text:
Talk:8-track cartridge

Reel-to-reel
Reel-to-reel introduced in '40s --- Are you sure about this? The best I could dig up was the Ampex in 1956, and use by CBS for the first time in November 30, 1956. Magnetic tape was actually invented in in 1928, but wasn't really feasible until the invention of plastic tape in 1947. Ioa 19:59 Oct 14, 2002 (UTC)

 * The invention of plastic magnetic tape happened well before 1947. It was being used in Germany in both broadcasting and military applications during the second world war. The BASF chemical company manufactured the tapes. 80.229.222.48 21:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Internal structure
I've opened up one of my 8-track cartridges and will be posting a picture of its internal mechanism to replace the closed one I put there in the meantime, but it's going to show there's ONLY ONE REEL in the cartridge, so the article is wrong. Whoever wrote it must have been working from a written description, because anyone who's ever taken one apart to fix a broken tape knows there's only one reel, and the tape comes off the bottom and winds back on the top, and the tracks are next to each other on the single tape on the single reel. So will someone please rewrite the article, so when I put the picture there we won't look stupid? -- isis 20:37 Oct 21, 2002 (UTC)

Criticism
What? No mention of funcionality problems in the article. 8 tracks had a limited life at best. How many times did you eject one from you car's player and the cartridge came out but the tape stayed in the player leaving you with a tangled mess and a decision of whether to try to repair it or just buy another copy. Or how about when you recorded your favorite album onto a blank 8 track to take with you in your car and it would inevitably change programs right in the middle of a song. These types of things need to be added to the article.

Au contraire, I've never had an 8-track tape get eaten or mangled by the machine. I have, however, had plenty of VHS and Cassette tapes ruined this way!

Obsolete
Isn't calling it "now-obsolete" a bias? Some people still use 'em! swirsky
 * Maybe some other word might be more appropriate? As far as I know, 8-track players and cartridges are no longer produced --Zilog Jones 18:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think it's biased to call something obsolete even if they are still in use - some people still listen to 78s. Obsolete means superceded by a newer technology and no longer used by the majority of people. The 8-track is definitely obsolete. Graham 00:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Obsolete, in my eyes, means something that is out of production, as well as being superceded by a newer technology. --65.147.23.106 04:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

read it again it says reel to reel "like" reel inside — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.109.148 (talk) 06:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Use for live TV show sound effects
Were the professional 8-track tapes ever used for sound effects playback on TV shows recorded in front of a live audience? (eg late night talk shows). I saw a quick shot of the "sound guy" on a variety show once where the guy was surrounded by an array of cartidges that he could quickly slot into the player to provide various sounds for particular segments (or for a quick laugh). - Diceman
 * They most likely were the Fidelipac professional three-track commercial carts, not 8-tracks. --Blainster 21:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. - Diceman 12:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

What's with the redirect?
Why is ' Eight-track recording machine' re-directed here? I ended up being redirected here from a link in the article about 'Hey Jude' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hey_Jude - the concepts of multi-track recording and eight track stereo cartridge are being confused here. I'm sure that the Beatles did NOT record 'Hey Jude on an eight track cartridge.

it is on 8-track, i own a copy. sometimes it's called "the beatles again", sometimes it is "hey jude" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.211.84 (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Removed Orrtronics reference
I removed this sentence from the end of the opening paragraph: "Much early development of the 8-Track itself (after its inital conception) was also pioneered by the Orrtornics Corporation of Toledo, Ohio.". As it stands it does not convey much useful information. It could be added back in the narrative of 8-track development if it can be determined just what contributions the company made. Otherwise it just sounds like advertising.

A Google search shows the company name Orrtronics was mispelled in the sentence referred to above. A web page here says they had licensed an endless loop tape cartridge that was unsuccessful in the market. --Blainster 18:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

How to Use
The article does not cover how 8-tracks are played back, Is there a speaker, a headphone jack, or is an external appliance needed? Afterburner 00:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * An 8-track deck is similar to a cassette deck in this regard. It was originally used in automobiles and plugged into the auto radio (or speakers if it conained an amplifier).  In the home it could be a stand alone unit with amplifier and speakers, or a deck that plugged into a stereo system.

Neutrality
The article isn't very neutral in its coverage of the fidelity of 8-tracks, constantly touting mediocre sound quality and being disavowed by audiophiles. Sure, a good few of the 8-tracks you'll pick up from a thrift store might not sound quite as crisp as they were 30 or 35 years ago, but it's been my experience that a few of my 8s are indistinguishable from CD-quality audio. Factors including age, cartridge design, player condition, proper storage/maintenance, and original recording quality (for example, don't look to a recording of the greatest hits of the Monkees on a Realistic cartridge in a typically out-of-alignment 8-track/record/radio combo unit as a true representation of audio fidelity from the 8) influence how good an 8-track can sound. If executed properly, you can defeat the argument of replacing it with a CD for quality's sake. --User:Vintagejonny 20:36, 23 April 2006
 * Interesting arguements. I guess, if you think about it, pretty much any audio format degrades over time if it's not properly cared for. I only own one cart. I've taken good care of it, and I've only tested it out once on a system that didn't have great speaker sound to begin with, so I don't know with any certainty about the sound quality. But maybe the amount of cart care and maintenance is too much for some folks, and maybe that's why it's not as popluar as lower-maintenance formats such as cassette or CD. I'll try to edit some of the bias, though; it's all in the ears of the beholder, after all. --Dynamite Eleven 02:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

 * The tape itself is capable of good sound, but the real problem is the mechanics. I have yet to hear an 8-track that didn't wow, and for an audiophile, that is intolerable, no matter how good the sound otherwise. The problem is that the mechanical drag of the reel is quite substantial, despite the graphite coating, so a very high pinch-wheel pressure is needed (exacerbated by the very same graphite working against friction at the pinch wheel/capstan). The pinch wheel pressure is provided only my the springs holding the cartridge in the player, so it's rather limited (or else the cartridge becomes very hard to pull out of the machine). Also, the drag partly depends on the softness of the pinch wheel, which being part of the cartridge, must vary somewhat. All these factors make the pinch wheel force variable and compromised. As I say, I have yet to hear one that didn't wow. Graham 05:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree. But the BIG problem with 8 tracks were that they were SO reliant on the QUALITY of the equiptment. Cheap players had problems like crosstalk between tracks and severe head alignment issues that resulted in poor sound quality. Higher quality decks, like my Pioneer with Dolby make crisp, clear recordings that have VERY good fidelity. In the days before auto reverse cassettes, The 8 track was vastly superior, as it would play continuously. I never owned a cassette deck until autoreverse decks became common in the late 80's. Teamgoon 06:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You know, CDs are awfully high maintenance. I keep having to find out how to clean them, over and over again. Cassette tapes would be better for my favorite sounds. As for eight-tracks. . . all I really want is to play something that doesn't wear out after a few months. They're really pretty and shiny, and look really futuristic, but frankly, I'd rather have something I can actually keep for an extended period of time. Maybe 8-tracks are the key. I have to admit I'm not an "audiophile," though.

