Talk:IPod Touch

iPod Touch 2nd gen Mark 2

Apple still call the new iPod touch the 2nd gen, so shouldn't we do the same?

That is probably reasonable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Apple has begun referring to the 16GB and 32GB models as the iPod Touch 3G:. See the bottom of this page: [1]. --Sam (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That's because the 8GB iPod touch actually didn't get a ram or processor upgrade. It's largely still the same as the 2nd gen. The 32GB and 64GB did and that's why they get the full iOS4 update that the iPhone 3GS gets and the 8 gig gets the reduced update that the iPhone 3G gets. - 24.23.16.106 (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

iTouch name in article

This was added to the article earlier and I've found 3 reliable sources showing it, the NZ Herald article is explicit. Though as its in the FAQ its controversial, can it be discussed in this thread if anyone objects to it now? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you show me the sources? NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ msg • changes) 21:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/mac-planet/news/article.cfm?c_id=1502175&objectid=10595780&pnum=2 http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gamesblog/2009/oct/16/dungeon-hunter-iphone-game-review and http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/itouch/

The NZ Herald one is explicit, but the other two clearly mix the use of both terms. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed from the FAQ. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

the sources may use the term, but they don't explain the usage. You are inserting a fact (that people sometimes colloquially use the name iTouch) into this article based on original research not backed up by these sources. riffic (talk) 05:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

okay it looks like the NZ Herald author says he "can't count how many times I have heard ‘iTouch' for iPod touch." It's a tenuous reference, and I don't think it carries enough weight to be placed into the lede paragraph. At best the only fact you can derive from this is this one author has heard people call the device an iTouch. riffic (talk) 05:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The other two references clearly use the term interchangeably with iPod touch and "can't count how many times I have heard 'iTouch' for iPod touch" is pretty clear that the term is in widespread use. PS I've reverted your removal of the content. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not debating the usage of the term by these sources, but these sources do not explicitly indicate why, who, or how the 'iTouch' moniker is colloquially used. You are generating a fact based on your own observation, not one that can be backed up by these sources. Revert your changes because original research is not allowed under policy. riffic (talk) 07:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Its pretty blatantly obvious that the statement in the article is correct (I mean look at the Google suggestions for itouch for starters). And I've given 3 reliable sources showing the term being used interchangeably with iPod touch as well, so what else would I have to do to meet your sourcing requirements? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter if the statements in these articles are correct, it is not our place to determine factual accuracy. We do not invent facts here, facts must come from a secondary source. riffic (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

No facts are being invented, two of the sources explicitly use both terms interchangeably, and the third states that the term is in widespread use - Steve himself even uses it :p. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

A source's usage of the term 'iTouch' is not in dispute. The fact which is in dispute is this: "sometimes colloquially called the iTouch." Simply using the term in an article, or title, is not enough to explain where this fact came from. Did this fact simply come out of thin air? The NZ Herald reference gets us an inch closer to an explanation, but does not provide enough evidence that this term is 'colloquially used', except around the author's segment of acquaintances. riffic (talk) 08:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

"sometimes referred to as"? Surely this simpler claim is supported by the sources? --Cybercobra (talk) 08:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Tenuously supported by one source, I'll be willing to concede the NZ Herald reference supports it (but lacks evidence of usage by who/what/when/where/how/why), but the other references do not, and drawing your own conclusion based on their usage of the term (without a statement of fact) is synthesis. riffic (talk) 08:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I accept Cybercobra's compromise of changing it to "sometimes referred to as the iTouch" as that is more clearly supported by the sources. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Source. There is only one source so far that can support this claimed fact. riffic (talk) 08:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Well the other two are some of the worlds most respected news sources in the world who are clearly referring to the iPod touch as an iTouch. Surely that is enough for what is really such an obvious point? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

not really, because it's synthesis of a new fact. I'd like to see these two sources struck from the article, because these two sources do not explicitly support the fact in question. riffic (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The notion that the term is "sometimes" used is being derived as an observation from the combination of the sources, while none of them explicitly says it. The NZ editor saying he's personally heard it a lot is not a statement that the term is used beyond the people he may be referring to. And that is not Jobs' site', clearly; it's called "fakesteve.net". That may be construed as a bad faith addition to the discussion. ArtistScientist (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

