This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
apps on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AppsWikipedia:WikiProject AppsTemplate:WikiProject Appsapps articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
I object to linking to
iPod Touch as 'iTouch' as this is neither indicated in any of the sources, nor is this what the product is called by either its manufacturer or wikipedia. Furthermore, I am not aware of any wikipedia policy or guideline that states an article has to have a certain meter or "phrase flow".
riffic (
talk)
12:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)reply
"
iPhone and
iTouch" (both two syllables, and both starting with the same syllable) has better prose flow than "
iPhone and
iPod Touch". We should strive to make articles read as smoothly as possible, and quality of prose is indeed something that is a big factor in, for instance,
featured article candidates. "
iTouch" is a commonly-used abbreviation (nearly 10 million Google hits) for the
iPod Touch. Additionally, you are wrong that the product is not referred to as such by either its manufacturer or its Wikipedia article. There are over 200,000 hits for "iTouch" on apple.com (see
[1]), and the Wikipedia article mentions that "iTouch" is a commonly-used abbreviation for the product. —
Lowellian (
reply)
02:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Note: The current revision of the Wikipedia article on the
iPod Touch does not mention "iTouch" because
User:Riffic removed the word from the article in this edit:
[2]. The article previously did mention the common "iTouch" usage. —
Lowellian (
reply)
01:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)reply
"phrase flow" by using nicknames is a brand-new argument for me. I've never heard of this argument used when editing Wikipedia. It's like saying we've got to keep Wikipedia to a 6th grade reading level, so that even
ESL readers can enjoy Wikipedia. As for the argument that X number of hits for a given nickname come up in Google, Google finding X occurrences of a word just means Google found X number of badly sourced references. Try looking up "dubya george bush" in Google; you'll find 400,000 hits. But, you won't find a "Dubya" in any part of the Wikipedia article about
George W. Bush. itouch is just simply a term used to show the user's affection of the device. Otherwise, the MSM as well as many published books use "iPod touch" in its reporting.
Groink (
talk)
08:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Actually, the mainstream media commonly uses the term "iTouch" (I found these on
Talk:IPod Touch):
These sources (as mentioned on
talk:iPod Touch) do not in any way explicitly mention who uses the term itouch, or why. Hence, they did not back up the claimed fact that was removed from
iPod Touch and they do not serve as verifiable references. That is why they were removed. Furthermore there are Manual of Style concerns with using a nickname instead of a product's proper name in your usage in this article (
My Brute).
riffic (
talk)
06:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)reply
All three of those so-called MSM articles are nothing more than blogs. MSM sites host blogs - that's a common thing nowadays. But, a blog is far from being a mainstream news article. Anytime an article is written in the first person, IMO it is a blog. Bloggers do constantly use "itouch" because most of them write like they speak. Blogs are not considered reliable sources, since bloggers are difficult to qualify individually as experts or other authoritative figures in the field..
Groink (
talk)
06:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
My Brute. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
Just got nostalgic and took a look. The site is still there, but the game requires Flash Player, and that doesn't exist anymore.
Carlo (
talk)
21:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)reply