Talk:Nook Simple Touch

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[touchscreen#Infrared|touchscreen]] Anchor touchscreen#Infrared links to a specific web page: Infrared. The anchor (#Infrared) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Touchscreen technology.[edit]

The infrared grid touchscreen technology used by this reader is the oldest commercialized type. It's reliable and can be adapted to any display technology with a flat screen, or by spacing the IR grid far enough out for the beams to clear the bulge of typical CRTs. Hewlett Packard sold a computer with this technology in the early 1980's. HP-150 Bizzybody (talk) 10:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Nook 2nd Edition"?[edit]

Should we note that it seems that this device is also/was called the "Nook 2nd Edition"? I got one of these today and I saw this name on the boxes for the charger and the various cases. - Thanks, Hoshie 03:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Writer! Be exact![edit]

Fc! Is it very difficult to convert inches into mm accurately? I've lost 60$ because 6.5 in is only 165 and not 170 mm as is indicated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.123.230.154 (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The template makes the conversion, not the editors. It's designed to round up, but since it seems to be an issue, I changed the parameters on the template so that it does not round. - Sudo Ghost 16:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the unnecessarily promotional edit[edit]

I've said this already in an edit summary, but I wanted to open a discussion since it seems to be a recurring issue. This edit should not be in the article for several reasons:

There are multiple ways to restore the Nook, and that information is already in the article; the edit in question makes it seem as though there is only one method.
There's no need to single out and promote one method for no reason; I don't see any third-party reliable sources that have done so.
Per WP:SPS, forums are typically not reliable sources.
External links do not belong in the body of the article.

It is for these reasons that I've reverted the material, because there are plenty of issues with the edit in question. - Sudo Ghost 23:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]