Talk:Cassette tape

The following is a closed 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 (page mover nac) Flooded with them hundreds 18:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

Compact Cassette → Cassette tape – The common name of this product today is "cassette tape". power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support - While it is the common name, the proposed name is somewhat vague, as it can also apply to VCR tapes, 8-tracks, etc. However, it does currently redirect here, so it's not that vague. Audio cassette would be another common but slightly less vague option. - BilCat (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, common name. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose WP:COMMONNAME is not an absolute requirement. This isn't broken, it doesn't need to be fixed. And "cassette tape" is ambiguous. Jeh (talk) 01:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for the ambiguity, preferring "Compact Cassette" which is a precise term. Binksternet (talk) 04:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — 'Cassette tape' already redirects here, and has done since the inception of Wikipedia. This subject is clearly the primary topic of 'cassette tape'. RGloucester — ☎ 16:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Who commonly calls it a compact cassette? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Per RGloucester no ambiguity is created by this proposal. No one but WP editors calls this by its technical name. ~Kvng (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Obviously most common name. How was this missed for so long? —В²C ☎ 07:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I missed it because I assumed cassette tape was an ambiguous term I guess because I know too much about old tape formats. ~Kvng (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support because it appears that the overwhelming majority of people refer to the product as a cassette tape rather than as a Compact Cassette. Additionally, as others have pointed out, 'cassette tape' redirects to 'Compact Cassette'. 'Tape cassette', 'audio cassette' and 'compact audio cassette' also redirect to the Compact Cassette article. Ntmamgtw (talk) 10:08, 4 November 2018 (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.

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There was clearly not a consensus to move the article to the proposed title. Number 57 23:46, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

