HereToHelp (talk | contribs) →Reorg question: comment |
KelleyCook (talk | contribs) →Reorg question: Your example proves, why the different pages don't work |
||
Line 201: | Line 201: | ||
*I prefer this method or organization. Use the [[iPod]] article as an example. The editors there are able to jam dozens of different models into a single article. If you look up above in the previous sections of this talk page, you'll see my bit on how to re-org to avoid redundancy. [[User:Groink|Groink]] ([[User talk:Groink|talk]]) 20:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC) |
*I prefer this method or organization. Use the [[iPod]] article as an example. The editors there are able to jam dozens of different models into a single article. If you look up above in the previous sections of this talk page, you'll see my bit on how to re-org to avoid redundancy. [[User:Groink|Groink]] ([[User talk:Groink|talk]]) 20:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
*Cover each model in a separate article, as is done for every other cell phone. [[User:JCDenton2052|JCDenton2052]] ([[User talk:JCDenton2052|talk]]) 20:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC) |
*Cover each model in a separate article, as is done for every other cell phone. [[User:JCDenton2052|JCDenton2052]] ([[User talk:JCDenton2052|talk]]) 20:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
**And mostly extremely poorly, as evidenced by the [[HTC Wizard]], [[HTC TyTN]], and [[HTC TyTN II]] that you referenced. Those are all full of [[WP:OR]], [[WP:CRITICISM]] and redundancy. Besides the Wizard was a poor choice to include as it is completely different from the next two. -- [[User:KelleyCook|KelleyCook]] ([[User talk:KelleyCook|talk]]) 20:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*Let's keep this in one thread, okay? I think one of the core issue is whether the new model is a brand new product or just an upgrade. This will help us decide which precedent is more important, cell phones (separate articles) or iPods (same article). [[iPhone 3G]] says/said "The iPhone [3G] is a smartphone produced by Apple Inc. It was announced as the successor to the iPhone..." I disagree. It is not a successor, like the iPod nano was to the mini, but rather just an upgrade, like generations of an iPod. The iPhone 3G is not just a smartphone, it is an--the--iPhone. I support option 1, maybe 2.--[[User:HereToHelp|HereToHelp]] <sup>([[User talk:HereToHelp|''talk to me'']])</sup> 20:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC) |
*Let's keep this in one thread, okay? I think one of the core issue is whether the new model is a brand new product or just an upgrade. This will help us decide which precedent is more important, cell phones (separate articles) or iPods (same article). [[iPhone 3G]] says/said "The iPhone [3G] is a smartphone produced by Apple Inc. It was announced as the successor to the iPhone..." I disagree. It is not a successor, like the iPod nano was to the mini, but rather just an upgrade, like generations of an iPod. The iPhone 3G is not just a smartphone, it is an--the--iPhone. I support option 1, maybe 2.--[[User:HereToHelp|HereToHelp]] <sup>([[User talk:HereToHelp|''talk to me'']])</sup> 20:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:57, 9 June 2008
Apple Inc. B‑class Top‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Conflicting Information
I have noticed that the following two statements conflict with each other. This should probably be rectified to avoid any confusion.
Statement #1: The operating system takes up about 700 MB of the device's total 4 or 8 GB storage.[8]
Statement #2: As well, the 8 GB iPhone has been commonly noted[1] to list only 7.3 GB of disk space available, causing a rumor that the version of Mac OS X for the iPhone was 700mb. After further investigation, a df revealed that the size of the OS partition to be 300MB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.252.191.18 (talk) 09:16, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
Blurred out images of the iPhone
Why have all the images of the iPhone's display been blurred? --194.164.80.71 (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- The images are hosted on Wikimedia Commons, which disallows any use of copyrighted material. The original images can be uploaded to Wikipedia with a fair-use license. -/- Warren 13:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well then, we should probably get images that are not on the commons, but can be used under fair use in the USA. I have a phone, so I assume I can take a picture of it, with the interface, for the purposes of an article on the subject of the iPhone. And frankly, the one blurred picture of Wikipedia on the iPhone is pretty ironic - I don't think Apple has copyright on wikipedia (or do they?) Mattnad (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- You assume wrong, because the Interface is copyrighted everywhere (including Wikipedia) and even a picture you take yourself of the iPhone is under Apple's copyright if the interface is in the picture. -- Atamachat 17:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please, where did you get that interpretation of copyright law? It is not correct under any definition. The images do not have to be blurred. -- KelleyCook (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Look at the discussion here and draw your own conclusions. -- Atamachat 18:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I read the discussion and apparently did not come to the same conclusion that you did. However, instead of debating it here, I asked over at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content.
