Talk:IPod Touch

iPod Touch or iPod touch?

There is not a great difference between the two possibilities, but the Apple website (http://www.apple.com/ipodtouch/) write the word "touch", without capital letter. We can see the word "touch" in officials Apple websites, and "Touch" in "fan" pages. Do we have to change the title of the article or is there a reason to write it with a capital letter? --Xiglofre (talk) 09:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

In short, Wikipedia sticks to standard English capitalization. If it is a product name, the second and nth words must be capitalized. Only the first word can be left lowercase. Wikipedia does not allow a trademark owner to dictate capitalization (or lack of) like this. Groink (talk) 04:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing standard in English about capitalising product names, it's a convention not a rule. Wikipedia accepts the trademark 'iPod' without changing it to 'Ipod.' Perhaps we should use Ipod Touch?- -NotHugo- - (talk) 11:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you.--MGhostSoft (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

@NotHugu- Did you even read my statement? No you didn't, otherwise you wouldn't have said anything. Wikipedia standard allows the FIRST word to be lowercase. And THEN, Wikipedia's English standard requires the SECOND and nth word to be capitalized. Actually, the REAL namespace for this article IS IPod Touch. But to prove that Wikipedia does allow the first word to be lowercase, Wikipedia actually has a {{Lower case title}} parameter changing the title of the article. I just wish some people would do the research before commenting. But by all means, be bold and TRY to change it. Groink (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That makes no sense. There are absolutely no "standard English capitalisation" rules of product names. If there were, why wouldn't it be called the Ipod? What's so special about the first word that only it and no other words will not be capitalised? Furthermore, can you produce this English Wikipedia convention, rather than simply stating that there is one? Additionally, I don't see what MediaWiki's name-space limitations have to do with this discussion (not to mention the fact that there is no limitation on capitalisation of words past the first one). --71.167.228.75 (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the article should be called iPod touch as that is what the product is called. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with this. What is the process for formally proposing a name change? Kennethmac2000 (talk) 09:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you need to do a request for comment. If you don't figure it out I'll look into it in the next couple of days. The name change should also apply to the iPod nano and iPod shuffle. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:Requested moves --Cybercobra (talk) 10:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Move iPod Touch to iPod touch etc

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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.

The result of the proposal was do not move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
IPod Touch → iPod touch — To match Apple's product naming scheme used in the trademarks and marketing for their various models of iPod. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• iPod Nano → iPod nano
• iPod Shuffle → iPod shuffle

Note that this should also apply to iPod Mini which I forgot to add initially. I've added the notification to that talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. MOS:TM is pretty clear on this, I see no reason to ignore it. Rehevkor ✉ 14:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

How does that apply specifically in this case? The closest I can see in the guidelines is CamelCase which is described as a "judgement call". And besides Wikipedia looks pretty foolish that in the first sentence of the article it states "oh by the way this product is actually called something else". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

PS Of note if the trademark was Touch or Nano then I can see it should be capitalised as per the MOS, but that isn't the trademark here. The trademark here is iPod touch and touch is the second word. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"Choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner," i.e. Title Case. I'm mostly going via the original consensus here, I don't see how the situation has changed enough to re-discuss/ignore it. Rehevkor ✉ 14:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just taken a look at the general rules for article titles and it states specifically that the title should be written in standard English not title case i.e. "The initial letter of a title is capitalized (except in very rare cases, such as eBay). Otherwise, capital letters are used only where they would be used in a normal sentence (Funding of UNESCO projects, not Funding of UNESCO Projects).". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The standard English for trademarks is title case, surely? "Funding of UNESCO Projects" is a bad example as it's not, as far as I can see, a trademark. Rehevkor ✉ 15:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I've looked further and you are right that according to MOS:TM you should "Capitalize trademarks, as with proper names." but MOS:PN seems to leave it ambiguous. The closest I can see is "Wikipedia does not seek to judge such rival claims, but as a general rule uses the name which is likely to be most familiar to readers of English." so if you can do a case sensitive web search that would settle that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure MOS:PN is really referring to the capitalisation, it doesn't effect someone's famililarity with the name. I feel MOS:TM would override it anyway. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on interpenetration, in my eyes the MOS is perfectly clear in this case. Rehevkor ✉ 15:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per Rehevkor. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 14:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't have a valid reason though. Reading both bits of the manual of style makes it clear that iPod touch is the "correct" title to use. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

