Talk:Cassette deck

Untitled

With the mention of tape use in automobiles it should also be mentioned that it was a stupid idea because the machines were always getting buggered by dust. CD players don't have that problem. Anyone should remember how often you would find a tape player in a car and it wouldn't work or there'd be something wrong with it. And I'm not just talking old cars, I mean cars with tape decks only 5 years old or less wouldn't work. How many cars with CD players over 5 years old, still work?

Never experienced this problem, or know anyone who it applies to. Maybe it's a regional thing (I imagine some countries would be dustier than others). It's definitely true that the transport mechanisms of some early car decks was pretty crap, some lacked a supply spool, so there was nothing to keep the tape in tension within the cassette - these were very prone to getting tangled and/or wrapped around the capstan. The article currently doesn't really discuss in-car units, which might even come under a different article. Graham

Analog golden ears

"Some audiophiles believe that cassette deck technology, due to its analog nature, provides sound recordings superior to current digital technology, such as CDR and DAT."

Does anyone really believe cassettes are sonically superior to CDs and DAT tapes? I have heard many audiophiles extol the virtues of analogue tape, but they were talking about reel-to-reel tape, not cassettes. AdorableRuffian 01:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Some audiophiles do believe this. Noise reduction systems like dbx can even expand dynamic range to near CD quality.--Blainster 22:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Some people use them in recording studio chains because the saturation of the magnetic tape serves as a good compressor for drum beats, which they claim can't be duplicated by anything else. — Omegatron 12:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Tape in recording studio chains is either 1/2" or 2" tape, not cassette tape. It's a completely different material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.237.162.37 (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Is there a citation for this? I haven't met a single person who has cassettes are better than CDs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.237.163.118 (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Symbols

"Cassette players pioneered the modern set of control buttons, play, pause, stop, record, fast forward and rewind. "

Where did the triangular and square symbols for these buttons come from? What meaning did the words "pause" and "play" have before they were used on cassette decks that made them good names for these keys? "Playing back a recording" wouldn't have meant anything until after audio recording was invented. — Omegatron 12:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

From reel to reel decks Tabby 11:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The functions certainly existed on r-r decks and recorders but it was during the era of the cassette deck that the symbols - square for stop, right-facing filled-in triangle for play, etc., were standardized. I remember reading that some industry standard organization was involved, but I can't remember which one. Jeh (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Deck? What the hell is that?

Who comes up with these sappy article titles? I worked as an engineer for four years at a video/data recorder company in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and we never called any tape recorders as "decks", either our own or those of other manufacturers. —Quicksilver^{T @} 16:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"deck" was common throughout the consumer side of the business for a machine without power amplifiers and speakers; if it had those it was a "recorder" (unless of course it could play only, then it was a "player"). There were many permutations: "Cassette deck", "reel to reel tape deck", etc. The terminology seems to persist today even though the product category is now small; see for example J&R Music World, Crutchfield, Sony, Denon (scroll down a bit for that one)... did you just never talk to your marketing department, or see any of their output, at all? Jeh (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

We called them nothing but tape decks in California during the 1960s to 1980s. Binksternet (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"Cassette deck" was/is very much *the* accepted term: in fact look closely on the fascia of most of these machines, they are inscribed with brand name, model number and the phrase "cassette deck" or "stereo cassette deck"... overlooking that Nakamichi had 3 machines actually named "Cassette Deck 1", "Cassette Deck 1.5", "Cassette Deck 2"...

86.25.121.157 (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The above notwithstanding, the term "deck" was in widespread use for reel-to-reel machines with no audio power amps or speakers long before Philips ever introduced their first portable machines - which were not called "decks". "Tape decks" were called that because they often lacked cabinets too; they were intended to be installed in a hole in a recording console, flush or nearly so with the surface, or similarly in a "home stereo console" (just as a turntable would be). The term "tape transport" was also used, this for machines that also lacked even playback preamps, as the preamps of the day sometimes had the necessary high gain inputs and eq for tape heads. This is late 50s/early 60s. The term "cassette deck" didn't occur until they started making them as components to be added to a stereo. Jeh (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Auto Next Track

What was the name of the auto next track feature? Wasn't the length of silence between songs patented? That probably deserves a mention here. I remeber it being called sps5 oor something similar on one tape deck I saw. Betterthanalemur (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Just about every electronics manufacturer had their own name for it. SPSS was Hitachi's name ("Self Program Search System"). The length of silence between songs on a prerecorded tape was pretty much the same as it was on the corresponding LP, since they were made from the same master tape; I strongly doubt that that could have been "patented," though specific implementations of the search system might well have been. Jeh (talk) 06:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

So who was the first to introduce machines with 3 heads ?