@ArtistScientist, I thought the :p made it clear that my comment that Fake Steve was real Steve was a joke - but Fake Steve aka Dan Lyons is another well known person using the term iTouch. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the difficultly for finding more sources on the use of iTouch as a synonym for iPod Touch is so obvious that reporting on it is like reporting that water is wet so it isn't very exciting. Therefore the only other source I can think of is Urbandictionary, but I'm sure that will be objected to as well. - That said if you guys want the removal of the Guardian or New York Times I'm happy for that to be done as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk>

That's right; Urban Dictionary is user-generated and not acceptable as a source. Even "water is wet" needs a source. Regardless of whether it's true or not, the relationship between the claim and the truth is not relevant, only the relationship between the claim and acceptable evidence. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Basically it doesn't matter what we think, only what reliable sources explicitly say. So far there's only that one NZ source, and the meaning of what it says doesn't indisputably translate into what was in the article. If it was accurate, the article would merely say "New Zealand Herald columnist Mark Webster has said that he has often heard the name iTouch used instead of iPod touch." As it is only Webster's personal hearsay it's not really worth including. ArtistScientist (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I've had another look and I can't find any other people saying "iTouch is in widespread use" though lots of people are using the term. May I ask why a whole bunch of reliable sources (here's another) using the term iTouch to refer to the iPod touch isn't enough to show the point? If you're going to quote WP:SYNTHESIS I'd like to understand in detail how it applies to this specific case. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Because WP:Synth states that you can't combine sources to make a point. The fact must come from the source itself, not observations about what the sources amount to. ArtistScientist (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced, but I see where you're coming from. Does anyone else have an opinion? Or is it likely that I'm wrong for pursuing this? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion about including it, but I don't think it should be included right up in the lede sentence of the article. That seems to give the name iTouch a lot of importance, which it may not really have. I don't think it's synthesis to say that it's sometimes called iTouch, which is supported by sources. You just have to be careful not to estimate the frequency of iTouch mentions compared to total mentions of the product, unless you have a RS that explicitly does so. Putting it in the lede suggests it is very commonly called iTouch, which we don't know. Fletcher (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I only put it there as I couldn't think of anywhere else for it to go, but you have a very good point about it not being in the lede. -- Eraserhead1 <talk>

Preventing the word "iTouch" from being mentioned in the article as a common nickname amounts to censorship of common usage, and Wikipedia is not censored. That the term is in common usage is beyond doubt; as of this writing, there are over 9,000,000 hits for "iTouch" on Google (see [2]) and over 200,000 hits on apple.com (the manufacturer's own website) alone (see [3]). Furthermore, User:Eraserhead1 has already found three mainstream media sources backing up its usage. —Lowellian (reply) 01:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Just curious. About Google returning over 200,000 results for iTouch on Apple's site. Can you actually point to Apple using the word iTouch anywhere on their site? I can't. I see discussions where people use the word and app descriptions written by app developers that use the word, but couldn't find anything written by Apple. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 03:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Lowellian - Can you point me out the sentence within the BMW article that mentions the word "beamer?" While you're at it, can you also point out the word "dubya" in the George W. Bush article? How about "Mickey D's" or "The Golden Arches" in the McDonald's article? Groink (talk) 05:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Reliable media sources don't generally call a BMW a "beamer" or refer to Bush as "dubya", but they do refer to the iPod touch as an iTouch. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but you assume that those MSM sources quoted earlier are reliable. They're not! They're blog entries. C'mon people! Blogs are not reliable sources! Don't mix up MSM articles with blog entries at MSM sites. Just because someone got a job at a MSM site to blog does not mean that every word written by the blogger carries the same weight as the site itself. Whenever a writer writes a piece in the first person, that should be a clear sign that the article was not written by a writer, but rather a blogger. Unlike articles that are reliable sources, blogs are not screened by the same process. Groink (talk) 08:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Riffic, blogs by the New York Times etc. are counted as reliable sources from WP:RS#News organizations "Some news outlets host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources." -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

