Talk:Phonograph cylinder

message: The following objections to this article should be adressed: No lead. No references. Not a FA standard, certainly. Some sections are just a single sentence. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tnx, this is now up to standards. It can use more expantion - some sections are stub sections - but it is in little danger from FARC now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  FARC 

message: An editor named Jeremy left these on my talk page, but I really don't know enough about the subject to help so I thought I'd move this here. My only connection with this page was asking for references. - Taxman Talk 12:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've lost your way somehow. I don't really know what you're referring to. If you give me some links to the Wikipedia pages, I might be able to help you. - Taxman Talk 23:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queries on my talk page 

message: Would suggest that the specific names of each of the three commercially designed plug-in models be reinstated. Someone has edited these out. However, I have noted that information on each may be sourced in the external link to Christer Hemp's Phonograph Makers Pages. Many readers would be interested in these. Jeremy Sefton-Parke. kinopanorama AT msn.com
:I think you've lost your way somehow. I don't really know what you're referring to. If you give me some links to the Wikipedia pages, I might be able to help you. - Taxman Talk 23:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verify the phonography cylinder 'plug in' models. 

message: Refer to chapter on preservation of cylinders. See paragraph two. Also, link to Phonograph Maker's pages. Believe that paragraph two could be expanded by someone, such as myself, without being seen to promote any such product as a vanity entry. Please advise.--Kinopanorama widescreen 01:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phonograph Cylinders 

message: I've added the earliest known recording on Wikimedia Commons for use primarly in the Israel in Egypt (oratorio) article. However, it may perhaps find use here too (it was after all made on a yellow paraffine phonograph cylinder), in that case feel free to add it. I have no more time for editing stuff right now myself. :-) The Commons resource name is Handel - Israel in Egypt, HWV 54 (excerpt).oga, and can be linked to via a template like this, for example:
There are alternative templates too; for more information, see this: Template:Audio. -- Northgrove 00:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great we have that on Commons! However, as the link to tinfoil.com mentions, they have an 1878 cylinder recording (from an experimental phonograph clock), which I believe is the earliest known recording successfully played back any time in the past 100 years.  BTW, some earlier tinfoil recordings still exist in flattened-out condition-- I have heard no arguement that at least hypothetically could have sound re-extracted from them should serious effort be put into it. -- Infrogmation 01:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earliest known recording 

message: I removed this link as it seemed to be in poor taste.  A man who has gone to great lengths to protect this historical record is misrepresented and ill served by being recognized for one accident rather than years of preservation work.
27 February 2007 76.178.159.67 15:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a good example that demonstrates the fragility of wax records.124.176.127.19 (talk) 09:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to TechTv

message: I've added a couple new recordings from the very early days of the phonographic cylinder, about 16 years before the other example on this page. I hope noone minds. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New recordings 

message: ..."not resolved until the advent of RIAA standards in the early 1940s..."
This seems unlikely as the RIAA wasn't founded until 1952 unless there is another RIAA
Cannonmc (talk) 06:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disc records 

message: Andrew Liles' "Importunate Suggestions of Impropriety", Pipkin #15 came on wax cylinder, very rare and very limited (35 produced, 31 for sale). Won't mess with the article now, no time :) -andy 77.190.24.42 (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  One more 2010 one. 

message: Under the "Hard plastic cylinders" section, mention really needs to be made to the Lambert company, which was producing celluloid cylinders by 1902.  They certainly pre-date the Indestructible company.  Should mention be made of the U.S. Phonograph company which had a unique process of wrapping pressed celluloid sheets around a core?
Also, shouldn't the 1902 molding (mass production) process be mentioned?  This made a huge difference in the production capabilities of the cylinderrecord.  There's a mention of "1902 Edison Records launched a line of improved hard wax cylinders marketed as "Edison Gold Moulded Records"." but no explanation of what this significant difference was. 78.26 (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Added (even with a citation or two!).  Also some reworking.  I note that the difference of gold records has been added along the line somewhere. 86.147.237.233 (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Apologies, the reference to gold was elsewhere.  I've added it to the article. 86.147.237.233 (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  article improvements? 

