is not a statement of truth, but of your the arrogance with which you behave as if you do not have to follows the rules set forth by the community here, and the mendacity with which you attempt to get away with this. Nightscream (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I guess I'm an arrogant liar in your eyes. It was quiet for a while but we're apparently back to unpleasant interactions. This is not a productive discussion. ~Kvng (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nightscream: Thanks for your feedback. Kvng: Please try to keep discussion civil and not personal. As for me, I am not well versed in the history of policy discussions on this point. However in the short term for this particular article I'd like to request use of the "citation needed" or similar as a flag for what specific details others think needs a reference. (I have been trying to improve the article including in matters of basic readability and avoiding long tangents on matters already better addressed elsewhere.) The history of audio technology is a topic I have worked with and read multiple books, articles etc about for decades; while this makes me familiar with some details, at the same time might make me unaware of if a detail is pretty much common knowledge or not. I'm assuming there are some things I don't need to include inline references to, for example that the records are round and mostly flat - or is even something so basic in need of citation? If I make a single sentence summary of a tangential topic, with a link to the article about that topic which discusses it in detail with multiple references, do I need to copy those references here as well? Suggestions for further improvements? Thanks, all! Recordially, -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Infrogmation, you don't need to include references you find in references you cite. Readers can, on their own, drill down as deeply as they like. WP:BLUE is a well-circulated essay pertaining to your common-knowledge question. You may not be aware that on Wikipedia we generally prefer WP:SECONDARY sources. These sources often lack detail found in the WP:PRIMARY sources but they offer perspective and balanced coverage that is usually lacking in the primary sources. ~Kvng (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much for the reply and thanks for the links. I try to keep up with changing guidelines, but never get all of it. One of the problems in my attempt to improve the article, is when "the sky is blue" rule kicks in - I was including some things I thought were common knowledge by those with some basic familiarity with 20th century audio history, but had them removed as uncited, original research, and disruptive, with angry threats on my talk page. That's why I've asked for feedback before unilateral removal - being personally long fairly familiar with a subject, I may not always know what others think needs citation. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As my attempts at article improvement were smacked down while in progress, I am somewhat surprised to see that Wikipedia:Be bold is still a guideline, apparently not yet depreciated, and lacking warnings that acting on it can result in being labeled as disruptive & acting in bad faith, as well as being unilaterally blocked. @Nightscream: perhaps you could give more guidance on how I can thread these shoals? -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kvng: "you don't need to include references you find in references you cite."
I have no idea what this gibberish means, but the passage/paragraph in question most certainly requires citations. the history of phonoautograph and phonograph are not akin to "the sky is blue", and this was sort of thing was confirmed by other editors and admins in that discussion we had last autumn at Talk:Radio. I and others, most notably Daniel Case, also debunked your numerous delusions in depth in the discussion on my talk page that followed that.
As for WP:BLUE, essays are not policies. In fact, that page flat-out states:
"Note that this essay should never be cited in a dispute about whether or not a certain fact is true or not and should not be considered a replacement for the core content policies."
Indeed, distorting the relationship of policies to community consensus was another thing you exhibited mendacity with in that discussion from last year, as with this inane comment, which I had to refute. You ended up retreating from that ill-informed statement, and even tried to cover this up with another poorly-thought-out lie. Now you're back to exhibiting twisting or selective adherence to policy. The other editors and admins told you in that dicussion that material like this needs citations. What part of this are you not understanding? Was NinjaRobotPirate, who closed that discussion in favor of my correct adhernece to sourcing policies wrong? Was Daniel Case, another admin who debunked your fallacy-ridden arguments on my tp, also wrong? Is everyone who points out to you that you're wrong about not needing citations wrong?
Second, the history of phonoautograph and phonograph are not akin to "the sky is blue", as it is not, as WP:BLUE says, "common knowledge". Again, you tried this crap last year when you falsely claimed that "Only disputed facts must be verified with a citation," which I then debunked. Why are you continuing to trot out this debunked idea of yours? What does it take for you to get the point that the community has had discussion with you, and told you that you're wrong?