As per the above and it being ambiguous I'm retracting the above comment. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Why is the article about IKEA on the English Wikipedia permitted to use the all-caps form "IKEA" throughout, despite this also not being standard English usage for trademark names? (Let's ignore for a moment the fact that the trademark owner claims that IKEA is an acronym, since the trademark owner's views are apparently not relevant.) Kennethmac2000 (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, note that the MOS relating to trademarks says that rules may be broken if they improve Wikipedia. I would say that it would very clearly improve Wikipedia to accurately capture the *actual* product name of the various iPods. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you'd have to bring that up at the IKEA article, because that's not relevant here (read WP:OTHERSTUFF). I see no reason to ignore the MOS in this case. Rehevkor ✉ 16:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to accept that you've interpreted the manual of style differently from me, but the manual of style isn't black and white on the issue as we've both interpreted it differently. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose (weak oppose) While there is the exception for the for the lowercase letter at the beginning in the manual of style it doesn't change that the rest should follow normal capitalization. PaleAqua (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose MOS:TM seems fairly clear that we should "[f]ollow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official"". I would consider the Touch to be a proper noun, as a product name, and thus capitalized. WP:CAPS does say we should only capitalize the first word of a title, but notes proper nouns as an exception. It's also somewhat helpful to title the article the same way we spell it in prose. Fletcher (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by this reasoning that proper nouns have to be capitalised in English. Accord to the article you linked above they are usually capitalised but not always "In "English and most other languages that use the Latin alphabet, proper nouns are usually capitalized.". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

PS From WP:CAPS "For page titles, always use lowercase after the first word, and do not capitalize second and subsequent words, unless the title is a proper noun. For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper noun that would always occur capitalized, even in the middle of a sentence." which seems to leave it ambiguous again. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It is far less ambiguous than you think; the rule for capitalizing proper nouns seems to be one of the language's more consistent. The only exceptions I can find are that earth, sun, moon, and the four seasons are proper nouns but do not need to be capitalized (usually). Otherwise proper nouns are capitalized in standard English. It's possible a house style would override the standard rules, but our house style, per MOS:TM, seems to be that we do not. Fletcher (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment I was doing some further research on the proper nouns and there are some proper nouns that aren't capitalised. i.e. The sun was shining when Bill paid for his house for 300 000 euros (500 000 dollars) in the autumn. So if Apple doesn't want to capitalise touch in iPod touch there is a definite precedent. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, you've cited policy (which MOS:TM should override anyway), you've given precedent in English language (most of which are already established exceptions in WP:MOSCAPS, which MOS:TM should again override), but I've yet to see a proper reason why this change needs to be made. What is the reason to ignore MOS:TM in this case? What advantage comes from ignoring it and proper English? Rehevkor ✉ 16:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Good question. In my opinion the reason for changing it is because iPod touch is the name given to the product by Apple. Additionally changing the title means we can get rid of the "(trademarked, marketed and stylized as iPod touch)" bit from the beginning of the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support This has always seemed ridiculous to me. Somehow it is okay to ignore "standard english" for the word iPod but it is not okay to ignore "standard english" for "iPod touch". It seems incredibly arbitrary to draw the line after the first word. And previous discussions on this just devolved into nonsense. Firstly the Wikipedia Manual of Style is a fluid document like all the rest of the site, that is applied patchily like all the rest of the rules on this site. So the arguments that we should do this solely because of the MoS (which I hasten to point out is just a guideline not a policy) are dubious. Also the argument that we should not follow Apple's style of capitalisation because that is helping their marketing is absolute nonsense. If we were really worried about not helping Apple's marketing department we would be deleting this article and removing all mention of the products from the site, not capitalising their product names slightly differently. I am so glad that people have proposed this nomination. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I would respond that it's helpful to think about the reason we capitalize: to help set off a particular, named thing from a class of generic objects. With that in mind, iPod is capitalized, just in a weird way at the second letter. Words like iPhone, iMac and iPod are very distinguishable in a sentence, and it's not surprising this spelling has gained traction among the public. I don't think "touch" is the same way, and I doubt most people are aware Apple has its own idiosyncratic spelling. I certainly was not, until I read this thread, and I own one. (It doesn't help that the name of the product isn't even on the Touch! It's just called "iPod"). I find your other two arguments a bit specious: the fact that we don't have fixed rules doesn't mean we don't have any rules, and the fact that we don't need to help Apple's marketing doesn't mean we're trying to hurt Apple, so there's no reason we would have to remove our coverage of its products. Fletcher (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Certainly my first generation iPod touch is labelled that on the box. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment of note on Fletcher's comment that if the article title is changed that the prose will be wrong, that can easily be fixed by using the Find/Replace feature of a text editor, it'll take a couple of minutes to do. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I realize that but please don't. Fletcher (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I'll only do that if the article is renamed, otherwise it would be silly. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. We capitalize proper nouns, even if the trademark holder prefers otherwise. Jafeluv (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Why are we so keen to dismiss trademark holders' views as if they were totally irrelevant? If I spend x million USD on R&D bringing a product to market, you'd think the least I could do is choose whether to use lower or upper case letters in the name. Also, this alleged standard in English of capitalizing second and later words in proper nouns is, in my view, actually something more specific to US English than to English generally. Many writers of British English take the same approach as is normal in most other European languages (obviously excluding German) of capitalizing only the first word in a multi-word proper noun. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 09:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

