Talk:ITunes/Archive 4

EXPLICIT?
OK, I have been "hearing" about songs (including a few I'd like to download) wrongfully labeled explicit on iTunes. According to Yahoo! Answers, a few people (probably teenagers) have been complaining stuff like "How is this song EXPLICIT?", and on a few of the responses, people have responded that on iTunes, every song on an album with a PA sticker on the front is automatically deemed EXPLICIT even if it is purely clean. Anyone here that would like to clarify this or talk a little bit about this? I certainly believe it's unfair! JustN5:12 01:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If this belongs anywhere it is probably iTunes Store, not iTunes. Can you cite reliable sources (i.e. not forum postings) for this.  See WP:ATT. AlistairMcMillan 03:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

RASPUTIN ????
Citation: "introduced by Apple on January 10 by Apple lead developer Grigori Rasputin,in 2001 at Macworld Expo in San Francisco" I think it is a joke. The link leads to article about famous russian mystic. I don't know who presented iTunes back in 2001. I am really suspicious it was person having such name. Someone who knows real name of the guy edit the article.
 * Yeah, I'm taking that out.--HereToHelp 14:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Remind me why we took out the Pink Floyd slector?
Remember when we had a pic of a dude browsing through of all the iconic pink floyd album covers? Yeah...U guys got two days to add that back in, or that's it..I'LL DO IT MYSELF! 71.182.73.254 20:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Bundleing with HP and Dell
Dell doesn't bundle iTunes with their computers, I think HP does though as they have previously made their branded iPods although I can't confirm it. iTunes is bundled with OS X on all Macs. That should be worded correctly in the line. 123.243.231.195 09:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, AFAIK Dell never bundled iTunes (their thing was a rebranded version of MusicMatch Jukebox), and HP did for a while, particularly while they were selling HP branded iPods, but don't seem to anymore. I don't have any firm sources for either, so I'll leave the edit to someone else. MacPrince 23:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

iTunes 7
Am I the only one whose iTunes skips during songs? I'll be listening to a song and it will skip as if it's a CD. I thought maybe it had something to do with the new CDs I loaded, but I don't know.71.126.232.135 20:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

CD Burner
When I try to burn a CD, I get a "thwap" noise randomly inserted into the songs, like what used to happen when you download a corrupt file from Kazaa or wherever. I assume this is some sort of copy protection...it doesn't happen on songs I bought from iTunes, or songs I took directly from another CD. Is there any way to fix this? Does this normally happen with iTunes? Adam Bishop 18:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:FORUM MacPrince 23:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Gee thanks, that's very helpful. Adam Bishop 02:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Take it to someplace like iLounge if it's not about the article. MacPrince 23:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with the article! Stephen Shaw 17:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested in the xml feeds from itunes, does any body know if this information is free to use for commercial reasons??. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.116.235.64 (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

iTunes U
I don't see the subject on iTunes U. Like, what is it exactly? I mean, shouldn't information about it be included here? -- Esa nchez (Talk 2 me or Sign here) 01:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Windows versions
It seems that the current versions do not support win98. Did any previous versions support win98 or win98SE? -69.87.204.122 23:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

iTunes was released for Macs in 2001 and on Windows in 2003, so support for old versions of Windows is unlikely. 69.228.208.2 (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

iTunes + FLAC?
I think this is something that needs citation. Also, will this only work on a Mac? Or is it for Windows as well? In light of many people crying for "official" support of this format, I think there needs to be some sort of explication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.118.32 (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: Found a source: http://www.simplehelp.net/2007/09/20/how-to-play-flac-files-in-itunes/

Someone who knows how to use wikipedia, please put this into reference. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.118.32 (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Max
Exactly how many songs can iTunes hold? --MosheA (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, no limit is in place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.118.32 (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Your computer' memory's the limit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.134.166.42 (talk • contribs) 19:07, December 1, 2007

Uhhhhhhh......
Is it just me, or does this article seem like it was authored by Apple specifically? I don't see any indications of neutrality...I know I'm not the only person on the planet who doesn't worship itunes. I can't cite myself as a source for criticism for obvious reasons...Does anyone know what sources would be acceptable online or elsewhere that would allow this article to have some balance? (Heaven forbid.)

