Talk:IPod Touch/Archive 4

Explanation of the unstable
Maybe most people don't read the archived talk pages. Previously, I explained that if jailbreaking is to be covered in this article, it also needs a disclaimer of sorts to protect Wikipedia from making assumed promises in the event that a jailbreak does actually render a device unresponsive. No matter how many sources or experts say that it is impossible to brick an iPod touch, nothing in this world is absolute. That is why I threw the word "can" into the sentence. "can" indicates that it is possible. Seriously, you cannot disprove this. Again, the statement is simply to serve as a disclaimer; without the sentence, the reader will assume that there is absolutely 100-percent no risk involved in jailbreaking.

The other reason for the unstable statement is actually justified by Apple itself via the way it is handling its SDK and Software 2.0. Whenever you introduce unstable code into a device, it will crash. That's what is meant by being unstable. All of you pro-jailbreakers think that all software is stable. No, it isn't. That is why Apple introduced the App Store - to allow the Apple engineers to look at each application and validate it before it is allowed to be installed on the iPod touch. Groink (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:No disclaimers and WP:NOT. This statement is original research. Verifiability, not truth, is what's important in WP articles.  Equazcion •✗/C • 22:46, 24 Mar 2008 (UTC)


 * But you haven't proved the other way as well. All you've reported is that a handful of you people haven't seen the problems. The information I provided is not original research. I said that Apple implemented the App Store/SDK system to prevent malware and other unstable software from entering the iPhone. I think Apple has more weight on the subject matter than a bunch of renegade hackers. Just because YOU haven't seen an iPhone brick does not mean it is impossible. You see the logic here? Groink (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I got news for you: I don't know shit about this device. You're talking to me as if I've got some kind of opinion on the subject. I don't. I'm an editor and I saw someone revert a removal of original research from an article. Second, the statement removed didn't say anything about the Apple SDK etc. If you'd like to add information on steps Apple took to prevent third-party software, go ahead, as long as you also add a source. But don't make a claim as to what "could" happen if customers attempt to circumvent it, unless you can provide a reliable source for that as well. In short: The statement is unsourced. If you want to add it back, provide a reference. It's just that simple.  Equazcion •✗/C • 01:57, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking back, I didn't really address the root of the miscommunication here. Here's a slightly more descriptive argument: There's lots of things that could be true, about any topic. We don't include all "possibilities" in articles, though, unless reliable sources mention them. This device could spontaneously blow up in your pocket, but we don't include that in the article just because no one can disprove it. Even a mere possibility needs to be properly sourced. Even though you think this particular possibility is more likely, due to an assumedly educated guess based on your experience with the product, it still constitutes original research. Hope that clears things up.  Equazcion •✗/C • 02:11, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see your point here. So other than stating the obvious, what I need to do then is find a reliable source basically saying that introducing code to a device - written either erroneously or maliciously - can in fact cause a device to malfunction or perform a function that was not the original intent. I must also prove that the methods to which Apple is using in its SDK and software delivery methodology helps minimize the possibility of these types of applications from entering into an iPhone. And, I must prove that sticking to Apple's methodology is a more reliable methodology than circumventing the system via jailbreaking. But rather than doing all of that, I'm just going to watch for the first malware to turn up and let that speak for itself. I'll wait for C-Net to cover it, and then I'll return that sentence with a cited resource. Groink (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. There are probably more than a few reliable sources that warn against tampering with factory-installed software in general. I think that's a great idea -- find one and add the statement in less-specific terms: "Consumers should be forewarned that tampering with the original software on any device in an undocumented manner could damage the device irreparably" (something like that -- whatever the source you find happens to say). Just make sure the statement is accurate according to the reference. You might think the rest of us are idiots for not wanting to include what you consider obvious based solely on your word, but this is how Wikipedia works. Take it up at WT:V if you like.  Equazcion •✗/C • 03:53, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)

