Talk:Gramophone record/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Voting is over

Contents

Proposal to move this article

I've been going on about this for ages and so I'm going to call a vote. Mintguy (T) 09:49, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is there a closing date/time for the vote? -- ALoan (Talk) 02:19, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think we would just see what the general trend is first. I think we should give it another week and then ask if anyone has any strong objections to whatever is in the lead at that point and then probably move the article. BTW I have decided not to vote myself, incase my vote tips the balance. Mintguy (T) 02:29, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
On the 17th August (UTC), we can do a 1-week runoff between the two or three contenders if you like. (At this moment it's 11 to 7 between the leaders, which isn't overwhelming enough to call it IMO. A week more shouldn't be a problem if we can get it Right.) - David Gerard 09:24, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, the Brits win, simple as that. There's no rational way to choose a "right" alternative. It either has to be a) pond-neutral or b) coinflip (with loser redirecting to winner in any case). This whole discussion got started because there is consensus that either phonograph record redirecting to gramophone record or vice versa or vice versa would be better than awkward terms, imprecise terms, terms that are not the common name of the thingie, etc. The fact that the British usage got more votes suggests that the people interested in developing this article are predominantly British-usage-folks, as do the spellings of "colour" and "analogue" within the article. Either we can accept 11:7 as the true expression of vox populi, vox dei or we can accept as a kind of coinflip. The main thing is that after the move is completed, we must all be vigilant in watching for idiotic move wars and edit wars that may take place afterwards, conducted by people that have not been participating in this discussion. Just my $0.02. Although I suppose there's no harm in a runoff, and no rush. Sorry if I complicated things by adding alternatives. The runoff should be limited to the two top contenders, since it's been demonstrated that nothing else "clicks."
Victrola? Nobody's suggested Victrola record. No, no, not serious... What were the cylinder recordings for the Edison cylinder "phonograph" actually called, by the way? Were any cylinder machines called " gramophones?"[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 10:38, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Fine, so is the proposal to have a 7-day run off between the two front runners starting at, say, 00:00 UTC on 17 August and ending at 23:59 UTC on 23 August? FWIW, the two front runners are currently "gramophone record" (11 votes) and "record (audio)" (7 votes) with everything else with 4 votes or fewer. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:07, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
SOUNDS GOOD TO ME! - David Gerard 15:16, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The proposal is that this page be moved to a title that is more in common usage than the current one. As such the options, with their advantages and disadvantages, are as follows:

1: Keep the article at its current location, i.e. analogue disc record.

  • Advantages: The article has been at this title for a long time and it isn't specifically tied to British English or American English usage. (Any others? Please add.)
    • Not specifically tied to British English usage? How is "analogue" and "disc" not British English? -- Jao 05:03, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Disadvantages: This term is used by practically no-one outside of the Wikipedia community. Most references to 'Analogue disc record' found through google are sites that have copied information from Wikipedia. The article for the phonograph cylinder isn't located at a similarly obscure title such as analogue cylinder record. (Any others?. Please add.)

2: Move the article to gramophone record.

  • Advantages: This is name given to the device by its inventor Emil Berliner and is in common usage in most countries outside of the United States (please correct if this assertion is wrong). It is also why the Grammy Awards are so called and is distinctly different from phonograph cylinder.(Any others?. Please add.)
  • Disadvantages: The term is archaic in the modern world where the word "record" (unqualified) is more common. This term is primarily British English usage. In the United States, Gramophone is more associated with the Gramophone Company and thus gramophone is seen as a type of phonograph, rather than as a different recording device and medium. (Any others?. Please add.)

3: Move the article to phonograph record.

  • Advantages: Clearly the winner on a Google hit count (although see disadvantages). (Any others?. Please add.)
  • Disadvantages: The term is archaic in the modern world where the word "record" (unqualified) is more common. The term is primarily American English usage. Possible confusion with the phonograph cylinder. Note that while the google hit count for "gramophone record" is outstripped by "phonograph record", the word "gramophone" gives more hits the word "phonograph". (Any others?. Please add.)

4 Move the article to some as yet undetermined alternative.

  • Advantages: ?
  • Disadvantages: ?

