Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Apple Inc./Archive 8

User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Apple Worldwide Developers Conference
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Apple Worldwide Developers Conference that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Project refresh
This project sees very little activity. It's not currently used to centrally coordinate efforts, but it can still be vital as a central repository of articles that need attention, and resources to help new editors start tackling Apple articles.

I'll keep separate Mac and iPhone sections, but merge all talk pages together, since there's no point spreading out an already thin project, and I'll go through the project and archive the cruft, refresh things, and recenter it around "open tasks", things that demand less commitment or central coordination. DFlhb (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I've finished the first stage of the refresh. The project homepage was really bad on mobile and on Vector 2022 on desktop, so I've turned most of it into one-column so it can actually be read properly. I mostly copied WikiProject Computing's template, since they're bigger, get more eyeballs on their template, and are also better on mobile & Vector 2022. DFlhb (talk) 08:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Refactoring the task forces
I think the best thing to do for now is to archive the task force pages, refactor them into Mac- or iPhone-specific resource pages (platform-specific articles lists, lists of articles needing attention, templates, etc). It'll help us group everyone back up at the overarching WikiProject, and not spread ourselves too thin. Task forces are meant for really-active projects so that people can coordinate more easily, which just isn't the case here. Feel free to discuss if you disagree. DFlhb (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Updating template
Our template has a really annoying class mask that I haven't seen other WikiProjects use; there's tons of articles that are assessed B-class, but the individual b-class criteria aren't filled out, and so it still registers as "C-class".

Seriously, the first 3 articles I checked from Category:C-Class Apple Inc. articles were assessed as B-class by all projects (including us) but were in the C-class category due to this mask, since the b-criteria weren't filled. Mad! And it completely messes with our categorization. I'm working on fixing that. DFlhb (talk) 11:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't have enough experience to try to fix it, so I posted here: Help_desk DFlhb (talk) 11:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've fixed 2 things on the template:
 * now, only failed B-criteria lead to the article being added to the relevant needs-improvement category. Previous, both failed and unset criteria led to that, which was a mess.
 * class-categorization now overrides unset B-criteria, as it obviously should
 * DFlhb (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

New dashboard
Check out the new dashboard! It neatly shows all pending tasks. Please feel free to expand that dashboard to cover more things. DFlhb (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Early iPhone Processors
Check out my new draft! Draft:Early iPhone Processors - SMBMovieFan (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Good draft. I'd include some more content sourced from Anandtech, which I believe covered these early chips repeatedly (example here) as well as John Carmack's comments from here about these devices' computing power.
 * I also believe Intel's (failed) attempts to become the chip provider for the first iPhone, and to have the iPhone be based on x86, were highly-covered in secondary sources (who framed it as Intel "missing the mobile train" and an early example of Intel falling behind on performance-per-watt     , with some prominance in the financial press as well) as well as primary sources (books by the iPhone's creators), and deserve their own section. Also once you publish it, consider linking to it from iPhone hardware and other pages so it's not an orphan, and integrating some of that Intel-related backstory in other relevant articles too. DFlhb (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, thank you so much for your thoughts on the draft! I will update it more aslong with the intel stuff. SMBMovieFan (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Apple Maps should be splitted off to a article called "Availability of Apple Maps features by country"
It's been 3 weeks since the discussion started. And there is only 1 support vote and 0 oppose votes. Should it be splitted off? SMBMovieFan (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd say go for it, per BRD. If anyone opposes it, they'll surely chime in. DFlhb (talk) 06:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright. SMBMovieFan (talk) 09:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

App Store: merge proposal, and move discussion
I started two ongoing discussions at App Store (iOS/iPadOS) over the last months: DFlhb (talk) 10:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) A merge proposal — proposing the merge of App Store (tvOS) into App Store (iOS/iPadOS)
 * 2) A move request discussion — arguing for a move of App Store (iOS/iPadOS) to App Store, which currently itself redirects to App Store (iOS/iPadOS).

Practices of Apple Inc

 * For previous discussions regarding the split, see:
 * Talk:Practices of Apple Inc.
 * Talk:Practices of Apple Inc.
 * No original research/Noticeboard

