Talk:Sound recording and reproduction

Wiki Education assignment: Reading Culture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 11 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fathiya04 (article contribs).

Mountain Chief image

I removed the photo of chief Mountain Chief, which unfortunately had an inaccurate caption. He is listening to a recording, not recording it. Schierbecker (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The article is about recording and reproduction. An alternative is to restore the image and correct the caption. ~Kvng (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Restore the image with a corrected title. It's a nice image to see in the intro.Orenburg1 (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

It is unimportant whether the image shows listening back or recording. The session with Mountain Chief certainly involved the recording of his voice, so the photo is relevant. In fact, it is probably a posed photograph, with the cylinder unmoving and the humans holding still. But it is a fine image, perfectly suitable for this topic, and it should be restored. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Three editors support restoring so I have restored with improved caption. ~Kvng (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Phonograph record article and history of recorded sound

Trying to improve the Phonograph record article; see Talk:Phonograph record. One issue is that there is (in the "Predecessors" section) a substantial amount of interesting audio history which is largely tangential to the supposed main topic of the article. Possibly would be better merged into here, or a separate "History of recorded sound" article. Other thoughts and suggestions? -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

There is a lot of overlap in History sections of various sound technology articles. Other examples include Tape recorder and Digital audio. And, we already have History of sound recording. We should work on moving all the detail there and thinning the other stuff. ~Kvng (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Pruning unsourced material

I have restored some of the material cut by Binksternet. It is not clearly bad and I am hopeful we can find sourcing for a lot of this in the articles linked in the deleted material. ~Kvng (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I deleted no sources. The literature will have to be searched to source this stuff. Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The deletion was appropriate. Both sections were flagged for an extended time as being unsourced: one for over a year, the other for over six years. It's pointless to restore them in the hopes that someone will add sources if they haven't by now. It would be okay to restore some or all of the text, but only with appropriate sourcing. TJRC (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Challenged unsourced material can be removed. Other than just being unsourced, is there something in the removed material that does not look right? I reviewed the material when I restored it and didn't flag anything. I didn't see any notes associated with the original tags. There are WP:NODEADLINES for providing sources for uncontroversial material and the idea that if it hasn't happened in x years, it's never going to happen is unproductive. ~Kvng (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

TJRC removed the material again with WP:ES, "Both these recently-deleted sections were flagged for an extended time as being unsourced: one for over a year, the other for over six years. It's pointless to restore them in the hopes that someone will add sources if they haven't by now. It would be okay to restore some or all of the text, but only with appropriate sourcing." This is a restatement of TJRC's statement above doesn't answer my concerns. ~Kvng (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The policies you point to really do not support your positions.

WP:NODEADLINES is an essay about administrative discussions, not article content. It has nothing to do with article content and sourcing, and is completely inapplicable to that. No where in that essay does it say that article content should be retained with no cited evidence for its accuracy.

The other citation is to the essay WP:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. Obviously, leaving unsupported claims in an article for six years after its been challenged is not demolishing the house when it's being built.

There is no policy, guideline or essay that I am aware of that suggests that material should be left in an article with no regard for its accuracy. TJRC (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Clearly there is a difference between unsourced stuff that can easily be sourced, and unsourced stuff that is not commonly found in the general topic literature. Anyone wanting to restore the disputed text will need to blast through the literature and see whether they can source it. Binksternet (talk) 03:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It is unclear to me what is being challenged here other than a failure to provide sources within an arbitrary period of time. Has anyone identified anything factually dubious with this material? I've had this article on my watch list for years and finished a top-to-bottom review of it in January 2023. All I can come up with reviewing again here is missing background on Deutsche Cassette and a potentially dubious assertion that quad was a spin-off development from multitrack recording. ~Kvng (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

We don't include material in articles merely because it might be accurate. I don't understand why this seems controversial. TJRC (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

That makes two of us ~Kvng (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to lay down a copy of the deleted material and work on it here. ~Kvng (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Restored Sound recording and reproduction#1950s to 1980s after improvements. ~Kvng (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Restored Sound recording and reproduction#Cultural effects after improvements. ~Kvng (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)