Jump to content

Talk:iPod Nano/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Recessed Screen

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)

UPDATE- I just finished calling Apple. They say that the screen remains flush with the surface of the casing, so I'm removing the part that says that the screen is recessed. The iPod Mini's screen was slightly recessed, but not the Nano's.- Delta Spartan 20:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Geeky Tricks

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)

Turns out that the kid didn't change the display at all. I figured it out. He just ran a test. If anyone's interested, you reset the iPod nano (Menu+center) and then when the screen goes dark you hit Rewind+Center at the same time, hold, and let go when it beeps. All sorts of tests will appear. Use the Forward button to go down to Patterntest, hit Center, and then just keep on hitting Center. Pretty colors and pictures will appear each time. When it tells you to hit Menu, do so, and then go down to Reset. In case you haven't guessed, you should now hit the Center button. The iPod will reset. Obviously. That kid is going to die for making me figure all that out. - Brazenbell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.195.111 (talk • contribs) 21:27, August 8, 2006
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. -- tariqabjotu 16:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

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)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

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)

Nevermind; I read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)#Trademarks which begin with a lowercase letter. Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 00:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moving back

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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move. AlistairMcMillan 17:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move 2

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)

Survey 2

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Strong support. Just in case this isn't already clear. AlistairMcMillan 00:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. The guidance above is targeted at trademarks consisting of a single word, not multiple words. Furthermore, it refers to the first letter of the trademark (in this case, the "i" in "iPod") when used at the beginning of a sentence or as an article title. To quote WP:MOS-TM, Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment.--chris.lawson 00:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The trademark is iPod nano and in all materials on [Apple's site] the nano is lowercase. Matt B. 00:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
That sort of thing is exactly why we have WP:MOS-TM in the first place.--chris.lawson 00:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The discussion is about the first letter of the second word. Whether the first "n" in "iPod nano" should be represented by a capital "N" or a lowercase "n". AlistairMcMillan 16:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose TJ Spyke 03:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support The first letter is the 'i' in iPod that is automatically capitlized by the software, the issue is the first letter of the 2nd word, which I should be named as it is registered. There is no issue with it being overly stylized as in Macy*s vs Macy's. Kevin_b_er 21:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support (or Strong Support if that's supposed to make my vote count more, because I'm biased). I support moving back the article to "iPod nano" (or "IPod nano", I guess). It's been the norm on WIkipedia to use lower cased words where appropriate in article titles and section titles. I disagree that a special exemption need to be made to this general practice just for this article, it would be unnatural in many ways. Tokek 17:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
See also Citgo. "Overly stylized" includes anything that contravenes standard rules of English grammar for the purposes of style. Not capitalising the second word of a proper noun does exactly this. See also E. E. Cummings.--chris.lawson 00:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
How many times does this have to be repeated? From the MOS-TM page: Lowercased trademarks with internal capitals do not need to be capitalized if the second letter is capitalized. AlistairMcMillan 00:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Until you realise it's completely irrelevant to this discussion, apparently.--chris.lawson 01:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Would you mind explaining why it is irrelevant? You said before because the MoS page was referring just to the use at the beginning of a sentence but the MoS page doesn't actually say that. It actually directly refers to the use of trademarks within the middle of a sentence. AlistairMcMillan 01:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Fine, I'll say it again. This guidance refers to the first letter of the trademark, not the first letter of every word in said trademark. (In other words, "internal" means "internal to a word in the trademark", not "anywhere within the trademark", and especially not "at the beginning of words that, as part of titles or proper names, would be capitalised in normal English usage".) Is that clear enough for you?--chris.lawson 01:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you looking at the same page as me? I can't see that anywhere on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). AlistairMcMillan 02:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't see it either. In fact there is nothing even close. --70.48.172.72 02:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
That's because I'm explaining to you the purpose of that guideline (which could really stand to be clarified there). It's clearly not intended to be used in circumventing the equally important (if not more so), "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment." Products with multi-word names would normally be capitalised as proper names. Clearly, the trademark owner is encouraging special treatment here. Therefore, "nano" is improper and "Nano" should be used. How would you refer to an iPod Nano if you were forbidden to use the word "iPod"? Would you refer to it as "a nano" or "a Nano"? If the former, why? If the latter, perhaps you're beginning to see my point.--chris.lawson 02:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I really don't know what to say now. The "Trademarks which begin with a lowercase letter" section is only meant to be used where it doesn't circumvent the "General rules" section??? Given that the TWBWALL section says it is okay to use a lowercase letter at the beginning of a name in certain cirumstances, isn't the entire point of the TWBWALL section to circumvent the GR section???
And I would call it "nano". Because that is what Apple called it. AlistairMcMillan 20:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that as a proper name the n in nano does not need to be capitalized as in Leodonias da Silva. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gateman1997 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure who or what you are referring to — User:Talk to Me doesn't exist. —Tokek 16:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I think he is referring to TorriTorri, who has "Talk to Me" at the end of his/her username. AlistairMcMillan 23:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion 2