message: .  . Previous to December 1888, cylinders were made of a variety of natural waxes, even the base of the famous June 16th cylinders was octadecanoic acid, Ceresin, and Carnauba wax, and a few also had bees wax added .. I actually have duplicated for display at the Thomas Edison Historical Park in west Orange New Jersey 6 natural wax phonogram blanks, and they are on the oldest Edison wax cylinder phonographs at the museum, the  Ezra T. Gilliland mode of 1887, and the precursor to the perfected machine made sometime in the spring of 1888.  Starting in the fall of 1888 Jonas Aylsworth, Chemist started to work on metallic soaps  #957 made in December of 1888 used an aluminum soap containing aluminum sodium hydroxide to harden and saponify the wax,  the main ingredient  is  octadecanoic acid, an ingredient that  is in pretty much all cylinder records that are considered “wax”.  The first attempt to aid in the cutting action, as stearate of alumina is very hard.  The compound did not cut very well and it needed to be softened, and this metallic soap was not successful.  Oleic acid, red fatty oil, was added to the formulation to soften the wax, by May of 1888 the 957 records began to decompose, an oily film came to the surface of the record making them unusable.  Jonas Aylsworth had visions of loosing his job.  By 1889, ceresin was used to aid in cutting and moisture proofing the wax, and this laid the foundation of cylinder phonograph records until the advent of Amberol records.   Collectors know this base wax, as brown wax.  The brown wax base was used for most wax cylinders manufactured by Edison and Columbia.  Molded records by Columbia contained the exact same ingredients as brown wax, except a colorant, and the percentages were changed to make the wax harder.  Edison molded wax added other metallic salts of copper and zinc.  Pine tar, carnauba and lampblack made the wax much harder. I had manufactured several thousand cylinders with similar materials by my own hand.     --Sborri (talk) 06:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cylinder formulations 

message: With this edit, IP .185 added claims that cylinder records "are again being manufactured. First, such claims would be ok in a news article, but are not appropriate for WP unless the article (or at least the section) is clearly marked as "current events" or similar, and dated. 
Second, although references were given, there are problems with this material: 
* The Vulcan Cylinder Records web site, phonographcylinders.com, has a copyright date of 2002. I find no evidence on the site of when it was last updated, and I find little evidence on the web that the company is still a going concern twelve years later. Besides, a company's own web site is a self-published, primary source and therefore per WP:RS cannot be used as a reliable source by WP's rules. Anyone can create a web site that includes claims of the existence and current operations of a company of any name whatsoever. 
* The link to capsnews.org is to an article from late 2008 that describes a different company in a different country, "The Wizard Cylinder Record Company". But it is positioned as if to support the claims about Vulcan Cylinder Records. I can't find any evidence of Wizard's current existence either. 
* WP does not exist to give free advertising to tiny niche companies. 
Accordingly I am abbreviating the claims to remove the implication of current production (while leaving the possibility open). I am also cutting back the scope of the claims to match the apparent significance of these companies, which is quite small. Jeh (talk) 07:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your edits, I think the way you've amended it to its current state is appropriate and a vast improvement to how it was.  FWIW Peter Dilg, who wrote the CAPS article, but about his own company Wizard, is a recognized expert on antique phonographs and records, giving that article more credence in my estimation than it would otherwise.  The Vulcan product most certainly exists, and I'll keep my eyes out for an independent mention for a better source.  My best guess would be in an ARSC journal somewhere.  I don't think they need to have any more space devoted than what they already have, indeed they are very small (and hobbyist) operations, but I think it is an interesting and relevant footnote to the format.  78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 12:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Recognized expert or no, the fact that he is writing about his own company (which I do not recall being mentioned in the article) makes the article a primary source, not secondary. WP prefers secondary sources, but primary are acceptable where facts are not in dispute and no interpretation is required. Agree with you regarding the amount of article text, but additional references in independent, well-recognized, secondary sources would certainly be welcome. It may be that this is such a narrow area that no "well-recognized" sources will cover it, in which case "independent, secondary" will have to do! Jeh (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New companies? 