WP:Be Bold and add what you feel is necessary, but whatever you add must have reliable sources -- KelleyCook (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

iTunes Phones
I see the article is flagged as needing a citation. would this count? 67.70.94.222 (talk) drw —Preceding comment was added at 10:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Patents
I changed the wording of the section to more precisely reflect the content of the sourced article. If you're going to seek an edit, change it word by word. There is too much relevant information in the section to just delete.

I also re-added the POV check tag. If you disagree with that, discuss it here. That's the whole point of the tag. 69.140.33.146 (talk) 05:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Creative lawsuit was about the iPod user interface, not the iTunes user interface. So I've removed that from the article. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 09:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * How exactly is Apple's media player patent similar to the Apple v Microsoft GUI lawsuit? I would say this is exactly the opposite. Songbird is obviously a direct clone of iTunes, Apple has a patent, but IIRC haven't challenged the Songbird developers. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed the POV-check tag. If you want to discuss parts of the article that you think aren't neutral I'm afraid you have to actually state which parts specifically. How are we supposed to debate something with you, if you don't tell us exactly what you want to discuss? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 09:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

iTunes Scripts for Mac and Windows
Presumably we should include citations where it says "iTunes can be scripted, using AppleScript for Mac OS X or using the Apple-provided SDK for iTunes on Windows..."

iTunes Scripts work for Windows and Mac OS.

Is this how I should create the citations? I can't work it out!

Windows:

Mac:

Soapynebula (talk) 12:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Release Date
It's a minor issue, but I am not convinced that the release date listed in the article is correct. Looking through the history, that date has been listed for significant periods as January 8, 9, and 10. The first 2001 date I can find in the history is January 9 (see ). It was later changed to January 10 and then back to January 9 again (.  Only recently do I see the January 8 .  Note both the January 10 and January 8 dates were first introduced by anonymous users, and may have been subtle vandalism.

Currently I can't find a specific date mentioned in the cited reference: Macworld Expo San Francisco 2001. However, in Apple's own press release, they give the date as January 9. What evidence is there to support the January 8 date? -- Tcncv (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup, looks like vandalism. Anons often target the lead, and yes, specific dates and other figures can be "corrupted" over time. I'll fix it and provide a cite.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 22:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. -- Tcncv (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Point of View
This may just be my opinion but it appears the neutrality of this article is not neutral. Haysead talk 13:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As you weren't very specific in your accusations, please WP:Be Bold and correct the article. -- KelleyCook (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Licence
I know the page is probably going to be rewritten, but as it currently stands, iTunes is NOT open soruce(not a typo), nor open source. It is freeware. There is a very good chance(p=1.00,q=0.00 for you data management folks) that it will remain closed source for the lifetime of Apple. I didn't check to see who made that change and if I did it wouldn't really matter because i wouldn't be able to change it anyway.24.36.133.217 (talk) 03:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Information soon to be inaccurate
Springlake04 (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC) "iPhone activation

Upon purchase of an iPhone, users must use iTunes to select and purchase a contract tariff before the phone features may be used. iTunes also syncs media to the iPhone, much like an iPod."

When the new iphones come out July 11

In-Store activation will be the only way to purchase a contract for the Iphone 2.0

