Talk:Early iPhone systems-on-chip

Should we add iPod Touch processors also?
Or we should just cover the iphone processors in the article. SMBMovieFan (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd support adding a section for that chip, and briefly mentioning it in the lead. It's well covered in the German Wikipedia so we would have good content, and it's clearly connected to the topic, while being minor enough that it wouldn't belong in its own article. DFlhb (talk) 13:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources
This article uses some sources that should be replaced, such as PDAdb, DeviceBeast, hack2learn and phonedb. Others seems (sometimes borderline) fine to me. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

New title
@Guy Harris @CoolingGibbon I'm not sure if the title is correct. I agree they are not processors but SoCs, but is this the correct plural form? A single iPhone has a *system* on a *chip*, but have multiple iPhones systems on a chip, system on chips or systems on chips? The abbreviation has a clear plural form in my view: SoCs. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:00, 25 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, yeah I've been going back and forth with this. Ultimately I decided to choose the one which (to me) made sense the most. Best regards. - CoolingGibbon (talk) 07:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree; normal pluralization would be "systems on a chip", just like "attorneys general". But really, I think the title is unnecessarily obscure; most people never heard of a "system on a chip", and may think it's nonsensical. "Systems on a chip" may sound even more nonsensical to them.
 * I think the article should be named "Early iPhone chips", or even "early iPhone processors", which is less precise but more recognizable (WP:CRITERIA). DFlhb (talk) 07:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the whole part is an integrated "system on a chip" or a "system-on-chip". It is not a set of systems on a chip (singular). Multiple SoCs would be multiple sets of systems-on-chip (as confirmed by Collins and Wiktionary, similarly to attorneys general). "Systems on chips" would be equivalent to "attorneys generals". For more discussion within Wikipedia, please view some of the moved talk pages such as Talk:List of Qualcomm Snapdragon processors 198.52.130.108 (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I am going to be bold and revert the move. That's what we had a consensus on originally, if the person who wants it to be the current title, please open a move request. PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the academic literature, "systems on chip" is indeed the correct way to pluralize this. I think a move to Early iPhone systems-on-chip (most papers put hyphens) would be best, and most accurate. I was wrong that "processors" was less precise; it's just incorrect terminology here. DFlhb (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 6 February 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Sufficient consensus and rationale demonstrated for this move. (closed by non-admin page mover) --  Dane  talk  06:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Early iPhone processors → Early iPhone systems-on-chip – Proposing a move to "systems-on-chip". It's the only accurate term, since these aren't "processors" (they're quite fundamentally different), and the incorrect title led to a nonsensical lead sentence. "System-on-chip" is a technical term, but it's now pretty widespread, so I don't think recognizability is an issue. I also think it's more encyclopedic to spell it out, rather than spelling it "Early iPhone SoCs" DFlhb (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support I am getting a bit tired of this discussion to be really honest, but let's do it. From my point of view you can be WP:BOLD, but maybe others will oppose. PhotographyEdits (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose: The proposed plural form of "" (which redirects to ) seems too hard to parse. Even in the singular form, it is a relatively obscure term, and trying to pluralize it like this pushes it over the brink in my opinion. Are you sure that's the correct plural? This appears to say it is about more than one system on a single chip, which is not correct. This article is about more than one chip. Each of those chips has only one system. This is different from "attorneys general", since "general" (in that phrase) is a postpositive adjective, not a noun. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar finds 31,000 mentions of it, so it's the correct plural form and in extremely widespread use. In comparison, Google Scholar finds 5,000 mentions of "systems on chips", and 10,000 of "system-on-chips". Here's Google Ngram coming to the same conclusion. I think the proposed title (or "systems-on-a-chip") is the clear common name; and I'll note that laymen commonly pluralize it (as "SoCs"), so I expect no confusion. There's no such thing as multiple (different) systems on a single chip anyway, since the whole point is to have all the integrated circuits form a single integrated ensemble, not several disparate ensembles, whatever that would look like in practice. DFlhb (talk) 06:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've verified your statistics and weakened my expression of opposition above. Perhaps "on-chip" / "on-a-chip" might be considered a compound adjective of "system" here – I'm not especially expert on that –  but I still think the suggested term (especially in the plural form, even if using the most common of the spelled out plurals) may be difficult for some readers to understand. Google Scholar may be skewed toward specialists rather than broad readersship. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)