- Look at the discussion here and draw your own conclusions. -- Atamachat 18:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please, where did you get that interpretation of copyright law? It is not correct under any definition. The images do not have to be blurred. -- KelleyCook (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- The blurred Wikipedia is amusing, all they would really *need* to blur are the interface elements themselves, not the content, but that would be... weird. Arguable stranger than just blurring it all. Regardless, I think we need some WP-hosted fair use images for this, it looks horrible with the blurry ones. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 18:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- You assume wrong, because the Interface is copyrighted everywhere (including Wikipedia) and even a picture you take yourself of the iPhone is under Apple's copyright if the interface is in the picture. -- Atamachat 17:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well then, we should probably get images that are not on the commons, but can be used under fair use in the USA. I have a phone, so I assume I can take a picture of it, with the interface, for the purposes of an article on the subject of the iPhone. And frankly, the one blurred picture of Wikipedia on the iPhone is pretty ironic - I don't think Apple has copyright on wikipedia (or do they?) Mattnad (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well Atama, I did read the arguments, and drew the conclusion that they don't even address the point.
- Much of the thread is Groink talking about GFDL and the Commons in the context of images taken from the Apple web site. He states this quite clearly in his last post, "Let me state one more time, if anyone uploads an image to English Wikipedia that was pulled off from apple.com, it will be reverted and deleted."
- But we're not talking about images taken from the apple web site. We are talking about images taken by end-users and released under a license compatible with the GFDL. What has happened is that someone convinced the user in question (Frijole?) that taking an image of a copyrighted image makes the image unsuitable for a free license. Atama, your statement above is just plain wrong, as KelleyCook has noted.
- Maury (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- p.s. Atama, is that the thread you wanted us to read? It refers to an earlier one about blurring, but I can't find that one.
- The issue, as I understand it, is that we cannot have photos of the interface on the commons because images there are not supposed to be restricted in how they are used. If they had been uploaded to the english wikepedia only, and used for the iPhone article, then it's fair use. Fair use under US law allows for photographs and screenshots for the purpose of illustration in an article dedicated to the topic. If you were to check around, you'll see this is very common on Wikipedia. This is why we can show screenshots of Windows 95 and an example of of Mac OS X. Oh and here's an example Palm OS. Now, if you still think we cannot show images of the iphone's interface, please chime in. Otherwise, let's get a photograph that's not from the commons, that doesn't look stupid, and be done with it. Mattnad (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Unblurred versions of all the images are available in the history of the images on Commons. -/- Warren 21:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I might have to dig up the discussion that predated the discussion that I already linked, but the consensus was that no iPhones and iPods should show the home screen (the basic interface) and after that, all such images were changed or deleted. You'll notice that I already mentioned that discussion in that archived topic I linked. -- Atamachat 22:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Unblurred versions of all the images are available in the history of the images on Commons. -/- Warren 21:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- This "consensus" you referred to is now being argued against, and is therefore no longer consensus. Didn't take long, did it? We had complaints from multiple people within hours of the images being replaced. I can guarantee you this -- if those blurred images stick around for long enough, people will start replacing them with better images that meet the English Wikipedia's fair use image polic. Frankly, they look fucking stupid, and for no particularily good reason. Tell you what -- if you can get the copyright owner of the non-free part of those images to say that the original non-blurred images are not considered acceptable and would take issue with unlimited downstream use of those pictures, I will donate $100 USD to the Wikimedia Foundation. -/- Warren 22:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Why not simply have un-blurred images on the site until we get a request from Apple to remove them (thought I can't ever imagine them doing so). If Apple truly has a problem with pictures of it's interface, they would simply request that Wikipedia remove them. Apple is not the Gestapo, they will not destroy Wikipedia for having images of the iPhone interface. 74.73.75.65 (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC) Would it be OK to replace blurred-out images hosted on Wikimedia Commons with images directly from Apple's website, hosted on Apple's website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.75.65 (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Using Apple's images would be a copyright violation unless they gave permission for use. Now where it gets interesting is if someone else takes a photo of an iPhone. Then it's debatable about what's subject to copyright. There's a very technical, and sometimes poorly informed argument in the commons about whether it's ok for us show a photo taken of the device but not of the interface which may (or may not) be protected by copyright in that context. Long story short, there are a few editors who take a very hard line on what's permissible and it has nothing to do with the likelihood that Apple might sue Wikipedia. It's more of a political argument within Wikipedia about how images can be used.Mattnad (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- The reality is, companies don't pursue everyone who posts a picture of their devices. If we were to blur all images of the iPhone interface, why should we not have to blur images of the OS X interface? (I hope I didn't give anyone any ideas) Think about the fact that we've had pictures of the OS X interface up for who knows how long, and yet, we've never incurred the wrath of Apple. (As far as I know) There are millions of pictures of the iPhone available online...why would Apple wish to single out Wikipedia for copyright infringement? And good job, Ausis, remedying at least part of this problem.24.239.166.200 (talk) 06:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I edited a bit blur in pictures...now the blur is not so hard and pictures (in my opinion) look a bit better and still the "copyrighted parts" are kept obscure...so what others think?...Is so alright or I must restore that previous version?Ausis (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Replacing all images of iPhone without interface
I say blurred images on iPhone is somewhat disturbing.