  We're "keen to dismiss" them because it inconveniences readers. There are plenty of trademark holders who insist on using a particular font when referring to their products as well; we likewise ignore that. As for the argument that title case means something different in UK and US English, it does not. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

  Hello Mr Cunningham - I believe we've met before. Perhaps you can explain in concrete terms how it "inconveniences readers" for iPod touch to be spelt thus? If someone writes an article and references Wikipedia, thus causing them to spell iPod touch "iPod Touch", how is this helpful? Regarding your point about title case, it is correct that title case (as opposed to sentence case) means the same in British and American English. However, the usage of title case as compared to sentence case is clearly different. In newspaper headlines, for example, British English uses sentence case like most other European languages, whereas American English often uses title case. And interestingly on the Wikipedia page about proper nouns it is said, "Languages differ in whether most elements of multiword proper nouns are capitalised", and the article then goes on to cite an example of American English usage. I also read elsewhere an example of Transport for London using lower case in the names of Underground lines, eg, "Circle line", "Northern line", etc. 92.225.99.173 (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Given Wikipedia follows the sentence case rules for its titles generally and given Northern line, Piccadilly line etc are proper nouns with a lower case second word that is a good piece of evidence in favour of changing it to iPod touch etc. (nice example by the way). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"Northern line" is a peculiarity of the language, whereby it's only the "Northern" part which is really the title and the "line" simply accompanies it for the sake of clarity. It's a completely different situation to "iPod touch", where the latter word is an important part of the branding. The difference with newspapers is simply that British newspapers use sentence case for their titles, not that they treat title case differently.

I suppose you might say you were going on the Bakerloo to get somewhere, but that's only because Bakerloo doesn't have any other meaning other than as a tube line, but most of the others you do use line as part of the title. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not British, but I can use Google: The Guardian uses title case for Northern Line, as does the BBC. The majority of Google results seem to favor title case, reflecting that title case is intuitive for most people. However, there is some support for your view at the tube's website (last paragraph here), but I think the above explanation is correct: "line" is not actually part of the formal name. The tube maps just refer to District, Northern, Picadilly, etc. The common noun "line" has to be added in prose to specify what is being discussed. Note also that the Tube capitalizes other unambiguously proper names, such as the London Underground or London Overground. You can see this here where it says things like "Operating under a new TfL London Rail Concession, London Overground services will also run on the extended East London line." A section heading on the same page is given as "Other National Rail services" reinforcing that proper nouns are capitalized, even where sentence case is used for titles. Fletcher (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

