Talk:IPod/Archive 1

message: A minor niggle - shouldn't this article be titled iPod, not IPod? -- ChrisO 16:03, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Not if you do the same as IMac. - Mark 16:06, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

text: It's a software issue, Apple. Check out Wikipedia:List of pages whose correct title is not allowed by MediaWiki. Dysprosia 05:49, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: The English language encyclopedia is set not to accept a lowercase character as the first letter of a page title.  For example, the articles on eBay and pH are found at EBay and PH respectively.  This is a policy choice, not a technical limitation.
Skippingrock
I contemplated moving this to "Apple iPod," similar to Apple iTunes, but then decided against (and moved it back).  It is sold as the iPod, not the Apple iPod. cuiusquemodi 21:00, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title

message: Several of the "external links" in this article really didn't belong here, in my opinion. I moved some of them to relevant places in the article itself, and then I removed the rest. Just now I reverted someone's edit which put them all back! If we allow fan and commercial web sites to have links from Wikipedia articles, then we're going to have to allow every fan and commercial web site to link from Wikipedia. And fan sites are more likely to become dead links - one of the links which was restored goes to a 404 page. External links should only be to primary sources or extensive background information not easily found elsewhere, or when a fan site is the definitive reference for something (like, say, "The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5"). Here are some other discussions on the topic.
*Links to fan sites
*Wikipedia_talk:External_links#More_restrictive_policy_on_external_linking
- Brian Kendig 18:19, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: A recent edit added this assertion: The basic core operating system of the iPod is a cut-down version of Mac OS X, and incorporates QuickTime. Is that really true? My understanding is that the iPod runs an OS which was written specifically for it, not one which is derived in any way from Mac OS X. And while it is compatible with some file formats which QuickTime recognizes, I don't believe it actually has QuickTime software in it, does it? - Brian Kendig 02:58, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought someone would jump on me for this ;-) It surprised me too, but it seems to be true. In the latest issue of MacTech, which I subscribe to, there is a long and detailed article about reverse engineering the iPod. The upshot is that the iPod's core is OS X using the Pixo UI layer, and it does indeed include QuickTime - the article then goes on to explain how this can be leveraged to actually play QT movies on the iPod screen. Unfortunately MacTech do not publish current articles online until about a year after they've been in the mag, so I can't back this up with a link, but there may be others who can confirm this. Graham 03:09, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, so the iPod would be running a Mach-O kernel with a BSD like system? I find that _very_ hard to believe, though I haven't read the article. — David Remahl 03:31, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I guess what isn't said is what they mean by "cut down". I don't have the article in front of me but I'll re-read it when I get home and see if I can shed any further light.Graham 03:34, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This was wrong, and has been removed.  PPOS (PortaLPlayer OS) is the core operating system of the iPod, it is a custom OS designed to make use of the dual cores of the PP5002 Chip that runs the iPod. BKnauss 07:34, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you KNOW it is wrong? Why would the author of the MacTech article lie about this? The article explains how to play QT Movies using some basic scripting techniques. The article includes these scripts so you can do this on your own iPod if you want. The scripts (note - not code) are written on the assumption that  the OS is OS X, and the WHOLE of QT is available. I haven't yet tried them but I intend to (actually IIRC the article is spread over two issues, I haven't received the next issue yet). Apple haven't said anything about the internals of the iPod, and they have been in charge of its development for a long time since it was handled by PortalPlayer - so it is perfectly possible that they have rewritten/ported the OS to suit themselves. Also, the colour GUI on the Photo iPod has an Aqua look, so elements of Aqua have been added whatever the underlying system might be. In the light of no evidence to the contrary, but some evidence to support it, the iPod's OS could well be OS X in some form. Graham 03:55, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  IMHO the iPod is still using the PortalPlayer platform. http://www.portalplayer.com/products/platforms_mediaplayer.html No QuickTime. No Mac OS X. AlistairMcMillan 09:03, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Here is how you play movies on your iPod Photo   AlistairMcMillan 08:48, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I have now had a chance to re-read the MacTech (Vol 20, No4, p.32) article in depth. It was written by a chap called Tim Monroe, who is a member of the QT engineering group at Apple, it says. The article goes on at great length about how he reverse engineered the iPod, and how you can track down files on its disk with names such as mach.sys and mach_krn, and then how the "applications" such as Solitaire turned out to be ROT-13 encoded ASCII scripts in a language called SNOJOB, a variant of SNOBOL. I was writing this up at great length when I suddenly noticed that this was the April issue (my subcription runs notoriously late). There are further clues in the article, such as using the "undocumented" command line argument -af with ls to get the kernel listing - the suggestion is that this stands for "all files", but obviously it doesn't. Hooking up my own iPod I get different results. So it looks like I fell for an elaborate joke, so I'm feeling pretty silly right now! He obviously went to a lot of trouble, with stacks of example code in SNOJOB and even screen shots showing the iPod "playing" a QT movie.... What can I say, I fell for it, and propagated it to WP too - well done Tim, you got me. At least I didn't get as far as typing in all that code heh heh... My apologies to all who have entered into this today - at least the misinformation got jumped on quickly. Sheepishly, Graham 10:39, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Well anyway, some did actually do it a long time ago on one of the old ipods...Lets see if I can find the link...--156.34.221.41 16:28, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut-down version of Mac OS X? 

