Talk:Zune

Finished Merge

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

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

Article merge

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

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

• Neither Project Argo nor Argo (music device) contained any information that was not also on this article. Both now redirect here as alternate names. VoiceOfReason 17:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Promotional external links

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

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

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

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

I am not sure about control, but I don't think ANY should be allowed. I think there should be the viral marketing link, and links to well-known blog posts, like Engadget. Does anyone agree? Once we come to a consensus, we can remove the article's protection. --Mambo Jambo 13:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Ryan from Engadget here. I think most of the external reference links are good, but I do feel a bit slighted how this post has gone. Almost all the substantive information on Zune was first leaked through Engadget (including the logo and product image -- which we chose not to watermark out of respect for our readers). Some of the external links are other people reblogging our content (i.e. zuneinfo, who has spammed Engadget). I added attribution for the image yesterday, but I'm not going to further edit this page... just thought you people would like to know that if you look closely most of what's out there originated from our site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanblock (talk • contribs) 09:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Do not lie Ryan, ZuneInfo.com has not spammed engadget in any way shape or form. I would actually like to know what you think it is that makes you think zuneinfo spammed you... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coops8D (talk • contribs) 05:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Coops8D, you're right, my apologies. There are a number of sites out right now with similar names to zuneinfo that are spamming us, but that does not, in fact, include you. Again, sorry for the mixup. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ryanblock (talk • contribs) 06:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Amjoe and Lph2006: You're misunderstanding the purpocse of External links on Wikipedia. Read that whole page very carefully, and you'll understand why we don't do things the way you think they should be done. The short answer is this: we're an encyclopedia, not a link farm. We don't link to blogs operated by random, non-notable people who decided to set up Wordpress for the purpose of regurgitating everything that's already been reported on a notable site like Engadget with a mix of personal opinion. It doesn't lend anything substantial to this project. -/- Warren 23:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well as for I know, Microsoft Zune (hype/rumor) has been around for say little over a month! So how are the External links listed on this page choosen?? Have they been around before 2 months? Does those sites listed here run by notable people? (Well may be one - So will I be notable if I work for say Apple?)I don't understand. Sites like Engadget does a great job of posting gadget news (every other gaddget and more) - So if there is a site that is dedicated only and only for Zune stuff & useful- Why not?--Amjoe 00:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

By what metric are you using to determine if the site is regurgitating?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hype Campaign

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

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

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

OurColony is registered through GoDaddy. ilovebees is registered through Names Direct. The fact that comingzune.com is registered by Domains by Proxy (an anonymizing service) is strange but not conclusive. The page links to very long legalese with Microsoft's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. If it's not in fact a Microsoft site, whoever owns it is guilty of massive trademark infringement. VoiceOfReason 19:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you (didn't notice the ToU before). I guess MS registers by proxy for promotional domain names. (Jim Liu 09:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC))

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

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

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

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

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

Have we all agreed it's not a fake link yet? Psycler

Zune trademark

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

Is Zune a registered trademark? If so, by whom? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.224.208 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well on the bottom of the www.comingzune.com Terms Of Service they have the following listed:

Microsoft, Zune and the Zune logo are trademarks, or registered trademarks, of Microsoft Corporation in the US and/or other countries.

I say that would allow them use of the name Zune. Please drop this issue, a company that big doesn't launch a product with a name without doing it's homework. The name stands whether you disagree or not 12.104.82.24. Zujik 15:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

----

If it were that simple, then you'd not have Linus Torvalds going around and claiming that Linux is his own trademark, even if it's not registered everywhere, as explained on this site.

I quote:

"How can Linus Torvalds or LMI have existing rights over the word Linux if it's not registered here?

Because there is such a thing as an unregistered or "common law" trade mark whereby a person acquires rights in a name just by using it."

--Bafio 14:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If the trademark issue is truly a problem, I expect we'll see it in the news soon enough. Dancter 15:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that is no excuse for users such as 216.152.184.9/Fatman2021 and 216.152.178.160 to try and strongarm changes to the Zune and Vista Wikipedia pages. An Amiga software tool isn't a prominent-enough use of the word "Vista" to displace a page disambiguating all uses for the word. It is possible that the Microsoft media platform content may need to be moved to a page other than this one, but that needs to be discussed here. Unless it is unrelated to the aims of improving the article, content on the talk pages should not be deleted. Dancter 14:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Zune

