Talk:IPad 2

Edit request from Pnm, 7 January 2011
Please redirect to newly created section: iPad.

Pnm (talk) 07:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Change "as of September 1, 2010, there were 25,000" to "as of March 2, 2011, there were 65,000" (Source: http://www.apple.com/uk/ipad/from-the-app-store/). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.77.28 (talk)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Bility (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Unprotected
In light of Deletion_review/Log/2011_January_2 and the fact that the iPad 2 will be officially announced in just over two hours, I have unprotected this page. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  15:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

RAM?
Currently the memory is listed as "1GB or 256MB- still unknown". Why speculate what it is? It should simply be unknown or N/A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.49.145 (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Why the separate page?
Is this a totally different product, or just another version. If the latter, can this not just go on the normal iPad page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.157.13 (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, can't we merge this article into the iPad page. It's not a different product category. There are no seperate pages for different versions for the iPods so why not put this article in the original article? -- ⒹylanⓈpronck 22:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanspronck (talk • contribs)


 * They don't share very much in common. See comparison. Marcus Qwertyus   22:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you being sarcastic? 190.189.227.89 (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've merged most of the content from here into iPad and Reception of the iPad so I'm not clear on the value of this article, however if significantly more unique content gets added here (that isn't reception) then maybe its worth keeping. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirecting to iPad for now. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * @Marcus, the content is all included on iPad, and I really don't see how there is going to be enough content here to justify this extra article. The consensus here is clearly in favour of merging it. Besides its already been to AfD and deletion review.
 * If there is a lot of content to add on this product then add it to the relevant section of iPad and we can move it here as appropriate. As it currently stands that isn't the case. Sure we can mention the reviews once the product is in people's hands, but most of that content should go into Reception of the iPad anyway. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are so confident, take it to AFD. What have you got to lose? The deletion review had consensus to recreate and that was three weeks ago. Marcus Qwertyus   00:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that is factually incorrect. The only deletion review (found by searching all what links here pages) was in January, and the result was an endorsement of a protected redirect under CRYSTAL (among other policies). AFD seems awfully confrontational; your use of you rather than we is what we are trying to avoid . Besides, the objection has shifted from lack of reliable sources to the more subjective question of how to best organize the information. Such a decision is less about policy and more about editorial judgment and consensus. I personally continue to think that a protected redirect is the best thing to have on this page, but for different reasons; put the content into iPad and the daughter articles. HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Marcus can you please stop edit warring over this? There is now a strong consensus here to make it a redirect. Taking it to AfD is silly as we might well want the article later if there's enough content. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Are we sure there's no content not duplicated elsewhere? If so, someone be bold and make the redirect. HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not anymore as a lot more has been added. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As a neutral observer, I think it's clear that given this is the iPad, a separate article is a fait accompli. Also, if there was a reason for the {globalize} tag, feel free to revert my removal. I saw no discussion or justification. Gonfaloniere (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I civilly disagree. This article is impossible to understand without background knowledge in iPad, but is too short to be considered a daughter article. If the iPhone is any guide, we'll need to branch off into generation articles, or a single article with a section for each generation, in a few years. In the mean time, merge the content back into existing articles, and be willing to revisit the topic as necessary. HereToHelp (talk to me) 21:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that there are multiple iPhone articles was one of the factors that led to my conclusion, but it could be too early. The main reason I stopped by was the tag I removed, in case I'd missed something. Is another deletion vote required in a case like this where it's been redirected and restored? I'm not terribly familiar with Wikipedia's inner workings yet. Gonfaloniere (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that if there is editorial consensus there's no need to slog through another deletion vote. I don't see anything wrong with your removal of the globalization tag; we don't need to list availability in every country. I'm happy to relate the history of the iPhone article in more detail. It didn't have articles for each generation until the iPhone 4 came out about a year ago. These articles have been moderately successful, partially because they are clearly daughter articles that contain more specific or historical information that was overburdening the main article, especially the infobox. In contrast, when the iPhone 3G came out, people copied and pasted the entire iPhone article into it, resulting in lots of duplicated content. Guess what? It happened again. That page is now a redirect; I went ahead and protected it, as I will this page if/when we make it a redirect. I do this - let me be clear - not to stand in the way of consensus, but rather to allow consensus to form in conversations like this one. It's to prevent exuberant and uninformed users (usually anons) from fragmenting content they don't maintain or link to. HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would the iPhone subpages suddenly become more notable with the launch of iPhone 4? Inclusion is based on notability not content. These articles should have been created much earlier. Marcus Qwertyus   23:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The iPhone pages become notable once the iPhone 4 came out, as there was enough content at that point to justify separate pages. Given extra content has been added to this page its possible that there is a justifiable amount of content here. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I just said article worthiness is based on notability not content. That should not have happened. Marcus Qwertyus   08:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not true when theres another article that already exists. If there is then it needs to not be a WP:POVFORK. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a fork and is most certainly not a POV fork. It is a standard expansion of a distinct product that is notable. Marcus Qwertyus   08:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If there is enough additional content to justify an extra article, which isn't clear. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would you ever salt something that hasn't gone through a basic deletion discussion. When something should be salted it is best to block the persistent recreator first. If sockpuppetry becomes a problem you salt. Obviously I haven't done anything to get blocked so why would you ever consider salting? Marcus Qwertyus   23:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Products that have not been announced (e.g. iPad 3, iPhone 5) fail notability hands down, and are therefore salted redirects. It's not an issue of persistent creation or sockpuppetry for these articles. For products that have been announced, like this one, notability is met. Now I couldn't find a clear answer on WP:NOTE, so if there is please tell me, but I'm going to use a little interpretation and a little IAR and say that just because a topic merits an article does not mean we are forced to have one. As Eraserhead1 said, notability is affected by the existence of a similar article, and can change. This is what happened on the iPhone subpages: it was a matter of how to best organize content, which was a subjective decision based on the information available and the will of the volunteers. Please do not criticize editorial decisions you were not a part of. More pointedly, stop Wikilawyering and evaluate the low-level details on a case-by-case basis. That means deciding what format best serves the reader, not the policy. As I explained above, if the consensus is to delete this article, I will salt the page to serve that consensus so long as it does not change.HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There's consensus to salt iPad (original)? Marcus Qwertyus   11:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it probably should be unsalted, however if it gets re-created without a consensus being built first then salting would be appropriate. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is a headache for me, since I have to watch these unsalted pages (presumably we'd leave this unsalted too) and make sure that no anonymous users go create something in ignorance of this discussion. But if that's what it takes to achieve consensus, I can manage that. HereToHelp (talk to me) 17:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why can't you just semi-protect? Eraserhead, you need consensus to delete articles not keep them. I'm an experienced new page patroller and article creator and no one will ever tell you "you did not have consensus to create". Marcus Qwertyus   22:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What one earth does that have to do with new page patrolling? If a page is salted after an AfD and someone proposes a draft, then a quick consensus on WP:AN before unilaterally unsalting is a good thing. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  00:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * iPad (original) never went to AfD. <span style="color: #21421E; font-family: font-family: 'Maiandra GD', sans-serif;;">Marcus <span style="color: #CC7722; font-family: font-family: 'Maiandra GD', sans-serif;;">Qwertyus   05:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that what you're so upset about? That the article you copied and made about three changes to got deleted? This is Wikipedia, not the military. We don't have a chain of command or binding precedent or firm orders. It's a bunch of volunteers who make the best choices they can at the time with the information and the varied background knowledge they have, and who don't always communicate uniformly. It's okay if things aren't perfect; they never will be. Also, "you did not have consensus to create" is most commonly phrased as "this article is non-notable." Fetchcombs gave permission to create by unprotecting the page, and I didn't contest it immediately, knowing that there's a lot of exuberant editing that follows a Stevenote. Now I'm looking for consensus to delete. It does not exist (yet?), but does not necessarily have to be formed at AfD when dealing with shades of grey. HereToHelp (talk to me) 14:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I hardly see how your response is relevant. You're saying it's okay to do things without consensus? If iPad 2 is borderline notable (which it isn't) then how is the original not? <span style="color: #21421E; font-family: font-family: 'Maiandra GD', sans-serif;;">Marcus <span style="color: #CC7722; font-family: font-family: 'Maiandra GD', sans-serif;;">Qwertyus   03:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

My point is that often there is only one interested party, or editors come and go, and opinions change. What I understand from your comments is that iPad (original) is a protected redirect while this page is allowed to exist, and you have a point there. I agree that subpages by generation should be all-or-nothing. But these stub articles of duplicate content are worthless, and the copy-paste that was the original iPad is even worse. Can I get a third opinion please? HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary picture
That picture with the 3 tablets isn't really showing anything, and you can barely see them because of the glare. I propose either removing it, or finding a better one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.142.230 (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