message: I started to edit the entry to introduce the new iPod shuffle , but that's easier said than done, since it trickles through the rest of the page, since the iPod shuffle is such a different beast, and is actually more similar to non-iPod players (it's not hard-drive-based, it doesn't use a scroll wheel, it doesn't use Firewire, etc).  I'm thinking it's different enough to put on it's own page instead instead of the big re-write this page needs to accomodate it (then again, such a rewrite may eventually be needed).  Thoughts?  -- Kaszeta 20:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It already has its own page: iPod shuffle. - Brian Kendig 01:32, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  iPod shuffle 

message: Just separated out the distinct models (iPod, iPod mini, iPod U2 Special Edition, iPod photo and iPod shuffle) from the different iPod generations. It was getting confusing having them all mixed in. While I think the iPod U2 and the iPod photo are really just enhanced 4G iPods, the Apple site lists them as separate. -- 00:40, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Models 

message: I find the lack of grammatical articles in parts of this article confusing. From what I can tell, this lack stems from the so-called Apple's usage of the term iPod.
I do not see how iPod refers to "the player and the technology" in Apple's website. iPod is a product line (and, IMHO, a pseudo-platform), and Apple's usage seems to work with this. There does not appear to be need for special treatment of the term iPod. This article can well use articles with the term to refer to a specific iPod device, etc. I believe that some copy-editting should be done to wipe away what (IMHO) is unnecessary unreadability due to overzealous application of "Apple's usage". Alternatively, the article can also be rewritten in such a way that iPod is used as an adjective, and therefore, any special treatment needed for the term when used otherwise may be ignored.
I am seeking comments on my interpretation of Apple's usage.
—UTSRelativity 16:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  So-called Apple's usage of ''iPod'' 

message: Just looking at the list of "Key personnel".  Tony Fadell, Jeff Robbin, Steve Jobs and Jonathan Ive are all mentioned within the article text.  Sanjeev Kumar, Danika Cleary and Stan Ng are not.  If they are notable enough to be mentioned on the page, then surely someone can say something about them in the actual article text instead of just sticking them on the list at the end.  If no-one pursues this, then I'll try to see what I can find on them some time soon.  However if someone else knows who they are or what they did, then please add something about them wherever they belong within the text.  AlistairMcMillan 00:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key personnel? 

message: Someone should update the sales section to reflect the potential downturn in sales for Q2 of 2005.
It looks like this didn't happen. Never mind. I wanted to comment on the just-added quarterly financial results... do people consider these necessary? Would a graph be more concise/informative? As a rather new Wikipedian I'm not very familiar with how this kind of data is usually presented - perhaps it should be floated on the right so at least it doesn't generate all that white space. --BigBlueFish 15:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: iPod Sales

message: I wanted to bring up a discussion I was having with a user to get more reactions; why are the criticisms of the iPod sequestered into an ugly, separate section? I understand the value of having criticism in an article, but what's the value of separating it into a separate section? I eliminated the Criticism header and split the criticisms into the appropriate sections, but another userr reverted it (for some quite valid issues tangential to my main point here.)
Rather than get into a revert war, I've made a new version in my userspace that takes the issues raised into account. What do people think of this removal of the Criticism header but retension of the criticism? A Man In Black 03:21, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, with a week of no comments, I'm just going to be bold and do it. A Man In Black 22:05, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I prefer the separate section approach. It offers two main benefits: A)People looking for criticisms can easily find what they're looking for, which appeases opponents, and B)Other sections don't have to include criticism, which appeases proponents. It does seem traditional to have a separate section; Mozilla Firefox, for example, has a separate section (not to mentiona separate page.) Microsoft too, with a 'Controversy' section and Common criticisms of Microsoft. On the other hand, Wikipedia has no separate section, but it does have a separate page. Deltabeignet 19:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism redux 

