![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I have never seen a Nano like that. My friend got one in may and the screen was FLUSH with the front of the Nano. It should be removed until someone can vertify that the screen on new Nanos are indeed recessed.- Delta Spartan 22:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Can anybody tell me how to do that thing where you make the screen look like a checkerboard, or like a broken TV or something? Some boy did it with my iPod nano and he won't show me how, but I almost did it. Almost. So I need someone to show me how to finish. And other "geeky tricks" would be neat too. - Brazenbell - P.S. I hope I haven't offended anyone with the word "geek". If I have, feel free to call me one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.45.195.111 ( talk • contribs) 22:09, August 7, 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was move. -- tariqabjotu 16:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
IPod nano → IPod Nano – Per WP:MOS-TM, "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment." This is the same reason Game Boy micro was moved to Game Boy Micro as well despited the correct name being with a small m. TJ Spyke 23:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
Surely, if we were following standard capitalisation rules, this article shouldn't have {{lowercase}} on it either? Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 00:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) clearly states Lowercased trademarks with internal capitals do not need to be capitalized if the second letter is capitalized. The trademark is "iPod nano". The second letter is capitalised. AlistairMcMillan 00:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Move. AlistairMcMillan 17:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
iPod Nano → iPod nano – Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) says Lowercased trademarks with internal capitals do not need to be capitalized if the second letter is capitalized. The trademark is "iPod nano". The second letter is capitalised. The page should never have been moved. AlistairMcMillan 00:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Just so we are clear. Apple always uses "iPod nano". [1] AlistairMcMillan 16:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
Add any additional comments
As an addendum to my above vote to oppose: However, I will point out that both iPod shuffle and iPod mini follow Apple's usage, rather than what the MoS seems to dictate, so the score is Precedent 2, MoS 1. (Then again, as was pointed out when this article was moved, Game Boy Micro follows a common-sense style rather than bowing to the manufacturer.) I firmly believe the MoS gives us ample reason to move both these articles to their respective *proper* titles ("iPod Shuffle" and "iPod Mini") and would support such moves for said pages.-- chris. lawson 00:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Stuff Announced today at September 12th Apple Media Event - Live Coverage Site News
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hamish2k ( talk • contribs) 17:30, September 12, 2006 (UTC)
Why on earth is the article name still iPod Nano. The product is called iPod nano. The vote was an overall Support to move it back to nano instead of Nano. So...can we move it back please? — Wackymacs 06:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
why is this a current event simply because a new product is realeased,that is not a notable reason for it to be listed as such —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.30.202.20 ( talk • contribs) 16:13, September 16, 2006 (UTC)
I think that the iPod nano article can be a great GA, there are a lot of sources, it is written nicely, and the images are where they're supposed to be... I'll try to get a peer review... comments? — •The RSJ• ( Main Hub - Rants) 22:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The external links section needs to be restored to where it was. Currently it says "Bobby's little brother stinks!". I wouldn't know how, hence I am posting here to tell someone that does. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.155.190.78 ( talk • contribs) 03:00, October 12, 2006 (UTC)
Could some one add some more information about the new red iPod nano? Possibly a picture too? JR98664 13:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
It was a nano put out for breats cancer awareness. I'll get pictures eventualy. Cinco555 00:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
No, it is for AIDS funding in Africa, see [joinred.com] Frijole 17:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Really? i Heard it was for breast cancer.. Cinco555 06:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
well, lets take a look at the product page, shall we? it says: "Choose the iPod nano (PRODUCT) RED Special Edition and Apple will give $10 of its purchase price to the Global Fund to fight AIDS in Africa." from apple.com/ipodnano/red Frijole 06:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Gees, you don't have to be such a bitch Frijole. Cinoc555 had some misinformation. Perfectly understandable. No need to throw a hissy. The red 1 is the prettiest. All the other colours are heinous, except silver and black. Blue is alright. But the green? Eurgh, probably the most hideous shade of green ever! Why couldn't the make it a nicer shade? Eg: Forest green, or kelly green. What's their problem. The blue could have been nice too, if it were like royal blue, and that gross magenta should have been baby pink or hot pink. Or purple. If they're going for shocking bright colours, then hot pink, royal blue, and kelly green would've been perfect. It's astounding they got the right shade of red! Silver is flawed because it's the cheap 1, so who is going to buy a 4GB 1 in silver? Everyone will think you've got the cheaparse 1. Black is the best, but the white headphones completely ruins it. and it's the least accessible 1. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dustin Pearson ( talk • contribs) 07:02, December 27, 2006 (UTC)