My contention isn't with these sources being blogs, as I am actually of opinion that some blogs may, especially those run by notable news organizations, make decent sources. I am simply stating that none of the sources you've presented explain usage by who/what/when/where/why/how of your claimed fact, and to reach your conclusion based on observation of usage without any explanation from a reference is synthesis. In the future please be more careful about whose point you are replying to. riffic (talk) 08:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No one is disputing this. No sources explicitly state in so-and-so terms the claimed fact of "people call this product x", and without a source stating this explicitly, you are drawing your own conclusions about usage, which is against policy riffic (talk) 08:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hold on there! WP:SOURCES assumes that the MSM site hires "writers {who} are professional journalists or are professionals in the field." This is just so bad and so wrong! As a bad example of assuming bloggers are experts, Meghan McCain of The Daily Beast is constantly wrong when it comes to her commentary on political matters. When qualifying a blogger under WP:SOURCES, the editor must do the due diligence that the blogger is indeed someone who is an expert on the subject at-hand. Again, bloggers are not screened by an editorial board like other non-blogging writers who write un-opinionated articles for the MSMs. Groink (talk) 08:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the writers for the Guardian and New York Times' tech blogs know what they are talking about - they are two of the most respected newspapers in the world. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose there are manual of style issues for using a nickname rather than a proper name for referencing a product in an encyclopedic article, but that mainly goes for your insistence of using 'itouch' in My Brute. riffic (talk) 06:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, the reason this term isn't used in this article is because the claimed fact of "people sometimes call this product an itouch" is unverified, not directly backed by any sources. I invite you to find a source which can explicitly claim this fact, then it would be appropriate to re-add the information to the article. riffic (talk) 06:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, thinking about it a little more, given that Google searches for iTouch return results from Apple's site which only contain the words 'iPod touch' its pretty clear this is in widespread use and should be in the article per WP:IAR. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

wp:iar, the ultimate trump card of those whose arguments have no merit? The only thing this proves is that google automatically lengthens search queries for 'itouch' for both that and 'ipod touch'. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable, go find a source. riffic (talk) 23:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly my point about beamer, dubya, etc. There must be a reliable source that directly - I repeat DIRECTLY indicates that the said nickname is commonly used. This is why you don't see these and many other nicknames mentioned in the articles. It is extremely rare for a reliable resource to actually make a statement about a nickname being commonly used for a product, person, etc. As Riffic mentioned time and time again, if you attempt to take multiple sources like Google and the thousands of articles that mention the nickname, and then attempt to quantify the results and come up with what you feel is an accurate statement, then that practice is 100-percent primary source, original research violations. You can do this sort of thing when writing a research paper for school. You cannot do this on Wikipedia. Groink (talk) 01:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What like the New Zealand Herald source? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the paragraph you so much want to claim as a reliable source, etc.: "Although with Apple's much simpler schemes, people still get it so wrong. I can't count how many times I have heard ‘iTouch' for iPod touch, or even the anachronistically just-plain-wrong ‘iBook Pro'! I have also seen spellings like ‘Iphone'." I don't see anything in this article that points out what Riffic has been asking for. Matter of fact, the blogger (yes, blogger) says in this paragraph that calling it "iTouch" is WRONG! How awful can this source be? Groink (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to add a personal observation to explain: "Can you actually point to Apple using the word iTouch anywhere on their site? I can't." It is my understanding the Apple is extremely annoyed by the term “iTouch”, being a bastardization of the trademarked name of their product, “iPod touch”. Thus, you will never see that word used in any correspondence from Apple. The term originated, I believe, from the fact that some owners felt “iPod touch” was too wordy and pretentious, and wanted something more succinct and friendly, to match “iPhone”. CRobClark (talk) 06:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Just to remind you all it was ME that added the line that "the iPod Touch is sometimes colloquially referred to as the iTouch could generate so much controversy. I can see that it was removed from the article sometime ago, but I will refrain from reinstating it as I don't want to get into an edit war. If someone else wants to put it back, all well and good. Ah well, talk about a difference of opinion. Diamondblade2008 (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I've had a word with Eraserhead1 about the iTouch name being in the article and he thinks it should be in it, but advised me to discuss it here first. I also feel the iTouch name should be in the article, but not placed right near the start of it, but somewhere within the main body of it, and it will be worded to something like "The iPod Touch is sometimes incorrectly called the iTouch". I have googled the iTouch name and it indeed crops up in several sites. I do not want to get into a flame war over the iTouch name, but I stand by my feelings that it should be in the article. However I will still refrain from adding the iTouch name until I see a reply to this message. If I don't get a reply then I will consider re-adding it as described above. Diamondblade2008 (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you able to find a source that directly says something like "People sometimes call the iPod touch an 'iTouch'"? riffic (talk) 05:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I have typed the word 'iTouch' into Google and several searches come up with the iTouch name in it. I am not going to list each and every search that includes 'iTouch' but I can confirm there are several of them. I still feel it should be included in the article. Diamondblade2008 (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

