From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Mixtape was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
November 6, 2005 Peer review Reviewed
April 15, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
May 10, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article
WikiProject Media (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Rapidly getting out of date[edit]

Much of this article seems anachronistic, and sometimes even trying to push certain topics.

"The CD-R disc is currently the most common medium for homemade mixes" - really? Still? Most computers are sold without optical drives these days. Surely the USB stick is more dominant now.

I'm also suspicious of the entire "ctape" section. There's no wiki article for it and Googling for that term doesn't turn up anything about mixtapes.

--David G (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

  • I am also suspicious of the "ctape" section; the grammar and syntax was off, and Google couldn't provide any information about what a ctape even is. Should this section possibly be removed? BandW2011 (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mixtape. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


The statement in the article, that copyright owners have no recourse if infringing material is given away without profit, is simply not true (at least, not in the United States). Under US copyright law, the copyright owner can argue that their financial interests have been diminished by the very existence of the unauthorized copies. The law also recognizes that the infringer can receive non-financial benefit simply by using the material to advertise himself. Thus, copyright owners most certainly can take legal action against the infringer, and that action can result in the payment of damages to the copyright owner. The statement needs to be removed. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The statement in the article is definitely untrue. I'm removing it. Wendy Day and Deborah Mannis-Gardner discuss the issue in the following video for a couple of minutes : . Wirty Inc. (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)