8-track introduction
Sources requested for article: Ford Motors, which in 1965 (debuted September 15) offered 8-track players as an option in their complete line of 1966 model cars – from You Really Got Me a comprehensive history of the Kinks, by Doug Hinman and Jason Brabazon, 1994

Also: ''After getting RCA Victor to commit to the mass production of its catalog on Learjet 8-tracks, Ford agreed to offer the players as optional equipment on 1966 models. '' – from "A History of The Eight Track Tape" by David Morton in 8-Track Mind magazine, 1995. dredged up by Google & --Blainster 22:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Fidelipak/Fidelipac
I was just in here to do some copy editing, so I'm not sure of the difference between these two. Did the name ever change? The article doesn't make that clear, and so it looked like an error to me, but I have no idea which of them is correct (or whether either is incorrect). Thathollygirl 22:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Tape length
It's not obvious from the article how many minutes an 8-track can hold. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.234.16.120 (talk) 07:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Well, I have Springsteen's "The River" on 1 fat 8 track and its an 82 minute album. John celona (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

 * As mentioned elsewhere, blanks could be purchased in lengths up to 120 min. The supplier I used was Exhibo West and their "branded" tapes used the Audiopak carts which they custom loaded in lengths from 32 min up to 120. The name brand blanks I recall - 3M and Ampex - were 90 min. at most (these used the Lear cart). THX1136 (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Article name
I'd like to hear some views about the article title. Strictly speaking, the format was called "Stereo 8"; many cartridge manufacturers actually did use this term, althouh it seems Learjet wasn't terribly bothered about requiring the trademark to be used, or used consistently. Most people in English refer to the object as an "8-track cartridge" and this term was in semi-formal use; CBS cartridges generally say "8-Track Stereo" on them, while others, such as those from RCA, generally are labeled "Stereo 8 Cartridge"; ie, the formal trademark. I think it's OK the way it is (Stereo 8 is mentioned in the intro and as the title of the infobox) but as other formats stick to the trademark (Compact Cassette, Compact Disc) I thought I'd ask. Pro hib it O ni o ns (T) 20:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

 * If there's no objection, I will do this; both terms are used in the article enough to make it clear what we are talking about, and the use of the trademark would make it consistent with other media-format articles. Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 14:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Objection. No one calls these things "Stereo 8" regardless of the trademark. 8 track is the only common name anyone's used for the things.76.226.131.230 (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Yes, that's right. Unless there is a reason on why the article should be called Stereo 8, it must returned to the original 8-Track Cartridge name. --Juan D. (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Boxed Sets?
"Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band's Live/1975-85... is probably the only boxed set ever released on vinyl, cassette, compact disc and 8-track tape."

I can actually name you several boxed sets that were released on all 4 formats, so this might should be changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Garr1984 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

 * Please do, that would be interesting, and if you have pictures, they might be useful. I've removed this claim from the article. Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 14:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Maybe it meant that its original release was on on all formats? It's not difficult to imagine that in 1988 (the last year of official commercial 8-tracks and one of the first years of commercial compact discs) that this brief window of time might have given the album the distinction of being one of the only (if not THE only) simultaneous debut release of a boxed set on all four said formats. But that's purely speculation. --Dynamite Eleven 01:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Here are a few 8 Track Boxed Sets I know of, that were also available on LP, Cassette, and CD sets. They were all put out by Reader's Digest.:

Marty Robbins - His Greatest Hits and Finest Performances.

The Best Of Roger Whittaker - His Greatest Hits and Finest Performances.

Tumbling Tumbleweeds (Various Western Artists).

The Best Of The Statler Brothers - Their Greatest Hits and Finest Performances.

Charley Pride's Country.

Garr1984 02:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)§

 * There was a posthumous re-release of a Marty Robbins album on LP, Compact Cassette, 8-Track and CD. The pre-death commercial video and audio was used with a new end bumper with an image adding the CD to the options and new voiceover listing the available formats. Bizzybody (talk) 04:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Issues
The article doesnt cover them all, so here we go. All these were routine problems unortunately.
 * Tape slip, the biggest problem by far. Sounded terrible. Not all machines suffered this, but enough did to ruin 8 track's reputation.
 * Splice oxidation, causing failure to change tracks automatically
 * Splice coating cracking, causing 2 or 3 track changes where one should occur.
 * Mistracking due to imperfect head alignment, causing another track to play muffled in the background during silences
 * Tapes getting eaten in the player
 * Foam pressure pads deteriorating, resulting in no tape to head pressure and muffled patchy sound (sounds like severe continuous cassette dropout)
 * Splices falling off
 * no rewind
 * no fast forward either on most machines
 * the minority of fast forwarding machines were really not-fast forward, as the 8 track cassette mecha couldnt handle switching between play speed and high speed.
 * Long silences due to having to squeeze albums into 4 sides
 * tangling in the cartridge occasionally occurred.
 * Poor hf response and high hiss levels on most players - levels that are considered entirely unacceptable today, but were accepted at the time, due to shortage of better options
 * No effective head cleaning system
 * head cleaning carts were common, but only effective to a limited degree
 * the minority of abrasive head cleaners worked better to some extent, but whether it was wise to use them regularly on the tape heads was another matter.
 * Early 70s tapes shedded a significant amount of oxide, making regular head cleaning necessary

In short it was a format of its time, when nothing better was available, but as compact cassette fidelity improved they left 8 tracks behind due to 8 track's numerous problems. Tabby 11:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, though many of those issues were from poor hardware and tape design. Cheap cassette players could be pretty frightful, too, though admittedly not as bad, as stereo eight players and media were more complex. --128.119.17.102 (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Still beingproduced in USA
Article should be clarified to state that new 8 tracks are still being made by numerus sellers. I have an Everclear 8 track. Any CD can be dubbed onto an 8 track and that is NOT bootleg if done for the owner of the CD for his personal use. John celona 17:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

 * So its possible to still buy new 8-tracks? Do they sell blank ones anywhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.240.123 (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. On Ebay.  68.224.206.168 (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sexpistols8track.JPG
Image:Sexpistols8track.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

technical description section
there should be a section to describe what it is, does or how it works. you shouldnt need to read through the history and development to learn about the metal tape to make it change tracks, etc. possibly a comparison with modern casettes, i.e. 8 tracks but played one at a time on a loop and switching (i assume with the ability to switch tracks on command?), instead of 4 tracks played 2 at a time in different directions Kaldosh (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, it would be helpful to describe what the name "8-track" refers to, and how it relates to what's discussed in the article on multi-track recording. I don't want to read through details about historical development or discussions of how pieces of rubber were modified in order to find this out. - ATBS 13Aug09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.25.123 (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
Move to 8-track tape. Parsecboy (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Stereo 8 is a commercial name, and I believe that a more generic name for this entry would be appropriate. I would think that simply 8-track tape or Eight-track tape would do. Thoughts? -- Malco23 (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

 * All the other recording formats are listed under their brand names. Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 19:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Were they not just commonly referred to as "cartridges". I only vaguely remember them, but I remember them as that.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I think that the name of the article should be 8-track cartridge or tape. The name Stereo 8 should be in the section "also known as" because most people don't know about this commercial name.--Juancdg (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree. Article should be the best known name, that being 8 track. That other formats are under brand names or trademarks is irrelevant if that is also a commonly known name for the format. Stereo 8 is not the commonly used name for 8 track.76.226.131.230 (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

 * I've moved the article to 8 Track Cartridge. I've replaced the Stereo 8 name with 8-Track Cartridge --Juan D. (talk) 04:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

 * And I've moved it back. Pro hibit O ni o ns  (T) 23:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