CPU marketing blurb
I removed the marketing advertising hype/blurb from the CPU description in the specs table from "CPU: 1 GHz dual-core Apple A5 custom-designed, high-performance, low-power system-on-a-chip" to just "CPU: 1 GHz dual-core Apple A5". Archangel Michael (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Request for Comment iPad 2 (Revise deletion)
To revise the deletion of iPad 2. It's already launched so it's now more verifiable. The article has now lots of editing and in just a couple days it has really changed. Awsome EBE123(talk | Contribs) 21:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC) Okay, everyone, take a look at this diff and the sandbox. Because we eliminate the iPad 2 section (and two paragraphs that include an non-notable incident and prices in India), the integrated article is actually shorter than it currently is. The infobox already has specs for both; it can be shrunk given careful editing. I think that this article has accrued a lot of cruft and become disorganized since listed as a good article last June. This is actually not a big change, and there are more serious issues with iPad (which I haven't really looked at until I made the sandbox). I might go attend to those....HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There's enough coverage for it to be notable. It makes sense to have the article. Maybe we can get it to GA someday. Mono (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is potential to it. Awsome EBE123 ( talk | Contribs ) 14:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * At which point the article can be re-created. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 14:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is potential now. There's reception that can be written, specs included, etc. It's ready; we can merge content into the iPad article and fork the iPad 1 out. Mono (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I admire your good faith and cheer, but disagree. Please read the discussion above; media coverage and notability do not automatically require a separate article. The more important point is whether it does "make sense." I think that there is insufficient material to warrant a second article, and that the user is better served by a combined article. Let's do an experiment: we should add the material here into iPad, or a sandbox of it, and see if it comes off as cumbersome. Until we do that, it's my subjective prediction against yours. HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with HereToHelp, if it becomes silly, by all means recreate this article. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 01:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well then why not put iPhone 4, and iPhone 3GS in the iPhone page. Awsome EBE123(talk | Contribs) 11:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Because iPhone was getting unwieldy. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 11:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That does not need to happen. Notability and at least some content are the only criterion for inclusion. <span style="color: #21421E; font-family: font-family: 'Maiandra GD', sans-serif;;">Marcus <span style="color: #CC7722; font-family: font-family: 'Maiandra GD', sans-serif;;">Qwertyus   11:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not if the content can be appropriately covered in an existing article without it being unwieldy. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 14:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Marcus, please stop throwing out links to policy and expecting them to make arguments for you. HereToHelp (talk to me) 17:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You do not have to cram material into one page until it becomes ridiculous. Notability is established which is all that is required for inclusion. <span style="color: #21421E; font-family: font-family: 'Maiandra GD', sans-serif;;">Marcus <span style="color: #CC7722; font-family: font-family: 'Maiandra GD', sans-serif;;">Qwertyus   01:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If something is not notable, is cannot have its own article. The inverse is not necessarily true: if something is not notable, it does not require its own article. Smart Cover (merger proposed) and Retina display (redirects to iPhone 4) are good examples. It's a balancing act between cramming and forking. I'm working on that sandbox; soon we'll be able to see if it looks "ridiculous" or not. HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The specifics of iPad 2 are going to be out of scope of an article like iPad. <span style="color: #21421E; font-family: font-family: 'Maiandra GD', sans-serif;;">Marcus <span style="color: #CC7722; font-family: font-family: 'Maiandra GD', sans-serif;;">Qwertyus   03:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That page says that "Determination of the primary topic of the article is done by consensus." So we agree to define the iPad as a line of products rather than a single one; in fact that's already how the article opens. I've cleaned up the infobox significantly and it can still use work; more specific details go to List of iOS devices. It sounds like you're trying to find any objection you can think of; otherwise you have explained more fully. Please stop being negative and help us build an encyclopedia. HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reduced the size of the list of countries to only include the important ones - making this the diff. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've moved the content from the sandbox to iPad. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 14:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I had made a substantial edit to the infobox that got lost and I've since restored. I moved over a Wikinews box and need to either transfer or delete images. (Two are dubiously licensed.) Otherwise, looks good. Are we about done? HereToHelp (talk to me) 17:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No matter what you say, it will not make me agree. The product is radically different from before and the Smart Cover has received plenty of individual coverage. I agree with Marcus and it would be incorrect to judge this as consensus to merge. As a compromise, I propose we merge content from iPad 2 into iPad and work to fork an iPad 1 article. The iPad is a line of products, as HereToHelp points out, but like the iPhone, the products are individually notable and significant on their own. If you don't agree, I'd like to see a proposal to merge iPhone 3G and iPhone 3GS (they're the same phone, right? ). Two oversized paragraphs without section headers do not reflect the importance of the topic. Mono (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Point by point: If there's not possibility of me convincing you otherwise, why should I bother writing responses? Let's evaluate this case by case, because while iPhone is split up, iPod nano and iPod shuffle are not, and those generations are radically different. Also, models of MacBook Pro are not split up, and while Apple doesn't rename the product every time it makes an update, the under-the-hood changes are similar to what we have here. Furthermore, just because a precedent exists does not mean it is correct in its context, much less in this context; nor are we bound by it. Previously, Marcus kept quoting policy issues that didn't actually apply, and I was willing