that is not what I asked you. please familiarize yourself with policies on verifiability and original research; all facts must be directly supported by a source. Feel free to start a request for comment if you feel that your feelings trump policy, I am very curious to see what others have to say regarding the issue. riffic (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I NEVER said that my feelings trump policy thank you. I have decided to pull out of this argument as I don't want to feel im wasting my time over a mere name for the iPod Touch. Thank you. Diamondblade2008 (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to chime in an old argument, the least you could do is read up on the previous arguments. You're like the 12th or so person to bring up the ideology that Google searches is a source. Per WP:GOOGLE, search engines is NOT a viable method of proving any kind of a point on Wikipedia. "Search engines are sophisticated research tools, but often have bias and results that need to be interpreted. It can be worked around, but you need to know what you're doing." I've made this argument time and time again - the only thing search engines prove is that a given term is popular. Popularity rarely defines nobility - and most certainly it does not define a reliable source. As Riffic has been trying to point out in every argument regarding iTouch, and as the Wikipedia guideline states, "Search engines cannot guarantee the results are reliable or 'true' (search engines index whatever text people choose to put online, true or false)." As one of the sources earlier indicated, the use of the term "iTouch" is in fact incorrect. Groink (talk) 03:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a 3rd generation iPod touch! Apple said it themselves!

[4]

Scroll to the bottom of the page to see the devices affected for the new iPhone OS 4.0. It clearly says "3rd generation" and plus it's on Apple's website! 69.255.16.132 (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This support page also notes it as the third generation. (Oddly if you click on the 3rd-gen link on that page, the specs page is still labeled Late 2009). Also note: it appears Apple does NOT consider the 8GB model part of the 3rd generation. This makes sense as it was just a lower priced continuation of the 2G model. Perhaps the "Models" table in our article should be restructured. Fletcher (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The third generation is the same as Late 2009. It includes only the larger storage capacity units, as the 8GB is essentially to 2G iPod Touch with iPhone OS 3.0. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is a definitive list of all iPods http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1353 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.203.227 (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: Apple specifically states 3rd gen only has 32GB and 64GB models: http://support.apple.com/kb/SP570 - oahiyeel ^talk 05:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Saw that picture during from the keynote. Looks knowledge base article was updated to say 3rd generation, used to say (Late 2009), and in the Google and Bing caches still show Late 2009 at least at the time of this comment. Sounds like Apple is cleaning up the naming convention confusion, probably to avoid confusion over which models can run iPhone OS 4.0. As an aside, http://support.apple.com/kb/SP571 still uses the "Late 2009" term. Seems reasonable to switch the article back to use 3rd generation with a note at some point mentioning the late 2009 label. List of iPhone OS devices probably needs to be updated as well in light of this. PaleAqua (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Apple made it clear that there is NO Ipod Touch 3G 8GB. it was simply a mistake that the press took the new release as a completely new model. Source: http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1353 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.199.102.96 (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

OS 4.0, will it cost touch users again for an update to a new OS version?