Right...let me clarify. First, Wikipedia is not the place for such opinions. Secondly, the non-Product RED iPods were announced first, then 4GB red, then 8GB red. Just to clarify.-- Here T oHelp 12:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
'Secondly, the non-Product RED iPods were announced first, then 4GB red, then 8GB red.' - Yeah I knew that. Dustin ॐ 22:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Just making sure.-- Here T oHelp 22:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Just a bit of info that I gained using my Nano. The protective sleeve naturally over time collects dirt , with the dirt in it when you put your iPod in the sleeve it really isn't any better off. I have also received word of at least one other account of this happening. If anyone else has ever noticed this, please comment so that this can be added as a valid bit of info. GTyron, 1:26, 11/26/06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GTyron ( talk • contribs) 19:26, November 26, 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately it doesn't matter how many people comment here saying "Me too", that isn't how we decide whether to add material to Wikipedia. Please read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. AlistairMcMillan 17:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
This section smells like pork luncheon meat to me.
"Nike+iPod, released May 23, 2006, is one of the many accessories" - so why do we need 84 words about it and none about any of the many other accessories? Instead maybe we could have a section "Accessories" mentioning some of them - including the Nike thing if needs be.
-- John Stumbles 01:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it is anachronistic and extraneous to discuss the availability of the iPod nano now being sold in colors, given that the discussion is about the First Generation iPod nano only, in which there was only black and white. Furthermore, these colors have already been mentioned in the previous paragraph. Can it be deleted please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.27.137.98 ( talk • contribs) 01:15, January 8, 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I have never seen a Nano like that. My friend got one in may and the screen was FLUSH with the front of the Nano. It should be removed until someone can vertify that the screen on new Nanos are indeed recessed.- Delta Spartan 22:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Can anybody tell me how to do that thing where you make the screen look like a checkerboard, or like a broken TV or something? Some boy did it with my iPod nano and he won't show me how, but I almost did it. Almost. So I need someone to show me how to finish. And other "geeky tricks" would be neat too. - Brazenbell - P.S. I hope I haven't offended anyone with the word "geek". If I have, feel free to call me one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.45.195.111 ( talk • contribs) 22:09, August 7, 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was move. -- tariqabjotu 16:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
IPod nano → IPod Nano – Per WP:MOS-TM, "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment." This is the same reason Game Boy micro was moved to Game Boy Micro as well despited the correct name being with a small m. TJ Spyke 23:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
Surely, if we were following standard capitalisation rules, this article shouldn't have {{lowercase}} on it either? Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 00:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) clearly states Lowercased trademarks with internal capitals do not need to be capitalized if the second letter is capitalized. The trademark is "iPod nano". The second letter is capitalised. AlistairMcMillan 00:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Move. AlistairMcMillan 17:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
iPod Nano → iPod nano – Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) says Lowercased trademarks with internal capitals do not need to be capitalized if the second letter is capitalized. The trademark is "iPod nano". The second letter is capitalised. The page should never have been moved. AlistairMcMillan 00:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Just so we are clear. Apple always uses "iPod nano". [1] AlistairMcMillan 16:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
Add any additional comments
As an addendum to my above vote to oppose: However, I will point out that both iPod shuffle and iPod mini follow Apple's usage, rather than what the MoS seems to dictate, so the score is Precedent 2, MoS 1. (Then again, as was pointed out when this article was moved, Game Boy Micro follows a common-sense style rather than bowing to the manufacturer.) I firmly believe the MoS gives us ample reason to move both these articles to their respective *proper* titles ("iPod Shuffle" and "iPod Mini") and would support such moves for said pages.-- chris. lawson 00:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Stuff Announced today at September 12th Apple Media Event - Live Coverage Site News