At present, the article for Nakamichi claims *they* were the first... and the article for Technics claims *they* were the first... though neither article cites a source for that claim...
86.25.121.157 (talk) 13:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry for a very late answer: Concord-Nakam Model Z (later known as Nakamichi 1000), introduced in the very end of 1972. Next year, a very different Sony TC-177SD. Exact timing may be a tad different (I follow available US sources but Japanese market releases could have happened earlier, cf. the Walkman story). The Sony employed a weird head layout, with the erase head to the left of the left capstan - this was a dead end. The Nakamichi layout with separate ("discrete") R and P heads in close proximity persisted in Nakamichi's own designs, but that was it. The most common configuration, with tightly sandwiched R and P heads, is credited to Hitachi p.28. Again, it all happened almost simultaneously, within a year or two, so the question "who's first" is really unimportant. Retired electrician (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• That said, the whole case of three heads should no be addressed per se, but only in conjunction with closed-loop dual capstan transports. A single-capstan cassette mech cannot produce the desired tape tension with three heads (it struggles with two already). So whoever wanted three heads also needed a dual capstan mech, and a dual capstan mech required closed control loop ... leaving very little in common with the original Philips spec. Retired electrician (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Last car with a tape deck?

The article says that by the late 2000s, the installation of tape decks in cars ceased. If so, what was the last car that had a cassette deck as a standard option and when was it rolled out? Thanks. ---Ransom (--67.91.216.67 (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC))

The 2010 Lexus SC 430, according to a recent report in the New York Times. Feel free to add this to the article. —mjb (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

thats not write — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.143.118 (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cassette deck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090625174438/http://www.davidreaton.com:80/Cassette_Decks.htm to http://www.davidreaton.com/Cassette_Decks.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081105073059/http://freespace.virgin.net:80/ljmayes.mal/comp/philips.htm to http://freespace.virgin.net/ljmayes.mal/comp/philips.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Thin film head technology

Possibly the last significant development in cassette tape technology (mid 1990's) was the use of thin film (Magnetoresistive) head technology used on all DCC decks and one standalone cassette deck (Technics RS-AZ7) [1] 86.166.75.243 (talk) 10:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but to put something in the article we'll need a better source than a forum post. Forum posts are user-generated content with no editorial oversight - we don't consider those reliable sources. See WP:RS. Jeh (talk) 10:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Requesting third-party citation on utility of logic-controls

In order that the small subsection on the introduction of "logic control" to cassette decks be freed from the hedged phrasing required by User:Jeh, I kindly request third-party sources on this particular topic. The time-frame of the invention and spread of the application of logic control to cassette decks and other hi-fi equipment means that such third-party sources would almost certainly be from the 1970s and 1980s, and are thus unlikely to be available on the Internet. I would be much impressed if such a source could be found on the web free of charge, as I have already searched quite exhaustively for it. I believe that the most likely accessible medium of such a source will take the form of microfiche film archives of contemporary magazines such as Consumer Reports. Personally, I have no desire to go to such lengths as spending hours at a microfiche station of a library to source such a minute detail of an obsolete technology, and so it is here that I draw the line and end my efforts. However, if you, dear reader and indefatigable Wikipedian, derive pleasure or fulfillment from such tedious tasks, then by all means please do embark on the search.

Given the wide regard for logic control as being a desirable feature for cassette decks, which I would regard as common-knowledge and which can be readily confirmed by a cursory glance at any hi-fi forum or vlog, I would argue that it would be unlikely in the extreme that these claims of increased reliability and convenience of logic-control would ultimately prove to be incorrect. Thus, by invoking the principle of WP:COMMON, I argue in this case that these first-party sources can and should stand as a reliable sources on their own.

Forgive me, but I must make bold by adding that I find it curious indeed that this small subsection in particular, which has grown to be arguably the best-cited portion of this entire article, should be held to a standard of citation of the utmost, nigh unattainable, rigor; whereas the vast majority of the remainder of this article, which is neither sourced at all nor consistently couched with careful qualifiers, is yet permitted to stand as-is. If the article as a whole should be held to such lofty requirements, then surely the vast majority should either be thoroughly pockmarked with citation-request tags, or should be immediately deleted with the same ruthlessness as was applied to the subsection in question. BirdValiant (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Re your last paragraph, keep in mind that this is a long-standing article, created 15 years ago. It is the case that enforcement of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, etc., was much more lax back then than it is now. But that doesn't mean that late revisions to such articles can be "grandfathered in" and treated with the same lack of attention to sourcing. The period of lax enforcement was one of the reasons WP initially had such a bad reputation for reliability.

