Talk:Zune/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Finished Merge

Ok, I finished the merging of the articles and updated the info. The thing is that people keep on vandalizing the page. How do I lock or request ip's for bannage? --Darkskedar 20:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I know I'm not really involved with this article, but it seemed logical to remove the notification that the Zune article was requested to move to Zune, so it's gone. FuzzyOnion 02:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Article merge

Yeah merge it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.9.69.138 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

To where? Dancter 14:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Promotional external links

How do we come to a conclusion on the use of external links on this page? It appears to me in all fairness the best choice is to not have external links on this commercial product to anything but official sites. I think if a site is unable to provide value to the page content as a cited reference then is doesn't make the cut. Anyone agree? 69.19.14.34 08:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Considering the dearth of "official" information about the Zune, I recommend that at least one of the blogs dedicated to speculation be kept in the External Links section at least for now. They can be removed once more data is made publically available and this article is no longer a stub. VoiceOfReason 04:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

My stance is that if a site is good, it will be added by a user who can be seen to have contributed to the actual content of Wikipedia articles, and not just adding links. Dancter 06:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are some blogs/info sites being allowed while some are not? Who is controlling this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coops8D (talk • contribs) 13:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure about control, but I don't think ANY should be allowed. I think there should be the viral marketing link, and links to well-known blog posts, like Engadget. Does anyone agree? Once we come to a consensus, we can remove the article's protection. --Mambo Jambo 13:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey, Ryan from Engadget here. I think most of the external reference links are good, but I do feel a bit slighted how this post has gone. Almost all the substantive information on Zune was first leaked through Engadget (including the logo and product image -- which we chose not to watermark out of respect for our readers). Some of the external links are other people reblogging our content (i.e. zuneinfo, who has spammed Engadget). I added attribution for the image yesterday, but I'm not going to further edit this page... just thought you people would like to know that if you look closely most of what's out there originated from our site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanblock (talk • contribs) 09:35, 22 July 2006
Do not lie Ryan, ZuneInfo.com has not spammed engadget in any way shape or form. I would actually like to know what you think it is that makes you think zuneinfo spammed you... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coops8D (talk • contribs) 05:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Coops8D, you're right, my apologies. There are a number of sites out right now with similar names to zuneinfo that are spamming us, but that does not, in fact, include you. Again, sorry for the mixup. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ryanblock (talk • contribs) 06:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a very important issue on Wikipedia's Zune article. However, I believe some links should stay on the external links page. The reason being, that, like myself, other people who visit Wikipedia articles definitely do so a good amount of the time to also find out related websites and blogs for the article subject they are viewing. Currently, there are ZuneInsider and ZuneUser links which are both sufficient sources (one being from Microsoft staff, and the other a news and info blog). If there are to be more links added, there should be maybe one or two more maximum, but at least a couple fansites/blogs should be present in the External Links because that's what many coming to Wikipedia articles are also looking for. --Omershahab 19:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I think when it comes to external links there should be links to other sites and blogs that are dedicated to the topic(zune), Now blogs like engadget can be linked with the proper tag (zune). But the for the simple fact this is called external links - it should allow users to add external links as long as it is a valid and useful site.--Amjoe 00:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, there is no reason to choose one blog over another. Simply let every blog that is focused on Zune to be linked in the external links section. It is irrelevant if there are 50 million dedicated blogs. If there are 5000 then there are 5000, etc. Basically if you don't allow everyone then Wikipedia is not an accurate source representing the Internet but a closed system only representing early bloggers. Wikipedia should be about openness and not closed systems. - LPH (Tux Reports Network)

Amjoe and Lph2006: You're misunderstanding the purpocse of External links on Wikipedia. Read that whole page very carefully, and you'll understand why we don't do things the way you think they should be done. The short answer is this: we're an encyclopedia, not a link farm. We don't link to blogs operated by random, non-notable people who decided to set up Wordpress for the purpose of regurgitating everything that's already been reported on a notable site like Engadget with a mix of personal opinion. It doesn't lend anything substantial to this project. -/- Warren 23:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Well as for I know, Microsoft Zune (hype/rumor) has been around for say little over a month! So how are the External links listed on this page choosen?? Have they been around before 2 months? Does those sites listed here run by notable people? (Well may be one - So will I be notable if I work for say Apple?)I don't understand. Sites like Engadget does a great job of posting gadget news (every other gaddget and more) - So if there is a site that is dedicated only and only for Zune stuff & useful- Why not?--Amjoe 00:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
By what metric are you using to determine if the site is regurgitating?