I propose replacing all images with only the image of the phone itself with no interface. Bentoman (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why in the world would we show it without the interface? The hardware design is certainly owned by Apple, too, as is their logo... would we blur out those as well? -/- Warren 21:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see the logic behind this blurring business especially since all other phones on wikipedia are allowed to keep the interface. But if the bureaucrats @ wikipedia decide it needs to be done it would be better to only have pics of the phone switched off. I have never heard of anyone getting in trouble for showing pictures of the highly secretive iPhone interface so we might as well show them. Because to be honest all the blurred pictures look extremely stupid for lack of a better term. An ordinary reader might pass by this page only to spend the rest of their life wondering why the hell the pictures were blurred. Towel401 (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's ponder this issue in another direction... Rather than stating that we must have an image of X or Y, we should think about the purpose of the images themselves. I don't want to search for it, but I remember reading a Wikipedia guideline where images should be used in order to convey an idea that can't be described in words alone. Regarding the iPhone, I see a photo of the iPhone turned off no different than, for example, a sports car with the front hood closed. Showing the GUI on an iPhone serves only one purpose - to demonstrate what the GUI looks like. IMHO, this is well covered in the iPhone OS article - as the GUI in reality is actually iPhone OS and NOT the iPhone itself. Think about it... If I wanted to show someone an iMac, showing the GUI to me is useless because an iMac could also run Linux or Windows (Intel versions.) These are the things you must think about before you start uploading images to an article. With that, I believe that showing an iPhone turned off is perfectly acceptable.
One other thing... In my last rant regarding GFDL, my premise there was to have the English Wikipedia version of the iPhone article published on the CD release of Wikipedia. If we start uploading images to English Wikipedia directly, bypassing Wikimedia Commons, then those images won't be published in the CD release. That is why it is HIGHLY ENCOURAGED that we upload all of our images to Wikimedia Commons so that our hard work can be found on the CD release. Groink (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I don't think it is up to us to decide whether we use blurred images or not. The question is whether we are permitted to use clear images. Can anyone cite policies or guidelines which talk about this kind of image? (By the way, I noticed the iMac article shows iMac with the screen turned off. If showing the interface is not legally possible, I don't see what we can do about it. Finally, I agree with Groink in the problem of the use of images under fair use. -- Taku (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
My suggestion, the images for the iPhone article must have NO interface, focus directly on the hardware itself. Anything related to the software portion should be placed on the iPhone OS article. This way, the blurring is avoided, since the iPhone article would focus on the hardware (such as multi-touch technology and etc. ), and the software interface (such as the keyboard, iPod software and etc.) would be focused more on the iPhone OS article. Beside, images of the OS interface is mostly on the OS article. (such as the home screen) Bentoman (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, I think that's missing the point. The point of iPhone is the tight integration of software and hardware. The virtual keyboard isn't pure software stuff, for example. That's why the images of the interface are relevant to the article. But, per my above post, if it is not possible to do it, then it's not possible to do it :) End of discussion? -- Taku (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it is possible though. IPhone's keyboard is FULLY powered by iPhone OS. The hardware that powers the keyboard is the multi-touch screen. Remember, the keyboard is virtual, powered by an operating system, which is the iPhone OS. Therefore, having the image of the iPhone turned off is perfectly acceptable. The keyboard interface image belongs to the iPhone OS article. Remember, multi-touch interacts the keyboard, the keyboard is part of iPhone OS. Bentoman (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- The multi-touch screen is a hardware feature. But that feature makes no sense when the iPhone is turned off. It is relevant to "this article" to show the multi-touch screen at work. Showing the image of the virtual keyboard is one of the best way to do it, because words just don't sufficiently convey how it works. You can also notice that the image of the keyboard, one used in this article, shows a person's hands on the keyboard. That kind of the image doesn't belong to the iPhone OS article because it should only show what appears on the screen of the iPhone, not a person operating it. (So, a video of a person typing with the virtual keyboard is actually better but that's another story.) -- Taku (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
You know what, you are right about that, but I think it is wise that some of the images be replaced. For example, the first image should be the phone itself, no interface (the home screen image is on the iPhone OS article, therfore the picture that shows the phone at the top of the article should be the hardware itself)
For the keyboard, show only the keyboard itself, along with the fingers that person is typing. The rest is blurred.