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

This has definitely been an issue as of late. There used to be no article here, and the link in the MUI article was dead. But then came the news of a Microsoft product of the same name, which caused a bit of a problem. A couple editors took it upon themselves to completely overwrite the Microsoft stuff with info on the MUI clone (I don't know why they waited until now to do so), which wasn't the best of solutions. As a temporary measure, I've adjusted the disambiguation link at the top of the page to link to the Wikibooks article. If this continues to be a serious issue, perhaps a discussion should be initiated on the possibility of a stronger disambiguation. Dancter 20:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the article has changed without reaching a consensus. As of writing, the media player is located at Microsoft Zune, with the toolkit at Zune. Due to the upcoming popularity of the media player's article, I believe "Zune" should be kept for this product. There was nothing wrong with the previous situation, as a disambiguation notice was given. Even if the article name cannot be "zune", it should not technically be called "microsoft zune". It is inappropriate to change such a significant thing without permission from others. This needs sorting, desperately. --Mambo Jambo 23:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with the stub that was there referring AROS's Zune to the correct page and Microsoft's Zune to the Microsoft Zune page? That way Microsoft's later use of the name does not cause confusion to the people who couldn't care less for their product. It also isn't fair to redirect the term to one or the other, so the dual meaning should be kept with a reference to the details of both. If the detail must exist on the Zune page, then the first use of it would be more relavent. Also note that any linking to this stub from other articles ideally shouldn't be broken - so the dual purpose stub might be the best option here. --ZhuLien 10:25, 23 July 2006 (GMT+10)

What's wrong is that you didn't discuss this rename with anyone before going ahead and doing it; Wikipedia encourages us to be bold, yes, but when working on heavily-trafficked articles, consensus-building discussion always needs to come first. This is really important. Not doing things this way results in edit wars, disruption in article development, and tehnical messes like what Akhristov is now trying to clean up. -/- Warren 00:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Given that it's less likely anyone would visit this page to find something about Microsoft Zune, the Zune Toolkit which has been around for ages and mentioned in several places on Wiki is very relavent. There has obviously been edit wars on this article in the past. I was hoping that the stub would remove the need for the edit wars (so far you have proved this isn't the case). The Vista article on Wiki is a good example of what this page should be like.--ZhuLien 10:52, 23 July 2006 (GMT+10)

The Amiga Zune article was just being started after the MS Zune article. If the Amiga Zune article would have been started earlier, it would have been bigger and maybe more important, but not necesarily recieving more traffic. But the Amiga Zune article is very small, so it can't possibly be more important. This was a small issue, and maybe no issue at all, but was made into a big mess. — Alex ^(T|C|E) 01:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The disambiguation page is definately the way to go. Something stuffed up at the top of this discussion page though, whenever article is clicked on instead of going back to the disambiguation page, it goes to the non-usefule Microsoft Zune page.--ZhuLien 13:03, 23 July 2006 (GMT+10)

The disambiguation page is definately the way to go.--Psycler

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

Music Download Service?

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

URGE is actually owned and operated by MTV. WMP 11 included tons of music download services, and URGE is just the newest one. I believe Microsoft would launch their own music download service (MSN Music perhaps?) when Zune is official. (Jim Liu 09:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC))

Messy...

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

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

Status of Merge

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

Also, I will take responsibility for causing a delay that allowed a nontrivial edit to be made at the intended home of this article. Ardric47 03:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Great Zunes, what a mess. This is worse than the last edit maelstrom. I wouldn't sweat any mistakes you may have made; I think there's plenty of blame to go around. I'm thinking at this point, though, an administrator needs to at least semi-protect these pages (if not fully protect them) until everything can be sorted out. We need to stop the bleeding. Some newbies are trying to be helpful, but are just making things more difficult. Dancter 04:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully fixed now, both talk and article pages. Honestly I've no idea what you guys were trying to do. =.= Kimchi.sg 07:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Kimchi, everything seems to be sorted. Even the redundant "Zune (toolkit)" page has been deleted. --Mambo Jambo 10:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Rename Microsoft Zune article

Now that all articles have been sorted in regards to actually getting to the pages (What a mess, it was), we can start focusing on normal Wikipedia concerns. Are there any suggestions for the name of this Microsoft Zune article? I do not think it should be left alone, because it's not technically called "Microsoft Zune", Microsoft is only running the project. I think it should be either "Zune (Media device)" or "Zune (Media product)". Bear in mind that Zune is all three things: a player (like iPod), a service (like iTunes Music Store) and the software (like iTunes). --Mambo Jambo 10:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't put to much effort into the name until Microsoft releases a press kit with an official name. For now, Microsoft Zune will do. — Alex ^(T|C|E) 13:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you're right, actually. Yeah, everything's good then. --Mambo Jambo 14:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Where's the graphics info gone?