Cassette tape → Compact Cassette – This product is called Compact Cassette by its inventor, Philips. While some do call it "cassette tape", this name is ambiguous because the product is first and foremost about cassette form-factor, not about tape. Also, many other magnetic products were packaged as tape in a cassette, like DAT or VHS cassettes or DV cassettes, etc. Thus, "cassette tape" is ambiguous: is it about tape or cassette? If it is about cassette, which one? Just call it what it always has been, and what is written on the packaging. Also, "cassette tape" is not prevalent outside the U.S., where just "cassette" or "audio cassette" is often used. Mikus (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pings to last RM participants who've not yet voted - power~enwiki , BilCat, Rreagan007, Randy Kryn, Jeh, RGloucester, Necrothesp, В²C, Ntmamgtw. -- Netoholic @ 18:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ping user who missed the last discussion but would have participated: @Wtshymanski:. - BilCat (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. "Compact Cassette" is the more precise term. I opposed the last move for the same reason. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - the context of the article is the specific device, the "compact cassette". "Cassette tape" is technically only the medium inside the compact cassette, and is inherently amiguous. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - the current title is reasonably unambiguous and better conforms to WP:COMMONNAME. Compact Cassette may have been printed on the early products but few consumers called it by the official name. Tape, cassette and cassette tape were common in the vernacular. Tape and cassette are ambiguous so cassette tape is the best choice. Compact Cassette is mentioned in the lead and redirects here so reader confusion is unlikely and flopping back and forth on the title doesn't get us anywhere. ~Kvng (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is one-to-many relationship, with a single official name and a bunch of common names. Why do you think it is reasonable to use one of many common names as the main article instead of redirecting common names to the single official name? After all, for a user performing a search the end result is the same. Mikus (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because cassette tape is the most unambiguous of the choices and because the onus is on the proposer to demonstrate that the new name is better; The arguments put forth here so far and in opposition to the previous move request are not compelling. ~Kvng (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I don't know how we got to the point when the proper term redirects to a common name and not the other way around. I am not against having common name searchable on Wikipedia, but common names, and these can be many, like "cassette tape", "cassette", "tape", "audio cassette", etc should link to the single unambiguous name, which is "Compact Cassette". This is just common sense, and coming from software development I cannot see the logic of using one of the several common names as the main article name. Mikus (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - current title is the WP:COMMONNAME. No evidence to the contrary given. -- Netoholic @ 18:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Netohlic, COMMONNAME. Personal experience, but I met one of the world's major collectors of cassette tapes, and that's what he called them. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• (ec) Strong support reverting to Compact Cassette. 'Cassette tape' (whether the emphasis is on cassette or on tape) isn't just Compact Cassette (capitalized to denote compliance with the Philips spec) but also DCC, DAT, Elcaset, and a plethora of video and data storage formats. Not to mention that cassette tapes themselves aren't really different from reel-to-reel tapes or cartridge tapes (the format embraced all known formulations except barium ferrite). Perhaps today's American hipsters indeed make mistakes like 'cassette tape' or 'nucular', but that's not an excuse to step away from industry-standard terms (WP:COMMONNAME, WP:RS) in favor of some urban jargon. Retired electrician (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not an American hipster. I'm a middle-aged Englishman who grew up in the cassette era. I know what a cassette tape refers to. I would assume a Compact Cassette was some sort of weird dictaphone format or something similar. WP:COMMONNAME it ain't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The assumption is spot on: the Compact Cassette emerged as a low-grade dictation format; the idea of bringing it up to high fidelity standards - which took around 15 years - indeed, seemed quite weird then. A wider and faster cassette tape (i.e. half-inch video cassette tape or the quarter-inch Elcaset) would certainly be a better proposition then, but history decided otherwise. Retired electrician (talk) 09:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - do people here genuinely refer to it as "cassette tape" in casual conversation? I would have thought that the real commonname is simply either "cassette" or "tape", but not both together. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, cassette or tape when context lets you get away with it. When you need to be less ambiguous, you are much more likely to go to cassette tape or audio cassette than Compact Cassette. ~Kvng (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, in the disparate areas of the United States I've lived in. I've "never" heard the term "Compact Cassette" used, except in very formal presentations regarding recording history, and then only to differentiate the common format from arcane, failed ones, or possibly to differentiate from microcassettes. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you're misunderstanding my comment, so I've started a new section below to expand upon it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Per WP:COMMONNAME. As I stated in the previous discussion, "Cassette tape" redirected here anyway, and probably still will if it is moved. Yes, there are a lot of common names, but "Compact Cassette" has never been one of them. - BilCat (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose move per COMMONNAME. O.N.R. ^(talk) 20:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose move per WP:COMMONNAME. –Ntmamgtw (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Per WP:COMMONNAME.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:OFFICIAL (which directly advise against titles like the one proposed here), WP:NATURALDIS and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Not even the supporters are arguing the proposed name is used more commonly to refer to this topic in reliable sources than is the current title. As to the alleged ambiguity of “cassette tape”, that’s technically accurate but practically irrelevant due to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: there can be no question that this term is used almost exclusively to refer to this topic. And sure the most common name might well be just “cassette”, but that has been deemed to not have a PT (Cassette is a dab page), so we must disambiguate, and the current title is clearly preferred over the proposed by WP:ATDIS as natural disambiguation. What’s the point of working out years of policy and guidance if we’re going to make and support directly contradictory proposals like this? —В²C ☎ 03:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC) Expanded. —В²C ☎ 19:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support The phrase "cassette tape" without caps can be ambiguous while the term "Compact Cassette" is trademarked and on all if not most Compact Cassettes so is unambiguous. Absent an obvious most frequently used version the "five criteria" of WP:Criteria would seem to favor the unambiguous "Compact Cassette." Tom94022 (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ambiguity is a stretch. We have a clear PRIMARYTOPIC here. —В²C ☎ 19:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Out of about 30 tapes nearby, only one says "Compact Cassette" in the little logo shape that I suspect Philips used. That one might be old enough that the patent was still active. (It is Pioneer N1, if that helps.) Without the patent, as well as I know it, there is no way to force others to use a trademark. Maybe they could copyright the shape or some such. (Look and feel?) Maybe in a few more years, when enough people have forgotten about them, it won't be the WP:COMMONNAME anymore. But I believe all the ones that might make it ambiguous have their own unambiguous name that is their WP:COMMONNAME. (No-one that I know says cassette tape when they mean VHS tape, but maybe video cassette.) Gah4 (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as before. Actually, the commonest name is just cassette or tape, but it certainly ain't Compact Cassette! So this is an acceptable compromise and is still far, far commoner than the proposed name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as it is, by far, the WP:COMMONNAME. All the other tape containing cassettes are called by their specific name: VHS, Beta, DAT, DV, I suspect partly because those names are shorter. Compact Cassette, I believe the Philips trademark, is slightly harder to say. Note tha the verb to tape, and its conjugated forms, are still often used for non-tape based recording systems, which complicates the use of just tape to refer to the subject of this article. I suppose just cassette in casual conversation, but there are enough other types of cassettes (35mm film?) to make that enough ambiguous. Gah4 (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME. This article is about the technology, not necessarily about the trademarked product Compact Cassette. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 16:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, why would we want to use such a relatively uncommonly used name at the title? The current title is not ambiguous (at least not to any significant degree). Perhaps those who have grown up after cassette tapes were common are less likely to know them by this name, but that doesn't make an even less common name a better title for this. older ≠ wiser 21:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The current title is the common name. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Per WP:COMMONNAME On one side, i agree, since compact cassette is the technical and most appropiate name. But on the other side, everyone just calls them cassettes, period. Even calling them cassette tapes is rare. VHS cassettes or tapes are simply known as such. Just do a search on reddit or google. Pancho507 (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is "cassette tape" the common name?

