Talk:Cassette tape
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cassette tape article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · AP · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 365 days ![]() |
![]() | Vital articles: Level 5 / Technology B‑class | ||||||
|
![]() | Cassette tape 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 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 27, 2006. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
![]() | This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
Requested move 21 June 2020[edit]
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 04:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Cassette tape → Audio cassette – The original name of the product is Compact Cassette, and would prefer it to be the title of the article, and all other names redirecting to it, but if this is not possible then let us at least rename it to "Audio cassette". The "Cassette tape" seriously irks me up, it is revolting. The "Audio cassette" name is common enough, recognizable, and it also was used by cassette manufacturers on the packaging, see the image above with three cassettes labelled as "Audiocassette", "Audio cassette" and "Audio Cassette". Everyone knows what audio cassette is, it is (was) a de-facto standard, so if people do not want to refer to a proper name given to the format by Philips, let us at least use a recognizable name that does not scream "illiterate". Mikus (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- There was already a discussion encompassing that back in April. While I personally prefer "audio cassette" or "Compact Cassette" to "cassette tape" (which I would have opposed strongly had I been aware of the original move proposal), I don't think the discussion should be reopened after just two months. Ubcule (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Two months ago people did not want to use the original Philips' name, so I am proposing a middle ground. And, I have three manufacturers to back me up (see the photo with Fuji, Sony and Maxell audio cassettes).Mikus (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- One problem with the "audio cassette" title is that this tape format was used for more than audio, for example Cassette tape#Data recording. -- Netoholic @ 12:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- It is just a medium and as such can have different uses. Video 8 cassettes were used to record DV video, which Sony called Digital 8. VHS cassettes were used to record computer data and HD video. But the original usage of compact cassettes was audio, hence audio cassettes, and this is how they were marketed, see the packaging above. Mikus (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- One problem with the "audio cassette" title is that this tape format was used for more than audio, for example Cassette tape#Data recording. -- Netoholic @ 12:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Two months ago people did not want to use the original Philips' name, so I am proposing a middle ground. And, I have three manufacturers to back me up (see the photo with Fuji, Sony and Maxell audio cassettes).Mikus (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per all the reasons in the previous very recent move request.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - there was ample evidence provided in the prior RM to show this article is at the WP:COMMONNAME title already. -- Netoholic @ 02:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per above and per the recent RM. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Certainly oppose audio cassette. This "middle ground" is not much better than current "cassette tape", being a collective name for all sorts of audio cassettes. DAT, Microcassette, Stenocassette u.v.a. they're all audio cassettes. Retired electrician (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Did you look at the photo above, where cassettes are called "audio cassette" by the manufacturers? Mikus (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Random-picked commercial packaging blurbs are not an acceptable source for naming. Retired electrician (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Not random, WP:CHERRYPICKED. -- Netoholic @ 19:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- I picked those that (1) I have, and (2) had anything about what is inside the packaging at all. Many packagings do not even specify what is that inside having "Type II" and "High bias". Mikus (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- All three were end-of-the-line, bottom-of-the-line products from the era when all three companies quit manufacturing and subcontracted to Korean, Indonesian etc. plants... Good luck trying to find same audio cassette in the products from the golden 80s. This won't be easy. There will be Dynamic cassette, Acoustic cassette, Acoustic Dynamic cassette, even a Stereo cassette and a Recording cassette ... what makes audio any better? Retired electrician (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- I picked those that (1) I have, and (2) had anything about what is inside the packaging at all. Many packagings do not even specify what is that inside having "Type II" and "High bias". Mikus (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Not random, WP:CHERRYPICKED. -- Netoholic @ 19:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Random-picked commercial packaging blurbs are not an acceptable source for naming. Retired electrician (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Did you look at the photo above, where cassettes are called "audio cassette" by the manufacturers? Mikus (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support This proposed title is less historically ambiguous than the current title and the article as written applies to the only cassette for audio in substantial current production and usage. The packaging blurbs further support the rename. Tom94022 (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose per the condescending and inappropriate request Red Slash 07:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - "cassette tape" is the common name. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 15:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Without actually modifying the discussion, I will write this so that archive bots don't archive it. Gah4 (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Requested move 18 August 2021[edit]