I read an interesting tidbit that the Zune will use a 400Mhz processor. Although I marked it as "Citation needed", it's gone now! Wouldn't this be good to mark under rumors, because does a rumor need to be cited? PureLegend 17:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

A rumor needs to be cited as much, if not more than an actual fact. Because of Wikipedia's high visibility, the potential for spreading misinformation is that much greater when it is assumed that rumors don't have to be sourced. Dancter 18:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Look in the history someone removed and was really rude about it. I think wikipedia should list romours!! It is intresting!--Jimmy93211 18:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want rumours, go to a web site that specialises in it. This is an encyclopedia, not an outlet for bored bloggers. -/- Warren 18:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed it. Whether they turn out to be true or not, uncited rumours have no place on Wikipedia, period. If they were, people could start writing things like "Microsoft will include a pony and free bacon bits with every Zune^{[citation needed]}!" and that'd somehow be okay. -/- Warren 18:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Your very closed minded. This is a future product so new infomation is coming out all the time. So I think we should list rumours that are backed up but sstate they are rumours, nothing wrong with that. --Jimmy93211 21:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe the discussion is concerning uncited rumors. I don't think there is any dispute over whether a rumor can be included that has a valid reference. But rumors that aren't "backed up" do not belong. And please do not vandalize the talk page comments of other users. Dancter 22:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Theres no need to be so rude to Jimmy, with an attitude like that its a wonder anyone contributes at all for fear of getting flamed. pjcard 15:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't write Wikipedia policy, so don't waste time pointing fingers at me if you don't like it. Okay? You should review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not -- which is official Wikipedia policy, and as such, you and I are both expected to follow it -- especially where it states that Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. Start a blog if you want to extrapolate and speculate, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. If you don't like that... well... tough titties. -/- Warren 22:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I still belive I am right about listing rumours but stated they are rumours is just fine. It is infomation.

Well, you're not going to see that change. It's as simple as that, really. Uncyclopedia is for unsubstantiated rumour, go there if you want that kind of thing, but leave us out of it. -/- Warren 17:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

And please do not vandalize the talk page comments of other users. Whats that suposed to mean. --Jimmy93211 09:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's supposed to mean that in your edit of 21:47 23 July 2006, you removed the linked word "encyclopedia" from Warren's earlier comment. I assume this was probably unintentional, but please make sure you click "Show changes" before saving to avoid this kind of mistake in the future. VoiceOfReason 12:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

lol did I I just copy and pasted it but I must have cut it instead. --Jimmy93211 16:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

iRiver Partnership

I was of the belief this player would be made in a partnership with iRiver, am I wrong? Are they just going to licence the tech to iRiver? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.194.13.101 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The announcement today that Toshiba is manufacturing the Zune player should lay this one to rest. psycler 20:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

comingzune.com

This site should be removed, it is a fake and been talked about all over net. Microsoft has nothing to do with it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coops8D (talk • contribs) 01:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could provide references stating it's a fake (other than your site). Dancter 02:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

http://www.namepros.com/1377226-post370.html and just do a whois look up, its simple and right there —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coops8D (talk • contribs) 02:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The forum post seems to have merit, but the whois argument is not conclusive, as has been discussed above, where I moved your initial comment. I have added your article as a reference, though I'm a little uncomfortable with it. Ongoing issues with both The Inquirer and The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess articles have made me very wary when it comes to editors handling sites and news they are personally involved in with objectivity. Hopefully someone can find a more appropriate source. Dancter 02:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well If you look at the terms of service on the site (comingzune.com) it states that this is a site that is owned and operated by Microsoft - so what's wrong with it? The COPYRIGHT NOTICE says "Copyright � 2006 Microsoft Corporation, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, Washington 98052-6399 U.S.A. All rights reserved." and the Provacy Policy states - "Microsoft is committed to protecting your privacy..." So is it like someone is just pasting stuff from Microsoft's Privacy Policy? --Amjoe 00:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Zune Insider, which is pretty definitely official, links to it in one of their first posts. They don't say whether it's official or not, but I think if it wasn't official, they would have said so specifically. Tophtucker 00:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hows is it official? cause he said I work for Microsoft? So if i say I work for google is that official as well? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coops8D (talk • contribs) 02:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

