Talk:Recorder

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Looks like there is a stronger case for "musical instrument" rather than just "instrument" as the disambiguator. Favonian (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– The musical instrument is not obviously the primary topic. google shows no dominance for it, and generally lists several newspapers with the name, and various devices that record, as well as clerks that record. 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment whatever happens Recorder (musical instrument) should exist as either the article name or a redirect to the article. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I went ahead and boldly made Recorder (musical instrument) a redirect towards Recorder. Seemed very necessary, regardless of the outcome of this move request. Steel1943 (talk) 04:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

see a few comments below: Recorder (instrument) existed, and I would support a move to that name, but not to the proposed complicated one, - I don't think recording devices would be called "instrument", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a scientific instrument recorder on Ebay [1], some review from 1950's [2], this ad from the 1970's selling recorders as scientific instruments that record data [3], etc -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move. I would agree with that. Notwithstanding search engine results, which I agree can be one of the best sources to determine the notability of a topic, the first topic that goes into my mind when I think "recorder" is something that either records voice of images, such as a camera. However, I would not rule out that musicians might think of the musical instrument when thinking of the term "recorder." I agree, the main article Recorder should be a disambiguation page; no topic is notable enough to be the primary topic over the others. Steel1943 (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move - reluctantly. I do think of the instrument first (possibly as a result of playing it for over 40 years) however I agree that Recorder should be the disambiguation page. Keep the musical instrument as the top entry (as at present), it has historical primacy and is the most common use of the word unqualified. All the electronic devices have a qualifier (tape, data etc). Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If so moved, some kind of bot assistance may be required to deal with well over 1,000 current incoming links to Recorder. While the majority of those links probably originates in some templates, I suspect there are quite a few direct links as well. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've just checked the first five links (Antonio Vivaldi to Dolly Parton) and all are direct links in the text. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an exciting challenge for the disambiguation fix challenge leaderboard. I know that a disambiguation issue should be resolved as soon as it can be to not create additional issues, but it looks like there are venues to get this fixed, if the move does happen. Steel1943 (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Recorder (instrument) has been a redirect since 8 June 2007, and a few articles link to that. Recorder (musical instrument) was just created 10 March 2013. We also have:

Per WP:NCDAB, If there are several possible choices for parenthetical disambiguation, use the same disambiguating phrase already commonly used for other topics within the same class and context, if any. Otherwise, choose whichever is simpler. For example, use "(mythology)" rather than "(mythological figure)". — Wbm1058 (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this example that you present, I would say the better target to move Recorder would be Recorder (instrument) rather than Recorder (musical instrument) based on the fact that Recorder (instrument) has a longer history. Steel1943 (talk) 06:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Recorder (instrument)" is ambiguous, since it can be an instrument used to record information. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - we also have
- horn (instrument), - "spoon" is really a different story, where "musical" needs to be stressed. Recorder (instrument) seems better than the needlessly complicated Recorder (musical instrument). No move necessary, if you ask me, but I also think of the instrument when I think "recorder", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Recorder (musical instrument). In this case we really do need to avoid ambiguity. There are lots of scientific instruments used for recording. Klein zach 09:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support move – as well as scientific instruments, we also have Legal instrument. I'm finding that recorder (judge) and recorder of deeds are the most common mislinks of recorder—I've fixed several of these. Recorder (musical instrument) seems appropriate, to disambiguate the type of instrument. – Wbm1058 (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While well-known, I would agree that the musical instrument doesn't have enough primacy to be primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless discussion - I note that administrator BD2412 is already implementing changing the links from recorder to recorder (musical instrument (see for instance whistle. Obviously a descision has already been made. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Incoming links

It turns out that my guess about the source of the incoming links was wrong. The templates which used to link to Recorder have been changed to link to Recorder (musical instrument), but there are still almost 1,000 incoming links. Was there a reason why a bot could not modify all those links before the page move was made? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the links to Recorder should have linked to recorder (judge) or recorder of deeds. This is why we use human judgement at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, rather than have a bot just mindlessly link to the most common or likely link. – Wbm1058 (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those links were wrong before Recorder was a disambiguation page and changing them to Recorder (musical instrument) would not have made it worse, but it would have improved the links for about 1,000 other articles. As it is now, the move has created a large number of links to a disambiguation page. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revisit the move

I'm not convinced that the musical instrument isn't the primary meaning. The word "recorder" by itself is the only way that the instruments are described. Other devices are described usually with an attribute (tape recorder, videocassetter recorder, court recorder (> court reporter most often). I think we should reconsider moving the article Recorder (musical instrument) to Recorder, and having the current disambiguation page move back to Recorder (disambiguation). None of the other articles about things called "recorder" seem to attract categories called "recorder". Perhaps that is the simplest. -- Evertype·✆ 14:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]