Talk:iOS 12/Archive 1

Page Name

Can somebody please change the page name from IOS 12 to iOS 12, I can’t seem to get it to work. SportsFan007 (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

Apparently "xYZZY" and "XYZZY" are the same page, and you can't rename one to another, although there are, I think, cases where different pages have different capitalizations of the same title. The fix is to add a {{lowercase title}} template to the page, which somebody's done. Guy Harris (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Harris: Thank you so much!!! SportsFan007 (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• IOS12Beata1.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

List of default apps

Is it really necessary to have a list with all the default apps? As I can see, such list has been added only on the iPhone OS 1, 2 and 3 articles, where the default apps were way fewer and thus resulting in a very small list compared to this one. (Also, the anonymous user who has created the list (User:89.204.138.167) falsely accuses the editor who reverted his change (User:Theinstantmatrix) for vandalism and sockpuppetry while the first is not true and there is no evidence for the second—just keep this in mind). —Dimsar01 ^Talk ⌚→ 22:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

At most, I think we could have a list of new/renamed apps, but those could just as easily be included in the “App Features” section. That leaves removed apps, which are too uncommon and too few to warrant an entire section dedicated to them. If every page about a new product needed to carry the entire baggage of each of its predecessor, articles would end up a hundred-pages long, and a maintenance nightmare. —Zecanard (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

For the record, see the range contributions of 89.204.139.0/22 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), where IPs within this range tried to add a disputed list of built-in apps. theinstantmatrix (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Tone

The tone of this article is off. Matey lines like "is designed to allow you to create" don't fit how we should be writing articles; the rest of the article is basically a how-to guide, not written in an encyclopaedic way - it looks more like a BuzzFeed listicle.

Also, please don't remove maintenance tags from articles unless you've done the maintenance. Thanks ◦ Trey Maturin 16:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that general maintenance is needed, which is why I reverted the tag. (BRD is supposed to pertain here, by the way.) If you don't like "is designed to allow you to create", feel free to change it. The rest of the article reads pretty much like a straightforward list of things that have changed; there's not much "go here to do that"-type language, for example. But you clearly feel differently — enough to place the tag, anyway, if not to make the changes yourself. Perhaps you could point to an article about an earlier iOS version that you believe reads more appropriately? PRRfan (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

After a week in which Trey Maturin has neither defended the tag nor done any of the work he says is needed, I'm deleting it. PRRfan (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no deadline. The maintenance still requires doing as noted above. Please stop removing maintenance tags from articles and edit warring over them. ◦ Trey Maturin 17:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

You're going to want to familiarize yourself with BRD before you bring "edit warring" into this. (Just to review: You made a Bold edit, which I Reverted, and now we Discuss. Or so it should have gone. Twice.) Anyway, I re-offer you the opportunity to defend your edit (heck, you might even do some of the editing work you are calling for) or face its reversion. PRRfan (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

BRD is a nice bit of general advice, but it's not a Wikipedia rule and it doesn't trump the actual rules about maintenance tags and their removal. Relying on an advisory essay as an excuse for edit warring over your preferred state of an article will get you nowhere. This article needs a root-and-branch rewrite. It's currently not encyclopaedic, it is matey in tone and it reads like a how-to guide rather than what our readers (remember them?) expect of one of our articles. I'd love to do this maintenance myself, but I know nothing about the subject: I came here as a reader to get information and was sorely disappointed with what I found. The maintenance tag, as you know, alerts other readers and editors that there's an issue that could do with being resolved. It's not a black mark on the article, it's not a request for it to be deleted, it's not anything bad, and it doesn't reflect on you personally as the owner of the article. It's just an invite to editors with knowledge of the subject to pitch in and help out. And, of course, advice to our readers that the article isn't one everybody here is proud of -- yet. ◦ Trey Maturin 22:40, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Gentle suggestion: instead of heaving around loaded terms like "edit warring" and "owner of the article," you are warmly invited (again) to explain what it is that you would like (others) to do to this article. You said "matey" and "reads like a how-to guide" earlier; restating these words makes them no more convincing. I have invited you twice to cite specifics, or even an example of an article about a previous version of an iOS that you prefer; I'll now add that you could lay out what info you wanted that you didn't find. You're welcome to do any of this at any time; in the absence of this kind of justification, the need for the tag remains unclear. PRRfan (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment: As an editor that isn't related to the creation of the aritcle's content, I have to say that there is no "how-to guide" tone in the article. It just describes with very few words most of the new features of the operating system. —Dimsar01 ^Talk ⌚→ 14:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

After a week, and in the continuing absence of evidence of its applicability here, the consensus appears to be that the Tone tag does not reflect the actual state of the article. PRRfan (talk) 15:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Two people, one who appears to own the article and one who disagrees with whether all parts of WP:TONE apply here or not, on a quiet talk page of a quiet article, do not a consensus make and do not trump the neutral application of a clean-up tag. And you know this. ◦ Trey Maturin 19:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

You are warmly invited, once again, to cite evidence for your claims. Otherwise, and in accordance with WP custom and policies, your edit is subject to reversion.PRRfan (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)