From the lede of WP:V:

Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. [...] All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. (emph. added - jeh)

Not much wiggle room there. And please note that this is not describing, as you characterize it, "a standard of citation of the utmost, nigh unattainable, rigor". This is merely the ordinary standard with which all Wikipedia content is expected to comply.

Hi-fi forums and vlogs are self-published sources. See WP:SPS.

WP:COMMON is merely an essay. It is not an excuse to wave your arms and say "oh well, everybody knows this, and it's obvious anyway, and I wrote it and trust me I'm really sure about it, and I think it's an important thing to include, so we can ignore WP:V".

The material that you added on "logic control" was originally completely unsupported. The sources you added are only first-party sources - the inventors and sellers of the technology. And they are contemporaneous with the introduction of the technology they describe; they provide no historical view of achieved results, only intentions. A first-party source can be an ok source for exactly what the source says, but no more than that. In changing the wording from what you wrote, which amounted to "this feature resulted in these benefits" (a claim that can only be verified by sources written considerably after the technology was introduced), to my wording "these benefits are claimed for this feature", I changed it to something that can arguably be supported only by first-party sources. But even that is iffy. We are very wary of using first-party sources as they are very easy to misuse; it is very easy to slip over the line from claims directly supportable by quotations to WP:OR stated in Wikipedia's voice.

Perhaps you could argue your case for an exception at WP:RSN. Or perhaps you could ask for a third-party opinion (see WP:3O). ("Third opinion (3O) is a means to request an outside opinion in a content or sourcing disagreement between two editors." - emph. added) But I will tell you that pleas for relaxing the rules for a particular contribution tend to get a very poor reception.

Your characterization of the difficulty of finding sources for e.g. claims of achieved reliability is well taken - but that's what writing for Wikipedia is like. Oh well. Jeh (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

obtw, there is an amazing repo of archived electronics magazines, both hobby and pro related, including Audio and High Fidelity (but not Stereo Review), at http://www.americanradiohistory.com . You could check there. Jeh (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

See also WP:NORN. Jeh (talk) 12:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

[2] p. 39 last paragraph "The transport controls are fully logic operated through solenoids. Any transport control button can be touched while the machine is running in any mode without risking damage to tape or deck."

[3] p. 30 User Comment "...the control logic appeared to be as foolproof as claimed." BirdValiant (talk) 07:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, please. These are merely descriptions of the feature. They don't support the claim of increased reliability (this can only be established after the machines have been out in the installed market for some time), nor of purchaser preference. Don't tell me that the design is "obviously" more reliable - industry history is full of mistakes where something that was thought to improve reliability turned out to have a flaw that only was evident after some time had passed. Beyond that, I frankly think the "reliability" claim is impossible to establish to WP standards as there is no way to isolate the variables: Nobody ever built two different models of cassette machine, one using piano keys and mechanical linkages and the other pushbuttons and solenoids, but otherwise identical.

We can certainly find references that improvements are claimed - but we have that wording and those references already. Claims of "user preference" will similarly be meaningless unless we can find e.g. surveys of users to back them up. Yes, solenoid control was claimed to be more reliable, and looks like it ought to be more reliable - but was it really? That's unproven.

Given the disparity between what you are trying to find references for, and the references you have found, I suggest that you don't really understand either the claims you're trying to support or the meaning of the references you've found. Or perhaps you misunderstand both.

Incidentally I owned two different "piano key"-operated cassette decks where it was impossible to put the transport into "shouldn't happen" states. The implication that, for example, digital logic control was the only way to make it impossible to engage both rewind and fast forward at the same time is completely specious. In the two decks of my experience, any "second" operational key would either be locked out, or would result in disengaging the currently active one, well in time to prevent problems caused by the second key. All with mechanical linkages. The actual advantage of digital logic control + solenoids is to the manufacturer: it was cheaper to make than "logic" implemented in mechanical linkages.

I can also tell you that some buyers preferred non-solenoid controls (for the speed of action, particularly in pause/unpause), so user preference was not universal. Jeh (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Robustness!=reliability. Never did I write any claims of reliability. Never did I claim that logic control is the only means to provide robustness. Only ever did I write that robustness was increased. BirdValiant (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, please, again. Robustness and reliability may not be exactly the same thing, but they are close enough, and you can't dismiss my point by saying "oh, you didn't use the exact word I did therefore your point is invalid." Anyway, a claim of robustness requires the same sort of historical perspective as one of reliability. Neither of your recent cites do anything for a claim of robustness either. There is nothing about solenoids and levers that inherently implies robustness. After all, a solenoids-and-levers design could be implemented with very flimsy parts. And sometimes have been. Jeh (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Say... if you really want to improve this article, why don't you work on adding references for some of the long-standing uncited stuff? You obviously have the time and the inclination to do the research. Jeh (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The difference between robustness and reliability is absolutely central to the issue here.