to ignore that and call a consensus. Mono, you're making actual arguments, and I can no longer say we have consensus, merely that if consensus existed to support a merge, then that's what we should do. I agree that two oversized paragraphs in iPad is not the ideal solution, and I'm going to integrate them more in the future. However, I do not think that the iPad 2 is notable distinct from the original iPad. I certainly feel that Smart Covers, unless they find their way onto other devices, are not notably distinct. (For example FaceTime is notable because it is no longer associated with a single device.) Please consider how users are best served, knowing that if they want details on any new product, they can go to Apple directly. Also consider the extra work involved in maintaining multiple articles, and how the fragmentation of content affects the web of articles. HereToHelp (talk to me) 21:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Many of your points are valid and seem logical. However, I'm still not ready to ditch the article—I think the way that Apple approaches these products may be able to help us here. The iPad 2 was marketed as the 'iPad 2', becoming a product name. The iPhone 3G was also a product name, and it confused people in the public (the second generation, but it's the 3rd Generation) if I recall correctly. The iPod Nano, as an example, was never marketed as the iPod Nano 5. It was simply the iPod Nano, or the new iPod Nano, or the iPod Nano with video. Judging by my gut and these subliminal messages, it seems that Apple wishes to promote the iPad 2 as a new product, rather than a evolutionary revision (it's good for sales). By now, you're probably wondering, "Why do we care about what Apple does?"—our mission is to provide verifiable information, which is not necessarily 'correct' info, but that's usually a bonus to verifiability. Since Apple thinks of the iPad 2 like the iPhone 3G, and we've decided to fork the iPhone article, it seems inevitable that we would fork this one. If we merge it back completely, when the iPad 3 and 4 come along, we'll be forking them out. Although the update was not groundbreaking or revolutionary, it introduced several features that the end-user will certainly notice/use. FaceTime, Smart Covers, etc. are big from a consumer perspective; speed, not so much. For example, the recent MacBook Pro update provided the Thunderbolt port, but that was not a 'consumer feature'. It was an investment in future technology. Hopefully, you can see the distinction I am trying to make between the 'evolutionary' and 'revolutionary' updates. I believe that much of the content should exist in iPad (maybe even mirroring the intro paragraph and the one in the main iPad article by bot?). Still, when we add reception, awards, technical issues (yes, there will be these—we haven't heard any because I can't even get an iPad 2), I think we'll end up forking these. It's more work, but we have time and the article will slow down in terms of development down the road. I believe that the Smart Cover is fairly notable and may be introduced alongside the iPhone 5; it is rather standalone when sold, so it seems to make sense to me. Sorry for the essay, Mono (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I can absolutely see the distinction you are making. However, the iPod Touch got FaceTime and it's still one article. We should be aware of how Apple brands products but not automatically accept them as an organizational structure. Learning from iPhone, I accept that we may have to fork the article in the future as the article, and particularly the infobox, becomes unwieldy with new generations. This is why we should fork, not because iPhone is forked. Currently, I think it's doable in a unified article. As a compromise, perhaps History of the iPad or similar could contain all this excess information, with the caution that History of the iPhone seems to have been abandoned. As for Smart Covers, you're speculating about the iPhone 5. We'll get there when we get there. HereToHelp (talk to me) 22:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I was going to stay out of this since I'm over my head in terms of policy and precedent, but I want to say two things. First, thank you HereToHelp for your patient explanation. Second, I can see both sides of the argument and am no longer sure of the proper course of action; if I was that proverbial uninformed voter who's the sole deciding factor in a tie, I guess I would say merge for now with an incubator somewhere since there will eventually need to be an article. Gonfaloniere (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Mono has made a good case, but until he did so there weren't really any good arguments made to keep this as a separate article. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, at this point I'm leaving it to those who know more about both Wikipedia and the subject matter. I was intentionally vague about when an article becomes necessary since I'm not sure. I am learning from this experience though, so don't think those kilobytes went to waste! ;) Gonfaloniere (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this is all very premature. We have to realize that, as it was only just released several days ago, the coverage is limited but the potential exists for an independent article. I suggest holding off for a month or so, seeing if there is enough content to sustain a solid article or if merging would be appropriate. I think that there is a lot of information still undocumented at this point and that, if there are significant additions after a while, keeping this separate from iPad would be more logical to keep page sizes under control. In summary, I just don't think we can make a good decision about this right now because information is still emerging. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  00:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Can we then redirect our attention to improving iPad, which will require some amount of integrated content no matter the decision? It's something of a mess organizationally. HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Lets go end this discussion and revise it next month because that it's a recently announced and released product. We will not merge the article until next month and the discussion at that time. Awsome EBE123  talkContribs 20:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To what extent should this article be linked to other articles? HereToHelp (talk to me) 21:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to further argue that there is insufficient content for a separate article by using the sandbox to make comments on the article, in italics. All but at most five paragraphs is either duplicate content (pointed out in comments) or content that is unnecessary (in small text ) because we don't need to repeat every detail Apple says. For comparison, iPad is roughly ten times as long as this stub. Granted, we have yet to see reviews and issues, but they can't amount to anything substantial. And to Mono's revolutionary/evolutionary distinction, the best pro-fork argument on the page, I say that it's still the same product in that it still plays media, browses the web, displays books, and runs apps. The end user experience is actually not revolutionary different.HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Good article
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebe123 (talk • contribs)


