Talk:IPad (3rd generation)/Archive 1

Compiling some sources
– Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've restored this section and removed the rubbish in the title. Far from being meaningless, this is obviously a list of sources placed here for future reference. As such it constitutes reasonable content and should not have been deleted. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

"new iPad" Title
The new iPad is not a good title. It should be formal, such as iPad 3 or iPad HD --74.102.169.149 (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess the name should be either iPad (__something__) or the new iPad or new iPad according to its website, not iPad 3 nor iPad HD --Manop - TH (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Please visit Apple's website and confirm. And don't create the pages with inappropriate title. iPad 3rd generation should be the title of the article but you're changing it again and again. How about when we have the next iPad? Shall we still call it the new iPad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aniruddh88 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * http://www.apple.com http://www.apple.com/ipad


 * "The new iPad" is right there in plain sight on Apple's official website.Richiekim (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I propose "iPad (3rd generation)" or "iPad (2012)". heat_fan1 (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Apple do this with every new product. They add new with every device iPhone, iPad, etc. They just named this one as "iPad". No certain name was given.
 * Aniruddh88 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC).


 * On Apple's website, it is just "iPad". I agree with Heat_fan1, it should be titled "iPad (2012)". Airplanegod (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * iPad (3rd generation) seems most appropriate, as it was referred to as such at least once during the keynote, and "the new iPad" for the majority of the time. ~ Josh "Duff Man" (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

From Apple's page, it's obvious that this is not any of the following: They just call it simply "iPad" – it's a new, 3rd gen. revision of the device, but not its name is not any of the above. --hydrox (talk) 02:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * iPad 3
 * iPad HD
 * "The new iPad"

From CNET: "For now it's just calling it 'the new iPad,' but when you actually order it through the Apple Store, what you see in your cart is 'Apple iPad (3rd generation).'" Barsoomian (talk) 05:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * In response to Hydrox, the Apple website does refer to it constantly as "the new iPad". I do however think the article name should stay at IPad (3rd generation). Themeparkgc   Talk  08:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Apple's website does not consistently refer to it as "the new iPad". If you add it to your cart or if you select to compare iPad 3 and iPad 2, it says in the end of the page "Select a new iPad". Also, at least currently I can not find a registered trademark for "the new iPad". --hydrox (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. iPad (3rd generation) is correct (which has been done already I see), as it's used extensively on articles such as IOS version history for years now on similarly named Apple products without an explicit number, and on many other WP pages. "The new iPad" is marketing terminology of differentiation from previous models (again, as now reflected in the article, along with the cited common colloquialism of "iPad 3"). --Jimthing (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Title of Article is Not Formatted Correctly
Although this may sound picky, I'm sure I'm not the only one who noticed this. Apple's new tablet is spelled "iPad", not "IPad" (it should have a lowercase "i"). If anyone can change this that would be great; I can't because my account is brand-new. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MunkyCheez (talk • contribs) 22:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The real title of the page (as seen in the URL) always starts with an uppercase letter, it's a technical "limitation" of mediawiki. 201.213.224.144 (talk) 23:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Going with the discussion, I changed the title of the article to "iPad (3rd Generation)", but MediaWiki automatically corrected the small first-letter to a capital one. Something has to be done about it. Need to talk to an admin.

Antrikshy (talk) 02:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * An admin won't be able to do anything about it. There hasn't been any problems with any of the other articles having the capital, so I don't see why this should be treated differently. Themeparkgc   Talk  08:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As 201.213.224.144 kindly said, it is a technical limitation of MediaWiki, the software that runs Wikipedia. The template is used as a "workaround" for this by showing the title of the page as you see it with the first letter lowercase, but the URL would still be capitalized, unfortunately. Administrators do not have any tools to correct it. Thank you. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 20:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

NOT a quadcore SoC
The SoC used in the new iPad, is a dual core A5x with four graphic cores. So its still a dual core CPU. Jørgen88 (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed by some guy named 189.26.219.140. Zach Vega (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Third or 3rd?
What WP:ORDINALs do we want to use? Marcus  Qwertyus   05:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking "third". A quick search on Google News provides an indication that this is used more commonly than "3rd". Themeparkgc   Talk  08:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * iPad (3rd generation) is correct, as used extensively on articles such as IOS version history for years now on similarly named Apple products, and many others on WP. If writing in prose, one may also say, for example "This is the third generation of device with a home button...", but for bullets and the article title "iPad (3rd generation)" is correct. --Jimthing (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Pre-Order Shipping dates
Shall I add shipping delivery dates of March 16, 2012 for pre-orders (for countries with availability on March 16, 2012)? Also, that the delivery dates slipped to March 19 after a few hours of pre-orders for select models (White 16GB and 64GB AT&T models). By March 10, 2012, all models of the new iPads had delivery dates of March 19, 2012 in the US. (one of many citations at "http://www.mobiletor.com/2012/03/10/new-ipad-shipping-date-shifts-to-march-19/#") On March 9th in the UK, the dispatch dates had slipped to 2-3 weeks after pre-order placement. (cite "http://www.cultofmac.com/151736/new-ipad-shipping-times-slip-to-2-3-weeks-for-u-k/") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatortpk (talk • contribs) 08:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, just leave. The info box on the right clearly has the "Release date" listed per country, which is exactly the same as "ships by" Apple refers to on their iPad ordering pages accordingly. Whenever Apple release these iOS products, each market has a limited supply so Apple can release in as many countries as possible at around the same time (helps them combat the negative press of the markup resales market), so the delivery dates slide after the first people get their orders in. We don't have to mention this unless the first people don't get theirs on Apple's announced dates, then a comment can be added at that time. These 'articles' are just advising their readers (filling column inches!) the blindingly obvious fact that stock of popular products sell out! Jimthing (talk) 04:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