WTF look at the pik of it on the right side!!
i can see a camera reflecting back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben10027 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the reflection.  Equazcion •✗/C • 16:32, 6 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Software Upgrade Cost
Under the section about the January Upgrade, it states that the fee went from $19.99 to $25 and it notes Footnote 13. I followed FN 13 and the Apple website still states $19.99. Can this statement be corrected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.121.154 (talk) 05:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of the phrase "multi-touch"
I noticed that an editor attempted to correct the use of multi-touch by capitalizing it as "Multi-Touch". This is incorrect. Apple did register for multi-touch as a trademark in June 2007. However, as of today it has not been registered with Apple. The term is also not a proper noun. And, if you read the multi-touch Wikipedia article, it uses the form "multi-touch" (except when it is the first word in a sentence), as well as all the academic papers linked via the external link references at the bottom of the article. As long as the parent article for multi-touch uses this convention, we should not be deviating from it for the sole purpose of Apple devices. Also, other forms such as "multitouch" or "MultiTouch" are also not correct when used here. Groink (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, just because the Apple web site uses the convention "Multi-Touch", that does not mean Wikipedia must do so as well. Again, the trademark guideline does not apply here because Apple does not own the trademark to the term. Even the party who currently owns the trademark does not use the "Multi-Touch" form. Groink (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This link proves that Apple does not own the trademark. It is owned by DPI Labs, Inc. Groink (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This set of documents show the trail leading up to, as of this writing, the trademark not being registered with Apple.

A letter of protest was sent to the Commissioner of Trademarks on January 17 2008. The letter was filed on April 1 2008. In the memorandum, "The term 'multi-touch' is descriptive, if not generic, for electronic devices such as those of applicant that may employ a touch screen capable of recognizing multiple simultaneous touch points." "It has been determined, by the Commissioner for Trademarks, that a clear error has been made in allowing this mark to be published." Groink (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Music Quiz?
Is this "game" not present in this version of the iPod? TooLazyToLogInButNotEnoughAsToWriteThis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.23.91.242 (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No- Khalid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.206.31 (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

New Sections?
Can anyone please explain to me why we "need" to add the sections "Comparisons to the iPhone" or whatever it was entitled and the section "Early Screen Problems". I'm sure the latter could go under a "Technical Issues" section, so that if any iPod Touch issues arise, they will go under that section, rather than having to make another. As for the comparisons, wouldn't it be fine if that goes under the general info section (ie. the first paragraph)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyrferret (talk • contribs) 23:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I want new sections, "Comparisons to the iPhone" should be in the leading paragraph, and Critiscism should replace "Early Screen Problems". We don't need a new section for every thing wrong about the iPod Touch. I also think this article is very below Wikipedia standards, it should be like all other iPod articles, just a general description of the iPod Touch line, and a section for first and second generations, with images for each, and pictures should be added more to explain the screen problems. (Mrdonnelly (talk) 02:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

Color
Can we drop this ridiculousness of imagining that the whole iPod touch is black? There's more silver finish to the device than black. -JasonAQuest (talk) 03:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

But the front of it is black - other coloured ipods before have had a different colour on the back, yet they're still called the colour on the front. Yes, there's more silver than black, but if you're going to get picky then why not call it "silver, black, and what ever colour you have on the screen at the time." C'mon, this is stupid. It's black. call it black. 203.147.102.212 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The back of the iPod touch is not silver-colored. The material is chrome. Chrome reflects all light that hits the surface, which is why the material acts as a mirror. Same thing with a mirror made of any other material... A mirror has no color. And neither does chrome. So it is indeed true that the only "surface" color on the iPod touch is black.
 * As another example, if you look at the iPod article, NONE of the devices mention silver as a color of the back. There is a silver iPod, but the front is colored silver. Groink (talk) 05:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Some think 'black is not a color', but there is certainly a difference between a black surface and a mirrored surface. Actually, the iPod touch has a stainless steel back, not chrome. In any case, it is not 'black' simply because it cannot be said to have a 'color'. In fact it is closer to silver than black. The color that is often referred to as 'silver' is really a metallic grey. So why not dispense with referring to the 'color' of the device's back and simply refer to it as polished stainless steel? Doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result. (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