 * Seriously? We can't even decide if we want to keep or delete this article. I think that iPad would not survive a GAN; focus your attention there. HereToHelp (talk to me) 21:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? Unfortunately I've made too many edits to reject it outright, but this is clearly vastly premature. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Online Order Shipping Status
Do we actualy need the Online Order Shipping Status section? Awsome [[User:ebe123| EBE123  talkContribs 20:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. I haven't checked the page history yet to see if this is an uninformed editor using WP for something it's not, or a rabid inclusionist desperate for more content, but it's gone as soon as I save this message. HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it was just to make sure. Awsome  EBE123  talkContribs 21:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've re-removed it. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

References to 900 MHz CPU
There are some references left to iPad 2 having 900 MHz CPU (using Engadget as a source for reference). Since I can't edit it right now due to edit protection (which is a proper course of action because of people adding random crap like "shipping times"), it should be corrected to 1 GHz everywhere (the official Apple's specs) and first reference to Engadget should be removed. Engadget based their info (about iPad 2's CPU) on Anandtech's Geekbench results, and Geekbench cannot give the true maximum frequency of the CPU in iPads and often shows different results at different period of time for the same exact hardware, for example: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?page=1&q=iPad2%2C2 Rndomuser (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge from Smart Cover
The following is from Talk:Smart Cover

A puff piece rewrite of a press release by MacWorld is a tenuous grasp on notability. It would be far better as a section of the iPad2 article... and about 80% of the relevant text is already in the "Smart Cover" section of that article. - Dravecky (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It meets the notability guideline, as it's been covered significantly on its own by reliable sources. Mono (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * From WP:N: "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." I say merge this to iPad 2 (and merge iPad 2 to iPad,, but I'll have that discussion there). HereToHelp (talk to me) 16:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion now at Talk:IPad 2 Airplaneman   ✈  04:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The following comments were posted to this page.