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. This has been discussed numerous times. I actually think some new arguments were made here, that were not fully encapsulated in past discussions. Unfortunately, it seems those arguments were not convincing enough to editors, and the policies (e.g. COMMONNAME/PRIMARYTOPIC) are not on the side of moving. As a separate matter, it seems a few votes here are from very new users to this space. I would encourage anyone coming here to vote on a move discussion to read past discussions before voting. Let's not reinvent the wheel, folks. (non-admin closure) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Cassette tape → Compact Cassette – The term "cassette tape" is a broad term that is used to described any type of cassette or cartridge that holds magnetic tape in it. While this format is the most well known, it does have a specific name which is "Compact Cassette". The term cassette tape doesn't just get used for the Compact Cassette but it also gets used for other audio formats like Digital Audio Tape, Microcassette, Elcaset, and DC-International just to name a few. It is also used to refer to video formats like the VHS, Betamax, Video8, and DV. Considering that there was an official successor to the format, Digital Compact Cassette, and a resurgence in old formats and new music being released on those formats as seen here (Video 1 Video 2 Video 3), I think it would be more appropriate to change the page name to the official name of the media format and not use the generic term. Naming this page "Cassette tape" is like naming the page for "Tissue paper" to "Kleenex" since it's the most well known. Suriwashi (talk) 06:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- For reference, /Archive 4#Requested move 6 April 2020. No such user (talk) 09:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. Nothing has changed since the last RM discussion. Clear common name and primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose I've literally never heard of it called "compact cassette", so there is no way that is the common name.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per all the reasons in the 2020 RM. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support Since this cassette type does have an exact name, it makes more sense to change the name on that alone. There are more than one cassette tape format. Alexaclova112330 (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support The current title fails the precision test in deciding on an article title and is not in accordance with the common name policy in that Compact Cassette is one single obvious name that is demonstrably most frequency used for this topic alone. Cassette tape is ambiguous as shown by the hatnote while Compact Cassette is the most frequently used unambiguous title for the contents of this article. Tom94022 (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support per Tom94022. The current title is far too ambiguous. BilCat (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose The last move discussion is still here, and previous ones not so long ago, presumably in the archive. Compact Cassette is the Philips trademark. As well as I know, companies had to pay to call them that, so most of them didn't. While it was patented, they would have to license the patent, and the license likely required them to use the TM name. Unlike Kleenex, the TM name doesn't seem to have been popular with the general public. (I am trying to remember, is it actually CompactCassette, with no space?) Now, if Elcassette ever got popular, then there would be a reason to distinguish it. As to data, the most common data use stored it as an audio signal on audio grade tapes. There might be some that used special data grade tapes in the same shape, but that was rare. Gah4 (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose move. Your "Kleenex" argument is backfiring hard, because it shows exactly why the page shouldn't be moved. "Compact Cassette" is the trademarked name, just as "Kleenex" is. O.N.R. (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- The US Trademark Electronic Search System shows no current registered trademark for "Compact Cassette" and all similar names are DEAD! It may have been trademarked at some time in the past but it is not so in the US at this time. The lack of a registered trademark likely makes it a common name. @Gah4: @Old Naval Rooftops: While u might still oppose you probably should clarify your opposition since your facts do not appear to be current. Tom94022 (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- P.S. "Kleenex" has a live trademark. Tom94022 (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- My argument is based on it ever being a trademark. I am not so sure about the patent/trademark laws, but in any case it seems that Philips was licensing it for no charge. I believe, though, that it still needed to be licensed, and that the license might have required that name. Once the patent runs out, there is no need for licensing it. In any case, the only reason for calling it Compact Cassette is because Philips called it that. I believe that the C in C-90 comes from the C in compact, not the C in cassette, but that might not matter much. There is pretty much no competition, so no need to distinguish from anything else. It might be the common name, but I suspect not the WP:COMMONNAME, mostly because it is too long. Reminds me of the common use of the verb to tape for any digital (tapeless) recording system. Gah4 (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Gah4:I suggest you are mixing up patents and trademarks - patents expire after a fixed interval while trademarks can be continued until they are allowed to expire. It may be that the Philips license required the use of the trademark which would no longer be enforceable after the patent expired and a license would no longer be required. There is at least one RS that the common name changed from Compact Cassette to Audio Cassette and not the more generic Cassette tape, namely:
- My argument is based on it ever being a trademark. I am not so sure about the patent/trademark laws, but in any case it seems that Philips was licensing it for no charge. I believe, though, that it still needed to be licensed, and that the license might have required that name. Once the patent runs out, there is no need for licensing it. In any case, the only reason for calling it Compact Cassette is because Philips called it that. I believe that the C in C-90 comes from the C in compact, not the C in cassette, but that might not matter much. There is pretty much no competition, so no need to distinguish from anything else. It might be the common name, but I suspect not the WP:COMMONNAME, mostly because it is too long. Reminds me of the common use of the verb to tape for any digital (tapeless) recording system. Gah4 (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Gradually, manufacturers dropped the Compact Cassette logo in favor of a simple “audio cassette” label — by the end of 20th century compact cassette had become a dominant audio tape cartridge format.
