Talk:My Brute

Apps Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of apps 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.AppsWikipedia:WikiProject AppsTemplate:WikiProject Appsapps

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Contribute to the project:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Good article nominations : Improve Application software, Facebook and Instagram to good article status
Stubs : Category:Mobile game stubs, Category:Stub-Class apps articles

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games 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.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Gameplay of Pokémon (4 participants)
Lisette Titre-Montgomery (4 participants)
Party royale game (3 participants)
List of Minecraft characters (7 participants)
Carlton Wilborn (5 participants)
Cossacks (video games series) (2 participants; relisted)
Rat Race (video game) (7 participants; relisted)
Red Barrels (3 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

iTouch

I object to linking to iPod Touch as 'iTouch' as this is neither indicated in any of the sources, nor is this what the product is called by either its manufacturer or wikipedia. Furthermore, I am not aware of any wikipedia policy or guideline that states an article has to have a certain meter or "phrase flow". riffic (talk) 12:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"iPhone and iTouch" (both two syllables, and both starting with the same syllable) has better prose flow than "iPhone and iPod Touch". We should strive to make articles read as smoothly as possible, and quality of prose is indeed something that is a big factor in, for instance, featured article candidates. "iTouch" is a commonly-used abbreviation (nearly 10 million Google hits) for the iPod Touch. Additionally, you are wrong that the product is not referred to as such by either its manufacturer or its Wikipedia article. There are over 200,000 hits for "iTouch" on apple.com (see [1]), and the Wikipedia article mentions that "iTouch" is a commonly-used abbreviation for the product. —Lowellian (reply) 02:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The current revision of the Wikipedia article on the iPod Touch does not mention "iTouch" because User:Riffic removed the word from the article in this edit: [2]. The article previously did mention the common "iTouch" usage. —Lowellian (reply) 01:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, but where are the reliable sources? riffic (talk) 07:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See further below, where I provide three sources. —Lowellian (reply) 01:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not going to start an edit war over this, but I'd like to get a third opinion. riffic (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"phrase flow" by using nicknames is a brand-new argument for me. I've never heard of this argument used when editing Wikipedia. It's like saying we've got to keep Wikipedia to a 6th grade reading level, so that even ESL readers can enjoy Wikipedia. As for the argument that X number of hits for a given nickname come up in Google, Google finding X occurrences of a word just means Google found X number of badly sourced references. Try looking up "dubya george bush" in Google; you'll find 400,000 hits. But, you won't find a "Dubya" in any part of the Wikipedia article about George W. Bush. itouch is just simply a term used to show the user's affection of the device. Otherwise, the MSM as well as many published books use "iPod touch" in its reporting. Groink (talk) 08:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the mainstream media commonly uses the term "iTouch" (I found these on Talk:IPod Touch):

—Lowellian (reply) 01:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These sources (as mentioned on talk:iPod Touch) do not in any way explicitly mention who uses the term itouch, or why. Hence, they did not back up the claimed fact that was removed from iPod Touch and they do not serve as verifiable references. That is why they were removed. Furthermore there are Manual of Style concerns with using a nickname instead of a product's proper name in your usage in this article (My Brute). riffic (talk) 06:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All three of those so-called MSM articles are nothing more than blogs. MSM sites host blogs - that's a common thing nowadays. But, a blog is far from being a mainstream news article. Anytime an article is written in the first person, IMO it is a blog. Bloggers do constantly use "itouch" because most of them write like they speak. Blogs are not considered reliable sources, since bloggers are difficult to qualify individually as experts or other authoritative figures in the field.. Groink (talk) 06:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on My Brute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100329042515/http://www.iphonealley.com:80/node/4447 to http://www.iphonealley.com/node/4447

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is the game dead?

Just got nostalgic and took a look. The site is still there, but the game requires Flash Player, and that doesn't exist anymore. Carlo (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]