And it inconveniences readers to have "iPod touch" because English speakers expect that proper nouns are presented in title case in prose, and breaking that rule for the sake of Apple's typographical whims makes it difficult for readers to tokenise a sentence. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed, especially as other forms of titles don't capitalise their second word. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking for here. Are you genuinely disputing the assertion that proper nouns are presented in title case in the English language? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if it wasn't clear - I'm challenging the assertion: "and breaking that rule for the sake of Apple's typographical whims makes it difficult for readers to tokenise a sentence." -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, people have written papers on the subject. I'm not sure exactly how you'd prove the counterargument. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Whit!? What has that article got to do with the "tokenizing" of words by human beings? Also, if you have a read through Apple's iPod touch pages <http://www.apple.com/ipodtouch/>, do you find yourself struggling left, right and centre to tokenize the words on the page? I doubt it somehow. Language evolves - under the influence of both people and organizations - and it is rather pathetic if Wikipedia can't keep up with that. One final point - the Wikipedia MOS specifically states that the rules (even as you interpret them) may be broken if they improve Wikipedia. This is a case where we have a product which is utterly contemporary in nature and where, like nowhere else, we should be improving Wikipedia by reflecting modern-day reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennethmac2000 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless you're arguing that the process by which humans tokenise sentences is fundamentally different from the one used in that paper, I would say that it's directly applicable. As for breaking the rules when it would improve the encyclopedia, it is very much disputed that breaking them here would be an improvement. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that. That paper is about machine processing as far as I can see. I am glad that you at least concede that the rules can be broken if there is a reason to, so blind citing of the MOS will no longer be necessary. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 11:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree, while "iPod touch" is the official trademark, using it that way looks unnatural in sentences and while some latitude must be made for breaking style conventions I don't see what it would buy us here. Consider the sentence fragment "...iPod touches upon...", depending one the rest of that sentence it could either be referring to an "iPod" or "iPod touches." While a bit contrived it shows the ambiguity from using lower case. I don't buy that just because that is the trademark that using it that way would improve the encyclopedia. Should we also set the word "touch" in a lighter weight type, after all that is how the trade mark is as well. Also the capitalization of headers is a different issue from capitalizing proper nouns. PaleAqua (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I like contrived examples. However, I dispute the relevance of your example in this case. There are many examples in English (and in many natural language) of situations where the same combination of words out of context can have more than one meaning. As human beings we are used to that. Perhaps your example is an argument for modifying the English language. It is not, in my view, an argument for not spelling iPod touch with the correct capitalization. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 11:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Your reply (and, for the benefit of others, conversations we've had off-wiki in days of yore) brings up another point: you'd prefer for us to drop the definite article when referring to "iPod" and "iPhone" as well, no? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Totally off-topic and irrelevant to this discussion. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"iPod touch" is not the correct capitalization; it is Apple's capitalization. You assume one corporation is the arbiter of the English language, but this is not the case. Language is flexible of course and sometimes we can choose to disobey the rules, but our house style is presently not to defer to the cutesy spellings companies use to market their products. Due to the ambiguity of "touch" also being a regular common noun and verb, breaking our rules in this case would make the article less readable. The only apparent benefit is to appease Apple and those poor souls caught in the RDF. Fletcher (talk) 12:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Bringing up the RDF is fairly unnecessary, I for one am perfectly capable of criticising Apple for the things that they actually do that are bad, such as the censorship on the AppStore. Just because I feel Apple's spelling in this case should be used - and that the MOS is ambiguous on it doesn't make me an Apple fanboi, and I think that assumption on anyone else isn't reasonable the majority of comments on both sides have been sensible and constructive IMO. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for any offense (and to Kenneth to whom I directed the comment). I note I didn't go so far as to accuse anyone of fanboyism (while that could be inferred, I meant something a bit less extreme). But still, I don't see any benefit in doing it Apple's way, other than to do it Apple's way. And I don't think the guidelines are as ambiguous as you think. Fletcher (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem :). With regards to the guidelines I feel the guidelines are trying to prevent the Rolex article being called ROLEX or the Seven TV series article being called Se7en or something rather than Apple using a slightly unusual form of proper noun for the iPod touch that is used fairly often for words like summer. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me the spirit of the guidelines is that we don't change the English language to accommodate trademark holders, regardless of how unusual is the company's preferred spelling (allowing for a few exceptions noted at MOS:TM). For instance, "thirtysomething" and "yellow tail" are not very unusual words (like Se7en), yet the guideline cites them as examples that should be capitalized when used as proper nouns. While you are right there are a small number of exceptions to the rule that we capitalize proper nouns, the word "touch," and product names generally, are not considered exceptions. Note also the seasons are capitalized in some contexts, such as if you refer to a particular year - "I enrolled in Fall 2010". If Apple released an "iPod summer", I think we would capitalize the 's' because it is being used in a different context, and could create confusion with the season. Fletcher (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous assertion. Whilst you are perfectly entitled to your point of view, which I'm sure is shared by many others, it is rather far-fetched to contend that no-one who is not an obsessive Apple fan would like Wikipedia articles to reflect the naming conventions used by trademark holders. What if Apple decided to call the next iPod the iPod lkjadkjsdfkjhsjdh? Would we name the article something different on the basis that lkjadkjsdfkjhsjdh isn't a valid word in the English language? Or, rather more plausibly, what if they decided to call it the iPod xPert? Would we insist on calling it the iPod Xpert (or, knowing some of you, iPod Expert)? What about the iPod i3? Would we insist on renaming this to iPod Ithree? Where does this obsessive-compulsive blind adherence to rules and regulations end? (And please do respond on the specific examples I have given.) Kennethmac2000 (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Reductio ad absurdum is hardly productive. The rule is quite simple: unless there is overwhelming consensus to use an alternative format (such as for iSomething, as the format is over ten years old and has entered the public lexicon through Apple's continuous use of it) then we do not follow random typographical anomalies in trademarks. In this case, there is nothing to suggest that it isn't just a random, annoying gimmick from Apple's marketing wing. It's ignored as often as it is heeded in reliable sources. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