What is the wiki policy about external links to pages that are covered with ads? (like zuneinfo) Does wiki get a kickback on that revenue? How can this be allowed? Wiki is not a shopping mall or coupon book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.182.193.30 (talk • contribs) .

The policy is to not allow them, which is why I've removed several instances of advertising or personal blogs or whatever from the list of external links. Wikipedia:External links covers this in detail. And no, Wikipedia doesn't "get a kickback"; the vast majority of Wikipedia's funds come from donations. -/- Warren 23:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Then do what you say and say what you do. Keep the revenue generating sites off. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sirisaacnewton (talk • contribs) .

As I stated earlier, like myself, other people who visit Wikipedia articles definitely do so a good amount of the time to also find out related websites and blogs for the article subject they are viewing. The sites should be allowed as long as they are not generating revenue. ZuneUser.com was one which has no advertisements of any sort and does not generate revenue. --Omershahab 15:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the external links should provide some additional value to the users and that Wikipedia is not a link farm. The problem with allowing external links on a commercial product is of course most of these sites will be commercial as well. It is my opinion that if a site wants to be listed on the Zune page then the site needs to offer something to the development of the page. I think all external links should be banned on a commercial product and the only links should be cites ore references to relevant content providers. Linking to every Zune blog that pops up is not the solution but allowing registered users to sign in and provide real value to the page should never be stopped. --Psycler

After reading all this I can see why you zapped the links I had added. I totally agree on one but think the other was not badly out of line. With all the Zune hype going on it is understandable that some strict standards must be set so I bow to your judgment. I am one of those who often uses Wikipedia as a source to information by checking out linked sites. In many instances it is quicker and better than the SE's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skeezik (talk • contribs) .

•Why not categorize the external links section? Official links can have their own category, and unofficial their own. Official links will stand out for those looking for accurate information, but the others will be best for those looking for rumors... Problem solved? I think so. Duffy 01:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Duffy, that is a good solution.
Again, someone has removed external links for good non-revenue-generating Zune sites, without a comment trail explaining why. I've re-added a couple that are useful. I left in the revenue-generating sites that are already there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hchute (talk • contribs) 23:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
From what I can tell, the "couple" sites you've added is only Zunerama, which clearly features a Zune Store with affiliate links for Amazon. Not exactly "non-revenue-generating". Dancter 00:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I was thinking of Google Ads, but you are correct about the Amazon links in Zunerama. If you're going to remove a site for being revenue-generating, be consistent and remove all revenue-generating sites. Hchute 01:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Further information on external links: before re-adding the link, I read the Wikipedia guidelines for external links at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links. I submit that Zunerama is an accceptable and appropriate external link in that it is accessible, proper (useful, tasteful, etc.), entered correctly, and is likely to have substantive longevity. It has a user forum, Zune specifications table, iPod feature comparisons, a Zune documentation library, and daily news articles. The site had over 6,000 unique visitors today. It is also an established top Zune site according to the five "top zune" rating sites. Finally: please note that I, as Zunerama webmaster, did *not* add Zunerama as an external link; some other person did that. I have, though, re-added the site as an external link when others have deleted it without justification. - Harvey, Zunerama webmaster. Hchute 01:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I didn't remove your site. I haven't touched the external links in nearly a month. I've decided to let everyone decide among themselves the few unofficial sites that deserve to be listed. To your credit, you are one of the first, if not the first to cite policy, and make a specific case for your site. Dancter 01:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Dancter. It seems someone else ("Warrens") removed the Zune External link without adding to the External Links discussion here. He removed the existing Zunerama link, while leaving ZuneInfo and ZuneUser in. Warrens, if you've been to all three sites, and are using impartial reasoning in your site edits... please explain your rationale for removing Zunerama in these discussion pages. In the meantime, I've (sigh) re-added Zunerama as an external link. Please see justification above. Hchute 10:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Corrected spelling of David Caulton's name. Hchute 11:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