message: A user posted the satirical "iPod flea" advertisement, while it is iPod related; is it really best to have this in the article? It IS funny, but it isn't truely about the iPod, is it? CoolFox 03:19, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
:No, it's not, and getting a mention by David Pogue doesn't make it notable, either. It has been deleted. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 22:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  iPod flea 

message: Isn't it widely held that the iPod's audio quality is not quite up to the standard of other competing players?  If so, shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? --Robert Merkel 12:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, in fact the iPod has scored highly on audio quality in most tests (mainstream and audiophile). iPod shuffle in particular is outstanding. — David Remahl 03:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't go so far as "outstanding". Most reviews prefer the quality of players from Creative Labs, and sometimes iRiver. The iPod lines are usually rated as average to decent. Deltabeignet 03:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevertheless, it's not noted for its great sound quality or horrible sound quality. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 21:49, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, that might not be quite right. I've been looking around, and found a few places that criticized the iPod's sound; a lack of bass response was high on the list. This link will suffice for now. Deltabeignet 01:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you supply some proper documentation, instead of some random guy's blog? Barefootguru 08:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, yes, calm down. I was running late. Here's one that praises the iPod shuffle (which sucks, by the way) for having better quality than the regular iPod- "The older iPods, especially the Mini, have been rightfully criticized for being somewhat deficient in bass..." The gist is, average to decent sound besides crap bass. I've also found some complaints of the sound quality abruptly dying, but that's probably just an occasional defect. Deltabeignet 22:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audio quality? 

message: Can one purchase a 60GB iPod without the "photo" stuff? That is to ask, what is the highest storage capacity of a regular iPod? --Tothebarricades 23:21, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
:All iPods now have standard photo capability, and there are two sizes: 20GB for $299 (USD) or 60GB for $399. There is no 60GB iPod that does not have photo capabilities. Ramallite (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true that Apple does not sell a 60 GB iPod without a color screen, but you can build one, as long as you have a fourth gen iPod front and a 60 GB iPod back from an iPod photo. It's as easy as "plug and play" as long as you replace the headphone jack in the iPod back with one from a black and white fourth gen iPod, the only tool you need is a small screwdriver.  An iPod repair page should be created, or is there one? I haven't checked recently. Rskjr 17:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  60GB 

message: What about the new nano? Or iTunes phone?
:iPod nano. Graham 05:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or even IPod#iPod nano. AlistairMcMillan 05:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  And the iTunes phone is here. AlistairMcMillan 05:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nano? 

message: This article is littered with uses of the proper noun "iPod" without any article attached to it. I corrected one, thinking it must have been a stray typo, but there are so many that I can't possibly fix them all tonight. The usage "iPod is blah blah blah" or "Apple sells iPod" is absolutely incorrect in written English; it must be "An iPod is blah blah blah" or "Apple sells the iPod". 24.99.22.14
~
:The first section in this article ("Name") states that Apple invariably refers to (the) iPod without the use of the definite article. I wouldn't say that is is "absolutely incorrect" - singular proper nouns are frequently used without articles. I suppose this is to give it an air of familiarity, like a human name. I agree with you, it sounds odd, but I think if you changed it, someone would change it back due to Apple's policy. Canley 04:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refer to #So-called Apple's usage of iPod —130.15.15.75 16:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar problems in article 

message: Lets see one source that isn't based on rumours.  BTW That image is faked, the image on the supposed iPod screen is Windows Mobile booting up.  AlistairMcMillan 23:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Listen to the BBC story for yourself.   They are just reporting the rumour.  They say nothing about being a content provider.  And guess where I got this... from their website.  The story was not pulled.  AlistairMcMillan 23:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe this changes things: . Apple has now invited press to an event which most likely is a launch for something. Google News records 220 news articles about it in the last 24 hours. We can't ignore this altogether now. On the other hand, by the time we're done discussing what to write, October 12 will have come around and we'll find out for ourselves. --BigBlueFish 09:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Let's wait until the announcement is made. I recall that there was a lot of speculation that the announcement that turned out to be the iPod mini rv 2 was supposed to be a video iPod, as well. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Video iPod

