Talk:HTC Touch

message: I'm not too sure about the reference to an Enhanced Touch.  Here is a screen shot of my phone (purchased in the UK in January 2008) that indicates the additional memory but maintains the Elf designation.  There is a lot of confusion on discussion fora about Touch/Elf/P3450, and it would be great if something definite could be written here. --Norman21 (talk) 08:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it could be described as the same device but with more memory (like the different versions of the iPhone). Can anyone get any references that would support this? Norman21, can you find 'P3452' anywhere in your device information or on any packaging or in the user manual, or can we get a source for that? Dark-Fire (talk) 11:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Enhanced Touch

message: This is an encyclopedia - not somewhere people should look for pros and cons for products. Somebody get rid of the 'Pros' and 'Cons' sections. Dark-Fire 16:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the next section for the solution. Dark-Fire 16:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pros and cons?

message: This is NOT a review website, I'm removing the Pros and cons and non-neutral stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeoRicen (talk • contribs) 12:23, 17 July 2007 BST
:Thanks, although you clearly didn't read my request... Dark-Fire 16:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a Review 

message: Somebody click here to revert today's vandalism (personal views and unsourced claims) - I'm still refusing to touch the article. Dark-Fire 13:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not using my handy link means the article has not been correctly reverted - somebody needs to put back '**5-way directional block (including action button)' into the list of input features and somebody needs to remove '**2.5G' from the list of connectivity features. I would also ask that Robkehr stops using his IP address to make himself seem like more people than he is during arguments and to make rubbish comments so they aren't associated with his user account. I'm pretty sure that you're breaching a Wikipedia policy (if you continue, I'll find out which one). Dark-Fire 21:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Really? You still made the same comment, before reverting it. Dark-Fire 12:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Now it makes sense. Sorry for accusing you of messing. Annoy your co-worker for me. Any comments on my suggestion back in the 'iPhone comparison' section? Dark-Fire 18:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Removing the whole description of the TouchFLO interface and trying to pass it off as merely getting rid of the iPhone comparison is utterly inappropriate. Regards, --Asteriontalk 21:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I am unable to leave a message on the talk page of the user who repeatly removes verifiable and sourced content, I am inviting him to explain himself here before taking further action. Regards, --Asteriontalk 13:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry for not really following the developments, but I am now in a country (Ireland) which has such poor broadband penetration rates that the mobile phone companies have decided to enter the broadband market with HSDPA. Anyway, I have several points that I would like to briefly make. Firstly, the iPhone is not the control, but is undoubtedly the most famous touchscreen phone, and a brief comparison is therefore useful to those millions people who have not heard of the Touch but have heard of the iPhone. Secondly, probably because I am based in the British Isles, I have never ever seen the iPhone mentioned without the Touch also being mentioned apart from the initial iPhone announcement at that Apple conference thing (I can't remember what it was called), which is why I am amazed by the opposition to the iPhone being mentioned. Thirdly, and finally, I think Robkehr should stop opposing the mention of the iPhone - opposing such a logical connection between products wastes a lot of time and, as a result, the Touch article has nowhere near as much information now as it should do. Perhaps Robkehr should write the comparison to the Touch in the iPhone article, thus finishing the argument. Unfortunately, I doubt I will be online for a while, so I'll have to let this argument continue without me. Providing the iPhone stays in the article, I will start adding more information to the article again when I get some proper internet access. Dark-Fire 20:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: As I said, because the iPhone is far more well known, a brief comparison of the Touch and, to a lesser extent, the Prada with the iPhone is relevant. However, that does not mean that all of the phones should be mentioned in all of the articles - comparing the iPhone to the Touch in the iPhone article, for example, is pointless because, as I said, a lot of people will have heard of or know about the iPhone but will not have heard of the Touch. Therefore, doing any more than providing a wikilink to the article about the Touch in the iPhone article would be a waste of time and a lot of people reading the iPhone article would probably be confused by the brief comparison with an apparently random phone. At least one of your examples above is flawed (I have never heard of the 'Sanyo Katana' and therefore cannot verify the second example, although the fact that I only know about one of the two products in question makes the fact that they are often compared seem unlikely). I've just had a read of the Xbox 360 article, and the PS3 is mentioned a lot: 'to be released for the Xbox 360 the same day as its PlayStation 3 counterpart', 'it competes with Sony's PlayStation 3 and Nintendo's Wii', 'both of its competitors, Sony's PlayStation 3 and Nintendo's Wii' and 'it features games from other consoles, such as the PlayStation's Castlevania: Symphony of the Night'. So, now I have tackled both of the things you said you would require before you would stop your opposition - comparisons do not need to be reciprocated (and if they can be reciprocated without confusing people who use Wikipedia, they probably shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all) and the PS3 is mentioned in the Xbox 360 article. What more do I have to do to end your opposition? Dark-Fire 00:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indiscriminate removal of content 

message: I noticed there's no mention of the CDMA touch which has improved RAM and a processor, 3G, but no wifi. Should it be a new article or added?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoSmiley (talk • contribs) 04:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're refering to this phone. If that is the case, I think it can be covered by a new section in the HTC Touch article or perhaps just briefly mentioned in the introduction, like the other slightly upgraded version of the HTC Touch. By the way, can somebody please write the articles for the HTC Touch Dual and the HTC Touch Cruise? It would be nice for the entire Touch family to have a decent set of articles, for many reasons which could be explained in an article on the family itself. Dark-Fire 16:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sprint HTC Touch? 

message: Someone needs to add it. I have no clue when it came out. This should provide an easy comparison of release dates. --MasterOfTheXP (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release date? 

message: HTC Touch 3G is within the same phone series, with small changes, and should be consolidated into this article. Shadowjams (talk) 08:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That they're different is not a reason to not merge them. We merge the vast majority of phone series. The most obvious, and compelling example is iPhone and iPhone 3G. You'll notice the redirect. Shadowjams (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The iPhone 3G is a completely different case, only related by the similar name change - it is an update to the original iPhone (most of the changes were internal), whereas the Touch 3G is of a completely different external and internal design to the Touch. The Elfin and Vogue were, however, updates to the original Touch are therefore covered in the Touch article. If you're going to merge the Touch and Touch 3G articles, you technically should merge the articles of a lot of members of the HTC Touch Family (Touch Diamond2 + Touch Diamond, Touch Pro2 + Touch Pro, HD2 + Touch HD) - while they're all different models, the former in each case is clearly intended to be a successor of the latter. The fact that the mobile phone infobox lets you specify a successor/predecessor implies that merging all of those articles is wrong. Dark-Fire (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal ([[HTC Touch 3G]])