Talk:iTouch

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

iTouch

"Shorthand for iPod Touch". Are these kinds of things supposed to have entries? --Yair rand 01:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

IMHO no. Delete --Diuturno 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Defense. There are over 510 hits for iTouch. --Widjedi 02:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is clearly verifiable and would no doubt pass RFV, but the issue is whether this is dictionary material. --Yair rand 03:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If anyone cares anymore, we actually have a policy, part of WT:CFI, that bears on this very point. If it is a brand name, that policy is at WT:CFI#Brand names. If it is not a brand name, then it is part of the language and normal attestation should apply. It would seem quite compatible with our populist, anti-commercial ethos to have such subversive corruptions of brand names, if that's what this is rather than a true brand name. DCDuring TALK 15:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say Keep. It is not a brand name. It is a nickname for the brand, rather like (deprecated template usage) Codies for Codemasters or (deprecated template usage) Mickey D for McDonald's. Equinox ◑ 21:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll accept that it's clearly verifiable if someone were to verify it with three citations which meet WT:BRAND. —Michael Z. 2010-03-23 02:53 z

But it's not a brand name: see above. It's a slang nickname for a product properly called iPod Touch. Equinox ◑ 16:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep if I understand correctly that it is not a brand name. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 19:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC) {{look}}

How do we "prove" that it is not a brand name? Does that need some kind of attestation? Does a move to RfV help? DCDuring TALK 18:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Apple hasn't registered a trademark for iTouch. But a trademark, at least Stateside, need not be registered. Perhaps checking whether Apple ever refers to an iTouch as such, and/or whether it puts a "TM" after the name, would indicate brand-name status. (If they are using the term, I assume they're paying Tyco big bucks for the privilege.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Given the lack of registration, the lack of hits at apple.com for iTouch (well, lots of hits, but they're from visitors' questions and the like. I'm not seeing anything official, though I have to admit my search was not great), and Tyco's trademark, I think we can treat this as not a brand name and keep it.​—msh210℠ (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

So, if Tyco accepted a settlement payment not to contest Apple's "Apple iTouch" trademark, than we don't subject it to WT:BRAND. But if Apple were to pay Tyco to use the iTouch trademark under license, we would. DCDuring TALK 20:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I said — or, at least, not what I meant. I meant that it doesn't look like it's Apple's brand, because (among other reasons, such as the failure of a search on apple.com) it's Tyco's brand.​—msh210℠ (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I was just commenting on hypothetical and hard-to-know situations that show the ragged edge of WT:BRAND. Ragged edges, too, are a part of life. DCDuring TALK 19:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

kept. It's not a brand name and there are no other reasons for deletion. -- Prince Kassad 17:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)