iPad 3 image
There's been a debate about which image to use - File:IPad_3.png or File:The new ipad.png. Umm... so yeah. My argument for the first one is that it is a free image, while the second one is a non-free image. Zach Vega (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Perfectly understandable, and agreeable. But since the physical look of The new iPad and the iPad 2 are almost identical, you have to use a hardware function such as the "retina display" to explain this.  Dream Field Arts''  02:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Elaborate. The second image doesn't really show a Retina display. Just a flower. Zach Vega (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes it does, if it did not the image would be much blurrier.  Dream Field Arts''  03:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a 300 pixel image. The differences can't be seen. Also, as stated before, free images should be used in place of non-free images as much as possible. Zach Vega (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The differences can be seen.  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 06:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The image would have to be displayed at or larger than 2048x1536 in order for the difference to be seen. Also, the screen is off on the free image. Zach Vega (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I know you spent time trying to make this picture, but it resembles the iPad 2 too much, leave it as is.  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That's because the iPad 2 looks exactly like the iPad 3. The non-free image also looks exactly like the iPad 2. Zach Vega (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That's is where you are wrong. The new iPad is actually slightly thicker than the previous. Which you can see in the image with the flower. Also it does show its high quality.  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * A 300px image cannot tell the difference between 0.024 inches or one million pixels. Also, the non-free image violates point one of the NFCC. I might also add again that on the free image, the screen is off and one cannot see the sides. Zach Vega (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * yes, so you agree that your image does not show the differences as the other does.  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 03:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No. The differences are so small that they cannot be seen in an image that size. The Retina display, which is not a small difference, can't be seen because the image is uploaded [and displayed] at a resolution much lower than that of even the iPad 2. Zach Vega (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Uhhh, So what's wrong with not adding a picture? The image dreamfieldarts uploaded will be deleted upon the store release of the iPad and Zach Vega's picture is deceptive nonetheless despite the similarities.YuMaNuMa Contrib 05:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Most product pages have a picture of the product. It shows the reader what the product looks like. Zach Vega (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No picture will always be better than a picture that may potentially deceive and I'm sure the administrators won't delete DreamFieldArt's image until the product is actually released on the 16/3/12. YuMaNuMa Contrib 10:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * How is the image deceitful? Is it because it only shows the front? Zach Vega (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes the image only pictures the front of the iPad and it's the principle of what you're doing. You uploaded an image of an iPad 2 and claimed it as the 3rd generation iPad which is by definition deceitful. Why not just choose from dozens of existing iPad 2 images? It's unlikely someone will measure the shadows depicting the height if any exist. I remember a similar debate in the iPhone 4S article where someone uploaded an straight-above image of an iPhone 4 and claimed it as an iPhone 4S. YuMaNuMa Contrib 10:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It wasn't an image of an iPad 2. That doesn't really matter, since the two are indistinguishable. I remember the image of the iPhone 4S. It turns out that the image had differences with the attenae, and is the image in the infobox today. Anyways, it seems that a lot of products are following a trend of transparent image mockups. I'm just aiming to continue that. Zach Vega (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a no-brainer. Use of File:The new ipad.png breaches the very first criteria of our non-free content policy: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Since a free equivalent (the free content doesn't have to be an exact reproduction) exists, File:The new ipad.png can't be used. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If what you said is true and that the picture isn't of an iPad 2 then disregard what I said before. :) YuMaNuMa Contrib 06:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess you are correct. I cease my argument.  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I just uploaded a new image of the real Ipad 3.  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I just had to revert an edit by Zach Vega because he changed a real free image of the ipad 3 to his photoshop version. Please do not change back before discussing on here, and till one or more users agrees with you.  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to find an image with a transparent background and shows the front part, similar to File:IPhone 4S No shadow.png, but the real object such as the 3rd generation version of File:IPad-WiFi-1stGen.jpg with a transparent background would be optimal for product identification. Zach Vega (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Zach, not be be a dick we aren't using a fake/photoshoped image. We are using the real one.  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not a fake image. Did we use the "real" image on the iMac, the iPhone 4S, the iPod touch, the iPod nano, the iPod classic, or the iPod shuffle? Zach Vega (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes it is, did you take it with a camera...no. We should always use real images.  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No, they were all the vector mockups created in Photoshop. In fact, the image used for the iPhone 4S was created by myself in Photoshop last October. Zach Vega (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * False positive much? you say they aren't and then you do. lets just leave the real image up.  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm saying that there are two definitions of what is "real" here. The images used in those articles would not be "real" based on your definition, since they were created in Photoshop. Zach Vega (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * When I say "real" I mean physical. Your image is abstract.  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 02:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you think the ones in those articles are abstract? Zach Vega (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If it isn't something on Earth and is real, then yes it i abstract.  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with DFA the real image is better then your photoshopped one. Yours looks cheesy and fake Tricdl27 (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * How so? It looks exactly like an iPad. Zach Vega (talk) 03:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Nice I wish it was on though. Also you can't use pictures on talk pages.  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I thought you could use Commons images on talk pages. Oh well. So I guess this discussion is over. Zach Vega (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh then I don't know maybe your right....I thought it was all pics, but I used a non-free on a talk page and it got deleted so I assumed no pictures at all.  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 04:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Conflict with another article
Here is the complete summary obtained from the apple website. http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/

Wi-Fi (802.11a/b/g/n) Bluetooth 4.0 technology Wi-Fi + 4G for AT&T model: 4G LTE (700, 2100 MHz)3; UMTS/HSPA/HSPA+/DC-HSDPA (850, 900, 1900, 2100 MHz); GSM/EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz) Wi-Fi + 4G for Verizon model: 4G LTE (700 MHz)3; CDMA EV-DO Rev. A (800, 1900 MHz); UMTS/HSPA/HSPA+/DC-HSDPA (850, 900, 1900, 2100 MHz); GSM/EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz) Data only4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksmusa (talk • contribs) 09:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, LTE is not 4G it's 3G, Wikipedia is not a platform for amplifying Apple's marketing terms, similarly many US phones carriers market their HSDP+ network as 4G but it's obviously not ~WP:NOTADVERTISING. You can probably add, 'marketed as 4G by Apple' but that's as far as I would go. YuMaNuMa  Contrib 22:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Please refer to File:4G LTE Example.png. Also by saying it is LTE means it could also be 3GPP which it is not.  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No one said to explicitly say that it's 3G, my point is that LTE is not 4G and thus should not be classed as so regardless of what Apple markets it as, I gave you a suggestion above as to how to address this dilemma... - for now, I'm tagging this article as contradicting the 4G article. YuMaNuMa  Contrib 06:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * but by just saying LTE you do not know if it is 3G or 4G. The new ipad is 4G understand that please.  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not allow original research. Calling the 3rd gen iPad anything other than 4G LTE is original research. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that isn't original research because that claim has already been cited in the 4G article, the iPad (3rd gen) article is contradicting sourced content in that article. Learn to distinguish. It's foolish to blindly ignore other articles when it is sourced. And LTE is 3G, the classification standard 3G, not the protocol UMTS(often refer to as 3G which it is). YuMaNuMa Contrib 21:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia can NOT be used as a source, that's WP:CIRCULAR logic. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * wikipedia was not being used as a source.the link was to an image that is from apples website because the user didn't seem to care to go to the website. It should, and SHALL be called 4G LTE because by saying LTE you don't infer how many megabits of data it takes per second. By saying it is not on LTE, and just saying 4G can lead to that runs on something different, which leaves the only logical thing to say, which is 4G LTE.  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I said that the claim in the 4G article is sourced ("cited in the 4G article"). Look, frankly, I don't give a s*** if you want to call it 4G LTE (3G) or use my suggestion and add 3G LTE (marketed as 4G by Apple) but I just want to get the message that LTE is not technically 4G across. 11, here's a few sources I found on Google. By calling it LTE you are implying the theoretical bandwidth of the protocol so what on earth are you trying to get across by saying "LTE you don't infer how many megabits of data it takes per second". LTE is a protocol, we understand what that is right? By saying 4G LTE, you're implying that it's LTE Advance which this device obviously doesn't support; simply including LTE is fine and leaves 3G to be implied. The reason why this device is not a 4G LTE device is because it uses the LTE protocol but the bandwidth is way under 1gbit/s. Instead of being productive, you decided to argue invalid points and remove my tag when there is clearly an issue that has not been settled. YuMaNuMa  Contrib 04:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah about the tag that was an accident. But I do understand what you mean. But by saying 4G LTE, your infering two different things that it uses 4G and anything below it (3G, 2G, etc.) and LTE as what the bandwidth is.  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To whoever is removing the tag from the article, please stop doing so. It takes me a little longer to reply because I'm located on the opposite side of the world to most of the editors in this debate. Anyways, DreamFieldArts, can you please clarify what you just said, I didn't quite understand what you just said. I'm replying on what I think you wrote; the reason we can't use 4G to also include the protocols classified as 3G and such is because to be technically classed as 4G, a protocol must meet the requirements for it and the requirement for 4G is that the protocol must be able to transfer at least 1gbit/s while the device is stationary or 100mbit/s while the device is travelling at high speeds(200-300km/s), these requirements were set forth by a globally recognised regulator and is now considered a standard. YuMaNuMa Contrib 00:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand how you are upset fustrated, try looking into the revision history to see if you can see who did it.  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not upset, just frustrated - so are we settled on the fact that the device is incorrectly labelled 4G LTE? YuMaNuMa Contrib 01:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah that is what I meant. What do you mean it is incorrectly labelled. And what do you think the alternative is.  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We've been discussing about this issue for the past 2-3 days - read up on what we've been discussing about above. YuMaNuMa Contrib 01:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have, I've been in the discussion. But I don't see a final proposal.  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In the prose refer to as "LTE (marketed as 4G by Apple)" once and only include LTE for the remaining references to it. Simply including [[Long Term Evolution|LTE]] in the infobox is fine. YuMaNuMa Contrib 02:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ehh, when you buy an iPad it says "iPad + 4G" not "iPad + LTE." I think "4G LTE" is fine. It doesn't contradict either. I'd rather it just be 4G, if it is such a problem.  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why we're including '(marketed as 4G by Apple)' in the prose, as for the infobox connectivity information should not comprise of marketing terms, it should be strictly comprised of technical information which is the point of the infobox - to summarise the device's technical specification. YuMaNuMa Contrib 02:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason why the notice was removed is because I changed everything to "LTE" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IPad_(3rd_generation)&oldid=482005660 before someone reverted the changes. Zach Vega (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeap, I saw your edits but unfortunately Acps110 thought it constituted WP:OR when he misread my response but I retagged the article and once again it was removed by another editor who claimed that the 4G article was not relevant. YuMaNuMa Contrib 03:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Lets just leave it 4G and stop arguing about it. 4G is the right this. Actually 4G LTE is the right thing but we aren't just going to put up LTE. But guys really, you guys are just nit picking ok, it isn't contradicting how does an iPad relate to network. and if you the 4g contradict LTE put it there put there is no need of it here.  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What? So we shouldn't simply add "LTE" because it looks unsightly? I would rather it look unsightly than potentially misleading someone into think that LTE is actually classed as 4G. There is a contradiction to the 4G article because content in this article directly contradicts cited content in that article. To put it bluntly, I feel like I'm beating a dead horse now but I'm hesitant to make any edits because I have a feeling that you may revert it back... YuMaNuMa Contrib 03:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 4G LTE IS CORRECT!!!!! leave it that way!!!Tricdl27 (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thanks for your input, read up on the discussion and provide a reason why. YuMaNuMa Contrib 03:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Stop making things up, 4G LTE is correct. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Finally...Thank you!!!  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I honestly do not find this issue that prominent. It's rather trivial, as everyone knows what we mean by "3G LTE", "LTE", or "4G LTE", or "3GPP", or "3GPP-LTE", or "4G". Zach Vega (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I never expect this argument to last so long, I never coward down when truth is being conceal.(*Cue cheesy music) In all seriousness, LTE being classified as 4G is one of the largest misconception in western societies, just doing my part to make sure an informative sources such as Wikipedia doesn't fall prey to this misconception. YuMaNuMa Contrib 01:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither do I, but some people kept reverting it from "4G LTE" >to> "LTE", which made no sense. We had to figure it out what to do on here. But finally more than one person agreed that it should be "4G LTE."  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I only changed 4G LTE to LTE once and Zach did it once. And..someone removed the tag again and the issue has not even been settled yet. Is it really hard to compromise your developed beliefs that LTE is 4G and stick to technicalities, honestly, you guys have provided me with no evidence or valid arguments as to why it should be kept as 4G LTE, the only arguments you have provided me with is that, "Apple says it's 4G LTE", gave you a counterargument and I was met with similar responses, again and again. YuMaNuMa Contrib 00:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As it stands right now, the cell phone carriers are saying that 4G and LTE are two different things. That may not be the case in the future, but that's how it is right now. The iPad does both, so we must include both. The technicality of how the radios work, or how to define 4G, really doesn't make any difference.
 * I've read through the Owner's Manual posted at http://manuals.info.apple.com/en_US/ipad_user_guide.pdf, and the iOS has MANY different icons for the top status bar depending on which protocol or radio is active (LTE, 4G, 3G, EDGE, etc). From the user's perspective, it is seamless; The iOS chooses the best connection available at the moment without asking the user. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How many times do I have to say this? 4G is classification, LTE is a protocol, 3G is classification, UMTS is the protocol that fits within this classification. You cannot use a classification to transfer data, voice calls, SMS, you need a protocol. In addition to that, some companies, such as Verizon markets their HSDP+ network as 4G hence the reason why the manual splits 4G LTE and 4G into two sections. Oh my, I never knew the iPhone 4S can support 4Gzzzzz!!! Unless the device can transfer over 1gbit/s then the status bar should not be reporting the connected protocol as 4G but as I said before it's a marketing term and as Wikipedia is suppose to be neutral, we should remove all market terms whenever possible and I have provided I suggestion above as to how to overcome this issue. Yeah really, I'm making stuff up, geez, you're stubborn. YuMaNuMa Contrib 00:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * NO, NO, NO! just stop it.  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * YuMaNuMa, Wikipedia exists to document things as they ARE; not as you want them to be. Stop trying to stuff 4G into some arbitrary spec that only you want or understand. 4G and LTE are both classifications, TCP/IP is the protocol regardless of the transmitter used! This article doesn't contradict anything; you just don't understand the 4G article. 4G is much more than just one thing, it is a broad umbrella. Stop insisting on your opinion of what 4G is being the WP:TRUTH, and just go by the source material. If you can't agree with the source material, then find another article to work on. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's right, we document thing as they are, the iPad (3rd generation) is not a 4G device because LTE itself is not classified as 4G. I provided you with sources(source to prove my iPhone 4S argument above since you can't be bothered looking it up), explanation, you on the other hand provide me with insults and nonsense about a topic that you do not understand. I will repeat this again, Wikipedia is not a platform for you or DreamFieldArts to amplify Apple's marketing terms, because that's what 4G is to Apple right now, a marketing term. LTE does not meet the requirements of 4G standardised by a globally recognised regulatator. But yeah, 4G is a classification, glad that got through your head but here's the problem LTE currently is not able to transfer anywhere close to 1gbit/s . Here's a suggestion for you, don't bother arguing stuff you have no idea about. Geez, you are even more stubborn than a mule. I will not be deterred because you lack reasons and probably logic to form a well sustained argument. YuMaNuMa Contrib 04:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I read something about the ITU accepting at some meeting or other that companies can use "4G" terminology for so-called 3.9G (LTE) product marketing. Reason being LTE is the lead-in technology to the fully compliant 1Gbps LTE-Advanced. So you may want to check that before asserting your point of view here. Such branding/marketing nuances can often be apparent surrounding technical standards, despite them being deemed "standards", for many a reason (not least the fact, one could summate, that these standards bodies represent businesses interests, either directly or indirectly, in order for such interests to sell products). --Jimthing (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If only you came forth earlier; anyways as the ITU is not a binding body, no company has to use or implement the standards that the ITU sets. Companies marketed their devices as 4G years before the ITU loosened the requirements of 4G in late 2010. However as quoted in this article, the ITU still stands by the requirements previously set forth. As it's standing by it's official definition of 4G, a footnote should left at the bottom of this article and any other articles regarding the use of 4G to clarify any further misunderstandings. Anyways, thanks for further clarifying the issue. YuMaNuMa Contrib 04:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think most of us understand this ITU standard for 4G proper, so please don't repeat it ad infinitum: WE KNOW. Just as you said "the ITU is not a binding body, no company has to use or implement the standards that the ITU sets", but in addition to this, it's irrelevant as they have stipulated that 3.9G can be sold as 4G. Hence Apple are entitled to call this the "iPad Wi-Fi + 4G", and that's what the item should be called, not using some "but it isn't really following the actual standard 100%" excuse for it not to be. Then importantly, to clarify this "official standards" policy issue, just add a VERY simple section called "4G naming confusion", which briefly explains the standards difference, along with info on how only some markets (the US) can actually use this pre-4G connection anyway (bands available on the device, et al). Nothing is lost or gained in keeping models of product named as they are by certain brands, as long as an explanation can be added to simply explain such issues. And move on. --Jimthing (talk) 05:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that my arguments prior to this day were based on the arguments advanced by the other editors at the time and I was not aware of the revised requirements even though I should have further researched the issue before advancing my arguments. Anyways, that's a reasonable conclusion, will get started on writing it either later today or tomorrow. YuMaNuMa Contrib 06:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

3rd opinion
A 3rd party opinion has been requested since Acps110 keeps on arguing the same points that me and DreamFieldsArt have already been through over and over again. I suggest no one present any further arguments until a 3rd party opinion has been inputted but obviously you're not going to do that. YuMaNuMa Contrib 04:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard
Unfortunately as we have more than 2 editors regardless of whether the same opinions are posted cannot be listed on the request for a 3rd party opinion. In that case, I'll file a dispute resolution case here. YuMaNuMa Contrib 05:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling the debate might go on for days. Zach Vega (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Everyone on there even says 4G LTE, everybody is disagreeing with YuMaNuMa.  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:OR here is the limitation not my arguments, my arguments are still valid unless you guys can prove otherwise, I have proven my arguments by citing the ITU which refutes the fact that LTE is internationally classified as 4G, sources quoting Apple states otherwise and unfortunately as I said before, you can't put 2 sources together and claim let logic work out the rest. No one is disagreeing that my claims are incorrect only that my sources constitute as WP:OR as none directly refer to the iPad. There are only 3 people in this discussion, 2 attempted to provide reasons and one initially agreed with me until WP:OR proved as a limitation to the inclusion of my arguments. DreamFieldArts, I appreciate you arguing the pertinent issue here with civility. Acps110, pleasure debating with you although my comments did get a little hostile, I apologise if they offended you in any way. I accept the final judgement produced by the administrator and will not bring this issue up again for the time being, I may still appeal this issue to another board regarding the sources being presented as suggested by a user in the dispute resolution. YuMaNuMa Contrib 22:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Who was the third guy? Me? Zach Vega (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Small presence but a presence nonetheless. I assumed you agreed as you edited the article with the suggestion I provided above but was reverted by Acps110. YuMaNuMa Contrib 22:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm gonna have to go with DFA and the other guy on this one. The debate needs to be somewhere in the article though. Zach Vega (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah its on the noticeboard so more people can see it I think. The thread is "IPad (3rd generation), 4G".  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

'''The iPad 3 dispute resolution has been archived, here's the archive link for future reference. 4G LTE Dispute Resolution case'''

iPad HD
Why did some one deleted that it is also sometimes called iPad HD  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it was only called that prior to its announcement. No-one has called it that since it was announced. WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies here. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reference for that claim? The fact that numerous news sources refer to the 3rd generation iPad as the iPad HD should be mentioned somewhere within this article. YuMaNuMa Contrib 06:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What?! I have to provide a source that says something doesn't exist? Sorry, but if you want to include the iPad HD or iPad 2S, please cite a reliable source published after March 7th, that has called it that. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It was previously called iPad HD and is still known as the iPad HD to some of the technologically slow. 1 Uhhh, is the Rolling Stone considered reliable in this context? Haha, to be honestly, adding that people colloquially refer to it as the iPad HD to the article isn't really a concerning matter, just pointing it out that some may still refer to it as that even if you don't. YuMaNuMa Contrib 04:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It was a rumored name that had like one day of traction.. --SubSeven (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * please understand that a source is given. But since nobody calls it that anymore, means it shouldn't be listed any more. Peace.  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

WAY too many images
Guys do we really need all these images. I already took out the inside of the box one because that is just not needed. Does anyone think we need tim cook introducing it, and also the box of the new ipad???  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem. They're all free and add something to the article. It's kinda like the iPhone 4S article. Zach Vega (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a picture book  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be a picture book only if the article consisted of images with short descriptions. It's far from that. Also, all the images are of encyclopedic merit, showing either the introduction, product features, or product identification of the 3rd generation iPad. Zach Vega (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It was an analogy.  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the picture of the camera is a bit much - looks the same as any other tablet/phone camera. --SubSeven (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What is your opinion of File:IPad 3 box contents.jpg and File:IPad 3 speaker.jpg? Zach Vega (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree with subseven, as I stated above. It isn't a picture book (analogy). I don't even think we need an image of the box.  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The box would be needed to identify the product though. Zach Vega (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But it is like saying the page for apple (fruit) i put the bag that I got it in on there too.
 * All apples come in different bags. iPads, however, come in one uniform box. Zach Vega (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The speaker image I would rather not see for the same reason as the camera; I don't think anything is learned by looking at this unremarkable speaker.  Whatever amazing audio technology is getting pumped through it, it doesn't show here :)
 * As for the box.. I think an image of the outside of the box may have merit, as a depiction of the product's marketing/presentation.  This image of the inside of the box, personally I'd lean towards omitting it.   --SubSeven (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Any ideas of which other images to add? Zach Vega (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Zach, we already have to many images.  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Four free images isn't too many. Zach Vega (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I know but there was like 8 earlier today  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you think of using the "< \gallery>" function? Zach Vega (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess it might be a good idea...  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Retina display
I have a question. Who believe that the retina display image should be in features, and who believes it should be in hardware?  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Both. The Retina display affects both hardware and software. Zach Vega (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean features & hardware right? Also we can't include the image twice was my point. I am trying to figure out which should it be in.  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh. Well I'd put it in hardware, since it's just two letters. Zach Vega (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That what I thought, we will just leave it where it is.  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

4G LTE
What is meant by this "4G LTE" the iPad 3 is supposed to support? Is it LTE Advanced, the only standard currently accepted as being 4G by the ITU, or is it 3GPP Long Term Evolution, which is sometimes marketed as 4G but is really just 3G according to ITU definitions. The article should make clear what is actually meant instead of using the ambiguous term "4G LTE". - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's 3GPP. Zach Vega (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Taalverbeteraar, please the read the arguments given above as well as the linked resolution dispute, I had the same point but unfortunately i couldn't find a source explicitly stating the iPad 3's LTE band was not considered as 4G, its a sure limitation of Wikipedia and the content you can include in it but nothing can be done about it as far as I know. YuMaNuMa Contrib 22:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I completely missed the lengthy discussion above, as I didn't expect to find it under such a vague title ("conflict with another article"). Still, I don't see what all the fuss is about. The article about the standard is called 3GPP Long Term Evolution, and it's an indisputable fact that that is the standard supported by the iPad, so why not just link to that article and leave it up to the reader if he or she wants to call it 4G? My main point is that it should at least be clear which standard is meant: currently the infobox links to 4G LTE, which is a redirect to 4G, an article which includes both LTE and LTE Advanced. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 11:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't believe I didn't think of that simple solution but I don't know if the other will agree to it. Linking 4G LTE to the actual LTE article would definitely be more suitable than linking it to the 4G article and can serve as a temporary solution for the time being while the case is being raised and examined in the reliable source noticeboard. Sorry about the generic section name, I had to make it more easy for users to get access the that section via article tags and Wikilinks. YuMaNuMa Contrib 11:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's an idea, link 4G → 4G article and LTE → LTE article So this 4G LTE.  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I second this notion. Zach Vega (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support this until a judgement is made in the reliable source dispute. YuMaNuMa Contrib 23:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone decided to change it to "cellular model"...I changed it back. Ob tund Talk 21:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It was changed to "cellular model" because that is how Apple markets the iPad's 4G LTE capabilities after numerous complaints for false advertising and how the capability is only operative in the United States and Canada (maybe even Mexico?). YuMaNuMa Contrib 22:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

File:IPad 3 keynote.jpg Nominated for Deletion

 * What the....? Zach Vega (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thought the same thing.  DreamField Arts''  (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

tech specs chart
Do we really need the tech specs chart. the iPad 2 article doesn't have it, only the first version does.  DreamField Arts''  Talk 22:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's feature creep. This is not an article about all iPads, it is only an article about the third generation. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's for product comparison. Zach Vega (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You could also make the table collapsable like the one in the 4S article. Zach Vega (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The new table is a reference mess. Zach Vega (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, fixed Zach Vega (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Legit, we do not need this, this isn't the iPad article its a version of it, and the chart isn't necessary. I don't care about the iPhone 4S chart, it will be deleted.  DreamField Arts''  Talk 03:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate edits
I've reverted a series of edits on this talk page that were unnecessary, mostly unconstructive and in some cases inapproprite. As per WP:TALKCOND, talk page content should be archived, not deleted. Sections don't need, and really shouldn't be closed with discussion top and discussion bottom unless there is GOOD reason to do so. Quite aside from this, the way in which discussion top and discussion bottom were added to the talk page has screwed up the formatting extensively, making it extremely difficult to archive this page when needed. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah I noticed that. I am cleaning it up right now  DreamField Arts''  Talk 18:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Legal action
Should mention be made of the the legal action against apple being taken by the ACC? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-27/apple-heads-to-court-over-ipad-4g-claim/3915868 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.35.82.133 (talk) 06:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Should be ACCC. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Retina display and other expert opinions by editors
People, please, instead of your own pieces of expert opinion and broad interpretation of unrelated sources use references! Furthermore, we have a talk page here everyone may use to express the concerns without being disruptive. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 05:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved, insufficient consensus to move to suggested new title Mike Cline (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

IPad (3rd generation) → iPad 3 YumOooze (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Reasons

 * Just because Apple calls this "iPad" does not mean that Wikipedia must obey Apple's every word. According to policy (WP:COMMONNAME): Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title. The common name should be used instead.
 * WP:PRECISION policy states that we should use the most common form of disambiguation used by reliable sources. Reliable sources use "iPad 3" far more often that "iPad (3rd generation)". Parenthesis should only be used if natural disambiguation is not possible.
 * In fact, Apple (a primary source) should be considered to be less reliable than secondary sources (WP:PRIMARY)
 * Even if "iPad" is used more frequently than "iPad 3", disambiguation rules shows that "iPad 3" is the better name. However, both "iPad" and "iPad 3" are frequently used by reliable sources. As stated in policy: When there is no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering the questions indicated above [on WP:AT]. The most recognizable, natural, and concise title should be used. That title is "iPad 3".
 * Whether "iPad" or "iPad 3" is more frequently used has not been proven by anybody, and is irrelevant as stated before.
 * Some opposers argue that the name "iPad (3rd generation)" is correct per WP:DISAMBIGUATION rules. That is incorrect as previously described.
 * We cannot make decisions based on unverifiable speculation. Arguments based on what Apple or other people will do in the future fall under WP:CRYSTALBALL.
 * This is not a vote (WP:NOTDEMOCRACY/WP:NOTVOTE). As shown in previous discussions (e.g. moving Republic of China to Taiwan), policy-based discussion overrules vote count.

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 iPad 3 is not the official name therefore it should not be used despite its popularity. It should definitely remain as a redirect, if it isn't already. Same can be said about the itouch, despite the popularity of this name used in substitution of the name iPod touch, it shouldn't be the title of the article on Wikipedia. YuMaNuMa Contrib 00:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * According to policy (WP:COMMONNAME): Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title. The name of an article should be a recognizable name, which may not be its official name. YumOooze (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The point here is that Apple distant and detached themselves from the iPad's numbering system for a reason, in fact many reliable sources have specifically mentioned this. How are we suppose to address this problem in the article? Also note that when most reliable sources mention the iPad 3 (possibly done so readers can familarise themselves), quotation marks are used to emphasise a certain point, obviously we can't do that on Wikipedia hence the reason why we should stick to the official name. Also using a google search is a poor way of conveying your point of the name's popularity, by adding the word 'generation' into the search box, you limit a further several million 'results' that refer to the 'iPad 3' as simply the iPad with no number or suffixes - which is the how most reliable sources refer to the new iPad. YuMaNuMa Contrib 01:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your claim about reliable sources is not supported by the references of this article. In the first 25 references, I can only find one that uses the quote marks you describe. Do you have any proof that most reliable sources use quote marks? And even if they do, the fact that readers are most familiar with the term "iPad 3" reinforces my position that "iPad 3" is the most recognizable and common name and thus should be the title of this article per WP:COMMONNAME. YumOooze (talk) 02:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1, while other sources may place the name iPad 3 in parenthesis. YuMaNuMa Contrib 04:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)2
 * Neutral, leaning towards oppose The term "3rd generation iPad" makes the article sound really awkward. I can see since everyone calls it that, it should be called the iPad 3. Kinda like Bill Clinton. However, iPad 3 is not the official name and Apple did not call it that for a reason. Also look at YuMaNuMa's comments. Zach Vega (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my previous comments and that of SubSeven. Zach Vega (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please provide a valid reason that is supported by Wikipedia policy. YumOooze (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article title IPad (3rd generation) is standard Wikipedia naming protocol, where articles with the same name are differentiated by a parenthetical (see WP:PRECISE). It does not imply that the name of the product is 'Ipad 3rd Generation'.   The product is simply named the iPad, and the current article title deals with this correctly. --SubSeven (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the naming is correct if the article title was "iPad". However, the article title should be "iPad 3" because that is the most commonly used name of the product. Apple's official name might be "iPad" but that doesn't matter if the WP:COMMONNAME is different. YumOooze (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not enough of a clear-cut case here for WP:COMMONNAME, in my opinion.  I am combing recent articles in a Google News search for 'iPad' and I'm seeing very few instances of 'iPad 3'.  --SubSeven (talk) 02:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if the name is not clear-cut, then the guidelines in Article titles should be used. The name "iPad 3" is the most recognizable and natural title. The official name does not automatically overrule everything else just because the name is not clear-cut. YumOooze (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But it should be taken into consideration as per my points in the discussion below. From the precedent Apple has set in the last iPad release, I don't believe the iPad will continue to use the numbering system that it has used before. Not to WP:CRYSTALBALL but Apple seems to be moving away from the numbering system on all their products. YuMaNuMa Contrib 02:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If Apple moves away from the numbering system but most reliable sources continue to use it, then Wikipedia should follow the reliable sources, not apple (WP:COMMONNAME). Apple Inc is not the god of Wikipedia. YumOooze (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Apple has released two different products with the name "iPad". One was sold from April 2010 to April 2011, the other from April 2012 to present. In between these two products was a third product named "iPad 2". Per WP:DISAMBIGUATION, when two articles have the same name, a parenthetical is used for disambiguation. In this case, the iPad article is used as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the all three products. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read my other comments. Just because Apple calls it "iPad" doesn't mean that Wikipedia must obey Apple's every word. Wikipedia uses the most common name used by reliable sources, NOT the official name. YumOooze (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything about its official name vs its common name. However, iPad is both its official name and its common name. Since we already have an article named iPad for a different product, per WP:DISAMBIGUATION, 3rd gen is tacked on the end. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have proof that "iPad" is the clear-cut common name? Based on the references of this article, both "iPad" and "iPad 3" seem to be used equally in reliable sources so the guidelines in WP:AT policy come into play. We should select the most recognizable and natural name, which is "iPad 3". YumOooze (talk) 04:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I also am not happy with your assertion that since Apple decided to call it iPad instead of something else, that we should just make something up for the article title. The article title is currently in compliance with Wikipedia's naming policies, especially those that deal with duplicate names. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We are not making up anything. The name "iPad 3" is widely used by reliable sources as you can see in the references of this article, and it is clearly the most recognizable and natural name for this article per WP:AT policy. Just because Apple doesn't call it "iPad 3" doesn't mean that it is made up. YumOooze (talk) 04:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But some sources explicitly state that Apple removed the generation-number suffix from their iPad and iTV line with no stated reason. Won't that contradict with the article title and the prose which we will have to change if the title changes. YuMaNuMa Contrib 04:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Some sources also exclusively call it the "iPad 3". Doesn't the current article title contradict with them? This type of reasoning is flawed, which is why we have Wikipedia policy (WP:AT) that provides guidelines for article titles. Since there is no clear-cut common name, the most recognizable and neutral name should be used, which is "iPad 3". YumOooze (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In what way is the name, iPad 3, neutral? If anything, it contradicts the most reliable source(s) available, sources from Apple which explicitly refer to it as the iPad. What evidence do you have to prove the name iPad 3 is more recognisable? You couldn't even prove that the title iPad 3 is more commonly used, since you can't prove your previous assertion then the recognisability of the name, iPad 3, is unlikely to be proven - as well. YuMaNuMa Contrib 03:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Primary sources (such as Apple) should actually be taken as less reliable than secondary sources (WP:PRIMARY). The recognizably of the name shall be determined by consensus. If you genuinely believe that "iPad" is more recognizable that "iPad 3", then I respect your opinion but I think that "iPad 3" is clearly more recognizable. Regarding proof, nobody has proven which name is more widely used by reliable sources (your statement about most sources using quote marks also has not been proven). This is why I believe policy-based consensus is more important here. YumOooze (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we are certainly stuck in a pickle. Disregard my quotation mark argument, it appears only several Huffington Post articles stylise iPad 3 in that way. YuMaNuMa Contrib 02:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "iPad 3" is not widely used in reliable sources.  Maybe it is if you take a biased sample, which consists mostly of old (pre-launch) sources, and even then it's a stretch to say it was widely used.   "iPad 3" is being used less and less if you look at current news articles, and that trend will only continue.  Apple went out of their way to not name this thing "iPad 3".   If you can make a case that, by and large, people are still calling it the iPad 3, then a name change may be appropriate.   Right now, your case is not convincing.    --SubSeven (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * We cannot make decisions based on unverifiable speculation (see WP:CRYSTALBALL). Nobody knows what people are going to call it in the future. On the other hand, policy (WP:AT) states that the most recognizable, neutral, etc. title should be used and one that is frequently used by reliable sources. It does not have to be used "by and large". Furthermore, the references of this article show that "iPad 3" is widely used. Please make comments based on policy and not what is convincing to you. YumOooze (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The references of this article do not show that "iPad 3" is (as in currently) widely used. --SubSeven (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Apple calls it "The New Ipad, and also 3rd gen in the apple store. The is no confirmed name of "Ipad 3" so this move would make not sense. It's an ipad and the 3rd edition so ipad 3rd gen. Obtund (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your statement is contradictory to Wikipedia policy. Please read the above comments and WP:COMMONNAME. YumOooze (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose By that same logic, we could call this article "iPad HD" and we could rename the iPod Touch to the iTouch (since that is what many people call it) or call the 4th generation iPod Touch the iPod 4. http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MC706LL/A? says "iPad (3rd generation)". Not iPad 3. iPad (3rd generation) should be sufficient as it states that the article is about an iPad and it is the 3rd generation model. ShiroiShimaTora (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Most people go by the official iPod Touch name with occasional exceptions for brevity. I've also never heard anyone call the 4th gen iTouch iPod 4. Marcus   Qwertyus   05:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a policy-based discussion, not "logic". The iPod touch is rarely referred to as iTouch by reliable sources while this product is widely called "iPad 3". Look at the references on each page, and please read Wikipedia official policy WP:COMMONNAME. YumOooze (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support; I cannot begin to fathom any policy-based reason to prefer the current title over the sensible and logical iPad 3 (or even New iPad). WP:AT sets out five criteria that we should follow when naming an article: Recgonizability, Conciseness, Precision, Naturalness, and Consistency.  The proposed title is better in every way than the current title.  Powers T 14:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Good nom but most of the media and even quite a lot of iPad 3rd gen owners are calling it iPad. New iPad would be even worse since no one will call it that when the 4th gen iPad comes out. (Edit: If people are calling this the iPad 3 by the time the 4th generation iPad rolls around, I will wholeheartedly support a name change.) Marcus   Qwertyus   05:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But "iPad" is not available as a title. We have to disambiguate it somehow.  Why favor "(3rd generation)" over a simple "3"?  Powers T 18:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * iPad (3)? Probably not. iPad 3? Definitely not. iPad 3 makes it sound like it is the name most commonly used by users. Marcus   Qwertyus   18:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How does using a somewhat common (even if not the most common) name, "iPad 3" make it sound like it's the most common? Also, so what if it does?  The lead will clarify that for anyone who's confused.  And why doesn't "iPad (3rd generation)" have the same problem?  Powers T 15:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Because "(3rd generation)" is a disambiguator and "3" does not have the telltale brackets around it to let the reader know it is not the common name. Marcus   Qwertyus   02:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But "3" is also a disambiguator, and "iPad 3" is a common name even if it's not the most common name. My point is this: We can't use just "iPad", so "the" common name is not an option; we have to add something.  Why not add a simple, one-character disambiguator like "3" instead of adding "(3rd generation)"?  Yes, "iPad 3" is not the most common name, but it is at least far more common than "iPad (3rd generation)".  Powers T 15:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy does not allow us to just make up a name if the name is already in use. WP:DISAMBIGUATION prescribes a parenthetical disambiguator. That's where the (3rd generation) comes from. See my comment above; we have two different products that are called "iPad". Acps110 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) We're not "just mak[ing] up a name"; the proposal suggests a very common form of the name ("iPad 3"). It's widely accepted practice on Wikipedia to use a less-common form of a name if the most-common form is ambiguous.  2) WP:DISAMBIG does not require parenthetical disambiguators; in fact, WP:PRECISION makes clear that "natural disambiguation" is actually preferred over parenthetical.  Powers T 14:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that WP:DISAMB requires anything. I said that it "prescribes" the parenthetical. This argument is no different from "iMac". When someone says to me, "I have an iMac", I often ask, "Which one?" because there have been over 40 different iMac models since its introduction in 1998. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have proof that "most of the media" uses the term "iPad"? I do not believe that there is any clear-cut name that is most widely used. And Google suggests that most non-reliable sources are using the term "iPad 3". So based on WP:AT policy, the most recognizable and natural title should be used, which is "iPad 3". YumOooze (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I pulled up the three most recent CNET articles mentioning the new iPad:, , . None call it iPad 3. If the media and users are calling this the iPad 3 by the time the 4th generation iPad rolls around, I will wholeheartedly support a name change. Marcus   Qwertyus   02:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A single source does not prove anything. Anyways, the point is that WP:PRECISION states that we should use the most common disambiguator, which is "iPad 3", not "iPad (3rd generation)". YumOooze (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this is simply not called the "iPad 3", and using "The new iPad" is not going to work longterm, for the next time they release a "new" model. Apple nearly ALWAYS refer to their product IN PARENTHESISES as "foo (3rd generation)" or similar (again, actually do a check on Apple's own sales page —it's the same whether being US/UK/anywhere else— select an item and see: http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_ipad/family/ipad/select_ipad => "(3rd generation)"!), and this naming scheme has been done all over WP accordingly. Redirections exist for this exact purpose. Someone just close this big waste of time. A consensus exists here already. --Jimthing (talk) 19:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your statement "this is is simply not called the iPad 3" is simply wrong. Many reliable sources call this "iPad 3", as you can see in the references of this article. Please do some research before commenting. Having a policy-based discussion about the article title is not a waste of time and there is no clear policy-based consensus here. YumOooze (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't be so damn patronising! (You should't be speaking to other editors that way anyway!) I was actually involved in the ORIGINAL discussion on this, near the beginning of the article. You clearly have no rationality whatsoever. Just because some press elements ("reliable", many are not) and forum users happen to use the shortcut of iPad 3, certainly does NOT mean the product is named that by Apple; IT ISN'T. Apple did NOT name this model the iPad 3, and as I said before (as I have edited a great many Apple product pages!), the naming convention already exists on the naming of their products which uses "generation" as per Apple's own pages for their own products. Additionally, Apple often refer to products in their KB and elsewhere using "(x generation)". This supplants your supposed argument about "common name", as both these reasons existed BEFORE your using the idea of WP's guideline for common naming, anyway. And WP uses correct terminology before slang banded around the internet (but largely NOT in the official reliable press, as they follow codes of conduct). About time YOU did some research into the subject and how this site works before wasting everyone else's time opening such a clear case of SNOW by using guidelines that are not used when correct terminology applies! Mmm let me see on that consensus: 1x Support vs. 8x Oppose. Use redirects and close this already misappropriation of the WP rules. --Jimthing (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I offended you, but I am simply pointing out some errors in your arguments:
 * This is not a vote. See WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:NOTVOTE. For example, the recent move of Republic of China to Taiwan had more oppose votes than supports, but the move was done. As is the case here, most of the opposers had almost no policy-based reason for opposing (they just said "ROC calls themselves the ROC and it is the official name", as you are saying here)
 * Apple is not the god of Wikipedia. I acknowledge that Apple did not name this "iPad 3", but Apple (a primary source) should actually be considered to be less reliable than secondary sources (WP:PRIMARY). YumOooze (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a misuse of the rules of WP. Correct terminology supersedes slang/wrong term usage. Using "what the internet says" to explain the common term guideline is dangerous. It often fails basic reliable source boundaries. --Jimthing (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Not sure if it will do much good, but I strongly encourage the closing admin to weigh the strength of arguments here, and not just be swayed by numbers. Firstly, as Powers points out, the five criteria at WP:AT are Recgonizability, Conciseness, Precision, Naturalness, and Consistency. In all regards the proposed title is better than the current title (and I've yet to see any opposers refute that). Most importantly, though, the basis of the opposers' rationale appears to be that WP:PRECISION and WP:DISAMBIGUATION favour parenthetical disambiguation. In fact, if you read both, you will find that the opposite is true. Parenthetical disambiguation should only be used if there is not a natural disambiguation option. There are 25,000 gnews results for "iPad 3", which makes it clear that many reliable sources use the term and that we do in fact have a natural disambiguation option that we can (and according to policy and guideline, should) use. Jenks24 (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Searching iPad 3 on Google News will produce results that both refer to the new iPad as the iPad 3 and iPad without the suffix - as mentioned before in this discussion. Google tends to produce results for every word that appears in a webpage. Anyways, not to discourage anyone else from participating in this discussion but I think it has run its course and a verdict should be produced based on the arguments given. YuMaNuMa Contrib 12:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but that's why my search is in quotation marks – it will only pick up news articles where "iPad 3" is used and exclude articles where iPad and 3 both happen to be used. As to your point that sources use "iPad 3" and "iPad" interchangeably, I agree. And as we cannot use simply "iPad", according to WP:PRECISION we should use the other term that is regularly used by the sources (ie, iPad 3), rather than create an artificial form of disambiguation. The discussion has been going for a week now, so can be closed by an admin, but I wouldn't hold your breath – WP:RM is heavily backlogged at the moment. Jenks24 (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Apple called the first iPad simply "iPad", because it was unique and the leader in its kind. Ending the next product "2" means that it has the same qualities, but has more improved to it. Why do you say we should call it "iPad (3rd generation), when they didn't call it that? Type in "iPad 3" into Google or Play.com and you can easily find all you need to know about it. Calling it the 3rd generation iPad is just extra words. There isn't any chance of you changing the name of the page to "The New iPad", so we should just stick with what ordinary people know. Ordinary people will call it "iPad 3" in their daily conversations, so we should call it that. Wrightbro (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Still opposed, as most of the argument here is "wishful thinking", because people like the simple idea of "iPad" > going to "iPad 2" > going to "iPad 3" > going to, another simple idea but presumption none the less, "iPad 4" etc. This is natural, humans all like the notion of terms following in equal and similar uniform fashion. But unfortunately it belies the facts.
 * Firstly, Apple actually do call this, **their own product**, "(3rd generation)" (for example, chose an item here: http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_ipad/family/ipad/select_ipad and it clearly says so, along with the many Support sections on Apple's site). Secondly, those search results are misleading. Most of them are from BEFORE this model was released, many others later use it as a simple headlining method (ie. it sounds easier, as press do for short snappy headlines); this does not mean they then refer to the model as the iPad 3, they don't as it's not called that by Apple, and the proper mainstream serious (ie. reliable sources) press codes of practice they are duty bound to follow, is to collate facts correctly, not made-up ones (regardless of the fringe/blogosphere/anything goes elsewhere etc. doing so). Thirdly, both WP:AT and  WP:COMMONNAME are being misused here. They ONLY, I repeat ONLY, stand if there is NOT a clear naming for an item, thus it is irrelevantly being used in this discussion. To use a crude example, there are a million quotes on the net for "blow job", a great deal more than for the correct scientific term "fellatio", but we don't move the page from the correct name to the slang term; we're an encyclopaedia! My point being that short-cut slang terms found on the internet and elsewhere should be considered with great care, as their usage should not supersede the correct terminology for the subject concerned. WP follows the practice of using correct terminology, way before other rules such as common name usage apply.
 * This has been discussed before, and the previous decision was to keep the correct term not the slang one(s). Whoever closes this should stipulate that this is not re-opened again, thus wasting valuable experienced users time arguing against rules which have been misappropriated to make an invalid argument. --Jimthing (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What Apple calls the product is irrelevant to the discussion (see WP:OFFICIALNAMES and WP:UCN) – if the common name and the official name match up, great, but when they don't we go with the common name. Regarding your blow job/fellatio example, COMMONNAME actually does apply there, just take a look at these two gscholar searches which support the use of fellatio . The rest of your rhetoric has no basis in policy or sources, it is merely your own opinion/original research (e.g., no sources provided to show that "iPad 3" is apparently "slang"). Jenks24 (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry but Google Scholar results are invalid, try a normal Google search: "fellatio" vs. "blow job"  (or should we use "blowjob"  or perhaps even "blow-job" ) — first reason for search engine explanatory usage misuse. And reason two, as per the blow job variants issue above, is because the term can be written several ways "iPad (3rd generation)"/"3rd gen iPad"/"third generation iPad"/"iPad third generation"/"iPad third gen"/"third gen iPad"/and several other related ways — so which spelling version are you actually searching for, because if you use only one, then you're going to be misusing search results anyway (WP:UCN "Search engine results are subject to certain biases and technical limitations", see WP:SET). These on top of the previous reasons I gave above (none of which was OR, either, despite you claiming so). WP:OFFICIALNAMES also clearly states "Official names of unreleased games may change several times within a week, but there is only one authority, the vendor." Note the words "the vendor", and this certainly has changed several times, and not just within the last week, but speculative articles have appeared for months, as with every Apple pre-released product. Suggest the original proposer, YumOooze, files yet another dispute resolution case, as unfortunately as we have multiple opinions on how the WP guidelines are being appropriated. --Jimthing (talk) 03:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Still no sources, eh? Firstly, Google Scholar is not "invalid", and the link just after your unfounded claim doesn't even mention gscholar. In fact, of you actually read COMMONNAME you would see that gscholar, gbooks and gnews searches are recommended because they will give reliable sources as their hits, which a generic google search will not. Secondly, your point about spelling variants would be good if it was correct. However, even if we take the results of all your spelling variations, it still comes out as a fraction of the usage of "iPad 3". Thirdly, the best way to convince someone that you aren't talking OR is not to wave your hand at it and say "but I'm not", it's actually much better if you can provide some sources to defend your claims. Lastly, it does give me a chuckle to note that the sentence you have quoted from WP:OFFICIALNAMES is actually listed as reason not to use official names (the iPad 3 is also not an unreleased video game, so it's pretty irrelevant anyway). Jenks24 (talk) 10:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly, what about all the other spelling variations? But before bothering to do that, try using the non-filtered/non-Australia-only Google search for those terms, and I think you'll get entirely different answers, lol! As has been said repeatedly anyway: this search engine usage here doesn't even prove the naming point you're trying to make. I suggest you re-read the quote I gave from WP:OFFICIALNAMES (which has nothing to do with it having to relate to video games. Get a grip, that's plainly moronic, it's making the point on ANY product in the same situation, they just used Video games as the foo in the example!); "but there is only one authority, the vendor". In cases where the item was pre-named in the media BEFORE release, so all internet searches are hence biased for a misnaming of said item before it was even known what it was actually going to be called by the manufacturer, this is truly the only rational way of naming this page. And you can claim OR all you want, and I'll keep saying your babble above is just a way of wrongly discrediting another user cause you have no real explanations of your own that are valid. --Jimthing (talk) 11:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Note for closing administrator – YumOooze has made several inappropriate edits to this discussion in an attempt to chill the discussion here., , , . These edits should be noted when reviewing/closing the move request. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good grief. The closing admin should weigh the arguments, not worry about some of the poor decisions that have been made by both "sides". Jenks24 (talk) 10:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support iPad 3 is much more recognizable than the new iPad or iPad 3rd generation, according to Google Trends. 91.142.195.9 (talk) 10:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's entirely misleading. Depending on how you enter the variables, gives different results — more misusing of invalid searches to make wrong statements of fact. --Jimthing (talk) 12:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
@"New Info" - Knowing that you probably looked at the title of each reference, please note that many of those references were written before the iPad was released and are just articles comprising of rumours. Your primary point was that the iPad 3 is a common term yet only half (being generous) of the sources in this article, when taking the references that were written before the iPad was released out of consideration, refer to the iPad as the iPad 3. Are you arguing that we should rename the article simply because half of the sources incorrectly refer to the iPad as the iPad 3 which is its unofficial name? YuMaNuMa Contrib 02:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that those references were written before the iPad 3 release is irrelevant. They are (mostly) from reliable sources and are referring to this device. Furthermore, those articles greatly contributed to making "iPad 3" the most common name for this device. And again, just because "iPad" is the official name does not automatically make it the name of its Wikipedia article. The most common name should be used, as per policy. YumOooze (talk) 02:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's extremely relevant, obviously sources will refer to the unreleased, unannounced iPad as the iPad 3 as that is the precedent Apple has set before, it would be foolish for sources to not call it that at that point. The most common name for the original iPad is the iPad 1, should we rename the article regarding the iPad to the iPad 1 simply because people call it that to clearly distinguished it from other iPad generations? The same can be said about music bands that rename after some time in the industry. The status of the name should also most definitely be taken in to account, as I said before, Apple chose to abolish the numbering system of iPad for a specific reason regardless of whether we are informed of what the reason was, using any name other than "iPad" with no suffixes will only cause contradictions between current sources and sources that may arise in the future. YuMaNuMa  Contrib 02:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We are talking about reliable sources here. "ipad 1" is rarely used while "iPad 3" is widely used. YumOooze (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

colloquially known as "iPad 3"
I have removed this phrase several times, yet it is being added back in. The latest reversion's edit summary was "I JUST CITED the thing right next to it!!" Yet, iPad 3 does not exist in the source given. Can we please leave this out? Acps110 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No we cannot! I added clearly titled articles with "iPad 3" explicitly in each of them. I could add another 100+ articles from respectable press sources, all of them with "iPad 3" clearly referenced. So can you stop removing such obviously cited text from the article. Thank you. --Jimthing (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The articles did call it the iPad 3, but they did not quote Apple calling it the iPad 3. It was called the "iPad 3" by tech bloggers during the months leading up to yesterday's keynote, but since then, responsible people have been calling it "the new iPad" or the "3rd generation iPad" because that is all that Apple referred to it as during their announcement.
 * The article could say that the device is colloquially known as the iPad 3, but why? That term will most likely fall out of use as Apple chooses not to use it. ~ Josh "Duff Man" (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * At which point it will no longer be known colloquially as the iPad 3, and you'll be able to change it. (Wikipedia will never be perfect, even if you suceed in repealing WP:CRYSTAL). 98.82.0.90 (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not change "colloquially known as iPad 3" to "previously rumored as the iPad 3"? Gatortpk (talk) 08:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's unlikely to fall "out of use" by people colloquially, because after the second model was called iPad 2, many will just see through the marketing stuff and maintain this naming in conversation by referring to the model they have as the iPad 3. It's also easier to say "iPad 3" than the long-winded "third generation iPad"/"iPad third generation"/"iPad third gen"/"third gen iPad. And no "previously rumoured as" we don't add rumours on WP. --Jimthing (talk) 05:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Check any crash dumps generated on this device, It clealy identify hardware as iPad3, and check the Uname(...) function in iOS SDK's /sys/utsname.h! It also identify this device as iPad3. Any iOS app developer should be able to confirm it, if you ask the OS (In this case, iOS), it's an iPad3. Divinity76 (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)