Video format support
This article should include what video codecs with what option are supported by iTunes and not just audio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.34.246.247 (talk) 04:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Advertisement
This article reads more like a brochure than an non-biased encyclopedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrybaker (talk • contribs) 21:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC) I know yet every objection I put of the product gets reverted. Are these guys sponsored by apple or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.169.231 (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, as a Linux user I find it hard to believe that despite constant complaints on forums, no-ones even mentioned Linux in the "free to edit" articles except for a small bit about reverse-engineering the protocol. Does no-one care or is it just being pruned out of the article by some fanboys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happysmileman (talk • contribs) 22:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No kidding. This is a puff piece, and viewing the discussion archives, it's clear there are some serious Apple apologists quashing any sort of criticisms of this product. Wikipedia is usually a very good start to look at a topic and find links that address a subject in more detail. This page is clearly useless in that regard if one is trying to learn about the number of issues (particularly extremely slow functioning in Windows). However, not here. Sombody from Wikipedia's higher ups should read this article, recognize it for the usless puff piece it is, and get it replaced with a balanced ENCYCLOPEDIC article. JimZDP 23:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Amen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.208.225 (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, how can we flag it for review? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walrus1 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, either the only people who touched this article are fanboys or Apple itself is taking initiative. ENSSB (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and that makes some sense too seeing how Apple pushes its products. This is an article turned advertisement. - Redmess (talk) 10:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm an infrequent editor on Wikipedia, so I'm not really sure of the procedures, but it seems that advertisements (which this is clearly an example) should be candidates for deletion. I've reviewed some of the more recent comments and there are clearly fanboys at work on this page. Could we nominate if for deletion because the content is really just Apple hype or spam? And on top of this it's a "good article"? Please. It fails miserably under the scope category even under the most generous of factual analysis. JimZDP (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I love Apple and iTunes, but you guys are right, this whole page needs to be scrapped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.129.242 (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a warning box "This article looks like and advertisement" or something like that? If yes - it worth putting on top of this article. --Varnav (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms?
I agree with most of the discussion here. There are no criticisms of iTunes' closed nature or the locked-in feeling some people get (I'd have to find some sources for this claim) when they use their iPods.

I'd make these changes myself, but 1) I'm at work and 2) I'm feeling particularly lazy about it ;) Grayda (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It is depressing when you have an article of this magnitude that has ACTUAL proper criticisms with proper sources YET whenever a section is added or anything negative is added the throng of Apple devotees come running and immediately delete the information. The problem I see with this article is it reads more like an advertisement for the Itunes software. Where is the information about it hogging up system resources for certain users, bloated nature, issues with seeing certain Ipods and so forth. I guess this will never change. If this continues I might ask for this to be reviewed based on neutralitySatanical Eve (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the archives, this seems to be a recurring theme. I've added the Neutrality-Check tag. We'll see how long it lasts. 69.140.33.146 (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it also be worthwhile to point out that iTunes won't install properly on XP64 without user tweaking, and even then has limited functionality? I am not sure if this is also the case with Vista 64, but it seems a worthwhile point to make as increasing numbers of people take up AMD64/EM64T computing? 57.67.17.100 (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If that wasn't already mentioned in the article, that would be an excellent point to make. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 07:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I also added the advertisement tag. It reads more like an advert for the program then a general history of it. It has no criticism parts. No text about the faults with the program and all others pertaining. Satanical Eve (talk)


 * By all means, go read WP:RS and then edit the article to include criticisms that are well sourced. Well sourced criticisms won't be removed from the article. If you add your own personal criticisms, or ones that are sourced with anonymous postings on an internet forum, more than likely they are going to be quickly removed. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to add that iTunes very much installs like crapware these days when installed on x86: it installs a number of services and helpers, it installs Quicktime by default, and installs Apple Software Update which by default installs Safari on your machine, not to mention the Bonjour services on your computer.

By all means, if only what a user wants is to managing his or her iPod and to add some songs, are all these necessary? Eddypoon (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What about the problems people are having with the itunes updater forcing safari updates? Is this a valid criticism? Additionally, I was wondering if from a technical standpoint, does Itunes already have a safari-run browser in order to look at the itunes store? You are essentially loading a web link when you click on a link to music... and itunes just loads a web-page from apple's site, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.76.153.73 (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The iTunes Store is not written in HTML. http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt/archives/2004_06.html#005666 AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the article really lacks the criticism section. In fact many people (including me) are not happy with iTunes. As for me, iTunes music library functionality is very poor - only three types of views, while other media libraries like MediaMonkey or Winamp can group your music by any parameter - genre, artist, year - anything you like. iTunes media library as well cannot keep itself in sync with actual files on disc - if you delete or move any files changes will not be tracked by iTunes, and it will display error about missing files every time. There is a number of third party tools to solve this problem. This is not an opinion - only facts. --Varnav (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Winamp
I saw in the history that someone said winamp can handle ipods. Is this not noteworthy since most people use itunes just because they think it only works with ipods?