The origins of a hinged cassette box and Compact Cassette logo
- I'm not sure what evidence there is to support "Cassette tape" as the common name - it does have more hits on Google (16M) than "Audio Cassette" (7M) but that is OR and not particularly good OR since the term is admittedly by all as ambiguous. Tom94022 (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Not necessarily mixing it up, but understanding that it is complicated, and we really don't know. We don't know the licensing conditions. When this started (some years ago) I looked at the ones I have, and very few say Compact Cassette on them, mostly in the 1980s. Is there a record for when the trademark was active? In any case, even when they did say Compact Cassette, I never knew anyone to call them that. Well, my uncle had the RCA predecessor, so he might have. And then there was Elcassette, which I even looked at in the store, and had a tiny thought about buying. Gah4 (talk) 11:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what evidence there is to support "Cassette tape" as the common name - it does have more hits on Google (16M) than "Audio Cassette" (7M) but that is OR and not particularly good OR since the term is admittedly by all as ambiguous. Tom94022 (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support Considering that the links in the page refer to the format as Compact Cassette including the different types, I agree to changing the name. Per Tom94022, they are right with the reason. AquilaXIII (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - COMMONNAME, no new convincing argument presented to the contrary. -- Netoholic @ 15:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Support - There's no good argument that's been made yet to justify using the generic name for the Compact Cassette. The VHS isn't called a Videocassette since there are different types. JAMendoza (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose as per other arguments put forward, specifically those put by Netoholic for commonname, and Gah4 referencing that the last move request is still visible, and no new arguments have really been put forward. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose There has been no new compelling reason given to change the title, just the same arguments as in the above and previous move requests. COMMONNAME is there for a reason, to place articles at not an official or legal name but at their most used/popular name. All "official" names are included in the lead, with redirects of those to here. Upon the inventor's death earlier this year, news–based obits refer to him as the inventory of the cassette tape Google search.(personal commentary: I never recall anyone ever asking me to copy an album onto a "compact cassette". Most of my cassette tapes do not even have the word "cassette" on them or the case, those that do mention the cassette mechanism. Oh memories.)--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Patent[edit]
I was trying to find the original, or some of the original, patents for the Philips cassette. Especially with the note above that Otten is the inventor, I thought that would help, but so far didn't. It would be both a useful reference for the article, and interesting related to the above discussion. Gah4 (talk) 07:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Gah4: Take a look at US 3394899. Filed Oct 1964 with a priority to 1963; it is about the right time and it looks like the CC but it has Schoenmakers and not Otten as the inventor. See also EP0120518B1 also by Schoenmakers. Elsewhere is says, " Lou Ottens, was the team leader in Belgium. Involved in the team were J.J.M. Schoenmakers and Peter van der Sluis (the cassette PHILIPS EL 1903, the mechanism, the Recorder EL 3300)." At this point if we consider the "inventor" to be the person named on a patent. I think we have to remove Otten as the inventor and go with Schoenmakers. Or if we can find an RS (I'm not sure about Bookshop.org) for the team then we can go with the team, the patent and Schoenmakers as the "inventor." Tom94022 (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Reminds me of all the discussions about the invention of the transistor, and especially Shockley. When it is not a lone inventor, it is harder to figure out who to name. But Ottens does have some patents, which was part of what confused me. Gah4 (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
- Same discussion exists as to the inventors of the disk drive and there was quite a lawsuit over the invention of the computer. However, when there is a patent, legally all the inventors must be named in the disclosure and then they are listed on the patent when issued. Even then there can be an issue because the the object may consist of a number of innovations, not all of which are patented inventions. So one usually looks for a reliable source, sometimes a court of law, to figure who really invented the object. To me, at first glance, claims 2 and 3 of US 3394899 appear to claim the CC. I haven't looked at the Ottens patents to see whether what they claim is all or part of the CC, but even if I did this might be OR. I think the best approach is to try and find an RS along the lines of but better than Bookshop.org. If I have some time I will poke around. Tom94022 (talk) 06:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Here is another source that has Ottens as the leader of the team that came up with the CC but not necessarily its inventor:
- Reminds me of all the discussions about the invention of the transistor, and especially Shockley. When it is not a lone inventor, it is harder to figure out who to name. But Ottens does have some patents, which was part of what confused me. Gah4 (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Philips R&D leader, Lou Ottens, was inspired by the success and wanted to make an even smaller version. His motivation eventually sparked the release of the world’s first audio cassette.
The makers consisted of a Philips team of about 40 designers and engineers lead by Ottens.
- Tom94022 (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- There are zero relevant patents by Ottens assigned to Philips with a priority date prior to 1965 which makes it hard to call him the inventor. It looks like all of his recent obituaries confused his management position with the invention. Tom94022 (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Just to be sure, since I made the mistake of calling him Ottens instead of Otten, and that seems to have been repeated. Gah4 (talk) 11:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Apparently this is a common mistake, so I went back to Google patent and find zero patents by Otten of Philips in the relevant time period. Makes it hard to call him the inventor. Tom94022 (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- I suppose, but the one you found is from Philips Netherlands. I suspect I don't know patent law all that well, but in the case of a corporation, where the invention is by a research group, or even more, the collective work of more than one group, it is less obvious who gets there name on it. As well as I remember from last week, he does have some patents later. But again, is it the person who sits at the bench, or the manager that gets the group to do what they do? (and don't forget Shockley.) Gah4 (talk) 07:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- As Tom94022 says above, anyone in the group who contributed to the invention is legally required to be listed as an inventor on the patent. Otten still may have contributed to critical aspects of the cassette that were not patented and so could still be considered an inventor if that is the case. ~Kvng (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- For some definition of anyone and contributed. Otherwise in many cases it would be the whole company. As you note, there are critical aspects and presumably non-critical ones. But the patent seems to belong to Philips Netherlands, even though we (supposedly) know it came from Belgium. Gah4 (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- I believe Gah4 started this thread looking for one or more Otten patents to go along with Otten's purported "invention" of the Compact Cassette. Yes sometimes it is difficult to distinguish the inventors of a patented innovation from those who helped reduce it to practice, but it is the legal requirement in US patents that all inventors be named. Clearly there are no such patents by Otten and clearly Otten lead the team that developed the Compact Cassette. Schoenmakers, a member of Otten's team is the named inventor on one patent that has claims which at first glance appear to cover the Compact Cassette. There may be other patents; if we had a copy of Philips' license agreement we would know all the patents that Philips asserted claiming some aspect of the Compact Cassette. Where the patents were issued is irrelevant; Schoenmakers is in at least two jurisdictions. So in the end we are left with "Otten led the team that developed the Compact Cassette with a member, Schoenmakers, patenting one aspect thereof. Tom94022 (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- For some definition of anyone and contributed. Otherwise in many cases it would be the whole company. As you note, there are critical aspects and presumably non-critical ones. But the patent seems to belong to Philips Netherlands, even though we (supposedly) know it came from Belgium. Gah4 (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- As Tom94022 says above, anyone in the group who contributed to the invention is legally required to be listed as an inventor on the patent. Otten still may have contributed to critical aspects of the cassette that were not patented and so could still be considered an inventor if that is the case. ~Kvng (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- I suppose, but the one you found is from Philips Netherlands. I suspect I don't know patent law all that well, but in the case of a corporation, where the invention is by a research group, or even more, the collective work of more than one group, it is less obvious who gets there name on it. As well as I remember from last week, he does have some patents later. But again, is it the person who sits at the bench, or the manager that gets the group to do what they do? (and don't forget Shockley.) Gah4 (talk) 07:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Apparently this is a common mistake, so I went back to Google patent and find zero patents by Otten of Philips in the relevant time period. Makes it hard to call him the inventor. Tom94022 (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Just to be sure, since I made the mistake of calling him Ottens instead of Otten, and that seems to have been repeated. Gah4 (talk) 11:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Another wiki is not a RS, but here is what it says:
Lou Ottens sees himself as a team player: "I always worked with other people when developing new products."[2]Drew for the construction of the original cassette and the drive Jan Schoenmakers responsible. He also had the idea of locking the cassette in the drive by inserting the tape head and the erase head. The cassettes could not be removed from the drive during playback. It was precisely to this detail that the later compact cassette patent registered under the number 1191978 on January 31, 1964 at German Patent and Trademark Office in Munich has been registered.[3] Peter van der Sluis developed the corresponding recorder. The magnetic head specialist Herman Cornelius Lalesse had the idea of dividing the 1.5 mm wide mono track on a playback side into two tracks for stereo.
This supports Schoenmakers as the inventor of the CC in that the primary innovation was using the recording mechanism to lock the CC to the recorder. Whether this is enough to put it in the article is another question. Tom94022 (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm. My first thought is that the head locking the cassette is the least important part. I might have thought the tape width or speed, both of which allow for the small cassette, were the important ones. But then again, are those patentable? Probably not. I don't know patent law all that well, but I suspect that shrinking something but otherwise the same isn't enough. So, ok, the head lock system is the patent. I thought stereo came some years later, at least it was a lot later when I knew about it. We had a Sony (mono) reel-to-reel recorder when I was young, mostly to send tapes to/from my grandparents. I knew early that stereo tapes were not compatible because of the track arrangement. The in high school years, I got a stereo reel-to-reel (as above, with 1.875, 3.75, 7.5 in/s), and about then knew that cassettes used a different track system, because Philips required. Reminds me that I also knew that Philips required CD (and CD-ROM) players to only run 1x. The others only came after the patent expired. In any case, the article credits the two-hole cassette to Belgium and Ottens. Gah4 (talk) 08:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- The head locking the cassette is one known invention - the may be other patents we haven't found and/or everything else could be known public art or licensed prior art. The parent allows for other known two hole cassettes known in the art that didn't lock. The question now is what changes if any do we make to the article. For example, do we add the two patents? Tom94022 (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
in the "mixtape" doc, there is a scene with ottens & three members of his team; I would recommend finding this on a platform of your choice & hearing the story from the man himself.
duncanrmi (talk) 11:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Dimensioons of the RCA cartridge[edit]
The metric length of the cartridge (20cm or 7.87 in) is incompatible with its imperial length (7 in or 17.8 cm). Which is it? A similar error is in the RCA Tape Cartridge article --Hugh7 (talk) 07:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Technicially, they are correct. 7in, to one significant digit, converts to 20cm to 1 significant digit. Now, maybe it should be known to more than one digit ... Gah4 (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- I tried to find size with more precision, but didn't find it. There are pictures, which you could measure, though without a good reference. I didn't find the patent, white might not have the dimensions, anyway. Gah4 (talk) 09:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Uncited material in need of citations[edit]
I am moving the following uncited material here until it can be properly supported with inline citations of reliable, secondary sources, per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CS, WP:NOR, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS, et al. This diff shows where it was in the article. Nightscream (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
- B-Class vital articles
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Technology
- B-Class vital articles in Technology
- Wikipedia vital articles in Technology
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia former featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- B-Class Professional sound production articles
- High-importance Professional sound production articles
- WikiProject Professional sound production articles
- B-Class Media articles
- High-importance Media articles
- WikiProject Media articles
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press