Hello! I was wondering whether you still intended to work on Practices of Apple Inc. I think the idea of splitting it into subpages by topic had a lot of promise, and it could provide a valuable example for company articles moving forward. But at the same time, I also understand it's a lot of work. It's a bit outside of my usual editing area, but I would gladly help work on a few of these subpages. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi! It's funny actually, I was thinking about that page just a few hours ago. Main reason I decided to leave it alone for a while was due to a degree of remorse at how bold my move was, and to allow it to be easily moved back to Criticism of Apple Inc. if that's decided.
 * I'm willing to carry out a split, but I'd like to focus on making Technology (level-1 vital) a Good Article over the next few weeks, so it's unlikely that the split will entail any deep work on the subpages on my part, beyond just carrying out the split (at least for now). Is that fine with you? DFlhb (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with a bold edit now and then (in my opinion), especially if it prompts further consideration of a topic like yours did. Even if there is more to say about that one article, WP:SUMMARY style splits from both Apple Inc. and Practices of Apple Inc. would still be appropriate. On the other hand, if you think you can get Technology to GA, don't let me or anyone else stop you! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Top. I'll carry out the split as discussed here in my comment and in your response. What title do you have in mind for the "anticompetitive practices" article? Here are two ideas:
 * Antitrust investigations into Apple Inc.
 * Alleged anticompetitive practices of Apple Inc.
 * The first one would have a very well-defined scope, but perhaps too narrow, while the second one is more open-ended. Of course, anyone could always propose a move later, so it's not that big a deal. DFlhb (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that at least to start, subtopic pages should still be relatively broad with the option to split further if necessary. My suggestion would be Marketing of Apple Inc., which would include advertising, pricing, public image, distribution (including anticompetitive practices), and anything else that's covered by marketing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Moved discussion from user talk page. DFlhb (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Split is now complete. New pages:
 * Environmental impact of Apple
 * Marketing of Apple Inc.
 * Old page has been moved to Apple supply chain. DFlhb (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've just cleaned up redirects to Apple supply chain that no longer apply. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

How should this WikiProject be organized?
Trying to figure out the best way to present information, and help contributors find whatever they need.

'Should we have task forces? I boldly removed them because they were unmaintained and quasi-dead, and seemed like unnecessary overhead. But maybe bringing them back would make contributors less overwhelmed, and help everyone focus on whatever articles they're interested in. We could have task forces for Mac, iPhone, Mac apps, iPhone apps, and TV+. That way, iPhone apps don't distract those who only care about Macs, or about the iPhone. I'm leaning support neutral on this. Or, should these apps be excluded altogether from the project's scope?

Should we adopt the new WikiProject modules? WP:WikiProject Medicine and WP:WikiProject Women in Red use them, and they have nice features. The alternative would is to make the homepage look more like WP:WikiProject Video games or WP:WikiProject Military history. I'm leaning in favor of the modules. Would allow us to avoid using table syntax for page layout, to make things better on mobile, and overall to make the whole project more aesthetically pleasing and better structured.