I'm not proposing that "compact cassette" is the common name for the object and thus the article, rather that "cassette tape" isn't the common name either. It seems that the common name is either "cassette" or "tape", but not "cassette tape" or even "compact cassette". To use the argument of common name it needs to be shown that "cassette tape" is the common name, and that hasn't been done yet, apart from claims of "where I live". For example, where I live, nobody but nobody calls it a "cassette tape" or "compact cassette" - it's a "tape", or sometimes a "cassette". I'm just asking for evidence and sourcing to show that the claim of common name can be upheld, because I'm not sure it can. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet no one would call "apocryphal" (?) claims of "Where I'm from we say the sky is 'blue', not 'azure'". For most supporters, "tape", "cassete", or the combination "cassette tape", are so common as to not need citations per WP:BLUESKY. Yet "audio cassette" may well be more common in other regions, again probably to the point of BLUESKY. I've lived in both types of places, but yes that is "anecdotal". ("Apocryphal" implies it's not true, which would run afoul of WP:AGF, wouldn't it?) - BilCat (talk) 06:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come now - this is clearly not in the same league as bluesky. I also confess to a misunderstanding of the term "Apocryphal" - I was using it when I should perhaps use "anecdotal" - and as such I've removed it from the above comment. The point I'm trying to get across is that it may be a common name, but is not the most common name, and may be restricted to local usage, rather than more widespread usage. If there is no global common name, then should we not go for the technical name, and include common names in the lead sentence? Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out my last comment there, as it really wasn't AGF itself, which wasn't my intention. - BilCat (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As above, in cases where it is obvious, I suppose cassette or tape, but there are enough other types of each, besides the fact that tape is often used where no tape is involved. I suspect both have too many other uses, and so a disambiguation page, to be the name for this article, even if we did decide that one was the WP:COMMONNAME. There are times in conversation when one must disambiguate, and other times when it isn't needed. Gah4 (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is the most COMMONNAME in casual conversation is debatable (and probably hard to prove either way), I think its quite clear that "cassette tape" is the most commonname which allows for WP:NATURALDIS. -- Netoholic @ 14:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the point I was about to make. While Compact Cassette contradicts guidance at WP:OFFICIAL as well as at COMMON NAME. Why is this even an issue to discuss? —В²C ☎ 18:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about WP:NATURALDIS before, but it sounds like what I thought above. It might be that while a patent is active, they can require the name for licensees. Looking at an SA-X90 that is still around (haven't played it in years), it doesn't say anything other than TDK, SA-X90 and Japan (and NR. in/out). Not that patent restriction restrict what it is called here, though. The early Philips ones might say CompactCassette on them. (Is it one word or two?) Gah4 (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Just because you see it that way doesn't make it explicitly so - discussion is a good thing. Where I live and grew up - two very different geographical locations - nobody socially or commercially ever referred to the subject as "cassette tape", but instead either "tape" or "cassette", thus making the latter an obvious to me common name, and so I am equally correct to ask why is this even an issue to discuss?

