Calling attention to the fact there are two competing tags as well as two nearly identical wiki pages for both vinyl_record vs record.
General discussion on what tag should be kept and if one should be aliased to another. While record seems to be largely used for the music disc, I did see a few posts with the tag that implies the viewer is recording example 1 example 2

my 2 cents is to use vinyl_record even though not all are made of vinyl (example those gold or platinum records framed on the wall in the background ), and just use it as the general term. Might not be a good idea to alias record to recording or vinyl_record, maybe record_(disambiguation)?

Agree with using vinyl_record instead, "record" can be easily confused with multiple other concepts like a "record" feat, or the act of recording.

Guess I'll bump to see if anyone disagrees or for more input.
If no one else interjects after a while, the plan was I was going to go through the record tag and manually change them either to vinyl_record or recording depending on the picture, change the record wiki to point to either the vinyl_record wiki for the music disc or recording wiki for the act of recording, and then make the suggestion to aliasing record to record_(disambiguation).

post #2136580

There are records before 1948 that are made of shellac by the way. Plus there are acetate records.

If the word vinyl is an issue, what about phonograph_record? that's what the wikipedia page is titled

cloudpie said:
If the word vinyl is an issue, what about phonograph_record? that's what the wikipedia page is titled

I second this option. Least confusion and encompasses all varieties of record - vinyl, shellac, gold, platinum, etc.

cloudpie said:
If the word vinyl is an issue, what about phonograph_record? that's what the wikipedia page is titled

Thirding the option.

cloudpie said:
If the word vinyl is an issue, what about phonograph_record? that's what the wikipedia page is titled

The problem with phonograph record is that it carries the popular connotation of "old timey record player with the big horn on it". With most records in art on the site being in a modern context, I don't think most users are going to try and tag "phonograph record".

Wikipedia's usage works because they have to be technically correct, as what we call "record players" are actually just types of phonographs, but tags on e621 are a balancing act between "correct" and "will make sense for the layman searching or tagging".

maplebytes said:
I don't think most users are going to try and tag "phonograph record".

...but this is why we have aliases?

pheagleadler said:
I second this option. Least confusion and encompasses all varieties of record - vinyl, shellac, gold, platinum, etc.

I think that's too technical, kinda like the issue with "mechanical_fan" a while back. technically correct, but not in the common vernacular. Even though Records were made out of different materials in the past 1. you can't tell what they're made out of in artwork, and 2. the common phrase at least from my experience is still vinyl record

cloudpie said:
...but this is why we have aliases?

What would be the point though if it's not a term anyone uses anymore. It's kinda like the reason a lot of the scientific animal names were removed. I don't know, it just seems the popular term for something should be used unless it becomes a problem, and i don't see any problem with calling them all vinyl_records,

I think a compromise could be do phonograph_record as catch all, then do sub tags for gold_record for posts like post #4402475, shellac_record for picture with old fashion crank phonographs like post #232702 and then do vinyl_record for generic black music disc like post #3859512. It has it's own issues but it's the most accurate

maplebytes said:
The problem with phonograph record is that it carries the popular connotation of "old timey record player with the big horn on it". With most records in art on the site being in a modern context, I don't think most users are going to try and tag "phonograph record".

Wikipedia's usage works because they have to be technically correct, as what we call "record players" are actually just types of phonographs, but tags on e621 are a balancing act between "correct" and "will make sense for the layman searching or tagging".

the goal should be lowering the ambiguity of a tag's purpose. I don't think any reasonable user would be confused by the tag name phonograph_record, even if they only associated the term "phonograph" with gramaphones, and not more modern record players. I do think that maybe a reasonable user could think that a gold record shouldn't be tagged vinyl_record and a reasonable user might not be able to get the use of the record tag without reading the wiki.

the name phonograph_record has the least ambiguity of purpose. alias vinyl_record and record over, and there really shouldn't be any problem.

pc-king said:
I think a compromise could be do phonograph_record as catch all, then do sub tags for gold_record for posts like post #4402475, shellac_record for picture with old fashion crank phonographs like post #232702 and then do vinyl_record for generic black music disc like post #3859512. It has it's own issues but it's the most accurate

<color>_record (gold, black, whatever) should be fine, and have everything imply phonograph_record.
shellac_record is definitely not a necessary tag since the actual material a record is made of would be unnecessary information and, in most-all cases, entirely unknowable. the same would be true for vinyl_record.