i think we should dispense with the "color" section of the chart altogether, because all generations only come in one color. that being said, Apple does officially refer to the iPod touch's color as being black, on the "which iPod are you" page: http://www.apple.com/ipod/whichipod/ --YesIAmAnIdiot (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Apple says the main color is black, so why should we list it as "Silver", in fact, it's not even silver, it's a surface which reflects all light, so it's like a mirror.(Mrdonnelly (talk) 12:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

critism of update cost
thats missing

--83.104.170.71 (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:CRITICISM, WP:NPOV, WP:CATALOG -- KelleyCook (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In KellyCooks meaning shortened, it sounds more like you're criticizing Apple's Update costs for the iPod Touch. In this case, it's not valid. Now if it were from numerous enterprises or critic companies saying this, they'd be able to control the flow of criticisms. Otherwise, we can all say "The update cost stinks, Apple should have taken it off and made it free like the iPhone. iPhone people are cheap and they think they rule the world.", which we're not going to let that happen on Wikipedia. I hope that explains those 3 WP articles in one sentence applying to the iPod Touch article. --AOL Alex (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

hole in covers
In all the covers for the ipod touch there is that little hole in the upper left, I was looking at my iPod touch today and noticed you can see a little circle in the same area where the holes are. It's browner than the rest of the ipod, but you can't really see it in normal light you have to hold it at a certain angle, what is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.226.61 (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ambient light sensor to adjust the screen brightness automatically.78.146.69.51 (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Price drop late ?
When will apple have a price drop for the i pod touch because i don't think apple will stick with $299 for a 8gb ipod touch for long if you could buy an 8gb iphone for $100 cheaper next month —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.123.144.78 (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You must also factor the two-year contract into the price of the iPhone. Although the iPod touch is still more expensive "up-front", it comes out cheaper when the cost is depreciated over the two year period. Legally, even if you want the 16GB iPhone and not use it as a phone, you're still stuck with the contract. When the first iPhone was sold, I heard stories where the customer can purchase the iPhone without ever activating with the carrier. From what I hear of the new iPhone, I don't think you can even place your fingerprints on the device until it has already been activated. The only way I can see the iPhone being truly more cost effective than the iPod touch is if everything I mentioned about activation is incorrect. Groink (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the move request. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

"I've fulfilled this move request. The arguments-for had firm basis in guidelines and practice. – xeno  ( talk ) 18:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)" Archived 09:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC), 217.36.107.9 (talk)

iPod touch → iPod Touch — The second word is a part of the name, (i.e. it is not "a touch", but a product called "Touch"), and according to WP:MOSCL proper nouns are generally capitalized, with no legitimate reason to make an exception here (WP:MOSTM makes it clear that Apple's styling does not entirely apply to us). To make it clear from the outset, the styling of "iPod" has no bearing on subsequent words, and does not exclude the entire title of an article from the usual rules of English, and WP:MOSCL and WP:MOSTM should be read in their spirit, rather than arguing over the literal meaning of individual words. — 217.36.107.9 (talk) 11:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See also associated moves: iPod nano →, iPod mini → , iPod photo →.