As requested in the note in the external links section, I'm posting regarding a link I've added (Zunely - http://www.zunely.com) to the external links section. The purpose of the site is solely to provide a Zune user community to discuss common technical problems they are experiencing with their Zune. The site is not highly commercial or covered with ads as discussed above and provides a valid service related to the Zune. Zunely has also contributed unique content (reference 15) to the site. As far as the external links section is concerned, I agree with Hchute that as long as the sites are useful and are not a giant advertisement, they should be allowed in the external links. Dan.Kennedy 19:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to collect a list of these sites. We are an encyclopedia, not an advertising service or repository of external links. This is stated in Wikipedia:External links. Zunely is a message board; forums are normally avoided as external links, unless the article is -about- the forum. That's also in WP:EL.
Further, since zunely.com is your web site, you also fall afoul of the External links guideline that states that you shouldn't add your own web site, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. Tut tut.
Anyhow -- Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is official policy. It's not something a couple of editors who've done nothing on Wikipedia except attempt to add external sites are going to be able to get around. I'm not making this stuff up; this is how Wikipedia has worked for a long time, and we all have to go along with it. Them's the rules. Your help with writing a better encyclopedia would be well-appreciated. -/- Warren 01:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Right, most of which has has been gone over above. But it should be an all or none situation, if you are going to have an external links section, it's going to be an ongoing battle of people adding their own sites and users of those sites adding them, and then discussing the same points over and over. The decision has to be made as to if ANY of the Zune news/forum sites will be allowed, because discussing each one is a waste of time. Many Zune sites on the net have contributed valuable information, so how do you decide which particular ones should be allowed? Dan.Kennedy 13:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hype Campaign

I wonder if comingzune.com is actually owned by Microsoft.

Here's the WHOIS result: Domain Name: COMINGZUNE.COM Registrar: GO DADDY SOFTWARE, INC. Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com Name Server: PARK27.SECURESERVER.NET Name Server: PARK28.SECURESERVER.NET Status: REGISTRAR-LOCK Updated Date: 13-jul-2006 Creation Date: 13-jul-2006 Expiration Date: 13-jul-2007

Microsoft usually use its own name server (MSFT.NET), instead of the ones provided by the registrar. MS also use TUCOWS Inc. as their registrar. (Jim Liu 08:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC))

OurColony is registered through GoDaddy. ilovebees is registered through Names Direct. The fact that comingzune.com is registered by Domains by Proxy (an anonymizing service) is strange but not conclusive. The page links to very long legalese with Microsoft's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. If it's not in fact a Microsoft site, whoever owns it is guilty of massive trademark infringement. VoiceOfReason 19:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you (didn't notice the ToU before). I guess MS registers by proxy for promotional domain names. (Jim Liu 09:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC))

I am not sure the website comingzune.com is linked anyway to microsoft an whois lookup shows godaddy. Am sure odds are microsoft will not add an add campaign through godaddy. My take is it is a spam site feeding of users from wiki. Requesting someone here to check the veracity of the link comingzune.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.147.16.197 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The xBoxLiveDiamond.com Privacy Statement is identical to Zune's (except the names)...

One thing worth noting is that, on signing up, the email says it's "Recieved" "from mail pickup service by inviso2 with Microsoft SMTPSVC;". Assumedly then, it is legitimate. Both in that it mentions InVisio (as is mentioned on the privacy policy) and that it mentions Microsofts's SMTP service. --A Shade of Grey 18:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This link needs to be deleted, its a fake link, Micrsoft has nothing to do with it at all: http://zuneinfo.com/24/microsoft-zune/digging-into-comingzunecom/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coops8D (talk • contribs) 01:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's a a fake link, it's a fake link that has taken in many of the same sources we are relying on for much of the other information in the article. A self-published article in which you yourself state that it is opinion and could be wrong probably doesn't count as a reliable source. If anything, I feel it carries no more weight than some of the comments in this section. Is there anything in reliable third-party sources that question comingzune.com? Dancter 01:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Have we all agreed it's not a fake link yet? Psycler