Lastly, even if the two of you believed newly-added material doesn't require citations to be added to it, why was it justified for Infrogmation to remove the ones that were already there?Nightscream (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No answer, huh? What a shock. Nightscream (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been through this before with you. My conclusion is that we disagree and we both think we're right. Is there something new on the table this time? ~Kvng (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nightscream, Infrogmation, and Phonograph record article
Nightscream and I seem to have some sort of conflict, which is certainly not anything I wish. In addition to what has been going on on here in the article and talk page, see my talk page at User_talk:Infrogmation#phonograph_record, where I am threatened with block. I hope discussion can be more cool and constructive - I strongly assert that whatever mistakes I might have made, NONE were intended to be "disruptive" nor *knowingly* violating policy, as I have been accused of. If any other parties interested in improving this article without personal dispute have suggestions I would welcome it; if this seems beyond the scope of resolution here, any thoughts on if I'd be better bringing this to other's attention at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, or perhaps some other Wikipedia forum. Thanks for your attention. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On further thought, I think we have two different issues here - Nighscream's issues with me attempting to edit are mostly off topic for talk page (possibly a Admin noticeboard issue). The other issue is improving this article - which is related to the first issue only in so far as I might be able to help in doing so without being blocked. A basic standard reference like "Tinfoil to Stereo" on hand can provide citations to many things. I guess all thoughts on improving this article need to be aired in detail on this talk page and consensus reached before editing the article? -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have had similar problems working with Nightscream. I don't think the problem is with us. If past behavior is any indicator, Nightscream will find a way to make it our problem. ~Kvng (talk) 23:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your problem is your belief that you don't have to adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and the deliberate mendacity you exhibit in order to get away with this, including chickening out of answering when I debunk your arguments, as with the discussion right above this one. The evidence of your conduct to date, and the manner in which admins had explicitly closed discussions against your position, clearly indicates this. If this were not true, you'd be able to falsify it. You haven't, because you can't, and you're not honbest enough to admit this. Nightscream (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is my belief that I don't have to adhere to your interpretation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. As far as chickening out is concerned, I spent a fair amount of time answering your questions and explaining my position and interpretation of policy and, having done so, the conversation just abruptly stopped. I still don't know what to make of that but I WP:AGF and appreciate your efforts to improve the encyclopedia. ~Kvng (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Equalisation
The paragraph about companies continuing to use their own equalisations into the 1970s is completely wrong. US Columbia changed to RIAA in mid-1955, Britsh Decca changed to RIAA on January 1st 1956. Telefunken (not Teldec, which was not an LP label until 1983) and Deutsche Grammophon used RIAA from at least 1962 in accordance with the DIN Standard for LPs issued in that year.
Wikipedia shouldn't publish such unverified nonsense Barretter (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Twelve years ago I had access to the Ronald Penndorf book Recollections guide to collectible LPs which I recall said that Columbia released some discs with their old house curve into the 1970s. I added that reference myself[1] in an attempt to make sense of what had already been written in the article. I no longer have that book.
The scale of such non-RIAA releases isn't defined by Penndorf as far as I know. It might be small pressings, or filters that are not so much different than RIAA. So the reference does not support a global statement saying that RIAA filter was ignored in a major fashion. Binksternet (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Equalisation 2
At one time there was a long section on equalization, but it was completely unsourced and had some OR problems, so was rightly removed. But this left the following section orphaned in the Limitations section:
Further, even after officially agreeing to implement the RIAA equalization curve, many recording labels continued to use their own proprietary equalization even well into the 1970s. Columbia is one such prominent example in the US, as are Decca, Teldec and Deutsche Grammophon in Europe.[1]
I have removed this because it doesn't make sense to include this in the absence of any other discussion of equalization, and it certainly doesn't belong in Limitations. GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Penndorf, Ronald (1994). Recollections guide to collectible LPs, volume 1, p. 89. Recollections.
The lead
@PuppyMonkey: The lead is a summary of the article. Nothing should go in the lead that isn't discussed elsewhere in the article. See WP:LEAD. GA-RT-22 (talk) 03:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LP versus CD
Why is the section written in some sort of "lamer" language? Is it intentially oversimplified? "The necessity for digital recordings to presume upper and lower bounds, sampling the tones and soundwaves within those limits and using the resulting information to store and recall the audio"? "To presume upper and lower bounds"? Do you mean "to use filters"?
Anyway, the section should just say that while the Shanon–Kotelnikov–Nyquist–sampling theorem "says" that the sound recorded on CD can be faithfully converted to analog, the real-life devices (DACs) are imperfect. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surprisingly, the current source ([2]) is fine. ("Completely rebuild a sound wave" – nice, that's what I wanted to say, but couldn't find the right words, so I wrote "faithfully convert to analog".) But we should just explain aliasing. Here's a more technical source: [3] (found by googling „CD "Nyquist" "imperfect" "44.1 kHz"“). --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Comment: There is more than 50 years of commercial history of phonograph records before vinyl records came along (some earlier experimentation, but not commercially mass produced until after WWII). Please note that "vinyl record" is not synonymous with LP records either - in 1948/1949 vinyl pressings of two new formats hit the market, the 45 rpm single backed by RCA Victor and the 33 LP backed by competitor Columbia. Both are vinyl records (the term refers to what the record is made from, and is not a single format nor catch all term for disc audio records) - as are some late examples of what were formerly called "standard" records (78 rpm). -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