 * And why? The name it's a trademark. Only Learjet used that name, the object is an 8-Track Cartridge. What do you think about this? If we were using the trademark name that article should be called "Q-Tip". I have an 8-Track Player and it does not says "Stereo 8". And don't remove content without a discussion first. --Juan D. (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, you're the one who made a move request (to a non-standard capitalized title) and then moved it yourself, which is very naughty. I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies, including WP:CAPS and MOS:TM. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia about trademarked items. Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 09:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've move it and I might have made a mistake, but I did it because most people agree that Stereo 8 is not an appropiate name for this article. --Juan D. (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Strong support moving to 8 track cartridge. I've never even heard of "stereo 8", they are far more known as 8-tracks (for example, i've seen countless TV shows and movies that have them and always call them 8-tracks).  TJ   Spyke   02:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support move to anything other than Stereo 8. The unilateral actions of ProhibitOnions are abusive and violate WP:OWN, and the name violates the Wikipedia rule that articles should be named by the most common usage. In my entire life I have never heard it called anything other than an 8-track tape or an 8-track cassette. Seedless Maple (talk) 08:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

 * First of all, please remain WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. If anyone has been acting unilaterally, it is Juancdg, who changed the article title (to one that is incompatible with WP:CAPS and the rule of English grammar that a sentence does not start with a digit). I simply restored it. "I've never heard of it" isn't an argument, especially not for an audio format that has been obsolete for 30 years. All the audio formats on Wikipedia are listed under their trademark if they have one, and this system has worked well. This article, like the others, is about a format. That includes not just the cartridge, but the tape, the players, the commercial availability of material, and other aspects. The present title also avoids confusion with eight-track recording. If you look at the large number of redirects, you will also note that there are many variations on how to write (eight/8)(-)(track) (tape/cassette/cartridge); this was also an issue in the past for Compact Cassette; it became a FA under that title, setting a precedent here. Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 09:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Putting forward the notion that because other files are named by their trademarked name, this one has to be is wrong. This format name did not become a genericized trademark, and that's that. Seedless Maple (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The Compact Cassette is different, because many cassette manufacturers used that name including Sony, Panasonic, Maxell, TDK, Pioneer, etc; so there is no problem with that. I agree with Seedless Maple, this format did not become a genericized trademark that's the reason why we want to move this article. --Juan D. (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Strong support moving to 8 track cartridge. I've lived through the birth, life, and death of this format, listened to the tapes at home and in the car for at least 15 years, and ended up with a collection of several dozen of them. Yet I was unfamiliar with the trademark "Stereo 8" until I read it here at Wikipedia. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. — Walloon (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What's with the personal attack? Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 17:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't take criticism of a foolish consistency personally. — Walloon (talk) 06:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Support move to 8-track cartridge. As far as I know this is the most widely known term. Despite the common convention that a sentence should not begin with a numeral, I would think it far more likely that users would be more familiar with the title using a numeral. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 21:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to 8-track tape. They are much better known as tapes than cartridges.
 * 8-track tape 158,000
 * 8-track cartridge 14,100
 * eight-track tape 50,000
 * eight-track cartridge 1,450
 * History 199.125.109.99 (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support moving to 8-track tape. The most commonly used name is preferred rather than a specific trade name. Double Blue  (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support move to 8-track tape (preferred) or poss any other 8-track variant, with redir from others. I know WP:NEVERHEARDOFIT is not a policy; but, just for my 2c worth, I WP:NEVERHEARDOF "8-track cartridge", just "8-track tape" and indeed simply "8-track" (announcers mentioning that my favourite K-Tel albums were available on LP, 8-track and cassette"). I wish I had my 8-track collection with me; I don't know if they say "cartridge" or "tape" or "thingummy" or whatnot, but they ALL say "8-track" -- that is, with the numeral and not the word "eight". Now if I can only find my sterling silver zodiac neckchain from Consumer's Distributing, I'd be all set. Sig Pig  |SEND - OVER  06:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. I suspect "8-track cartridge" is more correct but it does not appear to be what it is most often known as. Double Blue  (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason why I requested to move the article to "8-Track Cartridge" over "8-Track Tape" is because the term tape is most used to refer to an audio cassette than an 8-track tape; and in most Spanish speaking countries, the name of those tapes are Cartuchos de 8 pistas which translated to English is "8-Track Cartridges". In the spanish wikipedia, they are called Cartuchos . Even here, if you search Cartridge, the 8-Track Cartridge is listed. I simply call the tapes as "8-Tracks" but this is an informal name for an article, in my opinion. --Juan D. (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support move per WP:NAME. Article names should represent what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize. A search of Google news shows little use of the term "Stereo 8" after the 1970s. Off all the permutations of the name, 8-track tape shows the most uses in periodicals (16,500 uses) through Google News.  dissolve  talk

Citation Needed - [8-track was] "very popular in the United Kingdom during this period"
I find the assertion that 8-track was *ever* very popular in the United Kingdom (added here) to be highly questionable.

I've lived in the UK all my life, and grew up in the 1980s. To the best of my knowledge I have *never* seen an 8-track cartridge or player "in the flesh". Yes, they *tried* selling them here- I saw adverts for them on record sleeves from the early-1970s, as well as mentions of "also available on 8-track" on some mid-70s issue cassettes I had. But there's no evidence they ever actually took off here.

I realise that the format was already in serious decline in the US by the early-1980s (when I was first old enough to have noticed such things), but if it had ever been moderately- let alone "highly"- popular in the UK, I'm quite confident that I would have come across at least one. I've seen countless 1970s cassettes and cassette recorders, but never an 8-track.

Furthermore, I've never knowingly heard anyone from the UK mention them in a "cultural nostalgia" context the way that Americans do, nor indicate with authority that they were ever popular. For us it was all about cassettes.

I was going to tag this "citation needed" and "dubious", but since it was added by an anonymous editor with a long list of complaints on their talk page, I'm simply going to remove it. Ubcule (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

 * The following was originally posted at my talk page. It's unclear whether the anonymous editor saw my comment above- I'm assuming they probably didn't, but I think it's better replied to here anyway:-

 * I've noticed you have removed my edit in 8-track tape quoting the following "Uncited and very dubious assertion (see talk page) by anonymous editor with questionable record removed. (Even if a few were sold, they were *not* "very" nor even "moderately" popular in the UK).)"
 * I had posted this from a shared network, and looking back have realised that someone has been warned several times for posting rubbish / vandalism from the this I.P.
 * The changes I have made have all been in good faith, and have been Red Rose Speedway, 2x Bedford Vehicles, Bert Trautmann, and Bedford CA. All of these are cited and factually accurate.
 * I have now applied for a username to solve the I.P. issue.
 * On the issue of 8-Track tape, the article states that "It was popular in the United States from the mid-1960s through to the early 1980s, but was relatively unknown in many European countries"
 * There is no source for this statement, and although it may be the case for European countries in general, I am of an age where I remember the format being widely used in the UK. There was intense rivalry between the 8 Track and compact cassette formats in the early seventies, which eventually ended in the demise of 8 track for the reasons quoted in the article, but certainly for several years music was sold in the UK in equal numbers on 8 track and cassettes for in-car use.
 * I cannot provide evidence for this, and am not sure even where to look, but equally there is no source cited for the "relatively unknown in many European countries" or indeed for your assertion that "Even if a few were sold, they were *not* "very" nor even "moderately" popular in the UK,"
 * As I have already stated, the edit was made in good faith, and also in the interests of accuracy, as I clearly remember the format not being exclusively a US phenomenon.
 * I do understand the fact that it may have appeared to be another dubious post from a dodgy I.P., but I believe that you should reconsider.
 * (Originally posted by 82.147.13.198 (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC) at this user talk page.)''