Other possibilities? (just brainstorming)

  • Record (phonograph) and Record (gramophone)
  • Record (vinyl) with Record (shellac) redirecting to it, and don't worry about the illogic. The reasoning here is that "vinyl record" is a) probably the most familiar term over the last few decades and is pondian-neutral.
  • Disc recording and Disk recording with a note in the first paragraph saying "For digital audio, see Compact disc". I think this is very defensible because compact discs as a medium are rarely referred to as "disc recordings or discs. The short name for a compact disc is "CD," not "disc." Can you imagine anyone saying "I just heard the latest Britney Spears disc?"
    • Disc record was a commonly doccumented name. Unless someone else thinks there is significant risk of confusion with other types of discs, I think this would be a good option. -- Infrogmation 15:21, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Very rarely in the olden days, only to refer to the vinyl things ;-) - David Gerard 14:33, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[[User:Dpbsmith|dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:05, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Record (audio) is what we're really talking about here. If we must have an article that regards 78s and vinyl as the same thing - David Gerard 14:37, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I certainly regard them as the same thing. Indeed, there were vinyl 78's, I think—what were "unbreakable" 78s made of? I never heard of any shellac 33s. I believe acetates were recorded at both 78 and 33-1/3 rpm.
If they weren't "the same thing," than how could I have had such a good time playing 33s at 78 and 78s at 33? (The funny thing is that if you were a kid and played a 78 at 33, the slowed-down records had such a painful groaning quality that adults would often come by and tell you to stop, feeling that this must somehow be damaging the record; on the other hand, when you played a 33 at 78, which must in fact have caused monumental groove damage--particular with the one-ounce tracking force that was common in home record players then--the sound seemed so bright and cheerful that they wouldn't bother you... [[User:Dpbsmith|dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:23, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Also, "Record (audio)" would include the phonograph cylinder as well as discs. -- Infrogmation 15:21, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I vote AGAINST a title with parenthesis unless absolutely necessary. I'd like us to get a name we can use in the text articles without needing a pipe-trick if possible. -- Infrogmation 15:21, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Voting (vote for as many as you wish)

analogue disc record

  1. Okay by me. -- Infrogmation 15:21, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • THIS PART OF THE VOTE IS NOW CLOSED

gramophone record

  1. I vote for this one.Graham 10:45, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. If the article is to be moved, then here. (Have you thought about the hundreds of redirects and double redirects?) <KF> 12:02, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I'll be glad to help with the cleanup. Anything to get it away from this bloody awful title - David Gerard 13:05, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 13:05, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. Agree with David Gerard. [[User:Dpbsmith|dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:05, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. tsca 15:09, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)
  6. This is good. -- Jao 05:03, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
  7. ALoan (Talk) 11:43, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  8. This is a good one, if speakers of US English don't have strong objections. -- Infrogmation 15:21, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  9. fine by me -- Karada 16:04, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  10. Johnleemk | Talk 10:46, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  11. +sj+ 20:46, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • THIS PART OF THE VOTE IS NOW CLOSED

phonograph record

  1. David Gerard 13:05, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) (Note: My vote for both is to say that I'd favour either over the current title and I'm not really worried which)
  2. Agree with David Gerard. Take the GMT time in minutes and seconds of the last vote, write it as a four-digit number without the colon, look up that digit of pi, and move to "phonograph record" if even or "gramophone record" if odd. Or, ask a trusted third party to flip a coin. A U. S. coin, of course. [[User:Dpbsmith|dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:05, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    THAT IS A GROSS NATIONAL INSULT TO THE PEOPLE OF GDANZSKIG - David Gerard 15:02, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. This is good too. -- Infrogmation 15:21, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. fine by me -- Karada 16:04, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. Makes the most sense to me, though any of the alternates would be better than the current one. -- Doom 17:11, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Austin Hair 06:00, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • THIS PART OF THE VOTE IS NOW CLOSED

record (audio)

  1. David Gerard 15:02, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. —Kate | Talk 14:55, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)
  3. Or this one. Graham 23:12, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. This is also good. -- Jao 05:03, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
  5. ALoan (Talk) 11:43, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  6. Best of the pond-neutral proposals. [[User:Dpbsmith|dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:30, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  7. — Matt 15:28, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  8. Austin Hair 06:00, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • THIS PART OF THE VOTE IS NOW CLOSED

record (vinyl)

