Talk:Apple Wallet/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Apple Wallet. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Link spam
This article has become nothing more than a repository for linkspam. Not sure what we can do about it, but it's a problem.--ukexpat (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Agreed! What do other pages do about it? Can we protect the page? gujamin (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Passbook Pass Creation
Is this page solely for information about the Passbook application, or would it be worth adding information regarding Passbook passes - in particular their creation (JSON, web service...)? Nickjhanson (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Where is the old page with entire Passbook ecosystem?
People, this page is now useless! If businesses don't learn about how to create Passbook passes the consumer will never benefit from this great invention. Can someone bring the old page back with links to the entire Passbook ecosystem, including firms that have backend, mobile marketing agencies, end to end solutions, and example of Passbook usage and adoption worldwide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.128.132 (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- That is an interesting point, and relates to my question above. I am currently working on a University dissertation which is centred around the Passbook API and pass creation, and would be interested in contributing to this article further if required. Nickjhanson (talk) 09:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- No. This is an encyclopedia article, not a how-to guide, instruction manual, or directory of external links. ElKevbo (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with ElKevbo. Prior to his recent edits the article was nothing more than a huge spamfest and a magnet for spamlinks completely in breach of WP:ELNO.--ukexpat (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Every piece of new information starts with a set of links to those who have the knowledge, irrespectively whether they're links to "reference/source" (which may as well be articles written for commercial purposes) or links to scientific papers. My point is when some new technology comes out that only a selected few have the knowledge then the quickest way to learn is to link to them. As the technology matures and more people acquire knowledge then someone will be in a position to write a summary (and most links are then no longer needed). But until then why limit the potential and hence power of Wikipedia? There is nothing here worth abusing at this point, not with Passbook anyway. As it stands Wikipedia is not up to date source of information on Passbook and we all lose out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.128.132 (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- This is an encyclopedia and that means it only includes "important" information. To try to avoid relying on the personal opinions of random people we don't know, we judge importance by the number, type, and quality of published sources discussing a topic. So if there isn't much known or written about a subject then it shouldn't be in Wikipedia at all. ElKevbo (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- I feel that information in this area could be added in a way that does not come across as being a "how-to guide" or "instruction manual". I think that giving facts such as Passbook passes area created using JSON, that there is a need for a Web Service to be in place for Apple to communicate with etc., would be beneficial and still be in a encyclopaedic manner. Nickjhanson (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, that sounds reasonable. ElKevbo (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- It isn't a question of "how-to guide" or "instruction manual". The problem was that the article had become a magnet for linkspam for every Tom, Dick and Harry software company with a Passbook app.--ukexpat (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, OK, I recently added the MLB and "Other companies" sections as part of a University assignment. Of course, I will delete these if the collective wish me to do so? Nickjhanson (talk) 08:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Given that Passbook is now nearly ubiquitous, having a listing of companies is just link spam. Removing listing sections per WP:NOTDIR WP:LINKFARM. The list serves no useful encyclopedic purpose and will always be out of date and incomplete. gujamin (talk) 10:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- If you have links and want to help consolidate and track, please submit to http://www.passsource.com/get.php gujamin (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, OK, I recently added the MLB and "Other companies" sections as part of a University assignment. Of course, I will delete these if the collective wish me to do so? Nickjhanson (talk) 08:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- It isn't a question of "how-to guide" or "instruction manual". The problem was that the article had become a magnet for linkspam for every Tom, Dick and Harry software company with a Passbook app.