Just had a look and you are right but I also noticed something else. The article certainly seems to imply they only work with itunes: 'While iTunes is required to manage the audio of an Apple iPod portable audio player'. Which is definitely false. There are a number of programs that can do so. Only a few can handle the newest gen ipods though. Winamp being one of them. I'd have thought this noteworthy as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.34.190.8 (talk) 07:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Advertisement warning box
According to many complaints in discussion section and Be bold principle, as well as WP:NOT and Neutral point of view I've added Template:Advert to the top of main article. But I afraid that it will be removed soon by iTunes fans. Please pay attention. --Varnav (talk) 07:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not removing it however I suggest highly it DOES get removed.... This page could be written badly but it is needed on Wikipedia.... May i suggest that Template:Cleanup be used instead. Stealth (talk) 09:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, written badly and needed. Template:Advert has nothing about the deletion of article, it only warnings the reader and encourages to rewrite the article according to NPOV principle. --Varnav (talk) 10:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Tell us specifically which bits you think need fixed. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The whole article needs to be rewritten. It looks like advertising brochure, and contains no "Criticism" section at all. Why I'm not doing this myself? As it is already told above - every such attempt to observe NPOV is reverted back by apple fans. And I am not going to start the Edit_war. --Varnav (talk) 10:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Point us to sourced criticism from reliable sources and I'll gladly add it myself. Your personal opinions, which is exactly what your above post contains, are not acceptable. Please read WP:RS and WP:V. And please note the difference between iTunes the application and the iTunes Store. Criticism of the iTunes Store belongs in the article about the iTunes Store not here. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 10:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there a thing like sourced criticism from reliable sources exists at all? In the post above I wrote: iTunes music library functionality is very poor - only three types of views, while other media libraries like MediaMonkey or Winamp can group your music by any parameter - genre, artist, year - anything you like. iTunes media library as well cannot keep itself in sync with actual files on disc - if you delete or move any files changes will not be tracked by iTunes, and it will display error about missing files every time. There is a number of third party tools to solve this problem. - it's set of facts - it's not an opinion. Every of these facts anyone can verify by downloading iTunes - so, no references to any sources are needed. --Varnav (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That is your interpretation of facts. What do you mean iTunes can't group music? What is it you are actually trying to accomplish? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * iTunes can group music by album only. Compare with winamp or media monkey. Or compare with iPod itself, music submenu. --Varnav (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you mean it can only group by album? Click on the heading "Artist" and it groups by artist. Click on "Genre" and it groups by genre. Click on "Album" and it can group by album, by "Album by artist", "Album by year", etc. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's sorting, not grouping. Even Windows Explorer in table mode can sort this way. --Varnav (talk) 08:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you aware of the browser feature? In List mode click the little button in the bottom right with the eye icon, or select "Show Browser" from the View menu. Is that what you are looking for? I confess I still don't under what feature you think is missing, that WinAMP and MediaMonkey have. And neither of the sources you listed below even include the word "group" so that doesn't help. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And our articles on WinAMP and MediaMonkey don't mention any grouping feature either. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, well - that "browsing" feature IS grouping I am talking about, right. But it is still inferior to other media libraries - take a look at MediaMonkey left panel on screetshots, or better download it youself. --Varnav (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Re-written
While I disagree that the article is written like an advert, I do believe the article is pretty crap as it is. I think a year or two ago it was better, when it was more than just an exhaustive list of features. Perhaps the article should be tagged with a This article is written like a manual. notice.

I think the Features section should be parried down to just mention the major features and the History section should be built up again to the size it was a year or two ago. I've started this process and will continue when I have time.