Will it? Cs302b (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No. See top of this page for proof. Ryankiefer (talk) 04:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Naming of iOS

It seemed intuitive to me that we would stop referring to the iPhone OS now that it has been renamed iOS. Evidently at least one user thinks we should continue referring to earlier versions as iPhone OS, and only refer to version 4 and later as iOS. But I think this will prove confusing to future readers and will require repeated clarifications to be made. I notice over at iOS (Apple) they are doing it the way I suggest, and only refer to iPhone OS where it is necessary to clarify the name change. Similarly, at present the words "iPhone OS" do not even appear in the iPad article (except a few buried in citations). Naming the OS after the iPhone was already confusing with respect to the iPad and Touch, so I think we should take advantage of this change. Fletcher (talk) 02:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to discuss the issue of the iOS nomenclature on the Talk:iOS (Apple) instead. - oahiyeel ^talk 17:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Fletcher (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Minimum OS to Sync Shouldn't Include Ubuntu Because it is Unofficially Supported

I don't think the Minimum OS to Sync column in the models section should include Ubuntu because it is not officially supported by Apple, and is not the only Linux distro. Also you could get support for Ubuntu before 10.04 you just had to install libimobiledevice. --Matthew Bauer (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I would take it one step further and boldly say that the article should only mention Macintosh and Windows OS', as the documentation at the Apple site doesn't mention other OS'. The table should not be endorsing non-Apple tested products like the linux product. Groink (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

I reverted vandalism here and here. How is it that an article with ≈247 watchers, can have vandalism stay on it for ≈half an hour?. Not chastising, just wondering! --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 16:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of us have work to do :p. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Well it's 4 AM+ here! >:-Þ --220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 18:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Capabilities

Did someone notice that the ipod touch 3g has a chip (BCM4329FKUBG) capable of receiving/transmitting fm radio and connecting to a/b/g/n wireless?

http://www.broadcom.com/products/Bluetooth/Bluetooth-RF-Silicon-and-Software-Solutions/BCM4329 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cr3v3tt3 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

OS 4.0 not for 1st gen

iOS 4 is not available for the 1st generation iPod Touch. Shouldn't this be reflected on the page, as well as on the iOS page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.16.141.248 (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed in the sidebar info box. Tengilorg (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"Trademarked, marketed, and stylized as iPod touch"

A user has begun edit warring over the phrasing that was in the intro sentence. Does anyone recall if that phrasing was the consensus result after discussions about the spelling? Should we keep it? Fletcher (talk) 11:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

furthermore, what would past precedent tell us about this particular phrase? I'm glad you brought this up for discussion, as repeatedly reverting each other does no one any good. riffic (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't care that much - though its in all the other iPod articles. Maybe it could be mentioned along with iTouch further down. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

As long as there's no original research involved, however I really wish you'd start that request for comment beforehand, as you mentioned on your talk page. riffic (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Rationalization for the descriptive notice can be found here btw. Gauge the consensus as you'd like. riffic (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I apologise for bringing up iTouch without starting an RFC, it isn't fair. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Negative

How do you turn your screen negative? 174.20.186.228 (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Go to Settings -- Accessibility and turn the White On Black option to ON. It turns the screen negative. NOTE: This makes your photos in the negative as well. Diamondblade2008 (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Seperate iPod touch models into full-sized articles

The page itself will be too filled up if you have it stay like this. Even now, it's too messy and just too small compared to the iPhone articles

Let's do what they did with the iPhone articles (I created the iPhone 3GS article, not the best but better than this and hugely contributed to the iPhone 4 article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinxtreme (talk • contribs) 00:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Totally concur. Groink (talk) 05:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Are the iPod touch models different enough to necessitate their own article? Can you envision a Wiki article called iPod Touch (1st Generation)? Ard0 ^{(Talk - Contribs)} 02:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Previous iPod Touch Versions and iPod Touch - This way you could keep the past riffraff off of the newest one's page, and if someone wants to know about past Touch versions they can deal with the slightly lessened riffraff on that page. Ard0 ^{(Talk - Contribs)} 02:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)