message: Is this really the 5th generation iPod?  I would've thought it is still a 4th generation iPod that can play videos, there's no major design change that would necessitate it being called 5th gen?  If it IS 5th gen, source? Smoothy 21:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While this has no place on Wikipedia, does your iPod still have the exact same functionality that you expected it to have when you purchased it?  Yes?  Then I fail to see how Apple "is evil".  Would you prefer that they keep the same iPod model for years at a time, stifling innovation?  Of course not, it makes no sense.  Bbatsell 07:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I was most certainly sent by Apple to contribute to Wikipedia for 10 months just so that I could pose as a regular editor in order to state the obvious in this precise moment.  That theory makes complete sense.  --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 05:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Exactly. You've had your iPod over two months. What do you want them to do? You wouldn't say the same thing about a car would you?Gateman1997 22:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 5th Generation iPod

message: Hi me again.  I thought as I'm querying the term "5th generation", I'd query "2nd generation iPod mini".  Has Apple explicity stated that the last iPod mini was indeed 2nd generation?  There wasn't any major changes, just another size and the colours were slightly brightened.  This surely doesn't warrant calling it "2nd generation"? Smoothy 10:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 2nd Generation iPod mini

message: Apple has gone through 5 generations of iPods so far and are hoping to release a 6th generation that includes a digital camera.
:Is there any source for this claim? Given Apple's reluctance to pre-announce any new products or innovations, I very much doubt it. Should probably delete this sentence - see also the debate about generation numbers above. -- Canley 23:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digital camera iPod 

message: can someone please put a 3g ipod picture up. the one on the page is not working - at least for me. thanks. --81.51.66.239 21:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For me it's working. This might have to do with the image server upgrade. Husky 23:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: well i've tried on mozilla, ie, and it's still not working - maybe its because i'm in france?--Muchosucko 00:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  3g ipod picture 

message: I've redirect the stub Pody here but, I'm not sure how or where would be best to include the information. Since this is a heavily edited article I thought letting the regular editors decide how/where it would or if it should go in. Here is the text from the redirected page:
A person who owns an iPod.
source:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/research/story/0,9865,1163175,00.html?=rss
Thanks. -JCarriker 04:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poddy? 

message: The POD in iPod stands for "portable open database"? Anyone have a source on this or is this just an oft-repeated guess? AlistairMcMillan 02:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That wouldn't even make sense. The iPod is primarily a music player, not a "database". --Zetawoof 05:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Portable open database?

message: While my German skills are a little rusty, I can't find any sign of this on the German Apple site, or the German online Apple Store.  Can anyone confirm this is a real Apple product, or is it really just a re-packaged one by a third party?  By comparison, the Harry Potter eiditon is listed prominently on the U.S. Apple Store.  (Also, even if it is true, since the vast majority of English-speakers will never see this version, should it even be on the English Wikipedia?)  Heck, even the German page shows the Harry Potter iPod, but not this one.
Ehurtley 07:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The image looks weird - the logo is a different shade than the rest of the engraved text, as if it were printed (or Photoshopped!) on. I'm removing this section pending some confirmation that it's for real. --Zetawoof 05:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Again, is this an official Apple product, or just a custom-engraved and packaged iPod by a third party?  If it's third-party, it doesn't belong on this page.  The U2 and Harry Potter iPods are custom made by Apple, with custom packaging by Apple.  They are official Apple products, with separate Apple product numbers than the 'normal' iPod.  If the Xavier Naidoo or Evangelion iPods have different APPLE part numbers, then I would consider them official Apple products.  But if they're just 'stock' iPods that some company bought then engraved on their own, they don't belong here.  (Heck, Apple produced celebrity 'signature' iPods a couple years ago, that were really just normal iPods with custom engraved 'signatures' of certain celebrities.  These were Apple-official products, but don't really warrant a separate 'edition' on here.  Heck, I'm of the mind that only the U2 iPod should be separate, because it is physically different (black,) than the 'normal' iPods.  Even the Harry Potter iPod is really just a stock iPod with custom engraving and a gift certificate.)  Ehurtley 20:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Xavier Naidoo edition?