I've also added a Criticism section. Please don't see this as an invitation to add every random personal gripe you have with iTunes. Please stick to our policies on WP:RS and WP:V. Anything sources with someone's anonymous ranting on a web forum will be removed promptly. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Good Work overall, but I eliminated the WP:Criticism section per policy (keeping the WP:RS information of course) as it just invites the ranting that you wished to avoid. -- KelleyCook (talk) 13:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but WP:Criticism is an essay not policy. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Why do you remove both of criticism items I've added? Okay, let's move those things to feature list - iTunes cannot remove dead links, many 3-rd party software is available to do that - itsn't it worth mentioning? And the second one, about grouping - did you read the sources?
 * About sources - which sources you consider reliable? You don't like feature lists on official sites, you don't like articles describing workarounds of missing features, you will surely remove links to forum posts.

As people already told above - apple fans will not make this article observe NPOV and will remove any edits they don't like - I see that now. And I also see that criticisms section was added just to make this article look like it is neutral, while it is not - you do not let me to add anything to it, and you threat to block me on my discussion page if I continue my edits. --Varnav (talk) 07:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:V and WP:RS on verifiability and reliability of sources. In general, sources should be third-party published, in venues with mechanisms for fact-checking and a good track record on accuracy. Self-published sources and blogs are only acceptable in exceptional circumstances. I just typed "iTunes review" into Google, and it came up with a huge list, including e.g., , , all off which look usable to me (but note that that holds for the main article only, not for user comments). They all contained some form of criticism, too. Please keep in mind that a separate criticism section is usually discouraged (though not forbidden). It is much better to work the criticism into the narrative in the proper place. Of course, it is also bad style to do a point-by-point back and forth rebuttal festival ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you insist on adding these specific criticisms to the article, you need to find reliable sources who actually make these criticisms. You can't take multiple separate sources that say WinAMP does X, Y and Z and MediaMonkey does X, Y and Z and then pointing to a third that says iTunes only does X and Y, does not constitute good sourcing. From WP:RS: "...we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves". AlistairMcMillan (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay then, this way both of my specific criticisms may be not suitable for criticism section. But then they should be integrated in the features section - as facts, not opinions. --Varnav (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed items to be added to criticism section
First item:

iTunes music library has very limited sorting and grouping functionality - only three types of views are supported, while other media libraries like MediaMonkey or Winamp can group your music by any parameter like genre, artist, year, etc.

Removed with comment: removing unneutral and false claim- iTunes can sort by artist, genre, etc. Who gets to decide how many views is enough?) - itunes can sort (in list mode), but can not group. No one decides how many views are enough, but iTunes clearly has only one type of grouping (by albums) where competing software and even iPod itself has much more types. Sources are: First source is a blog post where three types of views in iTunes are described. Second and third are feature list on the official pages of competing media libraries software.

Proposed new version, (feel free to edit):

iTunes music library has limited grouping functionality - only three types of views are supported, while other media libraries like MediaMonkey or Winamp can group your music by any parameter like genre, artist, year, etc.
 * Just to clarify, what do you mean my grouping items? I don't understand exactly how that's different than sorting.  Thanks. DaRkAgE7 (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Second item:

iTunes music library database cannot keep itself in sync with actual files on disc - if you delete or move any files changes will not be tracked by iTunes, and it will display error about missing files every time. There is a number of third party tools to solve this problem.

Removed with comment: ''This is simple. We need reliable sources. Source 1 is a bunch of anonymous posts on a forum. Source 2 is not actually criticising. Please read WP:RS, this isn't rocket science.'' - Most reliable source here - is iTunes software itself - anyone can download and check these facts by himself.

