Talk:RCA tape cartridge

Dimensioons

The metric length of the cartridge (197 mm or 7.75 in) is incompatible with its imperial length (7.125 in or 181 mm). Which is it? A similar error is in the Audio Cassette article --Hugh7 (talk) 07:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

"See also" to Elcaset

Removal of the "See also" to the Elcaset article is unjustified.

This link has been in the article (along with the mention of the Elcaset in the last paragraph) for over six years. It is true that WP:NOTSEEALSO says, in part, As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. However, not only does that say "as a general rule", the entire page is a guideline page, and like all other guideline pages, this one says at the top: It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. So the fact that "Elcaset" is already Wikilinked from within the article text does not require the "See also" to be removed. (emph. added in all cases - jeh)

I feel very strongly that the "See also" should be there because the Elcaset is so clearly similar to the RCA tape cartridge. The overall size of the cartridges are similar, both use flangeless tape hubs, and both (like the Compact Cassette) contain both supply and takeup spools. This is counter to other popular quarter-inch tape cartridges that like the LearJet (8-track), Fidelipac / Muntz, etc., which were endless-loop carts with a single spool. Other quarter-inch reel-to-reel cartridges did exist, such as the QIC, but no others to my knowledge were marketed as consumer audio formats (at least not to any degree of success). This makes the Elcaset unique in its relationship to the RCA tape cartridge. Hence, the (admittedly) redundant "See also" link is justified IMO.

And I do not see what is otherwise so vital about removing it.

The fact that, as mentioned in an edit summary, there may soon be an article "List of cartridge tape formats" is irrelevant. List articles co-exist with "See also" links all over Wikipedia. Jeh (talk) 12:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Elcaset is listet twice already, frist in the last paragraph with precise comparaisation to the RCA cartridge, and again in the template Physical audio recording formats. As this artcle excceds the characteristics of a WP:Stub, we are not hiding an information about a very similar format by removing the third link to it from the see also section. I would support the see also entry in a simple english version. But please let readers grow by reading short articles fast and effective. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 12:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

A lot of other things are listed in the nav template too, but among them the Elcaset is uniquely related to the RCATC and therefore IMO should have readers' attention called to it. (Definition of a dullard: Someone who goes to the encyclopedia to look up a topic, reads the article on that topic, and walks away. Wikipedia should not be edited for dullards.) You see, it's not a question of "hiding information", it's a question of calling attention to a clearly related format. I have nothing to do with the simple English version, and what may or may not be suitable for that version is irrelevant here. For this version, you have not made a case for why the "See also" is a [i]problem[/i] that absolutely must be removed. Clearly you think it's redundant, but redundancy is not necessarily a problem (e.g. "I tell you three times"). It is not going to make this article less "fast and effective" by retaining a two-word section head and a one-word link. Again: it's been in the article for over six years; it's very definitely part of the status quo. So per WP:NOCON, if you can't find consensus for removing it, it stays. Jeh (talk) 13:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Four Years ago, I thought this way, but WP:REPEATLINK says: Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, … Lists and glossaries are specified different due being red selectively. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 19:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I addressed that point already. As at the WP:NOTSEEALSO entry I linked previously, WP:REPEATLINK is introduced by the word "generally". That word is never used to introduce an absolute rule; it specifically calls out that exceptions may exist. (One would use words such as "never" or "always" if one wanted to say "no exceptions are permissible".)

And, please note that both WP:NOTSEEALSO and WP:REPEATLINK are on "guideline" pages. All WP guideline pages say at the top that "occasional exceptions may apply".

Now that alone would be enough to be able to say "we can make an exception if we want to," but the writers of these particular points felt the need to additionally put the word "generally" in front of them, even though the entire pages they're on are already merely guidelines. So this particular point is qualified as not-absolute not just once, but twice. You see, guidelines are here to serve us, not to bind us.

If these were policy pages your position would be stronger, but these particular points would still have "generally" in front of them.

So you have no policy-based argument (only guidelines, and no guidelines are absolute; certainly a specific guideline which itself is qualified by "generally" is not) and you do not have consensus for this change. Jeh (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

References