Category talk:Phonographs

The lemma and its skillful division in terms of different meanings

I removed the description:

This category is for record players which produce sound using a pure mechanical technique.

Devices equipped with a converter which produces an electrical signal from the disk groove are in Category:Vinyl record players.

A nice attempt to break down photographs/record players by general type, but I fear it doesn't work. Electric phonographs started being mass marketed in the late 1920s, and vinyl records didn't become the rule until the 1950s, so this attempted division leaves out an entire generation of electric 78 players inbetween.

I suggest restoring "phonograph" as the general category. How about "Category:Mechanical phonographs" for the strictly mechanical types? Other thoughts? -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I always wondered about that. So, I just cleaned up a bit according to the existing categories, without attempting to make a better categorization, as I'm not a native english speaker. By the way, my old "Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary" (1986) says, "record-player" now to be the usual word for machines playing flat discs. Also, "Phonograph" synonymously being used for "record-player", is a bit confusing for non-US-residents, while "gramophone" being used for any "record-player" also sounds a bit outdated (remembering a sketch with Rowan Atkinson in "Not-the-Nine-o'Clock-News" ;-) ).

So, I would prefer:

"Record-player" as main category.

Sub-category "Edison phonographs" for all those things using a cylindrical record.

Sub-category "Mechanical gramophones" only for strictly mechanical devices playing disc-like records.

Sub-category "Vinyl record players" only for record-players capable of playing vinyl records,

or maybe we'd even better discard the sub-category "Vinyl record players" in favour of sub-category "Turntables". 32bitmaschine (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

After reading about contemporary terminology in the english Wikipedia article "Phonograph", I will now start to re-categorize these devices with the term "Record players" as main category, as this is understood the same way in UK, USA and Australia. I will remove the really misleading sub-category "Vinyl record players". Therefore I will create a new sub-category "Turntables" for record players, that are not an integrated part of a stereo system. "Turntables" will contain most modern stand-alone record-players. 32bitmaschine (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts for eventual reoranization:

There have been problems with terminology due to differences between US and UK English and different use of terms at different times. We should try to get terms/categories that are clear while avoiding neologisms. Preliminary suggestions:

• "Cylinder phonographs"; self explanitory I think
• "Mechanical gramophones" for the wind up powered disc players
• "Electric gramophones" for electric disc players of the pre-Vinyl era (any alternative suggestions for this one?)
• "Vinyl record players" I think is okay for disc players of the post LP type-- other suggestions for this one?

Other thoughts and suggestions? I think we need clearer category organization eventually, but no need to rush into it. -- Infrogmation (talk) 23:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, let's start it over again (if still there's any soul alive). ;-)

Ten years later we have Category:Phonographs, Category:Record players a n d Category:Phonograph turntables parallely "living" their individual own lifes. Of those Category:Record players and Category:Phonograph turntables are obviously being "filled" with identical content wich is not working well and which demonstrates that one of them is actual redundant. For that I'm proposing to redirect the newer category of both followed by the usual "housekeeping". Any other thoughts and suggestions? --Jotzet (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)