A puff piece rewrite of a press release by MacWorld is a tenuous grasp on notability. The Smart Cover article would be far better as a section of the iPad2 article... and about 80% of the relevant text is already in the "Smart Cover" section of this article. - Dravecky (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm more than happy for you to be bold and merge it. HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, we should merge it to the iPad 2 article. There is no point to a separate article unless some more important additional information comes along anytime. Samlikeswiki (talk) 07:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't. There are multiple reliable sources cited, covering the Smart Cover alone, instead of with the iPad 2. The product is sold independently from the iPad, which means that it is inappropriate to attempt to cover it as a 'part' of iPad 2. The 80% of the text is there, because it was copied directly, without attribution from Smart Cover. Currently, the article is a mess—putting a ton of mini-sections looks ugly and is not reader-friendly. At the very least, merge to something like iPad 2 accessories, with proper attribution. --theMONO 00:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I asked for fact-based arguments...be careful what you wish for. One source summarizes an iFixit teardown, which should be linked directly; the rest paraphrase Apple. The notability is iffy here, and moreover, a notable subject is presumed to warrant an article unless there are opposing reasons, like those that follow. If 80% of an article can be copied to another, that suggests to me that the smaller article doesn't need to stand on its own. I agree about mini-sections; I don't endorse them. I much prefer the bullets of IPad. As for a separate article, even if it covered all iPad accessories, would never be more than twice the length of the section I just linked to, and I feel that at that length it does not merit its own article. Finally, independently sold but related products are often grouped together. Among Apple products, we mention docks, wall charges, the MacBook Air external Superdrive, among others. It's entirely appropriate, in summary, to combine related content into one article. Merging makes it easier to find information on one page, removes duplicated content that readers must sift through to find differences, reduces editor workload, and allows for longer articles which have a better shot at passing GAN and FAC. HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Urm, all sources paraphrase Apple. It's called accuracy. There are more sources out there. 80% is mathematically incorrect; about 46% of the article was copy-pasted without attribution. There would be room to cover other companies' notable products as well, if we merged to iPad 2 accessories. The SuperDrive is also a bad example (SuperDrive exists /and/ is covered in MacBook Air). Bullets are bad, as well -- prose is always preferred. theMONO 03:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not all sources paraphrase Apple. MacWorld has been known to conduct independent speed and battery tests, and iFixit reveals information not made public by Apple. As for attribution, I think there's a talk page template for that ("please see this article more more revision history"). As for the remaining 54%, not everything in that article is necessary. We are not a sales catalog; we do not need to name all the colors of Smart Cover or (especially) their price. I don't think Steve Job's quote is important; it's distracting and possibly POVish. Covering other company's accessories is a very bad idea because it will lead to spam and no criteria for inclusion (why Company X but not Company Y?). Yes, the SuperDrive is a bad example. It exists as a separate article to cover the old floppy drive and the new CD drive. Both of which are components, not accessories. Despite the image at the top, the external SuperDrive, an accessory, is covered only in MacBook Air. I have redone the accessories section to use prose. I feel that there is nothing to say about Smart Covers that can't be said in a paragraph, and a paragraph does not deserve and article. HereToHelp (talk to me) 14:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge (thus remove). As per other editors above, this separate page is not valid under WP terms. I have copy/edited all the text from it into the main iPad 2 article accordingly, so none of the text/cites will be removed entirely, but rather just copied over, and minor changes made. Plus adding a redirect. Thanks for understanding rules are here for a reason (many explained above), so must be adhered to. Jimthing (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being bold and doing the merge. For purely housekeeping reasons, I deleted the capitalized Smart Cover, which is now covered under Smart cover, which redirects to this article. I also preserved talk page content above. HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Flash Support?
In my opinion, it is amazing that the iPad and iPad 2 articles have nothing in them about these devices' support of Flash. Everyone and his mom discussed this subject; an almost uncountable number of reliable sources go into this subject. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So give links to a few of these reliable sources and we'll add them. HereToHelp (talk to me) 18:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is stuff in Reception of the iPad. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would the article have any information in support for Flash, given that Flash isn't supported. 86.181.51.84 (talk) 14:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I initially came to this iPad 2 Wikipedia article to gather the information needed before making a purchase. I purchased an iPad 2 but then learned that I could not watch Youtube videos because the iPad 2 does not support Flash.  I subsequently ended up having to return it.  Had this very important information been included in the article it would saved me a lot of hassle.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.96.26 (talk) 07:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't there a need for Reception of the iPad 2? I'm tagging IPad 2 with Section OR. -- Trevj (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Copypaste tag
A copypaste tag was added by a user just 8 minutes before his account weas deleted.