 * I'm not sure you need to "apply" for a username, as it's normally possible to just create and start using one straight away (unless you've been stopped from automatically doing this due to problems associated with your IP?) I accept that you made the edit in good faith, but while WP allows- and supports- anonymous editing, it's generally encouraged to have an account if you're going to be doing anything serious and interacting with other people.

 * Regarding the subject itself... As I already commented, I'm aware that 8-tracks were sold here at one point- that isn't in dispute. What I'm sceptical about is that they ever had a significant share of the UK market- I've already given my reasons why I'm not willing to accept this blindly. Although I'm too young to have experienced the early-70s first hand, I've seen endless cassettes and cassette equipment from the 70s... I have never, *once* seen an 8-track cartridge nor an 8-track player in the flesh (some of which I would still expect to be around in the early 80s, at least). I've seen no evidence that they were popular fixtures in cars here in that era.

 * As I said, yes, I know they were sold here at one point, and I'm sure some people had them. That doesn't make them "very popular".

 * I wasn't the person who made the "relatively unknown in many European countries" statement. Please note that this is a somewhat vague statement, however, and hence harder to dispute; even if it was massively successful in some European countries it might be "relatively unknown" in "many" others(!). You can tag it with if you disagree with it, however.

 * As for my comment "Even if a few were sold, they were *not* "very" nor even "moderately" popular in the UK", this was *not* a part of the article itself (and I would never put an uncited statement like that in). However, your comment *was*, and is held to that higher standard.

 * "It was however very popular in the United Kingdom during this period."

 * Saying that they're not just "popular" (in itself quite a strong statement) but "very popular" implies that they had a significant percentage of the overall music market at one point.

 * Even, *if*, as you say, 8-track sales in the UK matched cassettes' at one stage, when was this? I understand that cassettes took a number of years to really achieve mass popularity. If the statement refers to the time before this, all this (*might*) be saying is that both formats had a comparably minor share of the market at that point (i.e. neither was "popular" compared to LPs)!

 * You say that "I cannot provide evidence for this, and am not sure even where to look", but, with respect, we *do* need evidence. If the case is as strong as you think, it should be out there. Ubcule (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi again Firstly, I would suggest that you are of the wrong age group to have come across 8 track in cars (or anywhere else). As I stated in my earlier post, this was in my experience an early 70's UK phenomenon, by the mid to late 70's the format war was over, and the compact cassette had taken over. My use of the word "very" is somewhat subjective, (how long is a piece of string) and although that is how I would (and did) describe their popularity in the period in question, I would not have objected to the very being removed. I would certainly agree that both 8 track and cassette had a minor share of the music market compared to the LP (and singles) at the time in question (I would say the period between 1972 - 1975, but that isn't really the point, I am purely talking about in car entertainment in that period. There is a reference on this page (16: An American phenomenon? that states "8 tracks were a huge success here (in the UK) in the early 70s." , which I assume was posted by the user Tabby (apologies, I'm not very au fait on how this all works) which is exactly the point I was trying to make. I may have just known a lot of people at the time who were fans of the format, but in my later teenage years 70-75, most of my car owning friends had an 8 track fitted. As the decade progressed these were invariably replaced by cassette players for the reasons stated in section 16 of this page, until by the mid 70's on they had all but disappeared. You state growing up in the 80's you never came across any machines or cartridges in the 80's, I'm sure you didn't, but then if you were ten years younger I would not expect you to ever have seen a Betamax video player or cassette in the 90's (although they were very common in the early 80's). The reason that you haven't come across them is that in the UK 8 track was a totally dead format by that time, again for the reasons stated in section 16. I have trawled through the net in search of some corroboration http://www.goldminemag.com/collector-resources/collectors-corner-the-history-of-the-eight-track-tape http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-8-track-tapes.htm Both of these sources are saying the same thing, that the main users of the technology apart from the US were Canada and the UK. As I have said, I would describe the format as very popular in the UK in the early 70's. and would agree with your contibutors statement "8 tracks were a huge success here (in the UK) in the early 70s." I edit items on this site purely to provide missing information, and the fact it states that the format was relatively unknown in many European countries gives the impression the it was almost exclusively an American thing, when this clearly was not the case. Hope you find the sources given adequate evidence to reconsider. Cheers 82.147.13.198 (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit: I really haven't got the hang of the formatting here, I expected the two sources to create hyperlinks, as I put them inside the ref symbols, but they just redirect to this page. Apologies for that. I will list them here

http://www.goldminemag.com/collector-resources/collectors-corner-the-history-of-the-eight-track-tape

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-8-track-tapes.htm

82.147.13.198 (talk) 02:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

 * Regarding your Betamax example- I *did* know someone who had (and used) a Betamax machine in the late 90s or thereabouts- the guy just across the road from my house. I remember they still sold Betamax in the shops in the 90s, too. And that's despite the fact that Betamax was never "popular" to the extent VHS was *later*- it may have sold a comparable amount in the early days, which is a similar point to the one I made about 8-track (possibly) matching cassettes before the latter was a big seller.

 * Regarding the relevant part of your links, from one article:-

 * "While immensely popular in the United States for a period of time, this particular technology experienced limited appeal in other parts of the world. Outside of the United Kingdom, Canada, and a few other nations, the use of 8-track technology was virtually unknown."

 * Note that "immensely popular" part only references the United States above; Canada and the UK are mentioned only as locations where the format did better than "virtually unknown" (which isn't in itself an indicator of massive success).

 * "Just as the signs were all pointing to eight-track toppling vinyl as the format of choice for music lovers in the United States, Canada and to a lesser extent, in Great Britain, along came the audio cassette."

 * Emphasis on "to a lesser extent"! Note that one can't use forum comments as authoritative references, but if one was to, comments can be found to contradict this to some extent!:-

 * Some formats also became more popular in some places than others. For example, 8-track tape cartridges were far more common in the U.S. than in the U.K.

 * They never became as popular in the UK as they were in America, though they were supplied as accessories in some cars.

 * I've included a comment regardin a brief period of moderate popularity in the UK in the article, but I don't think the references support an assertion stronger than that (and I'm still sceptical given the lack of any noticeable trace of this period left behind), and the WiseGeek website seems to border on the edge of credibility (i.e. small site, no indication of authorship). Ubcule (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

All you seem to be saying is that everywhere is saying it was far more successful in the US and Canada than the UK. That is not in dispute. The point is that the only countries mentioned as having significant popularity of the format are USA, Canada and the UK. The fact that you never came across them in the 80's is as irrelevant as my experience in the early 70's if you don't feel that anything should be included without cast iron evidence, even if flagged as needing citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickblue (talk • contribs) 21:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

 * As I already said, I used your references as the basis for an assertion I felt they (*just*) supported, i.e. "aside from a brief early period of moderate popularity in the UK was relatively unknown in many European countries", which seems as fair as is reasonable.

 * Also, as I already stated, I was not using my personal experience as the basis of something *I* was adding to the article myself.

 * Perhaps someone else would like to add to this discussion? Ubcule (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

 * These were very popular in the UK in the late 70s (as early as I go back). They were widely available in shops at the time and lots of people had them in their cars. I don't remember them being referred to as 8 Tracks however, but always Cartridges. I'm guessing 8 Track was more the US name, but I could be wrong.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The 8 track cart was NEVER popular anywhere as the Philips cassette was introduced around the same time and was far superior despite the narrow tape and slow speed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.167.237 (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The IP is correct. Car audio of any type was rare in British cars before the 70s (you needed an additional licence for a car radio in the 60s). There was a widely held belief that car radios led to bad driving, and Alec Issigonis deliberately designed the original Mini to discourage the fitting of a radio. 8 tracks were fitted to a few late 60s luxury cars, more as a status symbol than anything else, but mass market cheap cars only started to get factory fit FM radios in the 80s. Some people started fitting aftermarket tape players to their cars in the 70s but the cassette format was well established by then and much more familiar to consumers than 8 track. The players were also easier to fit into restricted spaces available under the dashboard shelf. --Ef80 (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Pics or it didn't happen!
There should definitely be a picture of a tape and a player here. A lots of readers have probably never seen one of those tapes, especially if they're under 50 or not from the U.S.