In any case, both sides of the issue are addressed in the article. Considering how prominent the site is in the reported news, leaving out the info entirely as you've suggested, true or not, is not a fair representation. If you still have concerns with how comingzune.com is characterized, please voice them here. And also, please do not change the content of other users' comments. Dancter 04:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that Microsoft doesn't maintain a complete list of official bloggers, as far as I know. But several are pretty well known. Major Nelson's blog, for example, is often the first to break Xbox news. (Xbox.com links to his podcasts, but not his blog. I know this seems unrelated, but stick with me here...) Major Nelson has linked to the Gamerscore Blog several times, most recently when they posted the official press release announcing Fuzion Frenzy 2. Here he calls it a "Highly staffed blog from the Xbox and Games for Windows PR and Marketing team." Now look at this entry from the Gamerscore Blog: [1]. See? It says Cesar Menendez is moving to the Zune project, and with it a new blog: http://www.zuneinsider.com/. So either MajorNelson.com and Gamerscoreblog.com are total fakes and have managed to fool thousands without attracting MS' attention, or ZuneInsider.com is official. (Now you know why I didn't get into it before... :p) Tophtucker 23:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Naming of the MS product

What should be in (IMHO) as an interesting bit of trivia is that "zune" apparently sounds like Hebrew for "fuck" or "screw". It's bound to have an impact on marketing and on the introduction campaigns these days, though they won't rename the product since MS is essentially setting up everything for release. For sourcing, just try Google or whatever searching for zune and hebrew. Dysmorodrepanis 17:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is as relevant as "Vista" meaning "hen" in Latvian. — Alex ^(T|C|E) 14:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Or "Sega" means "masturbate" in Italian.

Is Zune PlaysForSure?

Is it? PureLegend 15:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No. -/- Warren 19:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Zune different models?

Will Zune offer 60GB or possibly more models? 24.200.123.174 21:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

SHould add info from this http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/top/exclusive-microsoft-zune-details-194957.php

thanks

My bad, guys

I moved the article to Toshiba 1089, and I realized after the move that I should've just left it alone and started a new article on the device, and leave the "Zune" article to talk about the project on a whole. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CanesOL79 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem, though I'd be careful about starting a new article, especially when this one is thin as it is. Dancter 18:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

If we're leaving my bads then my apologies for leaving my addition regarding the User Generate Content Sales so much like an advert. I guess I should have proofread it better and from a more objective viewpoint. My bad for getting a little too excited about the feature and not on focusing more on the development of a neutral Wiki. I'll be much more careful in future additions. psycler 20:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Under production?

"The Zune is currently under production at the Microsoft headquarters in Redmond, Washington."

Uhhh, considering the device is being built by Toshiba, I find this statement to be very difficult to believe. Yes, I am aware that the MS blogger made this claim, but I think it's basically untrue. Yes/no? Maury 20:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Anybody have a clue on how this is pronounced? I mean, since Microsofts marketing dept. have ran Coming Zune, I suppose it would be pronounced like "Soon" but with a Z sound instead. Anyone else?(Cloud02 17:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC))

USB Host

Will the Zune support USB host as the Gigabeat does?

Requested Move

Move article to plain Zune. Overwhelming majory of readers will be looking for the music player, once it's released by a factor of millions to one I'd guess. GUI toolkit can be disambiged at top of Zune page without harm to anyone. It is of very limited interest compared to the music player. This has been a matter of contention since July at least.Fourdee 03:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support. After thinking about it, sure, why not? The GUI toolkit article doesn't get much traffic anyway. — Alex ^(T|C|E) 04:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reason Virtual Console (Wii) wasn't moved to Virtual Console: Microsoft Zune isn't out yet and Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Maybe in the future. TJ Spyke 04:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support, a user is more likely to search for "Zune" than "Microsoft Zune". Zune is a trademarked word by Microsoft (see trademark 78953571). Virtual Console (Wii) can't be moved to Virtual Console because the term Virtual console is much more used as a computer term than a Wii term. However, this poll should be in Zune, not here, otherwise people that could explain the importance of the toolkit will never know about it. -- ReyBrujo 18:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support, Users will search for Zune, and not Microsoft Zune. I say that Zune should redirect here, and have a small note in the top that refers to the GUI. (Cloud02 10:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC))

Discussion

• I do see where you are coming from regarding its unreleased nature, hadn't really looked at it that way. Seems very unlikely that it will not be released though, in light of the official announcement by Microsoft and the fact that it's already being manufactured. If by same rather bizarre turn of events it were not released or were released under a different name we could always move it again... Dunno. I notice that Microsoft Zune is article number 860 out of all of Wikipedia according to WikiCharts. Where's the toolkit ranked? Fourdee 17:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Has anybody noticed the amount of vandalism going on here by mac fanboys?--Darkskedar 20:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This morning at 9:37am an anonymous user deleted the external references from the site. The references as they stood were a good, short selection of Zune news sites and blogs; all non-revenue generating. Please re-add the external references. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.191.212.111 (talk • contribs) .