  1. ALoan (Talk) 11:43, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. — Matt 15:28, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. —Kate | Talk 15:30, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC) But isn't this just a roundabout way of saying vinyl record?
To me, it seems slightly different from vinyl record, where vinyl is being used as an adjective (which would be imprecise, of course); in record (vinyl) the (vinyl) is acting more as a "disambiguator" to clarify the meaning, so it's not necessarily saying the article is exclusively about vinyl records. — Matt 15:39, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • THIS PART OF THE VOTE IS NOW CLOSED

disc record

  1. Much historic use; unless people think this would be too confused with other types of discs, I think this would be good. -- Infrogmation 15:21, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • THIS PART OF THE VOTE IS NOW CLOSED

other (see Brainstorming above)

  1. David Gerard 14:39, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Eventual move

A title move is in the works (at present it looks like the UKian "Gramophone record" will be the new title). As a look at "What links here" shows over 200 articles linked to the current title of "analogue disc record", the move is a bit involved. How shall we handle this? Do we have some volunteers, either bot or manual? -- Infrogmation 02:41, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'd be happy to have a look at this. Only 200 articles? Pfft, 5 minutes work. :-) — Kate | Talk 02:48, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)
Having done this before (on UFO), doing it by hand is merely a few hours' work. With the assistance of a bot on semi-automatic, as Kate offers, it's nearly no effort - David Gerard 07:17, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Oi, now. I really am not a bot, despite numerous accusations... — Kate | Talk 07:46, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)
"/KATE is probably an option to SET" - David Gerard 22:54, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Page move vote run-off

As discussed above, the final decision between the two most popular candidates. For previous comments, discussion, etc., see above.

Vote ends at 23:59 UTC on 23 August.

Voting

gramophone record

  1. If the article is to be moved, then here. (Have you thought about the hundreds of redirects and double redirects?) <KF> 12:02, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I'll be glad to help with the cleanup. Anything to get it away from this bloody awful title - David Gerard 13:05, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 13:05, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. Agree with David Gerard. [[User:Dpbsmith|dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:05, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC) P.S. For runoff, suggest this be counted as 0.5 votes. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 10:35, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. tsca 15:09, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)
  5. This is good. -- Jao 05:03, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Strong support. Of the remaining 2 options, this is much superior. -- Infrogmation 22:43, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  7. fine by me -- Karada 16:04, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  8. Johnleemk | Talk 10:46, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  9. +sj+ 20:46, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  10. Mintguy (T) 09:03, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  11. Tagishsimon 10:38, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC). I'd have preferred Vynal. No, Vynle. No, Vinyl. No, Gramophone will do just fine.
  12. Best of two options given. [[User:Anárion|Image:Anarion.png]] 10:40, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  13. Strong preference for this. "record (audio)" can equally apply to CD, cartirdge, etc. This is far more precise. Bonalaw 11:26, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  14. Andrewa 13:48, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  15. Record (audio) is ambiguous. This is also an encyclopaedic title. zoney ███ talk 14:23, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  16. Sean Curtin 01:24, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC) The least ambiguous option.
  17. Mpt 12:49, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

record (audio)

  1. —Kate | Talk 14:55, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)
  2. Or this one. Graham 23:12, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. This is also good. -- Jao 05:03, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
  4. ALoan (Talk) 11:43, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. Best of the pond-neutral proposals. [[User:Dpbsmith|dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:30, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC) P. S. For runoff, suggest this be counted as 0.5 votes. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 10:35, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  6. — Matt 15:28, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  7. Austin Hair 06:00, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC) (See comments below.)
  8. Chris 73 Talk 10:39, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  9. Paul August 17:25, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Popsracer 11:05, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  11. Ambi 12:07, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  12. Andre 13:15, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  13. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 10:55, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comments