Zune trademark

Note: Microsof's use of the name Zune is in volation of the Terms and Conditions of the GPL licence agreement.... They can not use the name Zune anymore then they can use the name Linux. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.104.82.24 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Is Zune a registered trademark? If so, by whom? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Well on the bottom of the www.comingzune.com Terms Of Service they have the following listed:
Microsoft, Zune and the Zune logo are trademarks, or registered trademarks, of Microsoft Corporation in the US and/or other countries.
I say that would allow them use of the name Zune. Please drop this issue, a company that big doesn't launch a product with a name without doing it's homework. The name stands whether you disagree or not 12.104.82.24. Zujik 15:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
----
If it were that simple, then you'd not have Linus Torvalds going around and claiming that Linux is his own trademark, even if it's not registered everywhere, as explained on this site.
Um, "Trademark Number US 021 023 026 036 038 is for use in a variety of Goods and Services including "multimedia player, entertainment and communications devices; peripherals and accessories for use with multimedia player entertainment and communications device" amongst other things." - Does that mean it is now illegal to use the Zune GUI toolkit which is an accessory to a multimedia player that is AROS based?
I quote:
"How can Linus Torvalds or LMI have existing rights over the word Linux if it's not registered here?
Because there is such a thing as an unregistered or "common law" trade mark whereby a person acquires rights in a name just by using it."
--Bafio 14:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
If the trademark issue is truly a problem, I expect we'll see it in the news soon enough. Dancter 15:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, but that is no excuse for users such as 216.152.184.9/Fatman2021 and 216.152.178.160 to try and strongarm changes to the Zune and Vista Wikipedia pages. An Amiga software tool isn't a prominent-enough use of the word "Vista" to displace a page disambiguating all uses for the word. It is possible that the Microsoft media platform content may need to be moved to a page other than this one, but that needs to be discussed here. Unless it is unrelated to the aims of improving the article, content on the talk pages should not be deleted. Dancter 14:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft has made some pretty dumb mistakes over the years but if someone thinks they are dumb enough to get caught in a trademark dispute over a new product line you are just as dumb as you think they are. Microsoft has filed for a trademark on the term in Germany on July 7th http://www.markenbusiness.com/en/news.php?newsid=4015 and will inturn use this to file for protection under the WIPO.org Psycler 18:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Zune

I don't understand... I was looking for information about Amiga MUI clone, and Wikipedia tells me that Zune is MP3 player... Event though the MUI article links here... WTF? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.14.55.98 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

This has definitely been an issue as of late. There used to be no article here, and the link in the MUI article was dead. But then came the news of a Microsoft product of the same name, which caused a bit of a problem. A couple editors took it upon themselves to completely overwrite the Microsoft stuff with info on the MUI clone (I don't know why they waited until now to do so), which wasn't the best of solutions. As a temporary measure, I've adjusted the disambiguation link at the top of the page to link to the Wikibooks article. If this continues to be a serious issue, perhaps a discussion should be initiated on the possibility of a stronger disambiguation. Dancter 20:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
It seems that the article has changed without reaching a consensus. As of writing, the media player is located at Microsoft Zune, with the toolkit at Zune. Due to the upcoming popularity of the media player's article, I believe "Zune" should be kept for this product. There was nothing wrong with the previous situation, as a disambiguation notice was given. Even if the article name cannot be "zune", it should not technically be called "microsoft zune". It is inappropriate to change such a significant thing without permission from others. This needs sorting, desperately. --Mambo Jambo 23:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
What's wrong with the stub that was there referring AROS's Zune to the correct page and Microsoft's Zune to the Microsoft Zune page? That way Microsoft's later use of the name does not cause confusion to the people who couldn't care less for their product. It also isn't fair to redirect the term to one or the other, so the dual meaning should be kept with a reference to the details of both. If the detail must exist on the Zune page, then the first use of it would be more relavent. Also note that any linking to this stub from other articles ideally shouldn't be broken - so the dual purpose stub might be the best option here. --ZhuLien 10:25, 23 July 2006 (GMT+10)
What's wrong is that you didn't discuss this rename with anyone before going ahead and doing it; Wikipedia encourages us to be bold, yes, but when working on heavily-trafficked articles, consensus-building discussion always needs to come first. This is really important. Not doing things this way results in edit wars, disruption in article development, and tehnical messes like what Akhristov is now trying to clean up. -/- Warren 00:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Given that it's less likely anyone would visit this page to find something about Microsoft Zune, the Zune Toolkit which has been around for ages and mentioned in several places on Wiki is very relavent. There has obviously been edit wars on this article in the past. I was hoping that the stub would remove the need for the edit wars (so far you have proved this isn't the case). The Vista article on Wiki is a good example of what this page should be like.--ZhuLien 10:52, 23 July 2006 (GMT+10)
The Amiga Zune article was just being started after the MS Zune article. If the Amiga Zune article would have been started earlier, it would have been bigger and maybe more important, but not necesarily recieving more traffic. But the Amiga Zune article is very small, so it can't possibly be more important. This was a small issue, and maybe no issue at all, but was made into a big mess. — Alex (T|C|E) 01:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The disambiguation page is definately the way to go. Something stuffed up at the top of this discussion page though, whenever article is clicked on instead of going back to the disambiguation page, it goes to the non-usefule Microsoft Zune page.--ZhuLien 13:03, 23 July 2006 (GMT+10)
The disambiguation page is definately the way to go.--Psycler