Proposed new source (feel free to offer more):

Link to official page of third party tool, where the problem of iTunes is desribed and solution offered. Take a look: Itunes library updater - is this source okay? --Varnav (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Highly support The lack of this information is shocking.mboverload @ 07:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I might be wrong, but don't you need to find a source that specifically criticizes iTunes? Even if your source states a fact (like iTunes not following files) you'll need to find a reliable source that criticizes that fact, or else it constitutes original research.  DaRkAgE7 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * True. There are 3 million+ results for "iTunes sucks" in google but they all seem to be blog entries.  Some of the writers are well known, however.  Hmmmmm....  --mboverload @  19:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay then, this item is more suitable for media management section. --Varnav (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Named criticism?
In the last paragraph of the criticism section, should the person criticizing iTunes' inability to track files be listed by name? He's not a particularly notable author, so the paragraph just feels awkward to me. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad someone was able to find a good source for this point, I'm just curious if there might be a better way to state it that is more concise. Cheers, D a R kA g E 7 [Talk] 09:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Throwing the BS Flag
This article does not for a moment begin to address the problems. It is still an iTunes PR piece. JimZDP (talk) 02:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So fix it. Be Bold.  D a R kA g E 7 [Talk] 06:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What "problems" are you talking about? If you can give us more specific pointers as to what you think is wrong, we can fix it. But vaguely saying it's a "PR piece" doesn't help us. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 11:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

FLAC support
What is the "Ogg and FLAC enclosed in an Ogg container" (from iTunes)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lykantrop (talk • contribs) 11:50, July 12, 2008


 * There is a third party component that will let iTunes play FLAC encoded music but only when it is enclosed in an OGG container. If you aren't sure what a container is in this context, this article might help. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * to prevent further confusion I have placed a link to that article on the page. NightKhaos (talk) 09:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section
I have integrated the three items that were in the Criticism section per WP:Criticism. This is Wikipedia policy that you can go argue over there and has been discussed many times in the archives for this page. By the way, reverting the change wholesale as one user last week did saying See Talk without mentioning it on Talk is not the answer. Not that the references that were in there were perfectly fine, it is the seperate section that is not. -- KelleyCook (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, and while I think it is better with the criticisms integrated, criticism sections are allowed, per WP:Criticism, which "is an essay, a page containing the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. You may follow it or not, at your discretion." It is better not to have a criticism section solely because it attracts trolls.   D a R kA g E 7 [Talk] 04:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How many times does this need to be said? WP:Criticism is NOT policy. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And if we are going to base decisions on article content on whether it will attract trolls we may as well just give up now. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So put the section back. If you'll notice, I just voiced my opinion that I think it's better with the criticisms integrated.  (but I notice you already moved one of them, and you're right, it had nothing to do with that section). If a specific criticism is appropriate to a specific section I think it fits in better in that specific section, as having pros and cons in the same place helps to give Wikipedia it's NPOV.  D a R kA g E 7 [Talk] 17:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Integrating the criticism into the article is much preferable to a separate Criticism section. If, for instance, it's a criticism of the equalizer, it should go into a section related to that. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all I'd like to note that reverting an innocuous banner that directs people to discuss the matter is poor form. Regardless a quick check of the Talk archives shows this issue has been debated at least four times before.  Furthermore it has been the policy of most Apple related pages to integrate these criticisms.  Finally, I reiterate that I have no problem with the actual criticisms (except for the wording which seems borderline POV -- "so and so has criticized"), but it shouldn't be consolidated into its own section.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ITunes/Archive_1#Criticism_of_.22Criticism.22
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ITunes/Archive_2#Criticism.3F
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ITunes/Archive_3#Criticism
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ITunes/Archive_4#Uhhhhhhh......
 * The result has been the same each time where the criticism section was integrated into the article. I would say that is pretty closes to consensus. -- KelleyCook (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry but those examples you've linked to are more to do with the criticism being removed because it is incorrect, badly written, unsourced or all three. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't change the fact that the article is BETTER with the criticisms integrated, as well as making the article more neutral. You have yet to list one good reason for a separate criticism section.  D a R kA g E 7 [Talk] 02:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You want one reason I'll give you one. It makes it a lot easier for people to find the criticism. This article is very long (about five thousand words), integrating three little paragraphs (of about two hundred words) into the article is basically hiding them. And whether the article is BETTER or more neutral with the criticisms integrated is purely a matter of opinion. There are thousands of articles with criticism sections. Concensus seems to be to include criticism sections. Especially with software articles. BTW I'm editing the heading because as it stands it is false. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 08:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

← Consensus is that criticism should be integrated within the article, but that criticism sections (if done properly, with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE considered) are not explicitly forbidden. No, integrating the criticism is not "hiding" it at all. And making it "easier for people to find the criticism" really sounds like it's giving undue weight to the criticism itself. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 11:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merged some of the criticism, however the last comment in the section, I cannot work out where to put it. Any ideas people? NightKhaos (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Criticism sections are allowed and are common throughout Wikipedia. Merging criticism into the article is hiding it, which is proved by all the comments over the last few years that questioned why the article contained no criticism when it clearly did. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that having a criticism section gives the criticism section "undue weight" as The Hand That Feeds You pointed out. As Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased, we probably should add an "Adoration" section, but to keep things balanced. ;)  It makes more sense to integrate these points, as the first two clearly fit in well in other sections of the article. As such, they belong in those sections.  D a R kA g E 7 [Talk] 04:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The WP:Criticism says that if the points can be intergrated, they should. I sucessifully intergrated them. I will not go into an edit war for this. If you see any reason to remove my edits that does comply with policy, please outline it here. I will leave the edits reverted for the moment, if anyone can see due reason why they should stay. And please do not use the tired excuse that crticism sections exsist in other articles. if that were the reasoning behind every decision, every page would be a stub, plagued with typos, etc. NightKhaos (talk) 07:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

← I apologise for my eariler comment, it was slighty harsh and ill-mannered. However I do stand behind my decision to make the edits. Let me point out to you, Alistair, that you are the only one in this conversation that disagrees with the intergration policy. Everyone else here believes that it fits with WP:NPOV or is indifferent towards it. For this reason, I believe that majority rules. However there may be others not voicing their opionion. For this reason, as I not familar with the procedure for this, in the interest for fairiness I ask that someone sets up a vote. If it is agreed that it should be intergrated, we re-revert my edit, if not, we remove the header comment from the critisism section and speck of this no more. However, the wording of the critisims, I think we all agree, will need revision in the former case. NightKhaos (talk) 09:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me start with pointing out that WP:Criticism is not now, nor has it ever been, policy. There is NO set policy on the issue and whether an article has a criticism section or not is just down to the personal opinion of the editors. Also if you read earlier sections of the Talk page (including archived discussions), there have been various discussions where people were arguing FOR a criticism section. The current Criticism section resulted from a very recent discussion.

Frankly if people were actually suggesting this content was integrated into the article as part of a larger effort to improve the article I wouldn't object. But as it stands, when all people are focusing on is the removal of the Criticism section, this effort just stinks of trying to hide any criticism of iTunes. Apologies if this offends anyone. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello? Are you reading anything I'm writing?  As a avid music lover and programmer, I realize that iTunes can certainly be improved in many ways.  I have no problem with any of the criticisms listed— they are all pretty well written and well sourced.  I just think they belong in their respective sections.  Also, please read NPOV, as this is official Wikipedia policy.  While it also does not explicitly say "No Criticism sections" it does make it clear Wikipedia shouldn't segregate sections based on the apparent POV of those sections.  It seems that your only real argument for the criticism section Alistair is that it will keep the iTunes-haters happy.  We don't re-do articles to keep vandals away, we shouldn't do it to keep trolls happy either.  D a R kA g E 7 [Talk] 17:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Al - Let me make a point here, and I think you are missing this. Having a Criticism section is NOT per WP:NPOV, not matter what you say. By highlight the issues and making them plain to see, you are making the article appear negative. You are saying that, yes, it's got all this great stuff, but there is so much bad stuff and it so important that we need to place it in another section altogether. WP:Criticism is not policy, but that DOES NOT invalidate any of the points made in the essay. The reason for integration, is not, as you seem to think, to hide the criticism, it is to put the criticism where it is relevant. It is to ensure that no undue weight is placed anywhere. Which is what my edits did. NightKhaos (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)