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Oppose Groink (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Apple uses lower-case. The end. – Axman (☏) 14:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't care what Apple uses. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 08:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, WP:MOSTM and its underlying rationale based on WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. This is kind of a weird case, but I think the notion that "touch" is part of the product name (and not just an adjective modifying the name) calls unequivocally for capitalization. The capitalized version exists in sources, and it's more standard than not capitalizing.  Croctotheface (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Where in Wikipedia policy are exceptions like TeX and LaTeX allowed?  The same exception would apply here.  Searching Google News, it appears just a little more than half capitalize touch.  What about in the article itself?  Using two different capitalization would be look poor. --Pmsyyz (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a red herring - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The fact that there are exceptions is not in and of itself carte blanche to make exceptions.  Please explain how TeX and LaTeX are related to the word "Touch".  217.36.107.9 (talk) 08:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think TeX and LaTeX are that comparable to the trademark at hand to begin with, as they are both first-letter capitalized (no reduced readability there) and employ CamelCase, not just for stylistic purposes but to convey meaning (the Greek letter chi/X in "TeX", the first syllable of the author's name in "LaTeX"). Our Manual of Style for trademarks leaves the use of CamelCase to editorial discretion, while it requires all-lowercased trademark name to be capitalized. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 09:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Disagree unless the letter i in iPod is capitalised, too, throughout the article. Bengasalam 06:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * I think you're incorrectly identifying the name iPod touch purely on the basis of being a pronoun, as well as mis-reading what a trademark actually is. Just because iPod touch is two words, the words put together in a specific order makes it a trademark - even the space between the two words counts as being part of the trademark (ex: iPodtouch would be incorrect.) Therefore, English capitalization rules should not apply to trademarks consisting of more than one word. Groink (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:MOSTM explicitly disagrees with you. "iPod Touch" is a two-word proper noun (i.e. it is the name of something), and ideally both words should be capitalized.  The styling of the first of those two words, "iPod", is catered for by exception.  The second word, "Touch", does not meet any exceptional criteria.  Our own guideline is explicit in stating that we disregard the trademark holder's preference entirely.  217.36.107.9 (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reference: first para. "... choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner." ; "Trademarks beginning with a one-letter lowercase prefix pronounced as a separate letter do not need to be capitalized if the second letter is capitalized, but should otherwise follow normal capitalization rules:" 217.36.107.9 (talk) 10:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, then it is time to start petitioning for an exception on WP:MOSTM. The English language is evolving, and information technology is the cause for most of it. Apple may be the first high-profile company to break Wikipedia's guidelines, but I truly believe more and more companies will be doing the same thing. But rather than applying ancient, out-of-date guidelines to the evolution, we should table this move request temporarily and discuss the issue further at WP:MOSTM. But I don't have the time to spend on this issue, so hopefully someone else can champion this effort. Groink (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's not time to start petitioning for an exception on WP:MOSTM for Apple's products. That opens the door for every other company to come along and say "hey, that's not how our trademark is supposed to look".  Non-standard rendering is a common marketing tool.  As for "ancient, out-of-date guidelines", the last edit was last week.  The last attempt to change to your preferred position was back in January, which didn't succeed.  If you want to change the guideline, you must take it up on that talk page, not create exceptions within the encyclopedia without good reason.  Apple's preference is not a good reason (The nutshell summary: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner.")  217.36.107.9 (talk) 08:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To be clear, if what is claimed that about WP:MOSTM is applicable here, then this involves more than simply the title. By advocating this move, you're suggesting that usage in the article (and elsewhere in Wikipedia) should also be changed from "iPod touch" to "iPod Touch", correct? older ≠ wiser 13:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Introducing any discrepancies between an article title and its subsequent prose is rarely desirable, especially when it gets moved with WP:MOS in mind, which advocates a consistent presentation to begin with. I'd like to note that WP:MOSTM requires unofficial formats to have precedents in reliable third-party sources (lest we start inventing new stuff). This New York Times article should suffice. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Motion to close
In summary, it would appear that the arguments opposing the move are entirely without merit and, and are not justified beyond statements such as "Apple does it this way" which directly contradict our naming policy. Therefore, I propose that the discussion be closed as "move" rather than "no move". 217.36.107.9 (talk) 08:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Denied. It is your fault that you asked for a oppose/support style survey in the first place. The comment behind each vote doesn't really come into play. And the arguments that attempt to void the opinions of each vote doesn't matter either. I could've just said "oppose" and not make any comment, and that would've been just as good.
 * Some advice... If you really wanted the articles moved, you should've just done it! You should've made the moves, and add comments on the talk page explaining your reasons, with all those guidelines included. The only time a survey is necessary is when an editor wants to perform an edit and none of the existing guidelines directly support. When you created this survey, you KNEW that you had the backing of the guidelines. Either you didn't know that, or you just wanted to make a huge big deal out of nothing.
 * You may come back and say that the survey was the right thing to do. But let's look at it realistically.... Did you really think there was reason for these article names other than "This is how Apple does things?" With the guidelines in-place, would any oppose comment change things? Did you expect someone to come up with a reason that would void all those other guidelines? That's why the survey was totally meaningless. WP:BOLD. Groink (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To respond to a few points:
 * I could've just said "oppose" and not make any comment, and that would've been just as good. - Wikipedia's decision making process operates on discussion, not voting. You could have just said "oppose", and you would have been ignored for not telling us why.
 * Did you really think there was reason for these article names other than "This is how Apple does things?" - "This is how Apple does things" is not a valid reason for the current title.
 * Did you expect someone to come up with a reason that would void all those other guidelines? - Yes. Yes, I did.  The burden of proof lies with those advocating an exception, not those seeking to apply the rules.  Regardless of whether or not the status quo reflects an exceptional state, the case for an exception should be compelling.  We tend to use "iPod" and "eBay" simply because it is the most readable form of those particular names.
 * As some have pointed out, we have rules on naming articles for a reason. We can't bow to Apple's preferred styling and not other companies.  That would not be neutral and Wikipedia could be seen to be advocating a particular position.  That other articles are at titles that may not appear to be in line with the rules does not mean we can make an allowance here - it generally means that perhaps those articles should be moved too.  To argue otherwise would be like saying that murder is acceptable because other people do it too.  217.36.107.9 (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You're both wrong. Closing these proceedings in favor of the proposed move would not accurately reflect the current state of the discussion and there is also nothing wrong with a formal move request, even if our guidelines seem crystal clear on the matter, be it out of courtesy towards regular editors of the article(s) at hand or to determine whether the guidelines still reflect what's going on "down in the trenches".