Third, the image where wikipedia page is shown, delete, there is already an image of it on the iPhone OS article itself.
If none of those action seems fesible, what do you suggest? This, I must have an answer for. If no solution is found, I have no solution but to have the admin lock the article. Bentoman (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bentoman (talk • contribs) 23:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- right|thumb|200px I just wanted to add while all of you are fretting about blurred interfaces on the iPhone photos, this image is still sitting in the article. Should we blur this too? It's OK under US fair use rules, but not for the commons. OK, who volunteers to blur this as well? And suggestions to separate the phone from the interface miss the broader issue that you can't properly explain one without the other. Mattnad (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- And here is another image from the article that demonstrates the iPhone interface - this time for photo viewing. If we're going to be consistent and exceed fair use rules, then we'll have to blur the photo elements here too. I think my point is we would damage the article if we held it to a higher standard than fair use doctrine which is what the proponents of blurring the interface images are asking.
Does it seem realistic that Apple will sue Wikipedia over images of the interface? I think not. Lawyers are expensive, and images of the interface can't possible be against the business interests of Apple. They are probably happy for the free publicity, and not itching to sue anyone in sight. 24.239.166.200 (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- The iPhone cannot be properly represented without displaying the unaltered interface. This is especially true considering that the iPhone is one of the most interface-dependent (i.e. minimal hardware interface) electronic devices in history. It is highly inconsistent that there are hundreds of "copyright" interface image of other less-known products that have not drawn fire, and probably will never do so. If I may quote my Lamentation of Copyright: More harm is done to the encyclopedia by editors enforcing copyrights than by the copyright owners enforcing them.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- and I'll add this article is being subjected to a standard of copyright separate to from that of fair use in the USA. Some editors want this to be on a CD which must have images from the commons. In essence, this article should suffer for the aspirations to get it into a CD that far fewer people will see than on Wikipedia. Mattnad (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- The iPhone cannot be properly represented without displaying the unaltered interface. This is especially true considering that the iPhone is one of the most interface-dependent (i.e. minimal hardware interface) electronic devices in history. It is highly inconsistent that there are hundreds of "copyright" interface image of other less-known products that have not drawn fire, and probably will never do so. If I may quote my Lamentation of Copyright: More harm is done to the encyclopedia by editors enforcing copyrights than by the copyright owners enforcing them.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
These last two points should be read repeatedly until they sink in. We're here to write the Wikipedia. The online wikipedia. All else is secondary. Sorry Groink. Maury (talk) 12:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to hear that some of you have a totally elitist point of view when it comes to editing English Wikipedia. Think about the thousands of English-speaking schools and other institutions who do not enjoy broadband or any other form of Internet access, in order to access the so-called primary form of this or any other article. The purpose of the CD project is to share information beyond just the Internet. May I remind everyone here that if any portion of the article does not meet the requirements of the Wikimedia Commons release, the article itself will be left out of the project. Groink (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- So you are saying there are thousands of institutions that can afford computers, but not the $9.95 a month for dial-up internet access? In my opinion, if you were to poll these institutions that do not have access to the internet, this article on the iPhone is probably among the least of their worries. There is plenty of published material out there for those students who want to research this topic. And this isn't presidential politics so the "elitist" moniker really has no place here (and I don't particularly like Arugula either). It really comes down to how far we debase an article to get this into the CD that is so important to so few. Also, Groink, in all seriousness, you'll still have to excise the other pictures of the interface that are in the article under fair use. Why don't to do those edits now and ask the other editors whether it's worth it. Mattnad (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for calling us all elitists simply because we disagree with you.