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hamish2k ( talk • contribs) 17:30, September 12, 2006 (UTC)
Why on earth is the article name still iPod Nano. The product is called iPod nano. The vote was an overall Support to move it back to nano instead of Nano. So...can we move it back please? — Wackymacs 06:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
why is this a current event simply because a new product is realeased,that is not a notable reason for it to be listed as such —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.30.202.20 ( talk • contribs) 16:13, September 16, 2006 (UTC)
I think that the iPod nano article can be a great GA, there are a lot of sources, it is written nicely, and the images are where they're supposed to be... I'll try to get a peer review... comments? — •The RSJ• ( Main Hub - Rants) 22:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The external links section needs to be restored to where it was. Currently it says "Bobby's little brother stinks!". I wouldn't know how, hence I am posting here to tell someone that does. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.155.190.78 ( talk • contribs) 03:00, October 12, 2006 (UTC)
Could some one add some more information about the new red iPod nano? Possibly a picture too? JR98664 13:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
It was a nano put out for breats cancer awareness. I'll get pictures eventualy. Cinco555 00:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
No, it is for AIDS funding in Africa, see [joinred.com] Frijole 17:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Really? i Heard it was for breast cancer.. Cinco555 06:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
well, lets take a look at the product page, shall we? it says: "Choose the iPod nano (PRODUCT) RED Special Edition and Apple will give $10 of its purchase price to the Global Fund to fight AIDS in Africa." from apple.com/ipodnano/red Frijole 06:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Gees, you don't have to be such a bitch Frijole. Cinoc555 had some misinformation. Perfectly understandable. No need to throw a hissy. The red 1 is the prettiest. All the other colours are heinous, except silver and black. Blue is alright. But the green? Eurgh, probably the most hideous shade of green ever! Why couldn't the make it a nicer shade? Eg: Forest green, or kelly green. What's their problem. The blue could have been nice too, if it were like royal blue, and that gross magenta should have been baby pink or hot pink. Or purple. If they're going for shocking bright colours, then hot pink, royal blue, and kelly green would've been perfect. It's astounding they got the right shade of red! Silver is flawed because it's the cheap 1, so who is going to buy a 4GB 1 in silver? Everyone will think you've got the cheaparse 1. Black is the best, but the white headphones completely ruins it. and it's the least accessible 1. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dustin Pearson ( talk • contribs) 07:02, December 27, 2006 (UTC)
Right...let me clarify. First, Wikipedia is not the place for such opinions. Secondly, the non-Product RED iPods were announced first, then 4GB red, then 8GB red. Just to clarify.-- Here T oHelp 12:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
'Secondly, the non-Product RED iPods were announced first, then 4GB red, then 8GB red.' - Yeah I knew that. Dustin ॐ 22:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Just making sure.-- Here T oHelp 22:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Just a bit of info that I gained using my Nano. The protective sleeve naturally over time collects dirt , with the dirt in it when you put your iPod in the sleeve it really isn't any better off. I have also received word of at least one other account of this happening. If anyone else has ever noticed this, please comment so that this can be added as a valid bit of info. GTyron, 1:26, 11/26/06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GTyron ( talk • contribs) 19:26, November 26, 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately it doesn't matter how many people comment here saying "Me too", that isn't how we decide whether to add material to Wikipedia. Please read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. AlistairMcMillan 17:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
This section smells like pork luncheon meat to me.
"Nike+iPod, released May 23, 2006, is one of the many accessories" - so why do we need 84 words about it and none about any of the many other accessories? Instead maybe we could have a section "Accessories" mentioning some of them - including the Nike thing if needs be.
-- John Stumbles 01:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it is anachronistic and extraneous to discuss the availability of the iPod nano now being sold in colors, given that the discussion is about the First Generation iPod nano only, in which there was only black and white. Furthermore, these colors have already been mentioned in the previous paragraph. Can it be deleted please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.27.137.98 ( talk • contribs) 01:15, January 8, 2007 (UTC)