More generally, does anyone have any thoughts on how this WikiProject could be improved? DFlhb (talk) 04:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC) ; updated 17:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * WP:REVIVE might have some useful information. Unfortunately, WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Apple Inc. is out of date (the bot broke last year), but I suggest asking all the active editors on that page to put this page on their watchlist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of users! I'll just tag a few: @Cat's Tuxedo, @Cedar101, @David Fuchs, @Dicklyon, @EditingProperly, @Farzam.akbarian86, @Flyedit32, @Ghostofakina, @Guy Harris, @Herbfur, @IceWelder, @InfiniteNexus, @Kvng, @Lazman321, @PhotographyEdits, @RealKGB, @Ruxnor, @ShadyCrack, @Shivertimbers433, @Venky64, @Zac67.
 * I'm trying to only tag people who edited Apple-related articles recently (sometimes only articles for video games that are available on Apple platforms). Not going to tag again, so if you're uninterested, feel free to ignore. DFlhb (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also @Theknine2! DFlhb (talk) 11:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Misspelt: @Timur9008. DFlhb (talk) 10:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Is the project active enough to warrant such changes? Even mega-active projects like WP:Video games deprecated some of their task forces due to inactivity. Looking at the list of this project's "active editors", at least 50% (including myself) are WP:VG editors who happen to have edited articles for Mac games (which I would think should be outside the scope of this project anyway). I think this project would benefit more from an up-merge with WP:COMPUTING with a single Apple-focused task force there. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 10:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Very possible. DFlhb (talk) 10:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The "Apple-focused task force" is a good idea. This project hasn't really been very active, and several pages had generally not seen much activity since the early 2010's (like the Mac (computer) article that and I have been working on since), presumably when the project was last active. Would welcome merging this project into the WP:COMPUTING project if it means more people that would work on Apple-related articles! Theknine2 (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * P.S. I think small articles with little edit activity, and relating to the same type of product would benefit from being merged into a single article, e.g. iPod Touch (2nd generation), iPod Touch (3rd generation) etc. --> iPod Touch, or Models of iPod Touch etc.. Theknine2 (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would agree. In general we seem to be fond of making arbitrary distinctions between when we break out models (while the Apple silicon Mac mini might make sense as its own page, there's not really a lot of textual evidence for treating them separately versus the same product line, for example.) But for lots of them, they only generate sporadic coverage when they're updated and don't have serious recurring reception, etc. so it makes sense to merge them. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 13:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with these merges; the splits are both arbitrary and unwieldy, and lead to significant dueness/"overinclusion" issues, with extremely long tables everywhere. I just merged Final Cut Pro and Final Cut Pro X recently, another split which made no sense. It might even make sense to merge all the iPhone pages, since much of their content is cruft. After thinking about it some more, becoming a Computing task force makes sense. It would stop people constantly tagging random iOS games with our project, and all third-party Mac apps would stay in WP Computing's Software task force and be removed from here, so this WikiProject could focus on Apple proper. We would also gain WP Computing's deletion sorting list. I checked Petscan, and most articles in WP Apple that aren't in WP Computing, are... video games! Only question is, would WP Computing accept having articles like Typography of Apple Inc. within their scope? DFlhb (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC) (refactored several of my comments into one. Previous revision.)
 * Cleaning up and closing down the task forces I think makes sense. I'm generally a big fan of keeping Wikiprojects around, even as minimally-active pages, just because it's easier to use as a todo list/project management task list than something in user space (hence why WP:HALO is still around even though it's me and like two other actually active people left these days.) Whether that's as a Taskforce of WPCOMPUTING is up to everyone else. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 13:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * (Pinged here) I've said it before, and I'll say it again: technology is an area on Wikipedia where there are not a whole lot of active editors. WikiProject Apple (and WikiProject Google, WikiProject Microsoft, etc.) have pretty much been semi-dead for the past few years. While there remains a relatively small group of editors who dabble in technology articles, there hasn't really been much collaboration taking place. So while I appreciate your enthusiasm, I'm not sure there's enough interest in reviving any of those projects. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem converting this to a taskforce under WP:COMP. I also don't see a problem keeping this as a stand-alone project. In my experience editors are often premature in declaring wikiprojects dead. ~Kvng (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Like InfiniteNexus said, all tech wikiprojects have been just kinda active. I object to merging this with another project. I do suggest opening a game task force though since a lot of editors are just video game editors that edit games on apple. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I had begun removing video games articles from this project, based on @IceWelder's comment and the discussion I started below. Will stop, pending further consensus.
 * My reasons for removal were:
 * The made up 1/3 of this project's articles (in a small sense, that made us a de facto task force of.. WikiProject Video games, not Computing!), which resulted in the inclusion of a ton of irrelevant articles. An overwhelming majority of them were autotagged by Xenobot due to being in sub-sub-sub-sub-categories of Category:Apple Inc.. Tagging User:David Fuchs, who participated in that Xenobot discussion.
 * One third is a huge amount, which may have overwhelmed the project. This project became less active around the time of the mass-tags. It's likely that's a total coincidence, but there's a small chance it isn't.
 * WikiProject Video games is highly active, so they can take care of delsorting, PRODs, etc. It's unlikely that any PRODs will just "fall through" without being reviewed by anyone at WikiProj Video games, so those articles are well taken care of, even the old Mac games we used to cherish as kids.
 * I kept Mac-exclusive apps (not games) in scope, because I don't want expect those PROds to be reviewed by any other WikiProject; this is the best place for them, and we certainly don't want things like MarsEdit or OmniFocus getting PRODded and deleted.
 * I removed about 500 tags from game articles (checking each, and obviously skipping Apple games magazines, Apple lists, Apple-exclusive companies, historic firsts, Apple consoles, etc). It seemed uncontroversial, though in retrospect, I should have waited for consensus. I can restore the tags if that's decided. DFlhb (talk) 05:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Change in scope
Inviting other editors to review the changes I've made to this project's scope.

One third of articles tagged with this WikiProject are video games! (info obtained using Petscan) Most are cross-platform, and only tangentially related to Apple.

Given that there's an active WikiProject dedicated to them, I think excluding games altogether makes the most sense. DFlhb (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 100% agree. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93;
 * As an active editor of The Sims articles, I've always wondered why The Sims 2 was assigned to this WikiProject when there's seemingly no relevance other than having a Mac OS X version. Thank you! Theknine2 (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - It's arguably arbitrary to include exclusive Mac software but exclude exclusive games and iOS apps but you gotta draw a line somewhere. ~Kvng (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - The Video Games WikiProject is very active, so it's not like the quality of any of the VG articles will suffer for not being included within the scope of this WikiProject, and excluding them will narrow the focus to articles that are relevant and aren't already under the watchful eye of what seems to be one of the most active WikiProjects there are (VG). - Aoidh (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - per above. Timur9008 (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Update Actually, that earlier percentage was wrong, since I counted categories, files, redirects and so on. Counting only articles, video games made up more than 45% of this project! Anyway; I'm done clearing them. Whew! DFlhb (talk) 06:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Made up generation numbers
We completely made up generation numbers for all modern Macs.


