Talk:IPod models and software

New Article
This Article seems to be more about iPod the brand then the iPod. I think there should be a separate section for the current iPod (video), like there is for the nano, mini, and shuffle. This article has alot of detail not directly related to the product, and its related products, while the nano mini and shuffle do not. What are your opinions on this?
 * I agree to some of it. An even better idea is to move iPod nano, iPod mini, iPod shuffle, and iPod photo to one article called "iPod Models and Software". I don't think there's any need to have 4 separate articles on very similar subjects. This new article could also merge some stuff from Comparison of iPod Managers, and it can contain details about all the video conversion software that can be used for the video iPod. By the way, please sign your discussion comments. --IE 12:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think each model has more then enough info unique to it to remain a seperate article. Gateman1997 16:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah but this article isnt about the ipod, i.e. the 5th generation video which it is currently, it is more about the brand with lots of random bits thrown in. I noticed this when the nano, shuffel, and mini all had links, but the standard iPod didnt (no user name, new to wikipedia)
 * I don't agree about merging all the existing sister articles into one, but maybe an iPod (5th generation) article is needed. — Wackymacs 20:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Creating another article for an iPod model is not a sensible idea. iPod (5th generation) is not an official product name and could cause confusion. What happens if they bring out a 6th generation? Does the page change its name or is yet another article created for the same product? Also, people are likely to create additional articles like iPod 1st generation, iPod 2nd generation and so on. The best way is to have one article. --IE 11:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This article should be about all of the iPods. We need to have a different article for each different line, Like the iPod nano should have its own article, but not a new article for first genoration and second genoration. The name for the new iPod (5th genoration etc...)aritcle should be "iPod (hardware) or something along those lines, and this article should be "iPod (product line).Mastercheif 05:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry but none of the suggestions for separate articles are suitable. I'm going to begin merging the iPod models articles, unless there's a good reason not to. --IE 15:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Dude, NO? *Think* about it. This article is already over the limit at 48k. How are you going to merge the rest into this one without it going over 80k again? — Wackymacs 15:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I kinda agree with Masterchief. We should keep the separate articles. The article "iPod" should just be about the actual iPod, similar to the "iPod nano" and "iPod shuffle" articles. Then have an article titled "iPod (product line)" or "iPod family" or whatever that covers all the different models as a whole. One big reason for doing this, aside from this article already being way too long, is that if we merge the separate articles into one big "iPod" article then if someone wants to create a link to a specific model in another article then the link is going to be something like "iPod#iPod mini". AlistairMcMillan 16:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The proposal is to have 2 iPod articles on wikipedia. One is called "iPod" which is this article: It's about the brand, history etc and stays the same. The 2nd article is "iPod models and software" which is just all the separate models articles merged into one.--IE 20:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think everyone understood that was your intent the first time. I still disagree with it. There is more then enough information to maintain seperate articles for each line. If you merge them all together you risk creating an article that is much more then the suggested upper limit. Gateman1997 20:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I oppose this merger. The article should remain seperate. JohnnyBGood    t   c  VIVA! 16:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I oppose to the merger proposal based on my reasons posted earlier. — Wackymacs 18:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I, too oppose the merger. Merging it would result in an unwieldy and huge page, and it would be a pain to maintain, especially if new models come out. It's better to keep them separate and let each have their own article. Specifics can then be addressed much readily than in one mega-article. –-  kungming·  2 | (Talk ·Contact) 07:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

By cutting out the redundancy and putting the specs into a table, the page could easily stay below 32kB. The votes for support and oppose should come from people who haven't contributed to any iPod articles.--IE 08:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Says who? People who have contributed to those articles are just as qualified to voice their opinion as someone who hasn't. You don't get to decide whose opinion is more valid. Also there are not "votes" on wikipedia. Voting is evil, wikipedia is not a democracy, etc.... JohnnyBGood    t   c  VIVA! 17:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There are no regulations against who can vote; except for maybe anonymous IP editors with only one or two edits. And as JohnnyBGood said, Wikipedia is not a democracy and votes aren't really favored in the first place. — Wackymacs 17:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think that it's best to keep the separate articles. I've changed my mind. It probably wouldn't work out very well if they were all merged.--IE 20:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)