- I stand by my early comment, and KelleyCook's: Apple has absolutely zero copyright claim in this case. If you have any salient arguments against this point, let's hear them. If you do not, your argument is off-topic; as the images are totally free to use as we see fit, they can be used on the CD. Maury (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that the deletion of any image uploaded to Wikimedia Commons is not logged for everyone to see. Previous uploads of Apple-developed images onto WC have been removed. I've seen this with many other Apple-related articles through the years. For the record, I do not see a problem using images that were created by people outside of Apple, such as taking a screenshot of the GUI. I never once argued that they were not allowed - that was an argument made by someone else and not me. As long as you upload the image to WC with a properly selected license and written rationale, the image should stick and everything I've said up to now would be solved.
Keep one thing in mind... The purpose of Wikimedia Commons is to develop a centralized image repository for ALL Wikimedia-related projects. In short, the use of the image repository is highly recommended so that the dozens of different Wikipedia projects each do not upload the same images to its servers. Imagine the same iPhone image being repeated again and again and again on every server. And if a better image is available, you would need an account on every one of those projects, and log onto every one of them in order to change the image. Instead, all Wikipedia editors should be storing their images onto WC and link to them in their Wikipedia articles. I have not seen this use of WC being pushed on the Apple-related articles, but I've most certainly have seen the idea pushed on many others projects - as I've observed literally thousands of photos deleted from both WC and English Wikipedia on the basis of failing non-free status in the photos' rationale. For one to use English Wikipedia to as an image depository in order to avoid the non-free requirement (i.e. claim fair use over non-free) is ridiculous. Groink (talk) 05:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- This Wikimedia Commons line of discussion is a distraction. Your argument is all about efficiency and not about quality. This article does not need to use images from Wikimedia Commons. We can legally show the iPhone, with the interface intact, on English Wikipedia under fair use rules. So let's do it. For those other articles, let them use the degraded, stupid, idiotic, image of the blurred interface created to satisfy the extreme (and capricious) application of copyright rules on the Commons.Mattnad (talk) 07:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Guys, we don't need a fair use claim. Is there some way I can make this more clear? Maury (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Avoiding Redundancy
This is an offshoot from the images discussion. Reading through the comments, it made me think of an even bigger issue: redundancy and lack of cohesion between the three major articles:
From what I'm been reading between these three articles, there is much too much redundant information. For example, let's say Java came out for the iPhone. That same information will be repeated on the other two articles. IMHO, this is poor management of the articles. The three articles should be treated as a series, rather than be three totally separate articles, each attempting to cover 100-percent of the device or OS.
The iPod touch is actually the hardware foundation of this line of iPod hardware, while the iPhone is basically the iPod touch with additional hardware and software, and iPhone OS being the common OS between the two. As someone stated earlier, the iPod touch and iPhone articles should focus on only the hardware, including multi-touch. The iPhone article should emphasize on the additional hardware that the iPod touch lacks. iPhone OS should then encompass all the software-related information - including applications, software upgrades and updates. If you look at the Mac OS X and the various Macintosh articles, you'll notice that they take a similar organization to what I'm proposing here.
I think if we can re-organize the articles to somehow complement each other, then when we do have issues that come up such as the blurry imagery, then we can better address these issues in a more consistent fashion. Groink (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Picture Quality
Alright, notwithstanding the discussion about the copyright status of the pictures, the current banner picture is nowhere near the quality that we need to be leading off an article like this. I don't mean to offend, but really, we should still maintain a reasonable standard for these things.