 * There's no such thing as "the third-generation Mac Mini", and its common name is the Unibody Mac Mini, so why not use that?


 * There's likewise no "fourth-generation MacBook Pro". The 2016 MacBook Pro was the 17th revision, and it was officially the 13th generation per the model identifier, "MacBookPro13,1". Its common name is "Touch Bar MacBook Pro", which we should obviously use instead for recognizability.


 * Same with all other Macs.

The generations nomenclature (e.g. polycarbonate, aluminum, unibody, Retina) was actually not controversial, since secondary sources grouped models by case design in the same way, but the numbering of generations was made up by us, causing WP:CITOGENESIS in a few cases (as well as questions of whether the generation numbers should reset with the Apple silicon Macs). The affected articles were: MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, MacBook (2006–2012), Mac Pro, Mac Mini, as well as their "child articles" (Intel, Apple silicon).

I fixed it by replacing the generations numbers with these models' common names. Don't expect these changes to be particularly controversial, and they make for far cleaner and more recognizable headers. DFlhb (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Macs being arbitrarily grouped together
The very-different 2006 MacBook Pro and 2019 MacBook Pro are both in MacBook Pro (Intel-based), while the 2020 MacBook Pro, which is almost identical to the 2019 model, is in a separate article, MacBook Pro (Apple silicon). That makes little sense to me, even after reading the discussions that resulted in the splits. Same with all other Mac articles that were split between Intel and Apple silicon.

Here's what I propose:
 * Have MacBook Pro (for example) contain a summary of all models.
 * If the section for a particular model gets too long, split that particular model. So, we'd have a Touch Bar MacBook Pro article, for example.
 * This would be a more conventional (and natural) way to do these WP:SUMMARY-style splits. It would also be consistent with iMac G3, iMac G4, and with all iPhone and iPad models. And it's less arbitrary than cramming loosely-related models into Intel/Apple Silicon sub-articles.

No content would be lost; and the main articles would still contain an overview of the lineup's evolution. Each generation ("Unibody", "Retina", etc.) would simply get a top-level heading, rather than being subheadings under "Intel".

Pinging QuarioQuario54321, David Fuchs and Locke_Cole, who participated in an ongoing discussion about splitting Mac Mini, which is relevant to this proposal. DFlhb (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Do the sources particularly treat the Apple Silicon models as substantially different than their predecessors? If so, then even if the Apple Silicon model article is short, it makes sense to split. But the sources should be the guide here, I would add especially to how it's named; if sources aren't differentiating between the models using the nomenclature we are ("unibody", "Touch Bar" etc.) then we should adjust ours accordingly (I know you partially redressed this with the "generations" stuff in the preceding talk section, but something to keep in mind—for example, the "Magic keyboard" revision treated as its own model rev.)
 * At first blush, my main question is what are these subpages doing that the overarching pages (MacBook Pro) aren't? The parent article is only 24KB and the MacBook Pro (Intel-based) is 43KB, but frankly a lot of that seems to be going into excessive detail on minute hardware revisions, rather than focusing on the broad strokes in summary style (telling people the Kensington security slot moved is important? Really?) It feels like these subpages mostly exist for exhaustive technical charts rather than prose. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 13:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well with no name change and with the Apple Silicon variants probably individually being referred to by Processor in the future we would need to split it up eventually, it'll grow as time goes on. QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Two categories up for discussion
Two categories are up for discussion:


 * Category:macOS-only software (and link to the category's entry on the discussion page)


 * Category:iPhone video game engines (and link to the category's entry on the discussion page)

For good measure, here's a link to the categorization guidelines. DFlhb (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:IPhone 6S
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:IPhone 6S that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – Material  Works  14:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for IOS 10
IOS 10 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:%EF%A3%BF&redirect=no Wikipedia:] 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. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

B-class checklist
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Determining the future of B-checklists
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council § Determining the future of B-class checklists. &#x0020;This project is being notified since it is one of the 82 WikiProjects that opted to support B-checklists (B1-B6) in your project banner. DFlhb (talk) 11:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Apple apps in need of articles
BhamBoi (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * iTunes U
 * An educational app unveiled in 2012 that came preinstalled, but was later discontinued in 2021.
 * Journal
 * A journaling app set to come out alongside iOS 17.2, and announced with the release of iOS 17.
 * No. Not every Apple app needs an article. We were just discussing this at . InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)