In that case it the article should be called "iPod Lkjadkjsdfkjhsjdh", and any common name used for it should be in the article. Though if Apple used such a name but almost all outside sources used a common name such as the "iPod Alphabet Soup" I could potentially see arguments for using that as the title assuming that the official name was cited at the beginning of the introduction. For "iPod xPert", seems to me that the exception would apply for both words and it should be "iPod xPert". "iPod i3" might be a more interesting case as it is possible one where it might make sense to use the leeway in the style guidelines, especially say if there was also an "iPod L3" or "iPod 13". PaleAqua (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

So if Apple called the touch the iPod tOuch, we would let that spelling stand? Or is there some rule which differentiates xPert from tOuch? Following the MOS literally I think we would actually have to call the xPert the Xpert and the i3 the Ithree! Kennethmac2000 (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't party to the discussions that created the guideline, but I suspect the justification for the exception for second letter capitalization is that some of these words (iPod, eBay) have gained considerable traction among the public. Remember, it is the public that shapes usage, not single companies (though companies sometimes can influence the public). Now, it's possible "tOuch" would gain similar traction, but I doubt it because the "ou" form a single sound and capitalizing one letter seems to interfere with pronunciation and readability. By contrast, "iTouch" likely would be accepted, most likely because the capital 'T' is placed at the beginning of a new syllable. Fletcher (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

So traction amongst the public is the key decider is it? OK, so what if FedEx changes its name tomorrow to The Federal Express Parcel Deliverer but everyone keeps calling it FedEx for the next five years? Do we keep the article about the company with the name FedEx, or, more likely, do we change the name of the article to The Federal Express Parcel Deliverer but then reflect somewhere in the article the fact that many people continue to call the company FedEx? Kennethmac2000 (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually traction among the public is the criteria, see Burma which is still called Burma even though it should be Myanmar. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I would posit that the retention of the name Burma for the Myanmar article is more political than anything related to style. And there is by no means a concensus for that name anyway, as is evidenced by the fact that the article name is locked. My point was: if a company decides to rebrand itself under a new name, but most people keep using the old name for a year or two, should we also keep the old name, or should we use the new, correct name? For example, General Motors renames itself to Poweron Cars but everyone keeps calling it GM? Do we seriously keep the article at General Motors and then only mention in the body text, "now officially known as Poweron Cars"? I thought the point of an encyclopedia was to be correct, not to simply reflect what the man on the street says or thinks. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The "correct" article title is that which is most recognizable to a general audience, as reflected in reliable sources. One may expect reliable sources, and the public in general, to accede to a company's rebranding, but if there is for some reason a dispute, we would continue to use the most widely known name. Fletcher (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

More likely it would be kept as FedEx or Federal Express with that unusual title noted in the lede. Note that FedEx is technically FedEx Corporation but the article is simply titled FedEx, as that is how they are known. WP:TITLE lists some criteria for naming articles and does not require the owner's formal title to be used, though in many cases the formal name and popular name will coincide well enough. However if the owner insists on an unwieldy title that is not adopted by the public or reliable sources, the guidelines suggest we would use a more common and recognizable name. It seems like hairsplitting but keep in mind the article title refers to the topic of our Wikipedia article. It is not a quotation of a name used by some other organization (WP:PRECISION). Fletcher (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have anything to add to the above responses, except to note that MOS:TM easily answers Kenneth's questions, if he would read it. There is no requirement for the article title to be an existing English word, and there are exceptions noted for CamelCase and words that are capitalized at the second letter. Fletcher (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I have read the MOS, disagree with its contents on this topic, think that the best way of getting it changed is through a bottom-up/grassroots approach, but think that all that is irrelevant anyway since the MOS provides specific cases where the rules may be broken. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not one of those cases, however. I see no benefit in breaking the rules of English and our own guideline. Fletcher (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2010 (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.

