Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
I won't debate whether people like to argue. It would sort of be like trying to convince a hurricane on whether it can or cannot change course.
What appears to be true is that some people here like like to extrapolate to points of absurdity. For example, "Since I say <X>, everyone does" versus "Since I've never need <Y>, nobody has".
I've yet to see any people (except one or two arguing for it here) describing a "pointer to value". More significantly, I've yet to encounter a programming language that requires, or even encourages, people to think that way.
Under the assumption that my observations support a more general conclusion, I will continue.
Compilers are often designed so they are quite pedantic in their interpretation of a programming language, ignorant of the intent of a programmer, and emit both verbose and cryptic error messages when they fail to understand code they are given. For this reason, it is usually a good idea for the programmer to describe things in a manner consistent with how things are described in their programming language of choice - it makes communication with the compiler easier. Similarly, when communicating with other people who use a programming language, it is also a good idea to describe things in a manner consistent with that programming language. Particularly as one cannot always be certain that another programmer speaks the same human language (English, german, russian, etc).
On that basis, I would suggest describing something as "pointer to value" rather than "pointer to type" and "pointer contains address of value" is absurd.
But that conclusion is based on several assumptions and, if members here like to argue, I am confident they will challenge both my assumptions and my conclusion.
You say you haven't heard people say/write, "pointer to <value of type at location>". Well, I have. Yes, I agree, this is incorrect. Then again, ending sentences in prepositions is too.
cleanup on aisle *boom!*see quzah, english isn't your first language! Clearly it was c.
I'm not immature, I'm refined in the opposite direction.