Granted nobody called it a "compact cassette" either, hence why I asked the genuine and serious question in the first place, because to me "cassette tape" is most definitely not a common name. It's my understanding that where a common name may be so varied that there is no single outstanding common name, an alternative is chosen, and the others are listed in the opening sentence. But, I'm willing to be corrected. I'm not that precious about this specific topic, I'm more curious about the scenario and process - where there is a disputed common name and no sources to show which is the best to use. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Born2cycle: Just guessing, and no malice intended, but judging from the OP's comments, it may be an aversion to a perceived Americanism, which is understandable. What people sometimes forget is that Americans still make up about half of Wikipedia's readership, and that Americans are the wide majority of native English speakers, and even more so if a term is also a Canadianism. WP:COMMONNAME doesn't penalize American terms simply because it's used in primarily one country, nor should it. On the other hand, we do need to take worldwide usage into consideration. That partly why "audio cassette" has been suggested as an alternative title, though not as yet officially proposed. - BilCat (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, from WP:COMMONNAME, it is actual (usually written) sources that count, not popular conversation. I am not so sure what a WP:RS is for this, though. Gah4 (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It maybe that "Audio cassette" is the best choice under both common usage and natural disambiguation. Google search, not necessarily a reliable source gives

• "Compact cassette: 11M hits
• "Audio cassette: 9M hits
• "Compact audio cassette: 1.5M hits

I do not support cassette tape because there are two current many past cassette tapes used with cassette tape drives in data storage. So maybe Audio cassette or even Audio cassette tape? Tom94022 (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your objection to “cassette tape” is abundantly addressed by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:D and Cassette tape (disambiguation). No need to reinvent the wheel or solve problems for which we’ve had solutions for two decades now. ——В²C ☎ 21:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As well as I know, all the other forms, including data cassette tape forms, have their own WP:COMMONNAME. Though DDS is commonly misnamed DAT instead. There is DLT Ultrium, QIC (all of them), AIT, and probably more that I never heard of, but all go by those names instead. Gah4 (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And in the unlikely event someone is searching for one of the other uses with “cassette tape”, we have the hatnote link to the dab page. Standard stuff. It’s worth noting that none of those other possible other uses of “cassette tape” has been deemed sufficiently common to warrant its own direct link in the hatnote, which indicates further that we have the right PT here. ——В²C ☎ 21:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that in the times when Exabyte tape was popular, and just about everyone used Video8 tapes with them, that they might have often enough been referred to as just cassette tape instead of exabyte tape. Though I suspect only in cases where it was already unambiguous. (How many people listen to audio cassettes while doing computer back-ups?) Gah4 (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, and a bit-Wiki-soap-boxy, I've always believed far too much emphasis is placed on using common names over "official" ones, with this article's title being a good example. However, WP:COMMONNAME is WP policy, and the current title is inline with that, which the prevailing consensus bears out. WP:IAR is quite difficult to apply to policies than to mere guidelines. Perhaps it is time for an assault on the Common Name aspect of the naming policy, but this article isn't the place to do that. - BilCat (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have wondered before this, if names can lose their WP:COMMONNAMEness after a while. I suppose you need newer sources to find that out. I first learned about WP:COMMONNAME years ago regarding Ethernet hub which should be Ethernet repeater. I suspect it is mostly that hub is shorter that people use it more. I also suspect that easier to say applies here, too. Gah4 (talk) 22:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Being easier to say applies to a lot of mispronounced words, including "nucular" as mentioned above. (In that case, most people who say "nucular" usually spell it correctly, but that pronunciation is used by many as a sign of ignorance, when it's not.) Every variant of English has words that are pronounced incorrectly, not even counting rhotic/non-rhotic dialects. (It will always sound strange to me to hear "America" pronounced with an "R" on the end, but I know it's just how some people say those words. They aren't "ignorant", unless they think I pronounce it wrong!) - BilCat (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BilCat, here’s an alternative take on where policy change should commence: User:Born2cycle/FAQ#Change_guideline_first —-В²C ☎ 22:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On many policies and guidelines, you're right that it needs to be a "bottom up" change, but I don't believe that's the case with COMMONNAME. It's widely enforced, as this move discussion shows. - BilCat (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding BilCat's comment about my perceived intentions - it's not an "aversion to a perceived Americanism" per se, but more an aversion to anybody who says "this is what we call it in my town/county/country, so it must be the common name. I don't need a source because everybody calls it that, it's obvious." I agree that in some cases the American backyard is bigger than the global garden (I've always been a firm supporter of Sega Genesis over Megadrive), but not always. Chaheel Riens (talk) 04:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the OP of the whole move discussion, judging by their comments. That's not you. - BilCat (talk) 04:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was referring to your comments, which I apparently mixed up with the originator of the move discussion! I'm too tired tonight. Anyway I said "may be", so I'm happy to be corrected. - BilCat (talk) 05:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Audio tape" a better common name?