At this point, the discussion would very much benefit from being re-listed at WP:RM, in order to attract more editors and subsequently get a better idea whether or not the community considers our guidelines applicable in this particular case. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I might disagree that it would not accurately reflect the state of the discussion. Reasons proposed in support of the move have a basis in policy, those proposed in opposition are founded on a false premise - namely that we should kowtow to Apple's will.  A bump up the RM list shouldn't hurt though.  217.36.107.9 (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There also is another policy, and that says "ignore all rules." The arguements in opposition to the move are not founded on a false premise, they are founded on policy.  This is a disagreement on which policy should be followed.  So closing it at this time does not accuratelyy reflect the current state of discussion on this matter.


 * IMO, since the offical name of this product is iPod touch, then maybe we should ignore the rule on the capitalization of the "touch" part just like we do with the "iPod" part and leave the article and all the others proposed to move with it alone. Jons63 (talk) 03:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I wish people would bother to read IAR before invoking it. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."  IAR is not carte blanche to do what you like.  Ignoring a rule is not the same thing as outright flouting it.  For what it's worth, IAR is self-referential (many years ago, this was even explicit).  From WP:WIARM: The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule.  The general principle and spirit of WP:MOSTM is that our formatting of such names is not guided by the trademark holder.  217.36.107.9 (talk) 13:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So my question to you is: How does changing these names away from the name given them by the company improve Wikipedia? As a side note I did read it before saying anything, maybe you should assume good faith. Jons63 (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not the one seeking to ignore the rules. Please address your question to WP:MOSTM.  217.36.107.9 (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * How can they tell me why you think wikipedia would be better if we rename these articles the way you propose? I believe we should leave it as is because that is the proper name of the device as named by the company making it. So IMO we should ignore the spelling rule and leave as is.  But I am willing to listen to arguments as to why these articles should be renamed.  Where I would like to start is finding out why you think wikipedia would be better if we change the title of the article as you suggest.  I am always willing to listen to other sides of arguements and will change my mind if the arguments are valid, but just saying that we should rename it because the rule says we should is not a very compelling argument. Jons63 (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right, being adamant about rules just because they are rules is without merit. The core rationale behind WP:MOSTM, or for that matter any other guideline on Wikipedia that urges editors to favor standard English text formatting over stylized typography is consistency in presentation, which in turn improves general readability/scanablity of texts and avoids drawing undue attention to some subjects rather than others. Trademarks are almost always tied to commercial interests, hence making them more recognizable by rendering them in a stylized manner is a very basic form of advertisement. Many general purpose publications, e.g. major newspapers choose to not emulate or at least reduce that sort of typography, as they are writing for their readers and not the subjects of their articles (see this New York Times example I posted earlier). Our own Manual of Style generally follows that notion.
 * Granted, "iPod touch" is a tricky one; none of the words in that name are first-letter capitalized by the trademark owner, yet our MOS deems lowercasing the "i" in "iPod" acceptable, the argument being, as far as I recall, that such separable one-letter prefixes convey meaning while not hurting readability by much (given that they are immediately followed by a capital). The all-lowercased "touch" however, besides being non-standard English to begin with might just reduce readability without any semantic benefit to be derived from it, other than "that's how Apple writes it, look how different from everything else it is".
