Talk:IOS version history/Archive 4

iOS 7.x section
Hi all, In the iOS 7.x section, it says: ''Not yet released. It is currently in Beta 1 stage. Expected release date: Fall 2013 (maybe September?)''. Anyone has a reliable source to back this up? Also, i think we should wait to put the month if we are not yet sure. What do you think? Cheers, Zalunardo8 (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * iOS 7b2 dropped, it needs to be updated on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.91.4.173 (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ "Expected release date: Fall 2013 (maybe September?)" – that's been removed and returned to as was. Jimthing (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Looked at this page and was immediately confused about when iOS7 is coming out. Other sources say some time around September but here it says it's been released for 15 days. I'm not sure why you changed it from "Expected release date: Fall 2013" but if that could be put back, it would definitely clarify a few things. Or am I just incredibly confused? Promelior (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Confidentiality Agreements and iOS 7 table
Hi, following on from a concurrent discussion on the "iOS 7" page where the iOS 7 changes table is transcluded. There's been a question raised as to whether much of this information is in the public domain yet, and as a result whether it should be included at all prior to iOS 7's release. At the moment the only possibly pertinent citation is #93, which is Apple's official "What's New?" page for the new OS. But I've identified at least two features in the table on this page that don't appear to be mentioned ("New" banner on newly installed apps have been replaced with blue dots" ; "Inter-app Audio"). Could someone clarify where the majority of this information comes from? Edrarsoric (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Header challenge
There is a bit of a problem with this page that has to do with making links to the sections from other articles, image-file metadata and so forth and even from outside Wikipedia. Where does this link take you: IOS version history? That link takes you to the first instance of that subsection header. So how are people, articles, images, etc., supposed to link to the other two subheaders by that same name? That is why no article should have two or more headers that are titled the same. There are other reasons as shown at WP:SECT. This should be fixed. –  Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 05:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * While the reasons for not having more than one section header with the same name are still valid and helpful, I have recently found that it is possible to link to a same-named section header. This page serves as an example:
 * IOS version history
 * IOS version history
 * IOS version history
 * So, simply by placing a space and then a number that corresponds to the instance of the section header, "2" for 2nd instance, "3" for third instance, and so on, that will take you to the appropriate section. –  Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 18:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 23 March 2014

 * The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

IOS version history → History of iOS – Rename per History of Microsoft Windows, for consistency. --Relisted. walk victor falktalk 20:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC) Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 22:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Oppose, somewhat. See below. ENeville (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support See below. walk victor falktalk 23:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

Isn't this article focused on the technical details of the versions, and thus a "version history"? Whereas History of Microsoft Windows is more of a classical, wordy history, like "History of the Roman Empire"? ENeville (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If it increases the scope of the article and motivates editors to write a more "wordy" history of this operative system instead of the current glorified "list of iOS versions", that's just gravy. walk <i style="color:green;">victor falk</i><i style="color:green;">talk</i> 23:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sorry that I don't understand how this works, but I am a user and trying to help those that are looking for information. Something is wrong with this table. It seems like the dates of release are really the dates the release was superseded. I don't know how to even start to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khervey (talk • contribs) 15:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Current versions
In the "Highest version for" column in the "Current versions" section, the 7.1.2 and 8.0 Beta 4 rows are exactly identical except that the iPhone 4 doesn't appear in 8.0 Beta 4. If 8.0 Beta 4 is the highest version for the devices listed, shouldn't they be removed from the 7.1.2 row?  Event horizon51  (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Personally, I don't have an issue with either presentation. Since 8.0 hasn't been released yet to the majority of the public (i.e. non-developers), I can see how the "highest version" for the majority of people would be 7.1.2 on those devices. However, looking into the past, it appears your way is how it was presented last year. For consistency, we should continue this precedent. Mz7 (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)