I agree it is not and apologize for my typographical and logical errors, what I meant to propose is in the next section. Tom94022 (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Audio cassette" a better common name?

Audio cassette is used almost as much as Cassette tape and is much less ambiguous.

For those who doubt this I suggest you fill in the blank for this perfectly acceptable part of an alternate lede to this article:

I support the change to "Compact Cassette" because it is unambiguous and historically correct, but if a common name is somehow required then it seems that Audio cassette is much less ambiguous because as for example a Google search, not necessarily a reliable source demonstrates it is a common name:

• Compact cassette: 11M hi
• Audio cassette: 9M hits
• Compact audio cassette: 1.5M hits

As one of the only three tape cassettes still in production it is in current usage unambiguous. Note that the other two are typically referred to as LTO cassette and 3592 cassette which would make Audio cassette as the title of this article consistent with current common practice for tape media. Again sorry for my confused prior edit - I do propose Audio cassette as a better common name for this article Tom94022 (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am fine with audio cassette, which by the way is a redirect. The problem with all of these, is they depend on context. If the source is, for example Audio magazine (discontinued, but close enough for an example), then it will be obvious that cassette or cassette tape mean audio cassette. It looks like obsoletemedia.org calls things with two reels (coaxial or not) cassette, and things with one reel (like Ultrium) cartridge, though they might not be a WP:RS on that. I still believe that for typical, usual, or average context that cassette tape is fine, and WP:COMMONNAME. Data cartridges might be WP:COMMONNAME to computer nerds or data center operators, and so in their reference sources, but not in more typical reference sources. (That is, if we are trying to disambiguate against data cassette.) I suspect for more usual readers, the ambiguity would be to video cassette, but in that case, it is definitely more usual to give the specific name. Note, for example, that VHS goes directly to the article, not to the VHS (disambiguation) page, and is commonly known without the need for a cassette qualifier. Besides, I suspect that VHS tapes are more obsolete than the subject of this article. I still prefer cassette tape, but not by a huge margin. Gah4 (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've no problem with "audio cassette", as I said even in the first move discussion. It is an acceptable compromise to me, if we can prove its usage is wide-spread enough across various regions from reliable sources. - BilCat (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there was a problem with the current title then audio cassette would be a reasonable alternative. But, while cassette tape is literally ambiguous because there are other types of tapes using cassettes (listed at Cassette tape (disambiguation)), in practice the term is used almost exclusively to refer to the topic of this article. So, practically speaking, there is no problem with it, and it is clearly much more commonly used than audio cassette, per ngrams. So, no, audio cassette is not a better title for this article than is cassette tape, which is the most WP:COMMONNAME for this article’s topic, which is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this name. ——В²C ☎ 07:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I think. And even though I wrote it above, I tend to forget that it is supposed to be what WP:RS say, not necessarily what people say in ordinary conversation, even though the latter is easier to think about. To me, audio tape tends to mean reel-to-reel tape, or at least it ambiguous with it. Gah4 (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, "audio tape" normally refers to reel-to-reel audio tape. Tom94022 (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW here is the count of "tape cassettes" and tape cartridges from the Museum of Obsolete Media:

Count at Museum of Obsolete Media
	Cartridges	Cassettes
Audio	24	28
Video	1	45
Data	11	33
Total	36	106
Grand Total	142