 * Of course, it would hardly be encyclopedic if we were to withhold that bit of information from our readers, hence a descriptive note on the official typeset should be added to the article lead. See our current article on the PlayStation 3 for an example: Sony trademarked the device in all-caps, which we note in the lead paragraph right, but in the article title and remaining prose, we refer to it in a far less obtrusive CamelCase form. This approach has proven to deliver a good balance between consistency/readability/neutrality and accuracy in many articles and it could do just that here. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Totally concur with that. How does telling companies who spent millions in trademarks to go screw themselves become of some ancient rules put down by bureaucratic systems like Wikipedia and supported by anons like 217.36.107.9 help improve Wikipedia? As I said in my very first statement, a change in the way Wikipedia handles the exact capitalization of trademarks IS an improvement for Wikipedia. More and more technological companies are changing the way we English writers look at capitalization.
 * Groink (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The usual phrase is "shut up and do it already". Continuing to argue against policies here will not change them.  If you wish to propose a change to our capitalization rules, go to the WP:MOSTM talk page and put forward your case.  217.36.107.9 (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for anyone else but I am not arguing against the policy in the general sense I am arguing against the policy in this specific instance. Looking through the policy I can not find a single instance where it says that without exception all proper nouns must be capitalized, can you?  So what reason is there to change Apple's capitalization other than the rules says generally we capitalize proper nouns?  Jons63 (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * MOSTM does say "capitalize trademarks, as with proper names." It's the first thing after the intro.  Croctotheface (talk) 07:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is nothing anywhere which says "there must be no exceptions". It remains the case that if you want this page to stay here, this would be an exception to the rule, and it is down to you to prove to us that an exception should be made.  In the case of capital letters, that boils down to readability, and self-identification.  The case for self-identification is reserved for real people - see brian d foy and k d lang, examples of individuals who self-identify in lower case (as opposed to E. E. Cummings, who was lowercased on a book once by his publisher against his wishes).  Apple's typographical stylings are there to help them sell product, and we have no role in that - therefore, we have no reason to take their preference on board whatsoever.  As for how this helps improve Wikipedia, it is one step that insulates it from being astroturfed.  217.36.107.9 (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Apple's typo?
I just noticed something at the iTunes Store/App Store that may or may not be a typo here. Under "CATEGORIES" (sic) there is a link to "All iPod Touch Applications" (sic). Note the capital "T". This is the only example that I've seen where Apple has used the "correct" capitalization for the iPod touch. I don't think this is indicative of a shift in Apple's policy for the device, but I do think it is relevant to this discussion. I am opposed to moving these articles in the interests accuracy, but I've increasingly been seeing "iPod Touch" being capitalized in the wild. Even on websites such as Daring Fireball, which is usually very accurate when it comes to pedantic issues like spelling and capitalization.

If it is against Wikipedia policy to have the lowercase name and most people (incorrectly?) capitalize the product anyway, why should we blindly follow what Apple's regulations state if it is incorrect English? Especially if Apple doesn't always follow their own policy... I think this issue needs more discussion and per the guidelines "because Apple says so" is NOT a reason to have incorrect capitalization in the article. ~ Paul T +/C 16:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, while researching Apple's own use of "iPod touch" I came across this in their 2006 style guide: "Click Wheel  The combined iPod touch wheel and buttons. Not Apple Click Wheel or touch wheel. Note capitalization." "iPod touch" is used but NOT in reference to the product (as it wasn't released yet), which is confusing.  The more I think about it, the more I'm leaning toward supporting these moves. ~ Paul T +/C 16:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Done
I've fulfilled this move request. The arguments-for had firm basis in guidelines and practice. – xeno  ( talk ) 18:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.