8GB Model

Please note for future edits that the 8GB iPod is NOT a third-generation device. The specifications on Apple's website are those of the original 2nd-generation device, and they are separate for a reason. It does not belong in the table with "Third". Thanks! Dustin Howett (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed Pumapayam (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It is still be sold and produced by apple as far as I know though, the graph at least should include that fact.Altairantares (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This issue is still not fixed, it still lists the 8gb in the 3rd generation table. It is still a 2nd generation device being sold concurrently, in the same manner as the iPhone 3G and iPhone 3GS Amdavidson (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually the 8GB is a third generation. I have one. The way to tell if it is third or not is that the third has voice memos. Also the stocks app logo is slightly different. And mine has those two apps that come default and it is an 8GB. Just to clarify with you the third has voice memos which mine has and it is an 8gb. And mine has the default Third Generation Home Screen. The Guitar Master (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

But it doesnt have the internals. The new 8gb model still has the old crappy RAM and CPU whereas the 32 and 64 gig models have the faster ones out of the iphone 3GS.134.36.36.107 (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The new iPod touch is definite 2G instead of 3G according to a clue on official website

OK, now we can ensure that the new iPod touch is still 2nd generation instead of 3rd. Please go to Apple Store and find an iPod accessory, such as this, and pay attention to the compatibility: the most advanced iPod touch is still 2nd generation, but this is not data delay, because iPod nano 5G is there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mghostsoft (talk • contribs) 13:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I need to disagree. While the Apple store may list the 2008 touch as equivalent to the 2009 touch in terms of compatible accessories this is simply not the case in terms of the 2009 32 and 64 device capabilities and hardware. As there is no accessory incompatibility between 2008 and 2009 it makes sense that Apple would not differentiate between them to assist customers in purchasing compatible accessories.

There are many data points that indicate that the 32 and 64 GB 2009 models are a new generation: The device codes (which come from Apple) are 3,1 up from 2,1, indicating significant hardware changes (2009 8gb remains 2,1). The Apple site tech specs lists the 8gb model separate from the 32 and 64 gb models. Those same specs show a video and main processor that is upgraded on the 2009 32 and 64 models. The model number starts with "MC" in the 2009 models, 2008 models were listed as "MB" and the origional 2007 as "MA." Many (all I have seen) official resellers list the 2009 model as "3rd Generation." All other references to the 2009 ipod Touch on this and other wikipedia pages refering to the 2009 ipod touch refer to it as the 3rd Generation. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_iPhone_and_iPod_Touch_models

Which lists the 32 and 64 as separate 3rd gen models from the 8gb models.

Due to the preponderance of evidence pointing to the 32 and 64 as a 3rd gen model and the 8gb a reduced price hold over from last year I am looking for more evidence that the 2009 32 and 64s should be considered 2nd gen beyond the omission of a 3rd gen listing on the Apple Store. I'll wait a few days but unless more info surfaces I'm going to lobby for the 2009 32 and 64 to be listed as 3rd generation Dopplerd (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it's already being treated as a 3rd gen on Wiki since the announcement, any lobbying to be done would be in favor of having the new 32 and 64 be treated as a 2nd gen on Wiki. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 02:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Go to http://manuals.info.apple.com/en_US/iPod_touch_3.1_User_Guide.pdf In this manual, whenever Apple wants to distinguish between the 2008 and 2009 models, Apple uses the following: "(available only on Fall 2009 models with 32 GB or more)." Apple is not calling this a 3rd generation product. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.23.195 (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This is only because of the physical shape of the iPods. The accessory has to be listed as compatible with the 5th generation iPod nano because the 5th and the 4th differ in physical shape (at least the screen). The 2nd generation iPod touch compatibility label is still there and not the 3rd generation because the 2nd and the 3rd are exactly the same physical shape; ergo, if it is compatible with the 2nd generation iPod touch, it is compatible with the 3rd generation. It is simply unneccessary to even list the 3rd generation as compatible. 69.255.16.132 (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

iPod Touch 3G has double the ram?

That statement in the first paragraph must be cited, because I myself have been researching if it has and this is the ONLY article I have found on the internet that claims it has double the RAM. Only the processor speed has been confirmed when it comes to system performance. And it's still not cited. --70.78.217.15 (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It does. You can check it if you jailbreak it. The current lower end (8gb) ones dont though, but all the bigger ones do.

Yep. The 3g ipods (with the exception of the 8gb one) have the internals out of the iphone 3gs.134.36.36.107 (talk) 01:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

iPod Touch 2nd gen Mark 2

Apple still call the new iPod touch the 2nd gen, so shouldn't we do the same?