--ukexpat (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, that sounds reasonable. ElKevbo (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- I feel that information in this area could be added in a way that does not come across as being a "how-to guide" or "instruction manual". I think that giving facts such as Passbook passes area created using JSON, that there is a need for a Web Service to be in place for Apple to communicate with etc., would be beneficial and still be in a encyclopaedic manner. Nickjhanson (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- This is an encyclopedia and that means it only includes "important" information. To try to avoid relying on the personal opinions of random people we don't know, we judge importance by the number, type, and quality of published sources discussing a topic. So if there isn't much known or written about a subject then it shouldn't be in Wikipedia at all. ElKevbo (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- Every piece of new information starts with a set of links to those who have the knowledge, irrespectively whether they're links to "reference/source" (which may as well be articles written for commercial purposes) or links to scientific papers. My point is when some new technology comes out that only a selected few have the knowledge then the quickest way to learn is to link to them. As the technology matures and more people acquire knowledge then someone will be in a position to write a summary (and most links are then no longer needed). But until then why limit the potential and hence power of Wikipedia? There is nothing here worth abusing at this point, not with Passbook anyway. As it stands Wikipedia is not up to date source of information on Passbook and we all lose out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.128.132 (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Current apps available
There seems to be disagreement between User:Gujamin and User:MrCellular as to whether the Passbook article could/should include a "Current apps available" section. So far, arguments for including the section, given by MrCellular, are that the content is not spam and could be useful to visitors, and arguments for removing the section, given by Gujamin, include that the content is against Wikipedia policy (WP:NOTDIR, WP:LINKFARM) and isn't encyclopedic in nature. While the overview of companies that support Passbook may be useful to (some) visitors, this does not, in and of itself, mean that Wikipedia is a good place for the overview. The overview might be suitable for other wikis and websites - MrCellular, see WP:OUT for alternative outlets - but not for Wikipedia. The overview goes against Wikipedia policy (see the pages linked above) and isn't encyclopedic in nature. I have therefore reverted MrCellular's edit. MrCellular, if you disagree, instead of undoing my reversion, please explain why you believe Gujamin and I are mistaken; explain how you interpret Wikipedia policy and applicable guidelines differently. See also the #Where is the old page with entire Passbook ecosystem? section above. WP:EW is not a solution; it is unconstructive. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- I cooncur that this list was anything but helpful and have consequently removed it once again. Practically every entry was either unreferenced or only cited a primary source. If there were a third-party source discussing Passbook's penetration, a summary may be useful, but the list of every single company that has a Passbook app will neither aid our readers' understanding of Passbook, now will it stay maintainable if Passbook's success continues. Speaking of third-party sources, the rest of the article could do with some more of those, too. Half the current sources are Apple itself, plus at least one other example of linkspam. Huon (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
PassKit Self-promotion
Is there a reason why we're allowing all the PassKit (the company) self-promotion? They keep adding links to their site and apps (for example, none of the other provider APIs or apps are linked). Either all should be linked or PassKit's should be removed (or at least rewritten to be more encyclopedic instead of sounding like an ad (which it is)). gujamin (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Page name
Passbook is the name of the service currently in use. Wallet is the name used in Apple pre-release beta software, and even though a (future) name change has been publicly announced by Apple, should not (yet) be the title of this page. On ALL iOS versions publicly available, the service is called Passbook and it is known as such by a general audience. I suggest the title of the page be changed to Passbook until the software is released publicly. Snabbkaffe (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
To me wallet software has to do with blockchains. And so I was thinking this page should be renamed to Apple Wallet... but if they're changing the name of their classically generically named piece of software that would be even better. Leaving out the i shouldn't allow this company to claim words in the dictionary. This is Apple Wallet. Not Wallet. And then Wallet (software) should redirect to Digital wallet or vice versa. Modanung (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Looks spammy
The last two sections of this page look like spam to me. They're not encyclopedic in nature, and serve only to promote businesses. Any reason I shouldn't remove them entirely? --Miken32 (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah pretty sure they violate Wikipedia rules JaJaWa |talk 18:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Even though I have one of the companies on the list, I actually agree this page has been a magnet for spam and black-hat SEO for a while so I have no issues with those being removed. gujamin (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah pretty sure they violate Wikipedia rules JaJaWa |talk 18:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Pass Scanners/Vendors
Is there a reason we are keeping this section around? It seems like a "list" type information that would be better by going to Google or some other source rather than trying to maintain here. It's just advertising for the companies (full disclosure, I own one of the companies). gujamin (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Wallet (application). 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140810074231/https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/PassKit_PG/Chapters/Creating.html to https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/PassKit_PG/Chapters/Creating.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40012195-CH4-SW54
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)