  • Slipped my mind yesterday - supporters of the less popular options are encouraged to vote again in the run-off. (Note that if we discount the three duplicated votes (David Gerard, Jao, ALoan) for the less popular option, "record (audio)", the vote is currently 11 to 5, which looks pretty consensus.) -- ALoan (Talk) 17:48, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think those who voted for both both should come off the fence for the run-off. Mintguy (T)
I have, after considerable vacillation, decided that I truly have no preference. Therefore, I wish to leave both of my votes in place. This comment notes that I am aware of and have consciously participated in the runoff. Perhaps they should each be counted as 0.5 in the tally. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 10:34, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
OK - I have done so (does not help the numbers though! Now at best 10:6) -- ALoan (Talk) 19:52, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I voted for the first - David Gerard 12:42, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I'll go ahead and express my opinion that "Record (audio)" is an absolutely DREADFUL title for this article. Why I think so:
1) It is an inaccurate title. It does not distinguish the article subjects from other types of audio recordings, eg the phonograph cylinder (also informally called a "record"). It might just be talking about audio recordings in general, with the discs being a particular sub-category.
2) We have a chance to have the article at a name by which these things were actually called. Please, let's use it!
3) We have a chance to have a title that can be put in the text of numerous articles without needing a pipe trick. Please, let's use it!
I know that "Gramophone record" sounds a bit strange to my fellow speakers of American English, but I urge you to please accept the British name in this case. -- Infrogmation 22:41, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I have to disagree. Maybe because I'm British and of a certain age -- but "record" to me means this round black shiny groovy thing. All other meanings are secondary in everyday conversation. All other types of audio recordings have other names by which they are commonly referred to - "tapes", "cds", "wax cylinders" etc - it seems doubtful to me that the average person would get confused about which was meant by "record". As for being the name "by which they were actually called", they were only called something else in very formal speech, and there is some contention about British vs. US usage which could be avoided simply by titling it under the common colloquial term. That's why I'm changing my vote to record (audio). Graham 00:14, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Graham makes a persuasive argument. Paul August 17:27, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
Infrogmation is right, record (audio) means no more than audio recording and could apply to anything. Mintguy (T) 08:25, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I also disagree. (1) is the most credible argument, but the degree of inaccuracy is minor—the word "record" (accent on the first syllable) in common speech and writing almost always refers to the media used by phonographs/gramophones; the word suitable for describing tapes, CDs, wax cylinders, and the like is "recording." (2) only holds for speakers of British English, and as "record" is understood in both dialects, it's the term I'd actually use in an article. (3) is even more absurd, given the last point; [[record (audio)|]] is far less inconvenient than [[gramophone record|record]]. Arguments 2 and 3 are therefore easily turned around and used in favor of "record (audio)," and I don't hesitate to do so. Austin Hair 08:51, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
I don't see that your turning around of my points 2 and 3 quite works. Certainly the subject of the article has informally been known as a "record", but not as a "record (audio)". "Gramophone record" has over a century of wide use, and the term "gramophone" distinguishes what type of record we are discussing more precicely than does "audio". As to piped names, I think you'll find that there are already a number of articles at present using the construction "[[analogue disc record|gramophone record]]". Those and many other articles could do away with the pipe if the article were at "gramophone record". I doubt that we have any articles currently using "[[analogue disc record|record (audio)]]" . Cheers, -- Infrogmation 14:12, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps you didn't see the pipe in my example above, or simply weren't aware of the syntax, but [[record (audio)|]] (take note of the pipe) resolves automagically to record, courtesy of the Mediawiki software. We do, and will, have myriad instances of [[analogue disc record|record]]—almost certainly more than British long form. Austin Hair 03:01, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
Somewhat bizarrely, we seem to agree that "analogue disc record" is terrible, but can't agree how to rename it! I suggest that we move the article to whichever option wins the vote, and then have the argument whether it stays th'ere or goes somewhere else (I can't believe that there would ever be a consensus for it to come back to "analogue disc record"). As far as I can see, the only negative point would fixing the multiple redirects, but (see discussion above re bots) this seems to be manageable. (Incidentally, if anyone would like to fix the few hundred links to cricket (sport) which now redirects to cricket, I would be very grateful!) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:09, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Hee hee, I love it. "Gramophone record" may win, but it will never have a true mandate. Mr. Chairman, point of order, please! Quorum call! Ask the sergeant-at-arms to check ID's! Recount, recount! That chad was not neither hanging! What's in it for me to change my vote? And, I can deliver the votes of three sockpuppets... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:03, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Question: Has this poll been mentioned anywhere else? Should it be? Wondering simply, -- Infrogmation 22:48, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Footer