That is probably reasonable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Move to iPod touch

If "iPod" is to be capitalized with lower case, "touch" should also reflect the marketed name. ArtistScientist (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

There was a long discussion some archives back when we decided that, per WP:MOS-TM, we should not use the "touch" "mini" "nano" or other such marketed names. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Its being re-discussed above Talk:IPod Touch#Move iPod Touch to iPod touch etc -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

According to Apple.com, the iPod touch 3G does NOT exist

See this page:
http://www.apple.com/support/ipod/service/prices/#us
All iPod touch models are as follows:



iPod touch 8 GB
iPod touch 8 GB (2nd gen.)
iPod touch 8 GB (Late 2009)
iPod touch 16 GB
iPod touch 16 GB (2nd gen.)
iPod touch 32 GB
iPod touch 32 GB (2nd gen.)
iPod touch 32 GB (Late 2009)
iPod touch 64 GB (Late 2009)



It would be great to correct the Wikipedia page.

Thanks! Iforget2020 (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, several other pages on Apple refer to the newest iPod touch as 2nd late 2009. PaleAqua (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No 3rd-gen iPod touch 8gb

The 8gb iPod touch was not updated to the improved 3GS-like specs in Sept. 2009, similar to the $99 iPhone 3G holdback. The main article doesn't seem to make this distinction clear, especially the info table listing the info on each generation. Could this be updated to be more clear? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.173.52.23 (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? Sorafune +1 19:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The claim is backed up by the other Wikipedia article "List of iPod models". I know from first-hand experience, because I bought an 8GB "third generation" iPod touch 8GB, believing from this very Wikipedia page that it had third generation features such as more RAM and a faster processor. But it doesn't - as the guy says, there is no such thing as a third generation 8GB iPod touch. The 8GB model still available is second generation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.31.61 (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Its also made clear in the press release. There is a bit of an edit war going on on this topic. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Apple refers to the September 2009, 8 GB iPod Touch also as a late 2009 model. See "iPod touch 8 GB (Late 2009) - Technical Specifications". and "iPod touch: Which iPhone 3.1 Software features does my iPod touch support?".. Many other pages support pages mention the late 2009 8 gb models. For pages that talk about features that only the 32 GB and 64 GB models support they use an asterisk after the late 2009 model name and clarify at the end, for example "iPhone 3GS and iPod touch (Late 2009)*: Supported languages for Voice Control and VoiceOver".. Further more what I get from the press release is that the 32 and 64 GB models are new sizes. And while the press release by itself would imply that the 8 GB is not a new model, it doesn't say that outright and with the numerous other pages at the primary source talking about a late 2009 GB I don't think that it can be used as an argument against. Also third generation appears to be the wrong term base on the above sources. PaleAqua (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I must remind everyone here that it is only Apple that decides the generations of its products, and not any other party (magazines, blogs, MSM, etc.) This has been the tradition of its Macintosh products - and it will continue with its other products like the iPod and iPhone. I'm seeing some editors using criterion to establish generations, such as features, speed, technical specifications, and so on. None of these should establish the generations. Only Apple can decide on this. Consistency must be established here; we do not have this if a consumer compares what he reads at apple.com with what's here on Wikipedia. Groink (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I can confirm that the 8gb 3rd gen touch is in fact prettymuch the same as the old one. It doesnt have the new internals like the iphone 3gs and its larger counterparts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.36.107 (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I also bought a late 2009 8 GB iPod touch and understand what you are talking about for specs, but just because it is the same feature wise as the second generation model doesn't mean that it isn't a separate model. The solution as I see it is not to declare that there isn't a late 2009 8 gb iPod Touch but to find a source and state that it is identical (except for initial software load and rated battery life). PaleAqua (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Apple clearly stated that the 8GB has the internals of the 2nd gen iPod touch, whereas the 32 and 64GB models have the internals of the 3GS. --Aizuku (talk) 07:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I attempted to clarify the model table by splitting out the late 2009 8gb. Seem like a reasonable approach? PaleAqua (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

IMO in that case a clarification should to be made with the truly 3rd generation iPod touches with higher capacity. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Then again if Apple calls the new ones (as mentioned above here) still section generation as it is is probably fine, maybe there could be a footnote could explain the difference. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The model table show the difference, though perhaps something in the prose some where could be changed to state the difference more explicitly. Also I'm beginning to think that refering to the late 2009 models as either second or third generation confuses the situation and just the given name should be used. We also probably should add a note somewhere though that the late 2009 models are commonly referred as 3rd generation outside of Apple. PaleAqua (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Requesting image for iPod touch (late 2009)

In terms of exterior design it looks no different than the 2nd gen iPod touch, so we only need a screenshot of the home screen to show the added Voice Memos app, and have it pasted on top of the image of 2nd gen iPod touch we already have. --Aizuku (talk) 07:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Which you might be able to get from the iPhone article. Or just leave it. It's not worth having two images in the table, since we're walking a tightrope with fair use images anyway. (And by that I mean shhh.) HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually the iPhone home screen has an icon for the camera, which the Touch does not have. :( Fletcher (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Added the new icons to the image. hope it looks ok. Fletcher (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately that picture is supposed to show OS 2.0. Probably should be in different file. PaleAqua (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I placed it in a different file now. Fletcher (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Nicely done, thanks. --Aizuku (talk) 06:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Consistency / Style

Just been wondering about how consistent we should make the wording. For example using "models" for original, 2nd gen, and late 2009 vs "versions" for memory sizes. Also should the 1st generation be, "original", "first generation", "1st gen", or "1st generation"? Apple doesn't seem to use any qualifier and just refers to it as "iPod Touch", see [1]. Likewise with the second, looks like Apple uses "2nd generation" based on that link and also see the search results on their support page [2] when searching for "second generation". Finally should "Late 2009" as the proper name of a model always be in caps because of the proper noun requirements? It looks a little weird to say stuff like "The Late 2009 ...." but I think it may be right if I understand the style guidelines. PaleAqua (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• It seems we are consistently using "version" to refer to each flash memory variant, and "model" to refer to overall set of products released at the same time. Seems like a good idea.
• Your second question is trickier. IMHO we should treat "late 2009" as a compound adjective, which can be lowercase. I think that Apple tries to keep its product names simple, but is forced to come up with these strange names for technical support purposes. If you download the user manual, it actually refers to the "Fall 2009" models instead of Late 2009. There is a good chart here listing all the iPod names. It's quite arcane: apparently "generation" is to be lowercase, but the phase of the year (Early, Mid, Late) is always capitalized. Beyond that, I can't figure it out: iPod (Click Wheel) is capitalized but iPod (dock connector) is lowercase. It would take a certain degree of fanaticism to try to synchronize our capitalization of Apple's products exactly as the company prefers. We should capitalize what is unambiguously a proper noun, but these weird tech support names can be considered adjectives describing the primary name of the product. Fletcher (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes it was fairly consistant before with how version and model were used so I had just fixed up the rest. As to the second part, fortunately we only have to worry about the iPod touch names from that chart. Sounds like the models names are not really proper names and just designations which I believe would indicate lower case. As an aside I note that that chart doesn't list the 8 GB with a late 2009 designation. Also, I'm not arguing to keep our capitalization consistant with Apple's but that we should be self consistent. I'm leaning towards the opinion that we should use lower case for "late 2009". Per WP:ORDINAL, sounds like we should use "2nd generation" according to the last bullet of that policy "Proper names, formal numerical designations ... comply with common usage". Formal numerical designations is the bit I think that applies here. PaleAqua (talk) 04:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. I would guess the 8 GB Touch was not listed with the late 2009 models because it was a continuation of the earlier 8 GB model. IIRC it wasn't upgraded so they could offer one version at a low price. Fletcher (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've made the rest of the changes, using lower case for "late 2009", and consistently using 1st, 2nd and 3rd for generations, with lowercase "generation" and the word generation always fully spelled out. Still thinking that "original" might be better for 1st generation. PaleAqua (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"Original" is what we use over at iPhone. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

iTouch name in article

This was added to the article earlier and I've found 3 reliable sources showing it, the NZ Herald article is explicit. Though as its in the FAQ its controversial, can it be discussed in this thread if anyone objects to it now? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you show me the sources? NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ msg • changes) 21:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/mac-planet/news/article.cfm?c_id=1502175&objectid=10595780&pnum=2 http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gamesblog/2009/oct/16/dungeon-hunter-iphone-game-review and http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/itouch/

The NZ Herald one is explicit, but the other two clearly mix the use of both terms. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed from the FAQ. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Firmware version is now 3.1.3

3.1.3 (7E18) to be exact. Instead of 3.1.2 (7D11) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyrol (talk • contribs) 15:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

microphone support in iPod touch 8GB

"The 8 GB version is a reissue of the 2nd generation iPod touch hardware, includes OS version 3.x, but does not include support for Voice Control or the remote earphones with microphone.[10]"

Actually iPod touch 8GB supports voice memos: . Therefore it should support microphone. 84.223.98.126 (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Luca V. (Apr. 2, 2010)