I'm not uploading a replacement and getting thrust into the copyright debate (again), as I have had at least 2 get deleted and replaced with much poorer substitutes already, but come on folks, we've got to do better than this. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 18:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to chime in with the old request (see multiple archives where this is repeated) that the image be a real picture. As I am writing this, the image does look like a real picture of the iPhone and not a fake one, but often in the past people would replace the image with a "better quality" one that is basically a Photoshopped iPhone with an impossibly-clear interface (similar to what you would see on Apple's Web site, for example). -- Atamachat 21:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's real, which is why it doesn't look perfect. And I took it pretty early in the morning. Won't say it's my best work. The fair use rationale is pretty bulletproof for anyone who'd like to contribute an alternate (better) photo and fend off the legal arguments. Mattnad (talk) 03:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think it's a fantastic picture. My statement was aimed towards those who want to get a "better" picture (not necessarily Frijole either). In the past we used to get a lot of fake iPhone pictures up and I think it's better to have a real example. Though if Frijole or someone else finds a better-quality legitimate photo I'm all for it. -- Atamachat 04:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- The current picture of the iPhone really needs to be replaced in my opinion. It really does not uphold to Wikipedia standards. I really think it should be reverted to a clearer picture, like the one before it. Dennin (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- It's lousy but we can't use this picture. Because it's fake. That's not a picture of an iPhone, it's an artist's concept of what an iPhone should look like. We need a good, REAL image of an iPhone. -- Atamachat 19:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- The current picture of the iPhone really needs to be replaced in my opinion. It really does not uphold to Wikipedia standards. I really think it should be reverted to a clearer picture, like the one before it. Dennin (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think it's a fantastic picture. My statement was aimed towards those who want to get a "better" picture (not necessarily Frijole either). In the past we used to get a lot of fake iPhone pictures up and I think it's better to have a real example. Though if Frijole or someone else finds a better-quality legitimate photo I'm all for it. -- Atamachat 04:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's real, which is why it doesn't look perfect. And I took it pretty early in the morning. Won't say it's my best work. The fair use rationale is pretty bulletproof for anyone who'd like to contribute an alternate (better) photo and fend off the legal arguments. Mattnad (talk) 03:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
(Unident) There is no way that is a real iPhone image, Dennin. We need a photo so people know what an iPhone actually looks like. -- Atamachat 20:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Cleanup required
This article requires some serious cleanup. I'd do it myself, but someone decided to lock it like it was a controversial issue. Is it? It's not exactly great either.
The opening paragraph states:
The iPhone was initially introduced in the United States on June 29, 2007 followed by numerous other countries.
That's not very wikipedish. What "other countries"? Why numerous? Are they really numerous? The provided map of availability claims it's available in 6 (six) countries and announced in just above 30 others (out of over 200 countries there are). This is anything but numerous.
The Features section starts with a stupid sentence:
The iPhone allows (blah, blah) and integration with other cellular network features and iPhone functions.
iPhone has features compatilble with iPhone's features. Shocking.
The same section includes another nice sentence:
A ringtone feature was introduced in the United States on September 5, 2007, but is not yet available in all countries where the iPhone has been released.
A major showstopper for me. ;-) Please, have anyone ever heard about a phone, let alone a mobile phone, without a rigntone?
The Multimedia subsection contains a recurring phrase "previous iPods" in reference to iPhone. As the opening section suggests, iPhone is not an iPod, but a mobile phone with iPod functionality.
The Others subsection has on opening sentence that is unreadable. It would greatly benefit from rephrasing into something like that:
The iPhone features a built in 2.0 megapixel camera located on the back for still digital photos. It has no optical zoom, flash or autofocus, and does not support video recording.
The Battery subsection states:
Apple's site says that the battery life "is designed to retain up to 80% of its original capacity after 400 full charge and discharge cycles", which turns out to be the same as for the iPod batteries.
According to the first part of the sentence, it does not "turn out to be" but rather "is supposed to be".
I'm sure there are other blunders, so please read it and post any suggestions you might have.
