Talk:Barnes & Noble Nook 1st Edition

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barnes & Noble Nook 1st Edition article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Announcement

Several reliable sources appear to have scooped the announcement of the Barnes & Noble Nook that is reported to be slated for tomorrow. I've gone ahead and created a stub, although I'm sure it's likely to change between now and in the morning. user:J aka justen (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"nook, by Barnes & Noble"

Taking a look at the press release, it looks like this system is branded principally as "nook." Even the logo has "by Barnes & Noble" in much smaller type. Compare with iPhone, where the company name isn't used with the product name. Contrast with the Sony Reader and Amazon Kindle where the brand name immediately follows the company name with equal weight. Perhaps the page would be better titled "nook (e-book)" instead of its current title. White 720 (talk) 02:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to moving it, as I chose the title before the official branding was announced. One hesitation, though, is that the (e-book) suffix wouldn't be accurate and (e-book reader) seems lengthy. Given that nook itself is currently a disambiguation page with no other subject likely to become a primary topic, it might be helpful to discuss whether the device itself may already be the primary topic known solely as "nook." (Even if you argue that isn't the case today, given the Kindle trajectory, it seems likely to be the case sooner, rather than later.) All of that being said, my recommendation might be to move Nook to Nook (disambiguation) and Barnes & Noble nook to nook, with an appropriate dabhat. user:J aka justen (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that's also unclear is whether "nook" refers to just the device or to the whole platform. "Kindle" at one time referred to just a hardware device, but that term is now shared with a software application too. Since the B&N device doesn't even ship for another month, it's probably wise to keep things as they are. White 720 (talk) 03:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like their apps are (at least for now?) still being referred to as "Barnes & Noble eReader," whereas (as you pointed out) the counterpart is "Kindle for iPhone" and so forth. I'm not sure that's strictly relevant to the naming of the article at this point, although I don't see any deadline, and only offered my suggestion in response to yours. :) More time would certainly give us more clarity as to whether the nook "takes off" and undoubtedly becomes a primary topic for the name. user:J aka justen (talk) 03:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nook Software

Is there any information on whether or not the nook software will run on other android devices? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jondice (talk • contribs) 13:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Moved to Barnes & Noble Nook; no consensus to move to Nook but suggest another RM for that. Ucucha 19:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnes & Noble nook → Barnes & Noble Nook — Per WP:MOSTM we don't reproduce all-lowercase trademarks; "Nook" here must be capitalized. In the absence of sea change to the Manual of Style, this is open-and-shut. —Burn Down Babylon 14:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I always thought it looked kind of weird not having it capitalized... TastyCakes (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the article be Nook and not Barnes & Noble Nook? Something about including the retailer's name seems off to me, and I'm not sure why. --Labattblueboy (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the move to Barnes & Noble Nook. It should have the vendor's name (e.g. Amazon Kindle) in the title, per usual WP practice, for specificity. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the pages for WP:iPhone , WP:iPod , WP:iPad, etc... all have lowercase first letters, how is "nook" different? It's not an all lowercase trademark, just the first letter. Would it be permissible if they called it nOok instead? If you're going to change nook, the Apple products should be adjusted as well. (disclosure, I am a B&N retail drone using their computers at work to post this, but I'm just a low level clerk wasting time and am not astroturfing...)

If you read the manual of style suggestions for trade marks above (here), you'll see that things starting with lower case letters and then an upper case letter (add eBay to your list) are treated as a special case. TastyCakes (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that the most correct comparisons are iPod Touch (rather than the Apple branded "iPod touch"), iPod Nano (rather than "iPod nano"), and iPod Shuffle (rather than "iPod shuffle"). TJ Spyke 21:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, according to the manual of style, "nOok" would probably call for us to call it "nOok". Personally I find this "iPod" nonsense insufferable and would prefer "Ipod", but "iPod" is what Wikipedia has agreed upon for trademarks that begin with a lowercase letter and have internal capitalization. "nook" [sic] does not have any internal capital letters, so like Craiglist and Adidas, we go with "Nook".

Now, "Nook" by itself must be wrong, because that's a word and an architectural feature. I guess we don't have an article about that. Other reasonable options might include Nook (e-book reader) or Nook (Barnes & Noble).

This one really is open-and-shut, I'm distressed that the move hasn't been completed already. —Burn Down Babylon 03:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was and someone reverted ;) I think it's safe to say consensus is reached for capitalizing nook, we can argue about removing Barnes & Noble from the title when it gets there... TastyCakes (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it because the mover didn't follow the process for closing this discussion. So a) the discussion was still open, and b) it was now listed as "Should we move Barnes & Noble Nook to Barnes & Noble Nook?" If someone wants to close discussion properly and then execute the move, I don't care. Propaniac (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't mean to be accusatory or anything. This just seems like a snowball type situation. It's obvious the proposed move is more in line with the manual of style, and since no dispute has been raised, I'm just gonna move it. TastyCakes (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It ought to just be moved to Nook. Then we can all resume this argument there, in terms of whether or not to use {{lowercase}}. :) jæs (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Nooks and books

So, are books cheaper on the Nook? It seems like a waste of money to spend $150-$250 on something you can read books on if they cost the same, unless the books are at a lesser price. 65.87.185.147 (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum. You can check out B&N's pricing on their website (all of their ebooks are on the nook). Please discuss improving the article on the talk page. -Mabeenot (talk) 05:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@65.87.185.147-While this is not a forum, your question seems perfectly relevent to the article to me. I am willing to bet the answer is "no". @Mabbenot- Wow! Talk about curt. ;( 76.246.235.134 (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are countless forums on the internet where you may discuss the product and give your opinion, but this is not the place for that. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for more about the purpose of talk pages on Wikipedia. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should introductory price be changed?

The current price of the nook 3G + WiFi is 199 USD. The stats on the right, however, place it at 259 USD. The current price is buried in the text. Yes, it's high up on the page, but I think the current price should be more easily apparent. Should the introductory price listed on the page be updated to reflect the current pricing? NiveusLuna (talk) 01:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, listing the introductory price has more relevancy than listing the actual prize (or in article the prize as of June 2011). If you want to include the changing prizes you have to include all prize changes since the introduction, which might be hard to maintain. --Yamavu (talk) 09:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Features list needs work

The features list needs to be separated out for the various NOOK models. The current list is based on the original model, which has been discontinued. Doug Pardee (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The entire article needs to be reorganized to describe generations of the product, similar to the article for iPod Nano. -Mabeenot (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nook color.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Nook color.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nook redirect

how come nook redirects here? it certainly is not the primary use of the word. Tinynanorobots (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's of course open for discussion but I think a link to the disambiguation page right below the header of this article is sufficient. According to [1] this page is viewed around 1k times a day, "nook" is viewed around 400 times and the disambiguation only being viewed around 20 times a day as are most of the articles currently linked from there. Okay numbers might change and we shouldn't base decissions solely on them but I think it's certainly a good indicator that about 5% of the people searching for "nook" actually want information about something else than the e-reader. --Yamavu (talk) 09:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Barnes & Noble Nook 1st Edition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]