The description is fine, but it doesn't show how they were inserted (I believe that a part of the cartridge stuck out of the player, but that might not always be the case) or in what kind of package they were sold (blank tapes or pre-recorded)

207.45.249.144 (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Pre-recorded 8-track cartridges were sold in cardboard boxes to fit the cartridge size. There was generally artwork of the music artists on the cover, usually a small version of the vinyl LP art. Done a lot of editing of the article, too tired to add this right now. Centrepull (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

 * I still have 3 underdash players I could take pictures of for the article - Muntz/Clarion, Craig and another. The M/C is a quad deck, the other two are stereo. If I get a chance I will do so and then post. I've still got some tapes so I can take photos with carts inserted too. Any suggestions on what the best composition for a photo to be in the article would be appreciated. THX1136 (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

More on popularity in UK
I disagree with the idea that 8-track cartridges were not very popular in the UK. I was living in the UK during the 1960s and 1970s, and commercial 8-track cartridges were increasingly popular there from the mid-60s until the mid/late 70s. Up to around 1978 it was very common to see cars with aftermarket 8-track players fitted. They were the first common 'players' of your own music choice available for cars (compared with radios, where you heard whatever was broadcast, and large, expensive vinyl record players which were over-sensitive to road bumps). There was a sizable period when 8-tracks had the market to themselves, before Philips compact cassette format became properly established. When compact cassettes became really common (mid-70s onwards), you could also buy various 'converters' that allowed you to play cassettes in your 8-track unit in your home or car. 8-track cartridges are the size of a paperback book, so it was hard to miss the stack of them on the passenger seat and dashboard shelf when you got into a car. Not only that, but 8-track separate units (as part of a stereo set-up) were not unusual to see in homes.

Car audio of any type was rare in British cars before the 70s (you needed an additional licence for a car radio in the 60s).

This statement and reasoning by User:Ef80 is not correct. In the 60s and 70s, original equipment radios were rare in cars in Britain (i.e. considering both British cars and imports), they were most usually expensive options. However from the mid-sixties onwards aftermarket radios were popular fitments in cars, and by the '70s when someone referred to their 'car stereo', they often meant an 8-track player. The £1 annual car radio licence requirement in the '60s was not much of a deterrent:

 * the licence cost was insignificant compared to the cost of the radio, speakers and fitting
 * you could fit an 8-track unit with no radio function
 * the car radio licences weren't checked anyway.

I would imagine that an authoritative citation on 8-track popularity during this period in the UK would be very hard to find.

Addressing points made by User:Ubcule it is difficult to prove a negative. If a Wikipedian has never personally seen an 8-track (not surprising in the 80s!), that in itself is no proof that they were not tremendously popular at one time. On the other hand, if a person (in the area in question, during the time in question) remembers seeing them being widely used, that would seem to be some evidence of their one-time popularity during that particular period.

I personally remember 8-track players being a common accessory in 1970s cars in the UK, and a wide variety of pre-recorded tapes being available, and also in Western Nigeria (negating the claim that they were not well-known outside US, Canada, UK, Australia). My recollection is that 8-track players were very popular, but by the late 70s they were quickly superseded by compact cassette players. Also speaking to their one-time popularity - there are still plenty of vintage car and home units available for sale in the UK on ebay.co.uk. and similar places. Centrepull (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Cassette development
However, constant development of the cassette turned it into a widespread high-fidelity medium and also lowered the cost and complexity. Cassettes did undergo constant development, the sound-quality did increase, and the cost of tapes and players was reduced. I'm not convinced that the complexity was reduced. Is anyone aware of simplifications of the mechanism as a development? It appears to me that all the main elements of the cassette transport mechanism were persistent, and the eventual development of 'autoreverse' and 'quick music selection' mechanisms were actually complications of the mechanism. The cassettes largely stayed the same in construction, with some changes in materials (e.g. tape, tape coating, slip sheet) according to brand and (most importantly) cassette tape type. Centrepull (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Bootleg 8-tracks in Mexico in 1995?
I removed this information as it is inaccurate. This is what can be read in the FAQ that was taken as reference:

''It has been reported from one tracker that in Mexico 8-tracks abound. This tracker reports to have recently (1995) purchased some brand new Tejano, brought into the country illegaly.'' (sic)

The way this is written is confusing, you can either understand that the tapes were introduced illegally to the U.S. or to Mexico. 8-track tapes, either blank or pre-recorded, and players were completely phased-out in Mexico around 1984 (if not earlier) and were completely replaced by Compact Cassette ever since. By 1995, bootleggers used mainly Compact Cassette tapes and sometimes vinyl and they were rapidly shifting towards CD (using presses at that time, CD-R would became affordable and increase in availability until 1998). In 1995 the only way to get 8-track tapes and players in Mexico was in garage sales and flea markets and, even in those outlets, those were hard to find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.217.153.124 (talk) 05:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Misleading info at best
"Boombox" type portable players were also popular but eight-track player/recorders failed to gain wide popularity and few manufacturers offered them except for manufacturer Tandy Corporation (for its Radio Shack electronics stores)."

The above sentence is quite misleading. As it stands currently one is left with the thought that only Tandy offered recorders. Untrue to say the least. Sony, Wollensak (3M), and Panasonic are 3 I personally had experience with. It may be better said that "several" manufacturers offered record decks, but they never caught on with consumers. Tandy did offer these decks seemingly longer than others though. Since this possibly violates the no original research aspect of Wikipedia I would like some input on making an edit to clear this up. Thoughts?THX1136 (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Original research
This article is just chock full of OR, personal anecdotes, and opinions. It really needs some serious attention. I would caution those who have been parts of the above discussions that you need verifiable, non-primary sources to add things to Wikipedia. You cannot just add things that you "remember", or things that you "think" were a certain way. Anecdotal evidence means nothing in the context of an encyclopedia.

I strongly encourage someone with the time and dedication to find some reliable non-primary sources, and give this article a major re-write.  M r A urelius R Talk!  03:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I assume that company product brochures would not be acceptable for verification of the decks that were available? I have brochures from Panasonic and Wollensack which contain photos and specs for their recorders. I may even have a Sony brochure with their offerings. I also have catalogs from the period with various manufacturers decks.THX1136 (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * They aren't acceptable. I personally don't mind since you can't buy them anymore but some may consider that to be spam. But, things may be different since you can't buy new decks anymore. Pancho507 (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

How do these actually work?
There's eight whole sections on the history of these things but not one about how the damn things actually work. This article is a mess. MightyArms (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Uncited material in need of citations
I am moving the following uncited material here until it can be properly supported with inline citations of reliable, secondary sources, per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CS, WP:NOR, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS, et al. This diff shows where it was in the article. Nightscream (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

LEDE SECTION
Lear had tried to create an endless-loop wire recorder in the 1940s but gave up in 1946, only to be re-inspired by the similar Stereo-Pak four-track cartridge, which had been introduced in 1963 by businessman and engineer Earl "Madman" Muntz. Muntz's design had itself been adapted from the Fidelipac cartridge, which had been developed by George Eash.