-- Llewelyn MT (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- The article is not locked, just semi-protected, which means you as an established user can WP:Be Bold. My only comment is to not go and list the other countries in the opening sentence -- that was real unwieldy. -- KelleyCook (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
iPhone 3G
Should there be a new article for this or somehow incorporated into this? I personally believe it should be a new article. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'd say not for now, it can be split out when the section gets too big. BJTalk 18:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- There is currently a version at AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3g iphone. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- That page is at 3G iPhone. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Voted to hold, we'll see how it turns out. For now I'd say build on that article, it can always be merged. BJTalk 18:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- That was my impression. I figure it is a different enough phone (not just a software change) that it may deserve its own article. I am sure we will see as things develop. I am keeping my eyes open for the first reilabe sources that surface. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Honestly I'd say just start writing, we know it will be backed up en masse shortly. BJTalk 18:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I just stuck a temporary CNN.com link there of the on-going event. It should do to start. - Denimadept (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- The 2G and 3G should stay as one article. If the consensus goes otherwise, I will unprotect iPhone 3G but it's really just a mess that asks for redundancy and confusion.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 19:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that the 2G and 3G should remain as one article. Right now, there are not too many differences between these two models of iPhone. Besides, the older iPhone is not going to be sold in parallel with the 3G version. So, there is essentially still going to be only one model of the iPhone available for purchase. 71.146.5.104 (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- The fact that they will not be sold in parallel further supports separate articles. As updats and breakthroughs occurs for the 3G, the historic information on the 2g has great potential to be lost, over written or mixed up confused with the two. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that the 2G and 3G should remain as one article. Right now, there are not too many differences between these two models of iPhone. Besides, the older iPhone is not going to be sold in parallel with the 3G version. So, there is essentially still going to be only one model of the iPhone available for purchase. 71.146.5.104 (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- The 2G and 3G should stay as one article. If the consensus goes otherwise, I will unprotect iPhone 3G but it's really just a mess that asks for redundancy and confusion.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 19:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I just stuck a temporary CNN.com link there of the on-going event. It should do to start. - Denimadept (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Honestly I'd say just start writing, we know it will be backed up en masse shortly. BJTalk 18:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- That was my impression. I figure it is a different enough phone (not just a software change) that it may deserve its own article. I am sure we will see as things develop. I am keeping my eyes open for the first reilabe sources that surface. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Voted to hold, we'll see how it turns out. For now I'd say build on that article, it can always be merged. BJTalk 18:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- That page is at 3G iPhone. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- There is currently a version at AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3g iphone. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
←I strongly disagree with your protection of that article and ask that you unprotect it. I am unsure of how your protection fits in you our protection policy. Let consensus determine then sort it out from there. I dont want to wheel war so I kindly ask that you unprotect it. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree with the original reason as well, apple.com isn't our burden of proof, sorry. BJTalk 19:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I want to have time for a consensus to emerge. Besides, Apple seems to be using iPhone 3G, not 3G iPhone; if I unprotect one, it will be the former. However, I believe that having two articles will cause much of the basic information to be duplicated, causing redundancy and confusion. iPod nano seems to work fine, and the nanos are more different from each other than the 2 iPhones. A "Versions" header in iPhone with subsections for 2G and 3G is more appropriate. (The iPhone 3G exists; now that Apple has confirmed it that's not under debate. This is now a categorization and classification issue.)--HereToHelp (talk to me) 19:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the baove statement, My objection was to the principle of protecting a page to prevent creation when there was no consensus for or against it. By default, as I understand the wiki, we are supposed to create articles, put content. Later, if stuff needs to be merged, merge it, fix it up. However dont close the door till the community agrees. Perhaps I am not rogue enough? Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, iPhone 3G is unprotected. I'll let the editing take its course and come back in a few days to clean up and sort out everything. My objective is to create the most well-organized, accessible, actual, and sourced information I (we) can. Totally separate articles will lead to much confusion and duplication of information. I support a section in iPhone outlining the differences or a separate iPhone versions article, which will focus on the distinctions but let iPhone handle to commonalities, not to mention social and economic effects.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 19:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with you but trying to control the chaos during the first 24 hours is an exercise in futility. ;) BJTalk 19:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Chrislk02. By blocking pages you are not allowing consensus, you are forcing it.82.229.209.33 (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I got a little hasty with protections against rumors (before apple.com was updated I consider that justified) but once announced, "trying to control the chaos during the first 24 hours is an exercise in futility". Let's let the anons have their fun and in a few hours we'll try to carve an encyclopedia out of this mess.