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)

Explain again how the MOS overrides the product's actual name? Standard english rules would demand that the i in iPod be capitalized, but not the n in nano. Gateman1997 00:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
"iPod Nano" is a proper name. Oh, and standard English rules would demand that "English" be capitalised too :-p --chris.lawson 02:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually its proper name is "iPod nano". Just as a friend of mine's proper name is Daniel da Silva or there is Leônidas da Silva. The nano does not need to be capitalized. Gateman1997 03:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand. Under the heading "Trademarks which begin with a lowercase letter" the MoS page says "Lowercased trademarks with internal capitals do not need to be capitalized if the second letter is capitalized". The trademark is "iPod nano". It is lowercased with an internal capital. The second letter of "iPod nano" is capitalized. Similarly with "iPod shuffle" and "iPod mini". Why do you think the MoS supports moving these pages? AlistairMcMillan 00:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
That section of the MoS is very clearly referring to a trademark used at the beginning of a sentence, in the case of "eBay is a large Internet auction site" vs. "EBay" or "Ebay". It has no applicability here.--chris.lawson 02:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Really. The full sentence that you quoted above: "Trademarks which officially begin with a lowercase letter raise several problems because they break the normal capitalization rules of English that trademarks, as proper nouns, are written with initial capital letters, both in the middle of a sentence, like other proper nouns, but also at the beginning of a sentence, like any word." AlistairMcMillan 03:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Also the second example makes a point of using a lowercase "i" in iPod at the end of the sentence. AlistairMcMillan 03:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
IF this page is moved, then I am going to request that Game Boy Micro back to Game Boy micro, because technically the "micro" part is not capitalized and then Nintendo always spells it "micro" and not "Micro". TJ Spyke 06:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Good, that should be moved back if the correct name is Game Boy micro. Gateman1997 06:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

New Stuff to Include:

Stuff Announced today at September 12th Apple Media Event - Live Coverage Site News

  • 10:33 am correction: it appears as though the nano's packaging is 52% smaller, not the nano itself.
  • 10:17 am iLounge: All models are 52% smaller in volume than previous nano. new charger, new armband, new lanyard
  • 10:16 am iLounge: 8GB is $249 in black only
  • 10:16 am iLounge: 4GB is $199 in all colors but black
  • 10:16 am iLounge: 2GB is $149 in silver only
  • 10:16 am iLounge: 3 models, but with double storage capacity at each model (and varying colors available)
  • 10:15 am iLounge: New software just like standard iPod
  • 10:14 am iLounge: 24 hour batter life
  • 10:14 am iLounge: Green silver black blue pink
  • 10:12 am iLounge: Nano is now, as rumored, Aluminum and in colors
  • 10:08 am iLounge: new iPod software features: instant searching, new games (Bejeweled, Cubis 2, Mahjong, Mini golf, pac man, tetris, texas holdem, vortex, and zuma)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hamish2k (talk • contribs) 17:30, September 12, 2006 (UTC)

Article name

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)

The move was proposed two days ago... discussions usually run for five days. AlistairMcMillan 20:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

current event?

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)

Possible Good Article

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)

Product Red iPod 10/13/06

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.--HereToHelp 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.--HereToHelp 22:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Protective sleeve

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)

Don't all cases collect dirt and gunk naturally overtime? –- kungming·2 (Talk) 21:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Got my 8 GB black nano five days ago as a birthday present, along with some protective sleeves. In just a few days, I have noticed that it does collect a lot of dust, and I haven't done anything more strenous than wear it in my (clean!) pants' pockets. Now, maybe it's just that I'm paying too much attention to it (it's so small! so new! so shiny! ;) I love my nano!), but I think user GTyron could be onto something here. Cheers! Raystorm 17:14, 27 December 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)

True. Just saying it could be worth researching. Raystorm 11:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. If only we didn't have rules against original research. AlistairMcMillan 12:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Nike+iPod

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)

Mention of current new colors in section about First Generation

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)

Would you mind quoting the exact sentence you are talking about. I can't find any discussion of colors in the first generation section aside from "black or white". AlistairMcMillan 06:56, January 8, 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IPod_Nano/Archive_2&oldid=1142113728"