message: I am thinking of creating a section on the iPod's Key Combinations (i.e. menu+pause to reset, hold menu for back light.) I might also add a section on Diagnostic mode. I was going to put it on the page, but then I noticed the "Longer than preferable" template, and thought it maybe should have it's own page. What do you think? - TheJapaneseGeek 18:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; there should be more pages about the iPod... While there is a small section regarding its construction, there isn't a lot dealing with actually repairing the iPod or anything about diagnostic mode.  I think you reset the iPod and then hold Back and Select at the same time? Rskjr 17:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea, how about a sub-page? Very interesting to readers like me. :) Since the article is too long there should be a short summary here and then a sub page. I think this discussion is "rotting" since it has already been almost two weeks after the last discussion was here. --Terence Ong Talk 15:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Key Combinations

message: Suggest inclusion: What suppliers make the iPod, and where?
:I think its quite hard to get those info as Apple will never reveal all this to the public. --Terence Ong Talk 05:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not apple.. but other information sites I think yes --ReDM0oN - (scrivimi) 07:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Manufacture

message: Should this section be here - the original link contained a referrer ID, presumably to help whowever initially entered the link to qualify.  I removed this, but is the section appropriate?--C Hawke 15:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's totally inappropriate for the article to include "free ipod" links. Readers who want to learn about the program can visit Gratis Internet. Referral links are never allowed on Wikipedia. Rhobite 16:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: cool, next time I will be braver and remove the entire section if I see similar.--C Hawke 18:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Free iPods

message: Talk:IPod — IPod → Apple iPod – All 'iPods' refer to the 'Apple iPod' (even rebranded HP ones are still from Apple), and this also overcomes MediaWiki's name limitations of a leading lowercase letter. The same was done for Apple iMac The Land of Smeg 07:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
*Support The Land of Smeg 07:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
*Support The Land of Smeg 07:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: Is there any way to import DVDs into the IPod Video? Kind of like burning it?
:Ripping?  Yes, there is. Mark1 17:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DVDs=

message: Yeah it's Flathead by the Fratellis--Snailey! 20:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: new commercial song?

message: For article size reasons, I recommend not using the  template for the references. I think all references should just use the normal method with regular wiki syntax, which gives less text. --IE 22:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to fix it, nobody's stopping you.--HereToHelp 23:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't we supposed to use  templates? I was under the general impression that people should use the cite templates in general, especially since the inclusion of info element by element allows the templates to be updated quickly if need be. I've been converting references to the cite format since it's on the to-do list. Nihiltres 16:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing wrong with using the  templates, but the problem is that this article is still a little too long, in my opinion. I often see the article size warning when editing. Using the regular wiki syntax for refs is a kind of cheap way of reducing the article size. If there's no objections, I would like to remove that task on the to-do list.--IE 22:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a horrible idea. I'd rather have an article that's too long than not using . Is there a policy somewhere, one way or the other? --Steven Fisher 23:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no strict policy on which style of referencing should be used. I think this article should use the Harvard format (see Harvard referencing policy) which can be done with normal wiki syntax.--IE 23:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no strict policy saying they must be used, but  exists to make the references section look better organized, instead of it being a bunch of links. Using  doesn't make the article that much longer. --Coredesat 02:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to retract my above statement. I think we need to continue using  to keep the many, many references organized.--HereToHelp 02:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I want to (officially, this doesn't count) suggest splitting the article sometime, into iPod (player) and iPod (brand) or some such setup (one would stay here). That would reduce the article size tremendously, without killing any cite format templates, which are very useful. Nihiltres 05:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The individual iPod model articles already provide a split for this article. There's nothing more that can be split from this article. Also, this article splitting idea has been discussed before: see Talk:IPod models and software and look in the archives of this talk page too. Also, the Harvard format of referencing is just as useful as the cite format templates.--IE 12:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you going to put the information in the body of the article, rather than use the info format? In my opinion, that looks cluttered, is distracting, and doesn't really work for the large amounts of internet sources used here. I also think that imbedded links ([www.apple.com]) are bad, since they are not descriptive and are larger than footnotes. However, if you only mean how the organization of the information in the footnotes themselves, and will leave the footnote system as a whole in place, I will retract my retraction.--HereToHelp 21:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, just wanted to make sure. Go ahead and change it. What else needs to be fixed up before an FAC nom?HereToHelp 00:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are lots of things that need doing before this article can be a FAC.--IE 22:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like? (For instance, why do you insist that the infobox needs to be removed?)--HereToHelp 00:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The trouble is, when I make suggestions for article improvement, they often receive disagreement and lack of support. I often end up spending lots of time debating the merits of my suggestions.--IE 10:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: All dates can be wiki-linked but only in the article body, and not in the references section - where there is no need to link dates. In the refs section, the date linking provides no benefit to the user, and just creates a cluttering of blue links. Also, regarding the  templates, this page says that "The use of citation templates is not required". This means that it's optional and can be avoided temporarily if the article is too big.--IE 12:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You obviously didn't follow what I was saying about wiki-linking full dates.  It is so users' date preferences are correctly followed.  As a result ANY date should be wiki-linked so this is correct.  Otherwise the dates will be in different formats throughout the article.  PaulC/T+ 04:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would rather just ignore the users' date preference requirement, simply because I don't like it when sentences looked over-linked. But if you insist on linking every date (within article body and within ... statements), then I'll just leave it.--IE 12:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: So why not pick the one that works the best? This article has a lot of footnotes but virtually no book sources (those that apply to the article as a whole; I'm sure there are some in the footnotes for individual points). Most of the sources are links, and the footnotes work very well with that. However, the format of the cite template isn't going to change any time soon. There are also multiple ways to list references; all are acceptable so long as the article is internally consistent. Which it will be. (*nudge nudge*)--HereToHelp 03:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: <nowiki>{{cite}}</nowiki> reference template not recommended