Reliability implies resistance to failure from all causes over time, whereas robustness in this context refers specifically to the device's resistance to failure from improper user-input, i.e. user-input fail-safe mechanisms.

Important note: my phrasing has always been that the replacement of mechanical control with logic control increased robustness. From such phrasing and its inclusion in the History section (which describes the evolution of the cassette deck over time), it is apparent that this "replacement" refers to the industry adoption of logic control. Increased robustness, then, is implied to involve the state of the art as a whole, not necessarily on a per-device basis. Thus I have never claimed or implied that mechanical transport control precludes such fail-safe mechanisms.

That robustness increased with the advent of logic control is not only supported by all sources hitherto given, but also by logical deduction: such user-input fail-safe mechanisms with mechanical input needed to be added post-hoc and were not always included; whereas with logic-control, these user-input fail-safe mechanisms were designed to be included from the very inception of logic-control in cassette decks (hence the inclusion of the original patent). Therefore, the adoption of logic-control increased robustness overall.

Increase in convenience is a further deduction: in the evolution of the state of the art of the cassette deck, the increase in prevalence of logic control meant the increase in prevalence of these user-input fail-safe mechanisms, which led to an overall decrease in the necessity of having to first press STOP before other inputs; among other examples which may be given. Note that this is not synthesis (WP:SYNNOT), and is further supported by the sources given.

My interest here is merely to provide an answer for "what is logic control for?" with what I consider to be sensible and reasonable (WP:IAR), and to defend my small contribution.

I consider your repeated use of the phrase "Oh, please" to be uncivil (WP:CIV), so please stop that immediately. BirdValiant (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Your claims don't make things so. Reliability and robustness are absolutely closely related: If something is not robust, it is less likely to be reliable. You mention "logical deductions" - can you really argue against that one?

But as for the article content, WP is absolutely not written based on editors' "logical deductions". That's considered original research. "But it's an obvious conclusion" - maybe so, but if your deduction is that obvious then you should be able to find a reliable source that echoes it. If you can't find a RS then it probably doesn't belong here. The limits of things we're allowed to "deduce" in WP's voice are very very narrow.

By the way, the most obviously robust transport controls use a mechanical T-handle. Push it left for rewind, right for FF, down for play/record. No possibility of conflicting commands and the movements are transferred very simply to the actual mechanism. Granted, it would be tough to build into a car stereo faceplate. But a number of pro r-r machines used it, several rugged cassette machines made for e.g. business and educational use, and even a cheap little Craig portable cassette recorder I owned way back when. Jeh (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

As for WP:IAR, a decision by one editor to ignore rules does not require anybody else to agree. And it is telling that you feel you must cite IAR; it is an admission that you realize you're breaking them. Why don't you try to come up with an alternate wording for your contribution that is more directly supported by the sources you've found? Jeh (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I have totally reworked the subsection so as to avoid any phrasing that directly asserts that any result was actually obtained.

Claims of convenience are ultimately a matter of opinion. If secondary sources are required for this, and logical deduction or common sense is not allowed, then there can be no claims of convenience. Therefore, I have removed the reference in the section heading alluding to improvements in convenience. If you find this appropriate, then perhaps this should be done throughout the article. On the other hand, if upon the utilization of one's logical faculties one finds a feature to be obviously convenient, then maybe it should be included without citation (WP:BLUE). Such claims go unchallenged on such articles as Remote control.

I see that the use of the term "robustness" from user interface design could be confusing, so I removed it in favor of a more explicit phrase, viz. the minimization of equipment damage upon incorrect user input. I hope that this avoids any potential misunderstanding. (I will, however, use "robustness" in this talk page for the sake of brevity, and because I have already defined it here on multiple occasions.)

As it is a part of the History section, I added a couple of sentences in order to place the addition of logic control within the larger context of the Digital Revolution. When the addition of logic control to cassette decks is rightfully considered as constituting a small part of the entire history of the ongoing Digital Revolution, specifically as a part of the development of Mechatronics (as defined in the reliable secondary textbook source), and when one considers that the industry-wide application of logic control to mechanisms of all sorts acted to increase performance:cost ratio, then I believe that it should become obvious that logic control did indeed facilitate the addition of several beneficial features. Unfortunately, as I exclaimed and as you freely admitted, providing a secondary source proving an increase in robustness against user-error for the particular situation of logic control in cassette decks is virtually impossible. However, when one considers the robustness of logic gates themselves against error due to user input (susceptible to defeat perhaps only by an extremely specific jolt of electricity, or possibly a cosmic ray, both of which are unlikely to result from user error), and compares this to flimsy plastic mechanical stopping arms which could possibly be broken by pressing hard enough, then I maintain that it is obvious that the application of logic control in cassette decks must have facilitated an increased robustness in the history of the development of the cassette deck, or at least a increased the robustness:cost ratio. Still, in case the obviousness of this development is still not enough, and because specific figures for this are not to be found (if they were ever gathered, I reckon that they exist now in a forgotten, inaccessible corporate archive, or they have been lost or destroyed), I have decided to leave the subsection without any explicit assertions that this actually occurred in this particular case. I will leave it to the reader to make this connection. Perhaps it is better to leave it in this way, so as to avoid insulting the reader's intelligence.

Whereas primary sources are not banned, but if used appropriately can be very useful (WP:WPNOTRS);— whereas I believe that the sources I provided do improve the article with respect to the cassette deck's historical development;— and whereas the sources used should be the best available, and I have determined them to be so after much effort:— I maintain that the sources I have provided are absolutely sufficient to satisfy any reasonable requirement of WP:Verifiability. If after these changes you can find any portion of this subsection which might constitute WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, or which provides inadequate citation for the material put forth, then let me know.

This article has a pre-existing claim in the Origins subsection of History: "Mechanical controls were replaced with electronic push buttons controlling solenoid mechanical actuators, though low cost models would retain mechanical controls." I'd say that this claim (that of mechanical controls eventually being relegated to low-end models), is obvious to anyone who knows anything about cassette decks or recorders, but it nonetheless lacks an explicit reference. It is obvious that my obvious is not the same as your obvious. So, a source would be nice. If this could be found, then I believe that this entire saga will be satisfactorily completed. Let me know if you can find one. BirdValiant (talk) 10:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

What is, exactly, the scope of the article?

• Formerly (and quite counterintuitively), the article covered all Compact Cassette recorders and players including boomboxes, shoebox cheapos, densukes etc. This caused quite a confusion at commons, creating half-separate, half-merging category trees of recorders and decks. At wikidata, there is cassette deck for Compact Cassette recorders in general and cassette deck proper (lacking built-in amp and speakers). Most interwikis, including this en: article, lean to the former while only the nl: belongs to the latter.
• However, current en: article lead clearly pronounces the latter meaning ("A cassette deck ... does not have a built-in power amplifier or speakers, and serves primarily as a transport"). Is this a sort of consensus today, or not? What is the scope of the article? Retired electrician (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Decline in popularity

Erpert proposes deleting Cassette deck § Decline in popularity because it is unsourced. The section has been marked as unsourced since 2019. We generally don't delete unsourced material unless the content is challenged. Erpert's first deletion rationale was I agree with most of that, but it was all unsourced so it does not appear that everything is being challenged so everything in the section does not need to be deleted. ~Kvng (talk) 13:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

“ We generally don't delete unsourced material unless the content is challenged. ”

Uh...yes, we do. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I have encountered individual editors who interpret WP:BURDON in this way but I have not seen community support for this editing pattern of removing longstanding uncited materiel and then demanding other editors supply citations before restoring it. ~Kvng (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not "demanding" anything. More importantly, editors interpret WP:BURDEN that way because, well, it's a guideline. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 15:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm making assumptions based on past experience with other editors who are aggressive in their interpretation and application of WP:BURDEN. I think the best way to start dealing with this material is to tag it as unsourced. Editors can work through it to improve it. If no sources are forthcoming, I usually end up thinning considerably. ~Kvng (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I for one think that it's best to keep sincere efforts like this and avoid wholesale reverts or deletions. The latter behaviors make the Wikipedia community appear hostile, aggressive, and generally unwelcome to people who just want to make a decent contribution without going through the labor of learning citation rules, Wikipedia's bureaucracy, etc. I say this as someone for whom a disagreement over this very article years ago (in combination with several other experiences) caused me to largely abandon this website for years. One should also remember that these kinds of experiences are large drivers of the dearth of female editors on Wikipedia. My suggestion is to avoid the appearance of lording over articles and let this stuff go sometimes. BirdValiant (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)