The Ipod click wheel is not patented by Apple, and is believed to be owned by Microsoft. Apple was beaten to the punch when it tried to patent the click wheel. How or 'if' this patent is actually owned by microsoft is speculative. Does anyone have any references that confirms whether microsoft actually owns or is able to use the click wheel? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.56.5.23 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

—

Who the hell deleted the disambiguation page? AROS' Zune has existed YEARS before Microsoft's one. There exists a concept named "Common law" or "de facto" trademark, which AROS' Zune is entitled to. MS Zune came later, it has to adapt, not the other way around.

Where has AROS' Zune article gone anyway?

I'm going to put things back at their proper place, unless someone gives a pretty damn good reasn NOT TO. Bafio 18:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Music Download Service?

Wouldn't Zune most likely use Microsoft's Urge download service in Windows Media Player 11, instead of a Zune download service? Superway25 00:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

URGE is actually owned and operated by MTV. WMP 11 included tons of music download services, and URGE is just the newest one. I believe Microsoft would launch their own music download service (MSN Music perhaps?) when Zune is official. (Jim Liu 09:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC))
Actually, I vaguely remember reading that the Zune would have its own software seperate from WMP11.. but it's almost 6 in the morning and I haven't gone to sleep yet, so I'll probably dig around for the article later. Might be worth editing if I can find a confirmation other than my sometimes-inaccurate memory, heh. We do know for sure that Zune doesn't use PlaysForSure though, and URGE definitely uses PlaysForSure... MSN Music uses PlaysForSure too. And has been doing rather poorly lately, so I think Microsoft might axe that or fold it into URGE or something. We'll see. Underthefade 10:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Messy...

Well, this thing is a huge mess now, and no admins seem to be willing to help clean up. — Alex (T|C|E) 03:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

OMG, what's the point of someone redirecting the ambiguity to the Microsoft Zune page? It then breaks all non-Microsoft Zune links that go to the Zune page. --ZhuLien 14:13 July 2006 (GMT+10)

Status of Merge

For more information about what's going on (particularly why the main article currently has "temp" in its name), see Talk:Microsoft Zune/merge. The latest situation is that there don't seem to be any administrators on to fix it. Ardric47 03:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I will take responsibility for causing a delay that allowed a nontrivial edit to be made at the intended home of this article. Ardric47 03:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Great Zunes, what a mess. This is worse than the last edit maelstrom. I wouldn't sweat any mistakes you may have made; I think there's plenty of blame to go around. I'm thinking at this point, though, an administrator needs to at least semi-protect these pages (if not fully protect them) until everything can be sorted out. We need to stop the bleeding. Some newbies are trying to be helpful, but are just making things more difficult. Dancter 04:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully fixed now, both talk and article pages. Honestly I've no idea what you guys were trying to do. =.= Kimchi.sg 07:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thanks Kimchi, everything seems to be sorted. Even the redundant "Zune (toolkit)" page has been deleted. --Mambo Jambo 10:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zune/Archive_1&oldid=390256418"