message: 75.208.152.191 02:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Developer Program 

message: The article is missing any information regarding recording with iPod. It seems that the hardware of the current iPods is capable of recording up to 24 bits, 96 kHz. Is there any iPod expert willing to include the information? --pabouk 11:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recording 

message: This article has been put on hold due to the following WP:MOS violations.
*Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 2G , use 2 G , which when you are editing the page, should look like: 2 G .
*Per WP:MSH, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. 
Please feel free to contact me when these problems are addressed. Tarret 22:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently they were, seeing the next post...but I can't find any headings that repeat the title, and 2G stands for "second generation" and is supposed to be written that way.--HereToHelp 13:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA On Hold

message: Here are some semi-automated suggestions to bring the article to FA-class.
:The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
*Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.
*Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 2G , use 2 G , which when you are editing the page, should look like: 2 G . Special case; this is not applicable.
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
*Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.
**The best way to remedy this would be to combine all the sections that are only a paragraph or so. Any ideas?--HereToHelp 02:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Passed

message: "...a Hong Kong-based IP portfolio company called Pat-rights filed a suit claiming that Apple's FairPlay technology breached a patent[38] issued to inventor Ho Keung Tse. The latter case also includes the online music stores of Sony, RealNetworks, Napster, and Musicmatch as defendants" -
This case doesnt actually refer to the ipod. It was agaisnt the itunes music store regarding the FairPlay files it sells. Is this relevant to ipod? I think this section should only really contain the patent disputes about the ipod product and not general cases agaisnt apple and the itunes music store which can obviously go on the itunes store page. --Neon white 22:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go move it, then.--HereToHelp 00:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patent Dispute Section 

message: I plan to replace the image at the top of this article with a different one that has all 3 models (video, nano, shuffle) on one image. I'm unable to notify the original image author, since the image is on wikimedia commons. --IE 18:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait a moment...did you take that image yourself or edit it together from other images? Because I went ahead and uploaded it to the Commons (repeated "Image:" in the title, whoops), and the Wikipedia image will be subsequently be deleted in a week. Frankly, that's a great image (the fading of the iPods at the bottom like Apple does it is a very nice touch). It might be nice to get the iPod video out of the dock, and the perspective on the nano is kinda awkward, but considering Apple didn't make it, it looks great.--HereToHelp 22:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I took the photos of each model individually, then combined into 1 image. So it is a 100% copyright-free image. Regarding use of the dock: The video iPods can't stand up without the dock.--IE 23:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. I found the iPod Shuffle photo particularly good; I cropped it and uploaded it . --HereToHelp 23:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New image at the top

message: Why would we want to lose the infobox about the ipod? see edit here.  Does this warrant a revert? --Oscarthecat 19:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it because I don't think it suits this article, and it's too vague in certain areas. It also has several errors: for example the first line said "Manufacturer: Apple". I thought Foxconn was the manufacturer? Does Apple do any manufacturing? It also says "System storage: 1GB falsh memory, but the image shows a hard-drive based ipod. I think the opening paragraph and the various sections give a better summary/explanation for the stuff that was in the infobox. --IE 19:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also see this comment here, added by User:Kungming2. --IE 20:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why remove the infobox 

message: This article needs a section on industry impact. I've found a few references of various things. I'll put down a few notes here, just to get a few opinions/comments and perhaps some expansion, before adding to the main article. The article needs some shortening before this stuff goes in though.--IE 22:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Industry impact section

message: There's a mention in one of the other talk sections about splitting this article for the player vs. the brand. Even disregarding the size of the article, I think this would be a good idea. There's currently an article for iPod shuffle, iPod nano and iPod mini. Dealing with the main iPod's details in an article that links to different articles for the Shuffle, Nano and Mini details is simply confusing. --Steven Fisher 23:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: Substituted at 20:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment