Talk:IPad (5th generation)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... It's a real product: https://www.apple.com/ipad-9.7/ --KristofferR (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because it's verifiably real --Emphrase - 💬 | 📝 14:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/21/14998464/apple-replaces-ipad-air-with-cheaper-9-7-inch-ipad --14.207.1.215 (talk) 14:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... It's recently created because it's a recently announced product: https://www.apple.com/ipad-9.7/specs/ --KristofferR (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Real name
Hi, the real name of this iPad is "iPad (5th generation)" as says here in the "Frequently Asked Questions". --Morry39 (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes also in compatibility of Clips it says iPad(5th Generation) Yardan Sheikh (talk) 10:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, see the discussions below. Guy Harris (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 21 March 2017

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

The result of the move request was: Moved: the 2017 disambiguator seems to have the most support &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

IPad (7th generation) → ? – In this discussion, there are a couple of options presented: Moving the article to iPad (5th generation) or moving the article to iPad (2017). (This discussion was started on 21 March 2017, I am neutral, and I'm posting this statement so that the discussion appears properly on Requested moves. So, consider this "relist" since I currently don't see clear consensus anyways.) Steel1943  (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

To iPad (5th generation)
IPad (7th generation) → iPad (5th generation) – Per previous talk page section, officially it's named as the 5th generation, instead of the 7th generation Emphrase - 💬 | 📝 14:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose The name iPad (5th generation) refers to iPad Air which this article is not about. Instead it is about a newly announced iPad called iPad (which is a seventh gen product as iPad Air 2 is sixth generation as its predecessor was 5th gen). So I oppose this move. -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions &bull;&#32;Email) 14:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Undecided If this new iPad really is the 5th gen, then this is not the successor of the iPad Air 2 and instead the successor of the iPad 4. It's going to be problematic to update Wikipedia to Apple's new naming guidelines, since the iPad Air 1 and the iPad Air 2 is referred to as the 5th and 6th gen of the iPad/successors to the iPad 4, respectively, all over the site.KristofferR(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions &bull;&#32;Email) 14:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You're wrong, look here in the "Frequently Asked Questions". --Morry39 (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * We should look at what independent reliable sources say, not at what Apple says on a page entitled "Buy iPad". —BarrelProof (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Some independent sources refer to it as the 2017 iPad such as and -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions &bull;&#32;Email) 21:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. So how about iPad (2017 edition)? —BarrelProof (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I created a redirect to this page, IPad (2017) -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions &bull;&#32;Email) 22:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. First, the alleged FAQ brought forth by Morry39 proves nothing. This FAQ vaguely refers to "iPad (5th generation)" but it is not obvious to what it is referring. Moreover, we have seen official documents dropping the ball sometimes. Second, per WP:COMMONNAME, I conducted an online search and discovered that "iPad (5th generation)" is the common title of iPad Air. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, maybe here it's more clear. At the bottom of the page you can see: "Clips is compatible with iPhone 5s or later, iPad Pro, iPad (5th generation), iPad Air or later, iPad mini 2 or later, and iPod touch (6th generation) and requires iOS 10.3 or later." --Morry39 (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose The iPad Air is the fifth-generation iPad, so that name is already taken. While Apple may consider this product to be the 5th gen, they have miscounted. Keep the 7th generation name. --Frmorrison (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is nonsense logic. Then we ought to be moving Windows 10 to Windows 11 because Microsoft "miscounted". —Ed Cormany (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * fubar. I have no idea how to fix this or what is better or worse. Apparently generations are counted including and not including the Airs.  What a cluster.  Sorry I can't help. --В²C ☎ 22:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support based on some more documents from Apple: Use Multitasking on your iPad, Apple SIM &mdash; Peter why  23:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Apple is not a reliable source for determining a page's title. Instead as said the page's title should be determined by what reliable independent sources refer to this product. -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions &bull;&#32;Email) 23:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * then I support a move to either 5th generation or 2017 edition away from the current 7th generation name, which to me does not appear justified yet in this discussion. &mdash; Peter why  00:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Support If the standard is what independent sources call it, it's clear that none of them are calling it 7th generation: e.g., The Verge, New York Times, CNN make no reference to that name. In fact, the only places I've seen that name are references to this page and discussion. So it's just called "iPad" in secondary sources and we need a disambiguator — why not do it the same way Apple does? Certainly don't go inventing names out of nowhere. —Ed Cormany (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * But iPad already is a page (for the general iPad family), so that wouldn't work. AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Support I haven't see any source, independent or not, calling this the "7th generation" iPad, so we should not call it that either. It's a little weird that Apple is ignoring the iPad Air for generation numbers, but I haven't seen any other better name, so let's go with it. ["iPad (2017 edition)" would be okay.] — Jlin (talk) 04:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * To be fair, two citations have been added (not by me) to support calling this 7th generation. &mdash; Peter why  09:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In that case (and with all the new evidence), I change my support to iPad (2017). Jlin (talk) 01:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * strongly Oppose The name iPad (5th generation) refers to iPad Air which this article is not about. --Panam2014 (talk) 09:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Referred by who? The name iPad (5th generation) refers to this iPad which this article is about. &mdash; Peter why  10:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It refers both to the iPad Air and the 2017 iPad. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Then it means that iPad (5th generation) should be a disambig. &mdash; Peter why  11:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ipad (2017) is a best title. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Support for iPad (2017) In this discussion, generational titles are confusing, as both "fifth" and "seventh" appear to be taken. "iPad (2017)" is not. And we have two sources (1 and 2) referring to it by that. And the device is not marketed as a generational number that would otherwise create further confusion. So iPad (2017) is where my support goes. LocalNet (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Where is iPad 7th gen taken? AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This source refers to the iPad as the "seventh-generation", a title that this source used for the iPad Pro. LocalNet (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point. All this would be fixed if Apple stopped naming products the same thing over and over.... The 2015 MacBook's page is MacBook (Retina) but that doesn't really work for this iPad. AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * LocalNet here. Since this discussion was relisted, I just wanted to throw one more comment from me into the ring, which elaborates further on my initial comment above this one. As far as I can see, the device is identified by multiple secondary, reliable sources as just "iPad" (The Verge, CNN, and The New York Times), so that is what I would name this new model. But seeing as "iPad" is the title of the general iPad family, we need a disambiguator, and I suggest "(2017)" with paranthesis. We also have two sources (1 and 2) referring to it as 2017, but without paranthesis, so that is further support for naming it 2017 rather than a generational number. But in terms of Wikipedia's naming, I would advise using (2017) with paranthesis because it is used a disambiguation factor rather than a naming factor. I hope I explained myself clearly, and that I wrote this in the right place. LocalNet (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Support some form of 2017 disambig per below. Cut the Gordian knot if there's a disagreement on generation numbers.  SnowFire (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If you consider the iPad Air series as the 5th and 6th generation, why wouldn't you consider the iPad Pro as the 7th generation? It is reasonable to keep iPad Air (1st + 2nd gen) and iPad Pro (1st gen) as distinct series, therefore the new 2017 iPad should be referred to as the 5th generation. 84.173.218.159 (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The new 2017 iPad is actually an upgraded iPad Air (dimensions and some hardware features are the same), so it clearly is a 5th generation model - just some kind of iPad Air SE version... :-) 84.173.218.159 (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. As mentioned above, it is referred as "iPad (5th Generation)" in Apple's website. So, why to continue this title dispute? User:Dimsar01 talk 19:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Wikipedia bases content on secondary, independent, reliable sources rather than the companies themselves. This is a title dispute because sources disagree. LocalNet (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's "iPad (5th generation)", lower-case "g", in a FAQ; it's mainly just referred to as "iPad" in the Apple Web site. "(5th generation)" is there on the Apple site mainly for disambiguation; it looks as if they're doing for the iPad what they're doing for the MacBook, i.e. there's an "XXX" and an "XXX Pro", and they're not giving iPads generation numbers, except as a disambiguation in contexts where that's needed. Guy Harris (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

To iPad (2017)
IPad (7th generation) → iPad (2017) – Per previous talk section, officially it is not the 7th generation, and some independent sources refer to it as the 2017 iPad. &mdash; Peter why  00:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Soft support: There this a chance that another iPad Pro being announced later this year, but I think iPad (2017) is good for now. --Emphrase - 💬 | 📝 02:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And if they announce a new iPad Pro, under that name, it'd be "iPad Pro 2" or "iPad Pro (2nd generation)" or "iPad Pro (2017)", so calling this "iPad (2017)" wouldn't be a problem. It'd only be a problem if they introduced a new iPad called just "iPad" and if it wasn't just another size that would also be mentioned on this page. Guy Harris (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: For technical reasons, please use the above ongoing move discussion instead of starting a new one.  ONR  (talk) 07:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ discussion moved &mdash; Peter why  08:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: Most sources understand the genernation confusion, so have moved to calling it the iPad 2017. I think the article should be named iPad 2017 without the marks. --Frmorrison (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe iPad 2017 would be optimal. Whatever we do, we should probably do it by parenthetical disambiguation.  ONR  (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * While there are sources that use both iPad 2017 and iPad (2017), more sources use the name without the parenthesis. If you google "iPad (2017)" (be sure to use quotes) you can confirm that trend. --Frmorrison (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Guys, please provide basis for why you think one name is more or less "optimal" than another. It's not about optimal anyway. It's what reliable sources are using.  If they're calling it "iPad 2017", then so should we.  If they're calling it just iPad, then we need to disambiguate it, and "(2017)" is probably a good choice.  But we need basis in usage in actual sources. --В²C ☎ 23:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * strongly support per sources. --Panam2014 (talk) 09:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per clarity. Either parentheses or no parens are both fine, but use 2017.  SnowFire (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - a Google search for "ipad 5th generation" (without the quotes) found a bunch of pages that spoke of the new iPad and a bunch of pages talking about the original iPad Air (sometimes calling it the "iPad Air 5th Gen" or something such as that), so I vote against giving it a generation number at all. My inclination is for "iPad (2017)", to clarify that 2017 isn't part of the product's name.  For now, Apple appear to be doing with "iPad" what they're doing with "MacBook", i.e. moving away from "$PRODUCTNAME Air" and having "$PRODUCTNAME" as the "consumer" version and "$PRODUCTNAME Pro" as the prosumer/professional version, with no model number or anything else in the name to distinguish between generations, so we'd either have to lump everything into a page for all versions of the product or come up with our own names to distinguish between different generations. Guy Harris (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support.  iPad (2017) seems the best of the attested and unambiguous names at this time. Andrewa (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @Andrewa Can you move this article to iPad (2017)? This has the highest support from the editors compared to the other choices and is widely used by third parties. --Frmorrison (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately not, as I am involved. But hopefully an uninvolved admin or pagemover will. Andrewa (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion (about the original close on 30 March 2017)

 * Comment: I performed the move as per the closing statement in this discussion, but afterwards, reverted it. The discussion's closer, KAP03, is WP:INVOLVED in this discussion, so I'd rather not perform the move myself. A second opinion from an editor/administrator who was not involved in this discussion may be necessary. Steel1943  (talk) 04:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the close was inappropriate. Andrewa (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Since you are an administrator, I think that you can just WP:BOLDly reopen this discussion since you didn't participate in the discussion itself ... if you are okay with doing so. (If I recall, there's a guideline that states you can, but I can't find it at the moment.) Steel1943  (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct, and I'd have been happy to but it's been done for us. Andrewa (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Bit of a side note: See how I moved this page in its edit history? This is what I was taking about at Talk:Angus; I'm a non-admin with the Page mover permission. Steel1943  (talk) 02:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment--I have contacted the closer at User talk:KAP03.Let's wait for his reply! Winged Blades Godric 11:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the close. -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions &bull;&#32;Email) 13:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I went ahead and restored the move tag. Steel1943  (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I hope it's okay that I comment here. The page is now listed at WP:RMB, and indeed it confirms the technical issues surrounding creating two page move discussions at the same time, because the page lists it as "IPad (7th generation) → ?" Is that something that should be fixed somehow, or are people reviewing discussions going to understand to basically combine the different opinions in both move discussions? Just wondering... LocalNet (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Those technical issues should be resolved soon as a result of these edits made by me. In the process, the discussion had to technically be relisted due to the new timestamp ... which is okay by me anyways since I don't currently see clear consensus anyways. Steel1943  (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing it :) Does that mean there is now a new, 7-day discussion period before new closing? Also, is the header of this discussion section supposed to be "30 March" instead of "30 December"? :) LocalNet (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Yes" to your first question, but it can be closed early if someone disagrees with my relist (see WP:RELIST), and "no" to your second question; the header should retain the date this discussion was started, in addition to the fact that changing it would break the section redirect links in this page's edit history. Steel1943  (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ... And I assume that you meant "..."30 March" instead of "21 March"". Steel1943  (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, no, I meant that this discussion section we are in right here is named "about the original close on 30 December 2017" and we are faaaar from December. LocalNet (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, score one for my mistakes there, ha. Corrected in this edit. Steel1943  (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hahaha :) By the way, sorry that you have to change the entry bullets in my responses to you. Not familiar with page move discussions and I am completely confused by whether to use  or   at the start of my responses. LocalNet (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries. There's a guideline called WP:THREAD, though what I've been doing doesn't exactly follow that. I tried to match the bullets/colons that were already there so that readers using a special type of software reader (from my understanding, this type of reader is usually for those who are blind) are able to use their software readers properly. (I don't know how they work first-hand, but this is my understanding of how they work.) Steel1943  (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the info! :) LocalNet (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Caps as a small difference
Perhaps this may not help, as it might further complicate things by bringing in a very controversial issue in which I disclose I am heavily involved.

But it seems to me that while IPad (5th generation) and 5th generation IPad are seriously ambiguous as article titles, perhaps IPad (5th Generation) or 5th Generation IPad may not be. The capital G marks it as something that has been intentionally named 5th Generation rather than just described as being 5th generation (which is arguably an inaccurate description, as has been observed).

WP:MOSCAPS doesn't currently allow this use of capitals IMO, but I disclose I have long been of the opinion that we should make more use of capital letters in article titles. I'm in several such discussions, particularly putting the case that our traditional understanding of proper nouns is outdated and not in the best interests of readers.

Perhaps it is unwise to link two difficult discussions, but I'm very interested in whether capitalisation might help here if allowed. Andrewa (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * If capital "G" would mark it as something intentionally named "5th Generation", it would be invalid, because Apple isn't calling it the "5th Generation iPad", they're just calling it the "iPad"; unless you're Apple, your name for it is a description, not an Official Name. Guy Harris (talk) 04:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the official name doesn't count here any more than it does in general. The marking with a capital is performed by the speaker, not by an authority (well, it can get a bit more complicated than that according to some theories that don't need to concern us here). It is the speaker (or writer) who decides that this is a name rather than a description. Andrewa (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for voicing your opinion! I agree with Guy Harris, though. Multiple sources show no signs of a generational number, so not only is it wrong to give this article a generational number for disambiguation, but going as far as giving the device's name itself that generational number isn't even supported by the sources who wrote generations, as they were used as descriptions. But this is exactly where everybody's disagreements lie, haha :P LocalNet (talk) 07:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * But many sources do give a generation number, and not a few capitalise it (rather randomly I admit). We follow general usage and our own MOS, not the marketing of the supplier. That's a very strong principle... stronger even than our avoidance of capital letters! Andrewa (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

How it would work
No support for the proposal to use caps as a small difference I see! But I'd still like to spell it out, as I've been thinking about it and this seems the best place to document those thoughts, which are relevant to other discussions, as is the outcome of this RM.

would become either the article name of the iPad 2017 article or a redirect to it, and would redirect to this article too.

would become a two-way DAB to this article and the one on the iPad Air. Both of these articles would have hatnotes pointing to the other. would point to this DAB.

(Or the redirects could point the other way as I first had them, but that seems the current practice here with respect to iPads.)

Future iPads that had the same problem (which is foreseeable but not inevitable) would get the same treatment.

If there's interest in discussing this but still no support here perhaps start a section on my user talk page. TIA Andrewa (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2017 (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.

Pricing information
This article includes the launch price of the device in the infobox which does not seem to have encyclopedic value and should be removed per WP:NOTCATALOG. Also no other IPad article lists the launch price of the device. -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions &bull;&#32;Email) 23:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Rename as iPad (5th generation)
According to Apple, iPad 2017 is the 5th generation.

Source: http://www.apple.com/ph-k12/shop/buy-ipad/ipad-mini-4/128gb-space-gray-wifi Hiwilms (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Look at the discussion above for a potential move. -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions &bull;&#32;Email) 13:35, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Officially documented as 5th gen
Those who deny the the truth, please read Apple official document.

https://support.apple.com/kb/SP751?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US

This is not a issue that should be voted. It's only official name is iPad (5th generation). If some folks want to keep Wikipedia lying people then is their business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.159.239.213 (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Apple user, obviously. (-> Pick them a mile away. Those who disagree are lying. Either has not read the discussion (most likely) or just chooses to ignore the points made. Old-fashioned grammar and general mindset. Impressive that they found Wikipedia at all, but it won't do them or us much good. Bottom rung of the ladder. (Perhaps I am guilty of the same in reply.) Andrewa (talk) 04:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Whatever Apple says its name is doesn't matter in Wikipedia according to WP's guidelines and policies, only what secondary reliable sources call it matters here. --Emphrase - 💬 | 📝 02:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

RAM in the lead
Hi everybody! I'm ready to start a talk discussion about the RAM issue here. So, as is evident from the current edit war happening, Frmorrison and I clearly have different expectations of what should be in the lead. My two major reasons: There isn't a whole lot of hardware info about this device. Both of our edits contain the differences from other iPad models, but Frmorrison's edits remove RAM, storage and color finishes. If the Hardware section was full of important and significant details of the hardware, I'd argue RAM take less prominence and would probably agree to remove that. But Frmorrison's edits also remove storage and color options, without an explanation for those removals. Frmorrison leaves just device differentiations and not details on what the device actually has, which I believe is pretty important for any hardware product. Sorry for the delay in starting this talk section, I would've done it sooner, but life + other pages on Wikipedia needed my immediate attention, so this was the earliest I could get to this issue. I'm happy to have a proper discussion now. :) LocalNet (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Most people don't know what RAM is so that isn't notable, and storage and colors - while most people know what those are - are already included in the hardware section. The opening should be reserved for notable information, not details that every iPad in the last few years has included. I am fine with differences between the iPad 2017 and previous iPads included within the lead. --Frmorrison (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for coming to talk here! I'd argue that, while I agree most people don't know RAM, we shouldn't base lead prominence on what we believe the expected audience knows of technical information, as that creates editorial bias. Second, you write that "storage and colors [...] are already included in the hardware section". Yes, but that's what the lead is supposed to do. Repeat information. And in this case, there isn't a whole lot of notable information on this particular device. Differences from prior models are indeed notable, and are mentioned, but I believe we should at least try to fill the lead with helpful information for users. For devices with 5 major paragraphs on Hardware, it is indeed a good idea to exclude less prominent information. But this device's Hardware section is quite little, and I believe the information that is there, should be given lead status. :) LocalNet (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not think colors and amount of RAM belong in a lead for any technology article. While those are good to know and should be included when writing about hardware, it is still something that is trivial in my opinion. I am not the only one, it is the same for all of the existing iPad articles. Hopefully a third party will resolve the dispute. --Frmorrison (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

