Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Apple Inc.

Articles about trivial features
I've just discovered a bunch of articles entirely dedicated to features found on Apple devices. If it's something like AirDrop or AirPlay, that's totally fine, but ... Control Center (Apple), Crash Detection, Dictionary (software), Family Sharing, Night Shift (software), Notification Center, SpringBoard, System Settings?? Come on, seriously? This is trivial WP:FANCRUFT; none of these articles should exist. The only plausible explanation I can think of for why they were even created in the first place is that the article creators were diehard Apple fans — but this is Wikipedia, not the Apple fan wiki. To quote Overly detailed, InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And it appears Windows is suffering the same problem: Action Center, Feedback Hub, Get Help, Magnifier (Windows), Microsoft Messaging, Microsoft Tips, Snipping Tool, Windows Fax and Scan, Windows Mobility Center, Windows spotlight ... these are all WP:FANCRUFT that, like the Apple articles, fail WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree on most, but I'd argue that Crash Detection is notable due to secondary coverage & relatively widespread criticism of its bugs. DFlhb (talk) 06:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @InfiniteNexus I also think it's worth considering merging the articles on iOS versions, and the various iPod touch models, and the iPad models, recombining the base-model iPhones with Pro models (like iPhone 15 and iPhone 15 Pro), and undoing the splits into Intel/Apple silicon articles (see top of this talk page). DFlhb (talk) 10:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am eager to get behind that, especially merging the base-model iPhones with the Pro models. But such merges will require formal merge requests on each article's talk pages. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It makes sense to keep things consistent, and I'd like as much input as possible. Might want to add the merge templates to all, but direct all discussions to a single talk page (iPhone 15 Pro, where a merge was recently informally discussed). It's unusual but I feel it might work. DFlhb (talk) 08:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That would most certainly result in a WP:TRAINWRECK. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree... Calculator (Apple)—seriously? BhamBoi (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

"Wikiproject " listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiproject_%EF%A3%BF&redirect=no Wikiproject ] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal of new WikiProject: Operating Systems
Hello, I am working on creating a new WikiProject, and I am looking for others to join in the creation of WikiProject Operating systems. If you'd be interested in joining and supporting the project, add your name to the proposal support list here. Thanks! OnlyNano 20:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Comprehenshive list of iOS libraries and frameworks?
Wikipedia could benefit from having a comprehensive list of all the Apple libraries/frameworks/whatever due to the sheer amount of them, and lots of them not being notable to have wikipedia pages such as:  PencilKit ARKit PDFKit TipKit UIKIT RealityKit  etc. given the many apple platforms, it would be nice to maybe have a table for compatibility. I do not have a proposal as to what the article name should be. -1ctinus📝 🗨  14:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but I'm not sure if it really passes the notability guidelines, particularly for stand-alone lists. TappyTurtle  (talk • contribs) 01:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I think based on that some notability can be established as a group or for the general concept of the frameworks and I could certainly make a start with the big ones, provide some explanation and even see if I can add a table for compatibility.
 * That said, most of the information will be based on primary sources and I’d be more comfortable if we can get a little bit of consensus going before I commit time on something like that to lower the risk that it’ll end up being a time sink that ends up being waste of time due to deletion ConcurrentState (talk) 01:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Antitrust article
I think there's more than enough material to start a new Antitrust cases against Apple by the European Union article. Got the idea from seeing Antitrust cases against Google by the European Union. DFlhb (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There's a Litigation involving Apple Inc. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think EU-related antitrust stuff can be placed there under the antitrust section.
 * Semi-related: I do think it might be useful to have an article along the lines of "Apple's response to DMA" or "Apple's implementations as a result of DMA" or something like that.
 * That way, we can have one article where we can document all the DMA-related changes and transclude parts as needed in stuff like iOS, iOS 17, App Store (Apple), dev related articles, etc.
 * Currently, the only place something like this is mentioned is Issues relating to iOS, and that doesn't seem a good location because that article normally only handles bugs and issues, not results of policy decisions. ConcurrentState (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's intentional behavior on Apple's part, so Batterygate comes to mind. Perhaps Criticism of Apple Inc. should be converted from a redirect. Batterygate, Environmental impact of Apple, Apple supply chain, iOS app approvals, etc. can be linked via main hatnotes, or just merged. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Didn't realize it was so messy. Could've sworn Criticism of Apple Inc. used to be a standalone article.
 * Perhaps you're right in that all the separate issues could be rolled into a big criticism article.
 * At the same time, my DMA idea that describes the changes made, might be better suited as a section on Digital Markets Act. That way, other companies' changes can be documented there as well, and I can transclude parts as needed into Apple-related articles where appropriate.
 * Otherwise there's a risk of doing a lot of double work (e.g., in iOS(17) "Apple changed this for EU users because of DMA", in App Store "Apple changed this for developers who make apps for the EU market because of DMA", etc). ConcurrentState (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * From my understanding neither the $2B Spotify fine nor anything DMA-related are litigation (it was the Commission, not a court), though I'm sure Apple will appeal and at that point it'll become litigation. And I dislike dump-all articles with a non-specific scope. DFlhb (talk) 08:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The DMA is definitely not litigation, at least not until a case or measure by the EC is started.
 * The fine is a bit more complicated. Obviously if Apple appeals with a court then it is clearly litigation, but in civil law countries that have place administrative law in a separate branch, administrative actions by government bodies are sometimes considered litigation.
 * Nevertheless, a more apt name could fix that.
 * Personally I’m more partial to start with articles that cover a concept because it allows readers that are interested to read more on similar topics and it makes it easier for editors to see if there’s enough information that would warrant separate articles with a hat note linking to the separate article on the concept article. ConcurrentState (talk) 07:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Assessment
As a note, I've gone through all Unassessed Apple Inc. articles (from 19 to 0), feel free to review of my assessments. TappyTurtle &#91;talk &#124; contribs&#93; 14:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

"Criticism of Apple Inc." listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Apple_Inc.&redirect=no Criticism of Apple Inc.] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

PowerBook 100 under FA Review
I have nominated PowerBook 100 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. George Ho (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As an additional note, I've suggested a restructuring of the PowerBook articles on the FAR, so it might be good to get initial thoughts there before I go around proposing a merge, etc. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 15:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)