A four channel quadraphonic version of the format was announced by RCA in April 1970 and called first Quad-8 and later Q8.

History
The original format for magnetic tape sound reproduction was the reel-to-reel tape recorder, first available in the United States in the late 1940s, but too expensive and bulky to be practical for amateur home use until well into the 1950s. Because, in the early years, each tape had to be dubbed from the master tape in real time to maintain good sound quality, pre-recorded tapes were more expensive to manufacture and costlier to buy than vinyl records which could be stamped far more quickly than their own playing time. Loading a reel of tape onto the machine and threading it through the various guides and rollers for playback was more difficult than putting an LP on a record player.

To eliminate the inconvenience of tape-threading, various manufacturers introduced cartridges that held the tape inside a metal or plastic housing, thereby eliminating handling. Most were intended only for low-fidelity voice recording in dictation machines. The first tape cartridge designed for general consumer use, including music reproduction, was the Sound Tape or Magazine Loading Tape Cartridge (RCA tape cartridge), introduced in 1958. Pre-recorded stereophonic music cartridges were available, and blank cartridges could be used to make recordings at home, but the format failed to gain popularity.

Development of tape cartridges
The endless loop tape cartridge was first designed in 1952 by Bernard Cousino around a single reel carrying a continuous loop of standard 1/4-inch, plastic, oxide-coated recording tape, running at 3.75 in per second. Program starts and stops were signaled by a one-inch-long metal foil that activated the track-change sensor.

The Eash cartridge was later licensed by manufacturers, notably the Collins Radio Company, which first introduced a cartridge system for broadcasting at the National Association of Broadcasters 1959 annual show. Fidelipac cartridges (nicknamed "carts" by DJs and radio engineers) were used by many radio stations for commercials, jingles, and other short items. Eash later formed the Fidelipac Corporation to manufacture and market tapes and recorders, as did several others, including Audio-Pak (Audio Devices Corp.).

There were several attempts to sell music systems for cars, beginning with the Chrysler Highway Hi-Fi of the late 1950s, which used discs. However, entrepreneur, marketer and television set dealer, Earl "Madman" Muntz, of Los Angeles, California, saw a potential in the "broadcast carts" for an automobile music system. In 1962, he introduced his Stereo-Pak four-track cartridge stereo system and tapes, mostly in California and Florida. The four tracks were divided into two "programs", typically corresponding to the two sides of an LP record, with each program comprising two tracks read simultaneously for stereo (two channel) sound playback. He licensed popular music albums from the major record companies and duplicated them on the four-track cartridges, or "CARtridges", as they were first advertised.

Introduction of Stereo 8
In so doing, the length of any recording doubled to 80 minutes.

Commercial success
Muntz, and a few other manufacturers, also offered 4/8 or "12-track" players that were capable of playing cartridges of either format, 4-track or 8-track. With the backing of the U.S. automakers, the eight-track format quickly won out over the four-track format, with Muntz abandoning it completely by late 1970.

Eight-track players were fitted as standard equipment in most Rolls-Royce and Bentley cars of the period for sale in Great Britain and worldwide. Optional 8-track players were available in many cars and trucks through the early 1980s.

Ampex, based in Elk Grove Village, Illinois, set up a European operation (Ampex Stereo Tapes) in London, England, in 1970 to promote 8-track product and musicassettes in Britain and Europe, but it struggled and folded in 1974. GRT Corporation, General Recorded Tape of Sunnyvale, California, was another large manufacturer which duplicated many tapes for smaller record labels; it went out of business in 1979.

Nature and operation
A stereo 8-track cartridge has four different programs of two channel recordings. In contrast, quadraphonic 8-track cartridges use two programs of four channel recordings. A quad recording requires twice the length of tape as the comparable stereo version of the same album. Quad 8-tracks also have fewer musical interruptions when the player changes programs. Unlike cassette tapes, which have two sides, the 8-track machine always plays a tape in one direction.

The ends of the tape were spliced with a thin strip of metal that would trigger a solenoid that would cause the playback heads to automatically jump to the next program. Both types of players also provided a button for manually changing programs. Due to the design of the endless loop tape, which fed from the reel in only one direction, there was no rewind control. Due to the mechanical stress on the tape, few machines offered a fast-forward control.

Quad 8 and Q8
Quadraphonic sound on pre-recorded eight-track cartridges was announced by RCA in April 1970. These tapes were not compatible with more conventional stereo playback units, although quad players were compatible with stereo tapes. Specially designed home and car quadraphonic players were introduced to hear all four channels as intended.

Ford was particularly eager to promote car quadraphonic players as a pricey option, being the only "Big Four" American automotive company to do so. The format enjoyed moderate success in the early 1970s but faded by mid-decade. Quadraphonic cartridges provided four channels of "discrete" audio, unlike the matrixed formats such as SQ matrix, which Columbia/CBS Records used for their quadraphonic LP records.

Quadraphonic sound was the first surround sound consumer music format. These recordings can realistically reproduce a live concert hall experience and musical enjoyment can be enhanced by more fully involving the listener. Though it is a niche market, quad recordings are often highly prized by music fans. Some quadraphonic 8-tracks are rare and have become highly collectible. Beginning in the 1990s many quadraphonic recordings were re-issued on modern digital surround sound formats such as Super Audio CD, DVD-Audio and Blu-ray.

Decline
By the late 1970s, the eight-track cartridges had greatly diminished in popularity. In some Latin American and European countries, the format was abandoned in the mid-1970s in favor of the smaller cassette tape, which was one-third the size.

The professional broadcast cart format survived for more than another decade, being used for jingles, advertisements, station identifications, and limited music content at most local radio stations, before being replaced by computer-generated sound in the 1990s. The format also continued in use for relatively short sound loops, in which a rapid start was more important than other criteria. The endless-loop tape concept continued to be used in newer cinema movie projectors, though their tape spool is actively rotated and not drawn by tension on the film. That technology is now almost entirely supplanted by digital cinema.

Requested move 23 June 2023

 * 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: consensus to move the page to 8-track cartridge, and no consensus to move the disambiguation page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 02:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

– "8-track" is how everyone refers to these outside of technical/legal writing. Even the RIAA historical sales database calls them "8-tracks". Should be moved to that title as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. 47.155.41.201 (talk) 07:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 8-track tape → 8-track
 * 8-track → 8-track (disambiguation)
 * Requested move of associated dab. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 11:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as per nom. 162 etc. (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The fact that it's a tape should be visible in the title. See also Quadruple-track railway, not to be renamed into 4-track. WP:RECOGNIZABILITY Taylor 49 (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose it should instead be renamed to 8-track cartridge, since there is also an 8-track reel-to-reel tape format -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 04:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Well ... support rename to 8-track cartridge. Taylor 49 (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No objection to 8-track cartridge. 162 etc. (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

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.

title: Talk:8-track cartridge


text:
Talk:Stonewall County, Texas

Untitled
Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry? The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Stonewall County, Texas


text:
Talk:Sutton County, Texas

Untitled
Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry? The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.

Speed trap claim
I removed this because it kept popping up here and elsewhere:
 * "It is also one of the leading speed trap counties in West Texas, averaging more than 48,000 citations per year (over 10 per year per capita). The majority of these traffic violations are written to out-of-state drivers, travelling on Interstate 10, which bisects the county.."