You are actually right in what you write at the bottom there. I can't find a single technology hardware product featuring RAM, colors, and storage in the lead myself. There seems to be an unspoken consensus that the info isn't needed in the lead. I also just noticed that the infobox features the info. In that case, repeating the info, and being the only article to feature the info, is a little weird. I'll change to your version. :) LocalNet (talk) 06:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Reviews in Reception
Hi everybody! I have a question. Originally, when I added reviews to the Reception section, I wanted to fill it with reviews to have a good, decent starting point, and then replace some less-familiar sources (MobileSyrup, for example) with more established sources when they came out, for example Engadget's review. However, it occurs to me that the four reviews cited in the section now cover the tablet in pretty much every aspect. The screen is given attention multiple times, as is its price, and it also provides a view of its lack of other models' features and its performance, camera, and even Wi-Fi capability. The only thing I would attach from Engadget's review is its battery impression, which states that "I was concerned that Apple's choice of chipset might have had some effect on battery life, but I shouldn't have been. In terms of pure longevity, this is one of the best iPads we've tested". Should I add that as a final line to the section? Should we leave it the way it is? Should we replace a source, or potentially shorten info from sources? I'm unsure, so I'd love some feedback. :) Once the section is good and decent, I'll add a summary to the lead. LocalNet (talk) 07:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It is a good idea to include a reviewer's thoughts on battery life, although don't use a quote. Someone could add something like, "An Engadget reviewer's impression is the iPad (2017) is of the best iPads on battery longevity. --Frmorrison (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comment! I disagree on not using a quote. It's an opinion, and should be credited as such, both in terms of naming the actual reviewer and using his own words. LocalNet (talk) 14:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Chris Velazco of Engadget praised battery life, describing it as "one of the best iPads we've tested", but also criticized the lack of anti-reflection on the display, calling it "another cost-saving measure that I wish Apple had reconsidered"." <-- A nice, short summary of positives and negatives. Is that okay? LocalNet (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That is great, previously I thought you wanted to quote the sentences in the first comment. The above quote is short and to the point. --Frmorrison (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ahh, a misunderstanding! I can see how my initial comment could be misleading. Hehe, it's good to have that clear! Thanks, I'll add this to the article! :) LocalNet (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Removing Succession box
Since this article is not a seventh generation product (as far as most WP:RS are concerned) why should we have a succession box at the bottom of the article saying that the iPad Air 2 was the iPad (2017)'s predecessor as this fact is not shown in WP:RS. -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions &bull;&#32;Email) 03:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi I agree with you. Additionally, AnandTech actually writes: "it’s not really a successor to the iPad Air 2" and  The Verge notes: "Apple replaces iPad Air 2" (not succeeds). And sources note hardware differences that a successor might not normally use. LocalNet (talk) 05:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It seems that there has been no opposition to removing the Succession box in over a week so I will remove it from the article. -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions &bull;&#32;Email) 16:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. While the 2017 iPad is not a true successor, it is the product line successor and it is mentioned in this article that the Air 2 is the predecessor. --Frmorrison (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edit. We established a consensus here before your comment came along. You are more than welcome to start a new discussion, bringing forth your arguments and seeing if the majority of the people agree with you, but you cannot immediately revert an established consensus. LocalNet (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Like our past disagrements, I follow general trends and you sometimes have a differing opinion. Every single iPad page has a succession box and when taking into account that the Air 2 is no longer sold because it has been replaced by a new product. --Frmorrison (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not opposing you or your edit. As explained in my reversion, I might even agree with you. But this needs to be done properly. You cannot, individually, override an established consensus where two people initially agreed on the opposite conclusion. LocalNet (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't paid attention to this page in over a week because it was fine back then, but now the article is missing important information so I disagree with two person consenus above. What I did is proper, I made a comment disagreeing and then I made my change. If you think differently, promise a compromise instead of a revert war. Do you have a good reason to go against plenty of sources, here is one among many that properly call the iPad 2017 the successor since it replaced the Air 2. Replacing something is part of the definition of successor. --Frmorrison (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is constantly changing. Leaving for over a week can, and often does, result in significant changes. That doesn't mean you are allowed to enter a discussion much later and suddenly change the result. And furthermore, right now, you are edit-warring, rather than trying to have a proper discussion and making me agree with you. I am going to post another comment, but I wanted to save this first. LocalNet (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As for the actual issue at hand: The sources in the article are not explicitly calling this iPad a successor to iPad Air 2. They used the word "replace". That's different. The iPhone 7 is a successor to the iPhone 6S, as both models are still available. This iPad *replaces* the iPad Air 2, and that device is no longer on the market. Furthermore, in articles, they are elaborating on hardware differences that point in contradictory paths; A8X to A9 is definitely usually a successor-upgrade, but lack of anti-reflectivity and lamination certainly speak to the opposite. And yes, you found a source that uses "successor", just like the article has sources using different generational names. But you also say "one among many". What are the "many" other sources? LocalNet (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Update: Just something I noticed in your wording: "that properly call the iPad 2017 the successor" (emphasis added by me) - that statement certainly isn't based on the sources currently in the article. It seems to me like you have a personal interest in getting this iPad marked as a successor. Try to remember to stay neutral. Wikipedia isn't supposed to reflect our thinking. We may be editors, but we're not supposed to be writing with our editorial bias. Or this could of course just be a mishap in rushed writing, and if that's the case I apologize in advance, but it's enough to raise questions for me. LocalNet (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


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

The result of the move request was: not moved per previous RM discussion on matter. -KAP03(Talk &bull;&#32;Contributions &bull;&#32;Email) 17:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 13 June 2017
IPad (2017) → iPad (5th generation) – Official name as per Apple's website. The name isn't just iPad (It's the marketing name of the tablet.) 203.62.24.164 (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * iPad (5th generation) is a disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: We've been over this in a previous discussion. Wikipedia relies on third-party sources for its information, and a majority of them refer to it as simply "iPad". LocalNet (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: As per above. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2017 (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.

Discussion on "iPad (5th generation)" namespace
I have opened a discussion over the fate of the iPad (5th generation) namespace. Input on its talk page would be greatly appreciated. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 01:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 6 May 2021

 * 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: Not moved  (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

IPad (2017) → IPad (5th generation) – makes more sense to use the official name here, the designation by year isn't more recognisable Andibrema (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: technical restrictions require that the uppercase first letter be used for purposes of this move request.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 02:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Apparently the official name is misleading, so it does not seem like a good title. Other sources have called it the "seventh-generation iPad" or "iPad 2017", per the second sentence of the article. As the hatnote says, "For the device thought of as the 5th generation iPad until this iPad's release, see iPad Air", so the proposed move would be WP:INCDAB as well as misleading. A parenthetical disambiguator should help distinguish between topics, not create further confusion. —&#8239;BarrelProof (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose move. If anything, generation numbering is less recognizable four years later.  O.N.R.  (talk) 05:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:IPad (2019) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)