So when one says "tape cassette" it could at least 106 different types of cassettes or more broadly 142 cassettes or cartridges. I suggest if the article keeps this name such information should be in the lede. Changing the name to "Audio cassette" reduces the ambiguity to 28 types which should be in the lede but is a more reasonable number. I suggest "Compact cassette" is the least ambiguous choice and maybe there could be a separate article on "Tape cassette/cartridge" using the museum as an RS. Since there doesn't seem to be any consensus on "Compact Cassette" should we wait for the RfC to close and then do a new one or ? Tom94022 (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It says Compact Cassette in the lede, and even before, in the disambiguation link. The link goes to the Cassette tape (disambiguation) page, which is usual. Well, the other choice is to link directly to the disambiguation page, and then here from there, but when there is one that is the WP:COMMONNAME that is so much more common, it is usual to link directly, and then expect those who found the wrong one to follow that link. It seems to me, that this is the right choice if interest in this article is more than the sum of all the other Cassette tape (disambiguation) choices. I suppose that there are statistics to show that, but I don't know how to find them. Gah4 (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be discussed in WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY, including links on finding statistics. Gah4 (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone is interested, try this one. I recommend log scale, but it seems not to put that into the link. Gah4 (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 04:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

Cassette tape → Audio cassette – The original name of the product is Compact Cassette, and would prefer it to be the title of the article, and all other names redirecting to it, but if this is not possible then let us at least rename it to "Audio cassette". The "Cassette tape" seriously irks me up, it is revolting. The "Audio cassette" name is common enough, recognizable, and it also was used by cassette manufacturers on the packaging, see the image above with three cassettes labelled as "Audiocassette", "Audio cassette" and "Audio Cassette". Everyone knows what audio cassette is, it is (was) a de-facto standard, so if people do not want to refer to a proper name given to the format by Philips, let us at least use a recognizable name that does not scream "illiterate". Mikus (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was already a discussion encompassing that back in April. While I personally prefer "audio cassette" or "Compact Cassette" to "cassette tape" (which I would have opposed strongly had I been aware of the original move proposal), I don't think the discussion should be reopened after just two months. Ubcule (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two months ago people did not want to use the original Philips' name, so I am proposing a middle ground. And, I have three manufacturers to back me up (see the photo with Fuji, Sony and Maxell audio cassettes).Mikus (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One problem with the "audio cassette" title is that this tape format was used for more than audio, for example Cassette tape#Data recording. -- Netoholic @ 12:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is just a medium and as such can have different uses. Video 8 cassettes were used to record DV video, which Sony called Digital 8. VHS cassettes were used to record computer data and HD video. But the original usage of compact cassettes was audio, hence audio cassettes, and this is how they were marketed, see the packaging above. Mikus (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per all the reasons in the previous very recent move request.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - there was ample evidence provided in the prior RM to show this article is at the WP:COMMONNAME title already. -- Netoholic @ 02:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above and per the recent RM. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Certainly oppose audio cassette. This "middle ground" is not much better than current "cassette tape", being a collective name for all sorts of audio cassettes. DAT, Microcassette, Stenocassette u.v.a. they're all audio cassettes. Retired electrician (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the photo above, where cassettes are called "audio cassette" by the manufacturers? Mikus (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Random-picked commercial packaging blurbs are not an acceptable source for naming. Retired electrician (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not random, WP:CHERRYPICKED. -- Netoholic @ 19:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I picked those that (1) I have, and (2) had anything about what is inside the packaging at all. Many packagings do not even specify what is that inside having "Type II" and "High bias". Mikus (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All three were end-of-the-line, bottom-of-the-line products from the era when all three companies quit manufacturing and subcontracted to Korean, Indonesian etc. plants... Good luck trying to find same audio cassette in the products from the golden 80s. This won't be easy. There will be Dynamic cassette, Acoustic cassette, Acoustic Dynamic cassette, even a Stereo cassette and a Recording cassette ... what makes audio any better? Retired electrician (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This proposed title is less historically ambiguous than the current title and the article as written applies to the only cassette for audio in substantial current production and usage. The packaging blurbs further support the rename. Tom94022 (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the condescending and inappropriate request Red Slash 07:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - "cassette tape" is the common name. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]