Talk:iTunes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ITunes article.
	This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Technology (Rated C-Class) TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles Technology portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Accessibility: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = <yes/no> | b2 <!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> | b3 <!--Structure --> = <yes/no> | b4 <!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> | b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> | b6 <!--Accessible --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated B-Class, Mid-importance) ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Information technology portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software. WikiProject iPhone OS (Rated B-Class, High-importance) iPhone OSWikipedia:WikiProject iPhone OSTemplate:WikiProject iPhone OSiPhone OS articles v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject iPhone OS, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of iPhone OS on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

	ITunes was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 19, 2006 Good article nominee Listed June 17, 2006 Peer review Reviewed July 17, 2006 WikiProject peer review Reviewed April 29, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted October 31, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted Current Status: Delisted good article

This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in: David Berlind (January 18, 2005). "ZDNet's podcasts: How to tune in.". ZDNet. http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5539171.html.  (details)

Contents 1 ID3 support 2 No iTunes Extras? 3 Screenshot 4 iTunes Sound Processing 5 Critical reception

[edit] ID3 support

I reverted your removal of text regarding ID3 support. The referenced forum post provides further details on the topic and while doing so refers to credible sources to substantiate its point. The source is therefor reliable. Neither implementing the post's complete content into Wikipedia nor referencing the ID3v2.x standard definitions without the further explanation would be in the interest of Wikipedia users. The issue described is a verifiable one and the referenced article provides both explanation and credible sources of information.

149.148.224.27 (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC), copied from AlistairMcMillan's talk page

Anonymous discussion forums are not reliable sources. We need reliable sources to meet our goal of verifiability. And the form postings do not point to other "credible sources to substantiate" as was claimed in the posting to my talk page. The posting just says (a) this is the standard (with a link pointing to the standard) and (b) Apple doesn't follow the standard. That is original research, and what makes it worse it is anonymous original research.

Your edit has been reverted by two independent editors. Please find a better source before restoring.

AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The information that was added to Wikipedia's iTunes article was as verifiable as information can be. The forum post links to the ID3 standard and describes in detail how iTunes' interprets and handles ID3 tags in opposition to said standard. The content of the forum post is not unreliable hearsay but a falsifiable piece of information based on a credible source (the definition of the ID3 standard itself).

The only realistic way I see to provide a more credible source would be to ask ID3.org or Apple to acknowledge the issue publicly and to reference such an acknowledgement, which, in my opinion, is not worth the effort and adds nothing in terms of verifiability.

I'll rather let you remove the piece of information, no matter how hypocritical that removal is, considered that there are quite a few non-peer-reviewed personal websites and blogs listed in the references, which, according to your point of view, should be regarded as unreliable sources and therefor be removed immediately, including all passages of text in the article that rely on them.

To give one randomly picked example: have a look at reference #55, Unofficial Apple Weblog, iTunes activation server pining for the fjords. How is that source more reliable compared to the one that has been removed? Is that verifiable and peer-reviewed information? Don't be ridiculous!

149.148.224.27 (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well done, you've missed the point. If you have a problem with another source then start a discussion about that source, but it doesn't change the fact that forum posts are not reliable sources, and your source is a posting from a fourm. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with other sources (otherwise I would have edited them) but with your double standards when it comes to evaluating the credibility and verifiability of referenced information. Either blog and forum posts (not written by "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications") can be reliable sources or they can't. The two of you seem to support the latter view, stating that no matter how precise and verifiable an anonymous forum post may be, it is never to be regarded a sufficient source. However when it comes to putting your interpretation of the rules into action, you fail to show consistency.

I believe that the addition to the iTunes article with its reference provided reliable information. The content that was added was not challenged or likely to be challenged and the referenced source provided further detail and everything necessary to validate the information. I suggest you read: Wikipedia:Use_common_sense.

We won't agree on this matter and I won't spend more effort on this.

149.148.224.27 (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't reliable though, it was an anon post at a forum. If you believe it was reliable then you need to read RS more closely. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] No iTunes Extras?