User 99.163.81.100 and 71.125.19.180 have been warned not to re-add. Ufwuct (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like they are at it again: 99.23.227.178, 99.163.82.225, and 50.78.38.226. Kennethaw88 • talk 00:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sutton County, Texas


text:
Talk:Swisher County, Texas

Untitled
Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry? The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.

title: Talk:Swisher County, Texas


text:
Talk:Tarrant County, Texas

Untitled
Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry? The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.

Comment
This comment was in the article proper. I felt it should be moved to the discussion.

 * "Where is Fort Worth? That is the largest city in Tarrant County unless Arlington has passed it in population. Source: United States Census"

billlund 04:40, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:TarrantCountySeal.jpg
File:TarrantCountySeal.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

List of communities
The article needs a list of communities in Tarrant County. Badagnani 06:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Umbrellas on Sundance Square, Fort Worth, Texas, USA.JPG

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Umbrellas on Sundance Square, Fort Worth, Texas, USA.JPG

Proposed merge of Rush Creek (Texas) into Tarrant County, Texas
No real need for a separate page Slywriter (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You want to merge it into a redirect? Or into the redirect target?  Might want to move some templates to avoid confusion.  Lithopsian (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I've added more sources to the article, and included a section on the Linear park in Arlington, there are also a number of businesses that the creek lends its name to, including multiple churches. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Out of process - See Draft:Rush Creek (Texas)

Politics section
I just undid a rather large edit; I was going to make a comment on it but I thought by pressing enter I would be able to make a comment, but instead it just undid the edit. So I will make the comment here.

An edit recently removed the table of presidential election results for Tarrant County that went back to 1912. If someone wants to add in additional information, perhaps that's fine, but I think the removal of this table is uncalled-for. Every county on Wikipedia has a table of such results going back at least several decades (the old table was replaced with a new one that went back to just 2000). This was an active removal of information. Toadmore (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Voting schedule? 2600:1700:27A0:C040:D416:6586:16A1:107D (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tarrant County, Texas


text:
Talk:Taylor County, Texas

Untitled
Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry? The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Patriot exhibit, Taylor County Courthouse, Abilene, TX IMG 6321.JPG

title: Talk:Taylor County, Texas


text:
Talk:Terrell County, Texas

Untitled
Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry? The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.

title: Talk:Terrell County, Texas


text:
Talk:Terry County, Texas

Untitled
Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry? The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.

title: Talk:Terry County, Texas


text:
Talk:Throckmorton County, Texas

Untitled
Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry? The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.

title: Talk:Throckmorton County, Texas


text:
Talk:Titus County, Texas

Untitled
Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry? The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.

Italic 2804:14C:81:9673:8221:2C34:BE0:A907 (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Titus County, Texas


text:
Talk:Tom Green County, Texas

Untitled
Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry? The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.

title: Talk:Tom Green County, Texas


text:
Talk:Travis County, Texas

Untitled
Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry? The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.
 * Thanks! Those guidelines were very helpful. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

History
Current entry says "8000 b.c. Early native American inhabitants include Tonkawa, Lipan Apache, Comanche, Kiowa.[3]" Apache, Comanche, and Kiowa were certainly not in Texas in 8000 B.C. Tonkawa maybe, but that is unknown. The type of Native Americans in Texas in 8000 b.c. is unknown (as I understand the state of affairs on the topic)rdenndy (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed so; hopefully the new section is more clear. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Should the Culture Section be Moved Under Politics?
The section titled "Culture" reads like the "Politics" section of this article as well as that of other U.S. counties. Some of the information in that section is already found in the Politics section. I feel like the Proposition 2 sentence should be moved under Politics, and the rest deleted. I do think there's plenty of culture in Travis County besides politics, but that's already in the Austin article. So while I'm not sure the Culture section should be kept or not, I definitely think we should remove the redundancies between the two sections, and prioritize politics under the Politics tab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T-Ro Trains (talk • contribs) 02:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely; the coverage is disproportionate. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 12:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Travis County, Texas


text:
Talk:Trinity County, Texas

Untitled
Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry? The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.

title: Talk:Trinity County, Texas


text:
Talk:Tyler County, Texas

Untitled
Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry? The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.

title: Talk:Tyler County, Texas


text:
Talk:Upshur County, Texas

Untitled
Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry? The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.

title: Talk:Upshur County, Texas


text:
Talk:Upton County, Texas

Untitled
Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry? The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.

title: Talk:Upton County, Texas


text:
Talk:Uvalde County, Texas

Untitled
Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry? The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.

title: Talk:Uvalde County, Texas


text:
Talk:Val Verde County, Texas

Untitled
Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry? The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.

Spelling & Grammar check
Hi; I've just completed a spelling & grammar check on the article only to find one grammar issue on the Economy section of the article (view the history section for info), so well done to all users who edited this page!  Ross Rhodes (  T   C  ) Sign!  15:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Val Verde County, Texas


text:
Talk:Van Zandt County, Texas

Untitled
Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry? The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.

title: Talk:Van Zandt County, Texas


text:
Talk:Victoria County, Texas

Untitled
Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry? The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.

title: Talk:Victoria County, Texas


text:
Talk:Walker County, Texas

Untitled
Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry? The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.

title: Talk:Walker County, Texas


text:
Talk:Waller County, Texas

Untitled
Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry? The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.

Listing senators?
It seems to me that listing the US Senators for an individual Texas county is just silly. I mean, every single county in the state has the same two Senators, so why is this listed in here? Am I being too picky? Unschool 04:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversy
Should mention the periodic attempts to impede students from Prairie View A&M University from registering in the county and voting in local elections which have stirred up tension and created accusations of racial bias...   AnonMoos (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Some mention also needs to be made about the Death_of_Sandra_Bland Litch (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Waller County, Texas


text:
Talk:Ward County, Texas

Untitled
Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry? The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.

title: Talk:Ward County, Texas


text:
Talk:Washington County, Texas

Untitled
Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry? The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.

title: Talk:Washington County, Texas


text:
Talk:Webb County, Texas

Untitled
Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry? The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.

2010 new CDPs
Started pages for the new CDPs from the 2010 census. Basic info - population, location and area. Feel free to add on. History, Demographics, etc.Jdtrue63 (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Communities Section
I made several changes to the Communities section using the "Texas: 2010 Population and Housing Units Count" report. I removed the link to "Webb County Planning and Physical Development Department." Even though the Colonias map was dated December 2014, the website has a disclaimer that the information may not be accurate. My reason for removing several of the communities listed in the unincorporated communities section is that some are part of the city of Laredo and others are part of the new CDPs created prior to the 2010 census. I did a lot of back and forth, comparing the maps on MapTechnia and Google Maps. MapTechnia has what seems to me to be accurate data on the new CDPs. Google Maps still has not updated these CDPs. So I compared each Colonia with it's location on the 2 maps to determine if it was still a lone unincorporated area or part of a new CDP or part of the city of Laredo.

THIS IS THE COMMUNITIES SECTION PRIOR TO MY CHANGES (from the edit source page)

Cities

 * Laredo (county seat)
 * El Cenizo
 * Rio Bravo

Census-designated places

 * Botines
 * Bruni
 * La Presa
 * Laredo Ranchettes
 * Larga Vista
 * Mirando City
 * Oilton
 * Ranchitos Las Lomas
 * Ranchos Penitas West

Unincorporated communities
Source: Webb County Planning and Physical Development Department

 * Aguilares
 * Antonio Santos Colonia
 * Cactus
 * Callaghan
 * Colorado Acres Colonia
 * D-5 Acres Colonia
 * Darwin
 * Del Mar East
 * Gate Acres Colonia
 * El Cenizo
 * Fort McIntosh
 * Four Points Colonia
 * Hillside Acres Number 1 Colonia
 * Hillside Acres Number 2 Colonia
 * Islitas
 * La Coma Colonia
 * La Moca Ranch Colonia
 * La Presa
 * Laredo Ranchettes
 * Larga Vista
 * Las Blancas Colonia
 * Las Pilas Colonia Number 1
 * Las Pilas Colonia Number 2
 * Las Tiendas
 * Los Altos Colonia
 * Los Corralitos Colonia
 * Los Huisaches Colonia
 * Los Huisaches Number 2 Colonia
 * Los Minerales Colonia
 * Los Ojuelos
 * Los Veteranos 59 Colonia
 * Los Veteranos 83 Colonia
 * Minera
 * Mirando City
 * Nye
 * Old Milwaukee East
 * Old Milwaukee West
 * One River Place Colonia
 * Orvil
 * Palafox
 * Pescadito
 * Pueblo East Colonia
 * Pueblo Nuevo
 * Pueblo Nuevo Colonia
 * Ranchitos 359 East Colonia
 * Ranchitos Las Lomas
 * Ranchitos los Arcos Colonia
 * Ranchitos los Centenarios Colonia
 * Ranchitos los Fresnos Colonia
 * Ranchitos los Mesquites Colonia
 * Ranchitos los Nopalitos Colonia
 * Ranchitos los Veteranos Colonia
 * Ranchos Penitas West
 * Regency Village Colonia
 * Rio Bravo
 * Rodriguez Addition Colonia
 * San Carlos Number 1 Colonia
 * San Carlos Number 2 Colonia
 * San Pablo
 * San Ramon
 * Santo Tomas
 * Sunset Acres Colonia
 * Tanquecitos South Acres Colonia
 * Valle Verde Colonia
 * Village East Colonia
 * Webb

HERE ARE THE REASONS FOR REMOVING THE COMMUNITIES FROM THE UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES SECTION.
 * Aguilares - became part of Aguilares CDP
 * Antonio Santos Colonia - part of city of Laredo
 * Colorado Acres Colonia - became part of Colorado Acres CDP
 * Del Mar East - deleted - part of city of Laredo
 * El Cenizo - already in City section
 * Fort McIntosh - part of city of Laredo
 * Four Points Colonia - became part of Four Points CDP
 * Hillside Acres Number 1 Colonia	- became part of Hillside Acres CDP
 * Hillside Acres Number 2 Colonia	- became part of Hillside Acres CDP
 * Islitas	- moved to Ghost Towns
 * La Coma Colonia	- became part of La Coma CDP
 * La Presa - already in CDP section
 * Laredo Ranchettes – already in CDP section
 * Larga Vista – former CDP part annexed into the city of Laredo (also deleted from CDP section)
 * Las Blancas Colonia - part of Laredo
 * Las Pilas Colonia Number 1 - became part of Las Pilas CDP
 * Las Pilas Colonia Number 2 - became part of Las Pilas CDP
 * Los Altos Colonia - became part of Los Altos CDP
 * Los Corralitos Colonia - became part of Los Corralitos CDP
 * Los Huisaches Colonia - became part of Los Huisaches CDP
 * Los Huisaches Number 2 Colonia - became part of Los Huisaches CDP
 * Los Minerales Colonia - became part of Los Minerales CDP
 * Los Ojuelos - moved to Ghost Towns
 * Los Veteranos 59 Colonia - became part of Los Veteranos I CDP
 * Los Veteranos 83 Colonia - became part of Los Veteranos II CDP
 * Mirando City – already in CDP section
 * Nye - part of city of Laredo
 * One River Place Colonia	- part of city of Laredo
 * Orvil - part of city of Laredo
 * Pescadito - moved to Ghost Towns
 * Pueblo East Colonia - became part of Pueblo East CDP
 * Pueblo Nuevo - could not find another Pueblo Nuevo other than the colonia that became a CDP
 * Pueblo Nuevo Colonia - became part of Pueblo Nuevo CDP
 * Ranchitos 359 East Colonia - became part of Ranchitos East CDP
 * Ranchitos Las Lomas – already in CDP section
 * Ranchitos los Arcos Colonia - became part of Los Arcos CDP
 * Ranchitos los Centenarios Colonia - became part of Los Centenarios CDP
 * Ranchitos los Fresnos Colonia - became part of Los Fresnos CDP
 * Ranchitos los Nopalitos Colonia - became part of Los Nopalitos CDP
 * Ranchos Penitas West – already in CDP section
 * Regency Village Colonia – part of Ranchitos Las Lomas CDP
 * Rio Bravo – already in City section
 * Rodriguez Addition Colonia – part of Oilton CDP
 * San Carlos Number 1 Colonia - became part of San Carlos I CDP
 * San Carlos Number 2 Colonia - became part of San Carlos II CDP
 * Santo Tomas - moved to Ghost Towns
 * Sunset Acres Colonia - became part of Sunset Acres CDP
 * Tanquecitos South Acres Colonia - became part of Tanquecitos South Acres CDP
 * Valle Verde Colonia - became part of Valle Verde CDP

Also I could not find a Gates Acres Colonia but I found East Gate Acres Colonia, so I changed the name and left in the Unincorporated communities section.

If anyone finds any mistakes, feel free to correct them. Thanks.Jdtrue63 (talk) 06:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. MER-C 13:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Webb County, Texas


text:
Talk:Wharton County, Texas

Untitled
Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry? The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help. Wharton sucks and all the people there are racist.

title: Talk:Wharton County, Texas


text:
Talk:Wheeler County, Texas

Untitled
Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry? The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.

title: Talk:Wheeler County, Texas


text:
Talk:Wichita County, Texas

Untitled
Bad sentence, or is it just me? 27.20% of all households were made up of individuals and aren't all households made up of individuals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.167.242 (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry? The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.

Burkburnett oil field/ Wichita County oilfields (incl Electra)
I'm surprised the North Texas oil fields don't get much coverage here. So here's a start:

 * History of Oil Discoveries in Texas Electra, 1911. Burkburnett, 1918.

Let's see, are these in the County writeup?: Nope. And. If anything, Geology_of_Wichita_Falls,_Texas is even more pitiful: "Petroleum resources were discovered in the region in the early 1900s, and the area remains a locus of exploration and production." OK!

So, "Wichita County would eventually produce over 827,590,411 barrels of oil which defined the economic development of North Texas during the twentieth century: Oi Boom! --a "Supergiant" field in oilfield terms, and with a present value ($US 50/bbl) of circa  $US 4 billion!

Current prodxn is less but still substantial. For 2012-2013: source Further east
 * Wichita County         2.1 MM bbl
 * Archer County          1.15  MM bbl
 * Montague County, TX    2.9 MM bbl
 * Cooke County, TX          2.8 MM bbl

I presume the oilfield guys work like we miners used to: "the best place to find oil is where oil was found before" ...   --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC), retired (mining) geologist

title: Talk:Wichita County, Texas


text:
Talk:Wilbarger County, Texas

Untitled
Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry? The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.

The demographic statistics do not make sense. If you add all the numbers (excluding percent from two or more races) the total is 108 %. Something's off about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.238.62 (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Wilbarger County, Texas


text:
Talk:Willacy County, Texas

Untitled
Wondering how to edit this U.S. County Entry? The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.

title: Talk:Willacy County, Texas