message: The addition of info on Christopher David Heinmiller and his band Desert Sleep is totally unsourced, and neither the band, nor the individual, is noteworthy, much less this gimmicky recording. The info was originally added as User:HEINMILLER's sole edit. This is obviously the same person (which I had forgotten about when reverting the now-blocked IP). "The album combines modern and antique recording methods to create the sensation of authentic time travel in sound" is clearly not neutral language. This is not promoting the specific ebay sale, but it is still effectively promoting the band. There's no sources at all, much less WP:SECONDARY ones which would be needed for content like this. Recording new music on old equipment like this is not exactly common, but it's not so rare that it warrants a mention without even a single source. All things considered, although WP:BRD is a good essay, it's not a policy, and this seemed uncontroversial enough that I didn't feel it was needed to take this to talk. At the very least, a reliable source needs to be included, and the promotional language needs to be dealt with before this can be restored. Grayfell (talk) 09:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please. The other mentions of recent cylinder recordings are equally "promoting" their respective makers. One of them is even "sourced" to the named company's web site, and the entry for Aug 2010 is completely unsourced. Why is this different? A simple Google search for the album name brings up hundreds of hits, so the recording unquestionably exists. The use of a hundred-year-old cylinder machine to record it, and combining that sound with digitally recorded sound, makes it worthy of mention in my opinion. To you it is merely "gimmicky"? That sounds like a value judgment; is it now part of policy that your value judgments win? Yes, the language should be improved, but why not do that and leave a CN tag instead of delete it? It doesn't have to be perfect (or even perfectly acceptable to you) to be left in the article (where other people might see it and improve it). Re requiring a secondary source to establish notability - that rule applies to article topics, not content within an article, see WP:NNC. Re BRD, no, it is not policy. But I've seen a significant number of threads at ANI lately in which admins' attitude is that once you have been reverted you are not supposed to touch that content again. Not even after someone else's second R. Of course, per BRD, I suppose that now I'm going to have to build a test version and get your approval before I can put it back in the article in improved form. Jeh (talk) 09:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to improve it, do so. If you want to add additional sources or tags, do so. The existence of other unsourced or inappropriate content doesn't mean we should be adding more. If you think my behavior calls for admin involvement, go ahead and file an ANI. Grayfell (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Desert Sleep cylinder 

message: Would someone add the three modern makers of blank cylinders. I can't because I am one of them, but someone else could do this in the modern cylinder section. You can then edit them by visiting the sites and using the information contained.  All three suppliers are used by the Edison National Historical Park, The North American Phonograph Company supplied special re-creations of 1888 formulations for the perfected, and pre-perfected phonographs on display in the music room. 
Chuck Richards [http://richardslaboratories.com/ Richards 
Laboratories]
Paul Morris (U.K.) Who has made cylinders since the late 1970's.
Paul Morris' Music
The North American Phonograph Company 
The North American Phonograph Company  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Napc1888 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New cylinder blank producers. 

message: the ref 1 no longer works:
The phonograph was invented by Thomas Edison on July 18, 1877. His first successful recording and reproduction of intelligible sounds, achieved early in the following December, used a thin sheet of tin foil wrapped around a hand-cranked grooved metal cylinder.[1] 
Suggest to hyperlink instead to: 
https://www.loc.gov/collections/edison-company-motion-pictures-and-sound-recordings/articles-and-essays/history-of-edison-sound-recordings/history-of-the-cylinder-phonograph/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chikyuu (talk • contribs) 03:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The Mix article was still available, it had just rotted a bit. I've updated the link. The LOC essay looks like a good resource, so we can use that instead or in addition, if that's preferable. Grayfell (talk) 05:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  broken link on this page 

message: A quick read of the end section of the article appears to show an attempt to compare/contrast between cylinders and discs. However, it is written, at points, as if wax cylinders are the only cylindrical records (e.g. the mold problem). There were, as the article discusses earlier, other materials used. And, I would like to see a citation that all forms of wax cylinders suffer from the mold issue. Early playback equipment is also not the only other problem (aside from comparatively poor record materials). Earlier microphones may, for instance, have been worse. Recording techniques likely improved. If the end of the article is going to do a reasonably-thorough job of comparing later disc sound quality with cylindrical records' it needs to take all of the materials into account as well as these other matters — and do so clearly. It's also unclear as to why the end of the article needs this sort of compare/contrast when such comparison has an earlier section, if not more than one.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.193.114 (talk) 05:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sloppy writing at the end of the article? 

message: 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:CS, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS, WP:BLP, WP:NOR, et al. This diff shows where it was in the article. Nightscream (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncited material in need of citations