• Nobody seems to care about iTunes Extras not even on Wikipedia. I guess I'll have to write something about it. --Ashitaka96 ^{| E-mail • Talk |} 03:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• I just added the information, but again there is already separate iTunes LP article and no mention of iTunes Extras in that as well. --Ashitaka96 ^{| E-mail • Talk |} 04:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Be Bold - Fix that article as well. NightKhaos (talk) 08:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Screenshot

The screenshot really should be of a Mac version of iTunes; while the program is developed for both Windows and Mac, the Mac version is unquestionably the one it is more suited on. Would anyone mind if I replace it with a similar image? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.53.49 (talk) 02:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Done, with help from (npcserver) . Of course, that user forgot to put the correct licensing information so the image was going to be deleted next week! Fixed it now. NightKhaos (talk) 08:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] iTunes Sound Processing

Discussion moved from my talk page and User:213.158.246.114's talk page. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 08:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Allistair, here is some food for thought regarding this subject. Much Love. Sound Enhancer predominantly works by Increasing the S-signal(the out-of-phase component) after running the signal trough an M/S-matrix, resulting in an apparent wider stereo sound but with less coherent phase response between channels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_(waves)#Phase_difference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M/S_stereo_coding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereophonic_sound#M.2FS_technique:_Mid.2FSide_stereophony And some more informal references on this issue, please regard that several of the debaters are A-List Audio Engineers. http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/mv/msg/21341/0/0/19017/ http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/448537/19017/?srch=itunes+sound+enhancer#msg_448537 http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/36856-stupid-itunes-sound-enhancer-frying-your-ears.html http://www.gearslutz.com/board/moan-zone/354094-itunes-sound-enhancer-decline-western-civilization-sorta.html http://lfnet.net/blog/?page_id=21 (not very acurate)

This processing is selected on as a default in iTunes, and as such as an enourmous cultural influence. This should clearly be mentioned in the article. Several of the worlds audio mastering houses. send their reference files with info on how to turn it off to their clients.

Do not revert that edit, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.158.246.114 (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but I've removed your addition to the iTunes article.

Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

Anonymous forums and blog posts are not reliable sources.

If you can come up with a reliable source to back up your edit then your addition might remain in the article. Otherwise it will continue to be removed. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there again, I have above quoted 3 wikipedia articles that is relevant to this phenomenon, in addition I have linked you to non-anonymus forums where this is discussed by some of the worlds most renowned audio engineers. Now, do you actually deny that this "feature" is present in iTunes? If not, plese do not revert the edit again. I am aware of the non original research rule, but let me, between us, add that I am very much an expert in this field, working as an audio professional, and your earlier left field remark about recording, which is completely non-topical and not relevant, tells me you should stay away from editing audio related topics. The issue here is easy: Does the Sound Enhancer change the material or not? Obviously it does, it is what it is there for. Notice I have not gone into great technical detail, and that is because of the non original research. But, again, between us, my research does show conclusively that it raises the S-component considerably while also adding what you might call a "Loudness curve" to the same component. This can subjectively result in a marked improvement when listening to small single driver,closely spaced computer speakers, but works the other way around on higher quality systems, and absoutely wrecks havoc on mono-compability. Notice that this research is ot added to the article. This feature is ON by default in iTunes. (http://support.apple.com/kb/TA44539?viewlocale=en_US) Much love.

I'll leave you with some more reading material, and please do restore the edit, it's the right thing to do. http://www.designwsound.com/dwsblog/?page_id=1607 http://www.wiretotheear.com/2008/09/19/turn-off-the-itunes-sound-enhancer/

Now, once we have this behind us, we'll discuss one of the other "features", "Sound Check", thats when it starts to heath up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.158.246.114 (talk) 02:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources.

Anonymous forum postings cannot be used as sources.

Random weblogs cannot be used as sources.

Your own personal opinions cannot be used as sources.

Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. In short, we need sources that are written by people who are considered to be authoritative and are known for amongst other things, fact-checking.

Your only source that might be useful is the posting on Oliver Chesler's weblog. And I'm basing that solely on the fact that we have an article on him (The Horrorist, so he might be considered authoritative in his subject area. But given that that article appears that he might have written the article himself, which is a common reason for deleting biographic articles, maybe not. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 09:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh and my comment about recording in the edit summary earlier, was referring to the fact that a significant amount of the music that people listen to in iTunes or on their iPods was not originally produced as an MP3 or AAC file. It was originally recorded in some other format and then converted to MP3 or AAC, so right away it is not a bit for bit representation of the artist's original intent. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 09:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Critical reception

Hi, everyone

Have you noticed that this article is missing information about critical reception? Really, what other sources say about iTunes software popularity amongst users? Do they like it? Do they like something else more that iTunes? Are there only fans amongst Mac users? These questions are just an example of what can be answered in critical reception section of this article.

I think we need someone well-versed in this matter to write a critical reception section and aggregate the critical reviews from multiple reliable or authoritative sources.

Fleet Command (talk) 08:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)