Such a tag without any information as to what the user considers has been copy pasted is not of much use. If material has indeed been copy pasted from copyrighted sources, then by all means restore the tag, but at least identify here what has been copied so that it stands a fighting chance of being fixed. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 08:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Redundant tag.
The

tag on the ipad with 3g section is redundant as the whole article is (correctly) tagged.

Are their any objections to its removal? 86.181.51.84 (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * None. It' Redundant 212.183.128.7 (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I notice that an editor has switched the tags again. Although the tag at the head of the article gives a specific section as an example, it is just that - an example.  There are other sections of the article that are US centric. 86.183.175.94 (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You got in just ahead of me. I have just reverted the article.  You are also correct, other parts are indeed US centric.  DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Which parts do you think are US centric? I've just given the article a read through and can't see anything obvious.  Enchanter (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is now nearly August and there has been no reply to the question posed by Enchanter. I have read the article and found no US centric material. I will remove the tag. Mix Minus (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

OS version conflict
The article's body and the summary bar on the right give conflicting information about the operating system version. Is it 4.3.1 or is it 4.3.2? 72.229.242.58 (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Arguably, both. Even the current crop of iPAD 2s are supplied with 4.3.1 but an upgrade to 4.3.2 is available for download. 86.183.175.94 (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Mrsunnybunny, 28 April 2011
Ipad 2 release date: released in South Africa on the 29.04.2011 (source http://www.apple.com/za/ipad/)

Please change 2011-04-29: Israel to 2011-04-29: Israel, South Africa

Mrsunnybunny (talk) 11:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done by User:Richiekim. — Bility (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Reviving the deletion discussion
We agreed to let the article incubate. We did; it did not develop. I have moved valuable content has been moved to iPad and am ready to redirect this article there. As I post this for community discussion, I will remind everyone that a notable subject is permitted, but not required, to have its own article.What ultimately matters is how organized and accessible the content is. HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was asked to have a look through this last night, and I've got to say that aside from the accessories section - which has been spun out as iPad accessories as they also generally apply to the 1G iPad as well - that there is surprisingly little unique content here. There's little more unique content than there was to start with, and efforts would be better focused elsewhere on the project. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Your deletion efforts would be better focused elsewhere. I have to wonder why you are so unwaveringly persistent in an effort that has only succeeded in driving away a veteran editor. This is probably the most notable electronic product of 2011 aside from the iPhone 5. Marcus   Qwertyus   01:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Marcus, why am I not surprised? We are persistent because we honestly feel that the reader is best served by merging similar content rather than a fragmented and redundant two-article approach. The three-week incubation period has shown that the article has not gathered new or relevant content. Mono left on his own accord; I was careful to always treat him with respect and to make conciliatory gestures. The concept of notability you present is flawed in multiple ways. First, a topic is either notable or it is not; "most" does not factor in to it. Second, comparing it to a product that has not been confirmed to exist and excluding all other companies is not how we establish notability That process is outlined at WP:GNG; please read it. Pay special attention to the final bullet point, which states that notability "establishes a presumption, not a guarantee" of a separate article. I also recommend you read WP:COOL. Thanks, HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Marcus if you can point out the significant unique content in this article, that isn't currently present in iPad then I'm more than happy to keep this article. The issue is that after reading through this article quite carefully I couldn't find any. My initial reaction in this case was to let sleeping dogs lie, I'm only agreeing with HelpToHelp as the unique content to my mind was really quite limited. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the lack of further discussion here, and that no unique content has been pointed out I've redirected the article to iPad. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

May 22
Marcus I'm not sure what you are arguing here. I still don't think the article has any unique content, and a significant amount of time has passed for that to happen. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, restoring the article without engaging in discussion shows bad faith and an unwillingness to cooperate. You've had all the time in the world to make the article worthwhile, but it's still crud. Eraserhead and I are merely trying to remove crud. HereToHelp (talk to me) 16:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the order matters too much, I'm definitely concerned if there is no engagement and discussion. Possibly taking it to AfD would be a worthwhile step as that would get a wider consensus. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well he just reverted the page without discussing it, while we made talk page posts before you turned it into a redirect. Moreover, at deletion review, Marcus made claims that "iPad (original) and iPad 2 went through successful deletion reviews and were permitted to be recreated", but provides no link to the DR discussions, and I cannot find them. He furthermore threatened to have me desysopped for protecting the page, without confronting me about it first. I was wrong to do so, but after receiving a message from another user I unprotected it, problem solved. So please, Marcus, let's talk about this and not go dig up every policy there is! (Except maybe AfD.) HereToHelp (talk to me) 17:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Taken to AfD. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Lithuania
Please Edit:

The iPad 2 is Today, May 6th 2011, released in Lithuania, Estonia and in Latvia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spong129 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Recording the release date for every single country is the exact sort of cruft that we don't need. Sorry. HereToHelp (talk to me) 21:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure that's true at all. What makes it cruft in your opinion? Hobit (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I know before I write this that I can't provide a satisfactory reason, but here goes. It's not of relevance to most users. A bunch of countries turns into a list that people just skim over, and it's very dry, and all from one source. I'd much prefer a synthesized composition. Also, does the article for every internationally-released product for which this information is available list it? HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

USB power plug detail wrong
Uhm, so I don't know how to drive wikipedia, but the page says the 10watt powerplug is 4x that of normal USB... which is wrong. Normal usb (including back to usb1.0 iirc) supplies 5w. Should say '2x'. Their cited reference doesn't say 4x either, just that it's 10w. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.90.145 (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it's correct. Normal USB supplies 5v at 500mA that's just 2.5 watts. 81.151.32.82 (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Add Photo to Article
There should be a picture of the Ipad 2 at the top of the page. Jdrohloff2 (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

No mention of designer?
I have edited the lead paragraph to include the designer who was fundamental in the creation of the device, some say it was his innovations that saved Apple. I was astonished that nowhere was there any mention in the article of the designer which seems rather strange.Twobells (talk) 10:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone has vandalized the entry, fixed.Twobells (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone reverted on the grounds that there was no cite, done.Twobells (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * looks like someone keeps undoing Designers reference, designers always belong in first paragraph and an editor keeps mentioning 'consensus with no evidence in talk history, very odd, possible vandalism? 82.31.236.245 (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Vandalism? Please. Since when do "designers always belong in first paragraph?"  I can find plenty of articles where that is not the case, and only a few where it is the case. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 23:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

jailbreak
Is jailbreak available on iPad 2? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.127.207.152 (talk) 09:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Not with the latest operating system versions - yet! 109.156.49.202 (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Successor?
Why does it state that iPad 3 will be iPad 2's successor? is there anything announced? (Could be an iPad 2s) 194.153.217.248 (talk) 13:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It turns out that it was the 3rd generation iPad. Zach Vega (talk to me) 22:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Road to GA
Looks like all we have now is the commercial reception section. Zach Vega (talk to me) 22:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Outdated info
Some of the information in the article is out of date. It says that iOS 5.0.1 is the latest version, and no mention of new OS's and their features is made in the article. Also, the part about FaceTime is missing several new devices. 24.247.142.120 (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for raising these issues, I have added additional information in an attempt to address them. 211.28.235.174 (talk) 09:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Article title should be "iPad 2" (is currently a redirect)
Could somebody please provide a reasonable explanation on why this article title is iPad (2nd generation) and not iPad 2? This model was introduced as "iPad 2" in 2011 and it is still referred to as "iPad 2" by Apple: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201471 Some other model designations have changed since then, e.g. "The new iPad" => "iPad (3rd generation)", but "iPad 2" has always been "iPad 2" and was never called "a second generation" by Apple. I do understand that (marketing) names do not matter to some people, but I'm wondering why the iPad Air 2 article is not just named iPad Air (2nd generation) then ... PS: This talk page has a lot of outdated conversations in it. 84.173.194.174 (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 8 April 2016
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * 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: move as uncontroversial (non-admin closure). SST flyer 00:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

IPad (2nd generation) → iPad 2 – See: Talk:IPad_(2nd_generation) 84.173.194.174 (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2016 (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.

=<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * 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: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

IPad (2nd generation) → iPad 2 – See talk page – SST flyer 00:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Due to previous moves and discussions we better discuss this move request. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * if you are asked for technical help with moving the page you should move it. There has never been any consensus to move this article away from "iPad 2". SST flyer 07:58, 9 April 2016 (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.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on IPad 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110316162215/http://www.apple.com/ipad/features/ to http://www.apple.com/ipad/features/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100130144829/http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/ to http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on IPad 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111030135119/http://www.efi-news.com/2011/09/ipad-drastic-and-far-reaching-change-in.html to http://www.efi-news.com/2011/09/ipad-drastic-and-far-reaching-change-in.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)