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 19:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Chrislk02. By blocking pages you are not allowing consensus, you are forcing it.82.229.209.33 (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with you but trying to control the chaos during the first 24 hours is an exercise in futility. ;) BJTalk 19:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, iPhone 3G is unprotected. I'll let the editing take its course and come back in a few days to clean up and sort out everything. My objective is to create the most well-organized, accessible, actual, and sourced information I (we) can. Totally separate articles will lead to much confusion and duplication of information. I support a section in iPhone outlining the differences or a separate iPhone versions article, which will focus on the distinctions but let iPhone handle to commonalities, not to mention social and economic effects.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 19:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the baove statement, My objection was to the principle of protecting a page to prevent creation when there was no consensus for or against it. By default, as I understand the wiki, we are supposed to create articles, put content. Later, if stuff needs to be merged, merge it, fix it up. However dont close the door till the community agrees. Perhaps I am not rogue enough? Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I want to have time for a consensus to emerge. Besides, Apple seems to be using iPhone 3G, not 3G iPhone; if I unprotect one, it will be the former. However, I believe that having two articles will cause much of the basic information to be duplicated, causing redundancy and confusion. iPod nano seems to work fine, and the nanos are more different from each other than the 2 iPhones. A "Versions" header in iPhone with subsections for 2G and 3G is more appropriate. (The iPhone 3G exists; now that Apple has confirmed it that's not under debate. This is now a categorization and classification issue.)--HereToHelp (talk to me) 19:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
←BTW, there appears to be the emergence (albeit early to judge completley) of a consensus for separate articles atWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/3g_iphone. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think anybody will be able to tell until we see how much text gets written and how different the phones really are. I don't much care where the 3G prose is written as long as it is in one place. (can always be split or merged later) BJTalk 19:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- The article iPhone 3G is unprotected and available for editing. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Reorg question
From the AfD article for "3G iphone":
- Comment Rather than argue, how about we calmly identify our objectives and options, find out what path best fits what we want to do, and take it. Feel free to add to either list, just sign afterwards.
- Objectives:
- Avoid information duplication/redundancy
- Preserve historic information
- Allow for the addition of new, future models without restructuring
- Allow for the excited anons to add their information
- Clearly identify and explain the differences between the two products.
- Options:
- Add a section in iPhone explaining the differences while everything else there applies to both models unless otherwise specified, like iPod nano (but more than just a list of versions)
- Create one new article with these differences, or add it to History of the iPhone, and let iPhone talk about commonalities
- Create separate articles for each phone focused on the differences and clearly subsidiary to iPhone, like iPod photo
- Create separate articles for each phone and move most of the current information in iPhone to iPhone 2G, leaving the former as a disambiguation page, like HTC Wizard, HTC TyTN, and HTC TyTN II
- Although I have my own opinions, the community needs to see beyond delete vs. keep, stop arguing, and find the best solution.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Objectives:
- Note - It seems to me that we just moved beyond the purposes of an AfD article and moved to a topic which should be in the Talk:iPhone page. I don't think the deletion question is real anymore, as it was when the suggestion was made. Does User:Roleplayer agree? - Denimadept (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Everyone agrees on notability; this is now classification and organization. If that means it's not an AfD, sure, move it back to talk.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm neither the original poster, an admin, or someone who has been dealing with Apple-related topics on Wikipedia, so I don't consider myself someone who should be messing with it that much. I got a little excited earlier and went beyond my normal area. :-D "Why" is a matter for elsewhere. OTOH, someone posted "BE BOLD" on my Talk page... - Denimadept (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Everyone agrees on notability; this is now classification and organization. If that means it's not an AfD, sure, move it back to talk.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
So, let the games commence! - Denimadept (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - As I said on the other page, there's a clear precedent for having separate pages for separate cell phone models (see HTC Wizard, HTC TyTN, and HTC TyTN II). Why reverse it? JCDenton2052 (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I prefer this method or organization. Use the iPod article as an example. The editors there are able to jam dozens of different models into a single article. If you look up above in the previous sections of this talk page, you'll see my bit on how to re-org to avoid redundancy. Groink (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Cover each model in a separate article, as is done for every other cell phone. JCDenton2052 (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- And mostly extremely poorly, as evidenced by the HTC Wizard, HTC TyTN, and HTC TyTN II that you referenced. Those are all full of WP:OR, WP:CRITICISM and redundancy. Besides the Wizard was a poor choice to include as it is completely different from the next two. -- KelleyCook (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Let's keep this in one thread, okay? I think one of the core issue is whether the new model is a brand new product or just an upgrade. This will help us decide which precedent is more important, cell phones (separate articles) or iPods (same article). iPhone 3G says/said "The iPhone [3G] is a smartphone produced by Apple Inc. It was announced as the successor to the iPhone..." I disagree. It is not a successor, like the iPod nano was to the mini, but rather just an upgrade, like generations of an iPod. The iPhone 3G is not just a smartphone, it is an--the--iPhone. I support option 1, maybe 2.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)