This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc. articles
It was removed due to severe article bloat (it dramatically increased the post-expand include size) and the fact that the table at the top already serves of a sort of "support table" as it already shows "device end-of-life" as a column. It was fancy sure but used a heck of a lot of resources just to display. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 17:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what your definition of "heck of a lot of resources" is, but regardless of that, it's a silly reason to remove information from an article (having said that, the inclusion of which chips are used in these devices is unnecessary information here so that could be removed to reduce those "lot of resources"). The "Device end-of-life" column does not provide the same information as these templates do. I've restored the article back to how it was. There should first be reached a consensus about this. --YannickFran (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
by "resources" i meant the post-expand include size. that should be kept to a minimum, and the inclusion of those templates alone bloated the include size by over 250,000 bytes. not to mention the device end-of life column in the top template *does* provide the same information as it shows next to the iOS version the devices that had device support end with that iOS version. stop adding back the device support section when it gives nothing of value to the reader and severely bloats the article size. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 02:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion size is nowhere near remotely problematic, it's not an argument for removing information. And you keep repeating the argument that the end-of life column displays the same information. Where does that column shows which device started with which version of their respective OS? Where does that column shows how long these were supported? And even disregarding that, there is value in *how* data is displayed, even if its the same data twice. But that last point doesn't really matter because this isn't the same data. And yeah, no other version history article has tables like this. But there is also no other version history article about a peace of software where the version is as tied to the hardware it runs on as is the case with iOS. This too, is not an argument. Just because similar pages don't show such information doesn't mean any page should. --YannickFran (talk) 07:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no offense intended, but the inclusion size is problematic, because any unnecessary content can increase the chance of this article surpassing that limit if and when the separate version tables are re-added, and if its surpassed, that means that the page will start glitching out. and we do not need a table showing how long a given version is supported for. when support for devices is dropped and said removal of device support is cited, it is displayed in the respective version's overview. it's already known that iOS 17 for example drops support for the iPhone 8 and X lineup. we do not need a massive table w checkmarks to know when a version no longer supports a given device. it is also pretty obvious that the iPhone X released with iOS 11, considering it was released in 2017. sorry but those support tables are staying removed. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 08:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That argument also doesn't fly. If these tables should not be included because the version tables, that - and I can't stress this enough - do not exist will include that information, then the same goes for the overview table itself, everything in that table would also be included in the individual version tables. Future possible content that someone at some point may write is not an argument to not include information that is ready right now. And once more; this article is, even including the old full version tables, nowhere near reaching those limits. So no offense, but stop using those arguments because they make no sense. The size is not a problem (and if it ever would be, that's more a matter of splitting this article up rather than omitting information that you don't want to show) and neither is "repeating" information (with repeating between quotes, because it would be repeating information that isn't actually on this page).--YannickFran (talk) 07:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The tables would be too large in the post-expanded inclusion size according to you. The fact is that inclusion would add 238.961 bytes to an article of 438.928 bytes. Well and far below the 2.097.152 bytes limit. But also on the premis that when all version tables would be restored it would be to much, despite the fact that, based on old versions of this article with massive tables, it was still 1.2M bytes, still far away from the 2.1M limit). Regardless, these tables can be simplified to reduce that weight.
The tables would duplicate the Device end-of-life column according to you. The fact is that how information is presented can be valuable in and of itself, not that it matters because these tables both contain different information: the table does not show which was the first version supported on any given device or give an overview of the support duration, which the included tables do.
You say that the version tables would also include which version is supported on which device. The fact is that - again - how information is displayed is also relevant, but more important here: you're arguing information should not be included because information someone may add in the future might' also relay that information (but again, not in the same presentation).
This point also contradicts the existence of the Overview table, which has value to me, but by your logic should also be removed because its contents would also be available in the yet-to-be-added version tables.
This is clearly going nowhere, so I'm asking WP:3O. You don't seem to be willing to have an actual conversation on any of your points. Whenever an argument is leveled against it, you just come up with yet another argument (to the point of nonsense (e.g. removing information because future edits may include similar information)) without addressing any of the points made. --YannickFran (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this is just about the "Hardware Support" tables? There seems to be a larger debate going on here about tables on this page, so I'm not sure it quite makes sense to describe this as a "debate between two editors" where all that's needed is a third opinion to settle it. I'll weigh in as much as I can, but, just looking at a glance, I think it might be worth taking into account the larger conversation happening here, whatever I say.
Anyway, I don't think it's quite fair to just say that those tables are obviously "unnecessary" or "bloat." Obviously some people feel otherwise, and it's really a matter of opinion whether things like that belong in this sort of article.
That said, I think any tables like that should be well-supported by mostly-secondary sources, like anything else. Those Hardware Support tables didn't have any references at all, so it's hard for me to tell if that's true of the information in them. At least some of it does seem supportable by references from magazines in the main text of the article, but I'm not sure that all or even most of it is. If the ultimate source for it is just Apple's documentation, it makes it kind of hard to argue that the contents of the tables are notable enough to merit inclusion in the article, especially considering that the article is more of a narrative of iOS's development and reception over time than a detailed summary of what devices support what iOS version.
As a side note, I wonder if we could use some sort of broader policy discussion or clarification about these kinds of large reference tables. They seem to be a heated topic lately and a lot of people seem to be arguing past each other about them to some extent. There was an RfC on a similar issue a little while back that seems to have provoked great controversy and discontent. Mesocarp (talk) 00:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Technical limitations should never be a reason to not include information, which is something that the Wikipedia Help page about this subject even calls out. If this article becomes too large because of its tables, it should be the version history tables that are moved to their own version specific article as is done for other pages (see Windows and macOS). However, this is not a concern at the moment.
While adding sources to the tables would be fine, I don’t agree that they must be third-party. Information about which device is supported by what OS is objective and similar tables don’t include sources either. It would be a welcome addition, but not a requirement. In my opinion, the reasons given to not restore these tables are inadequate.--2A02:A020:53:755D:E8B3:A296:3F13:37AC (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about it more, and I think you could make an argument from WP:NLIST that those Hardware Support tables should be allowed, even if they are only sourced from Apple's documentation, because the whole topic of the table (which phones support which iOS version) is widely covered in secondary sources. Does that have enough weight to counter WP:NOTACATALOG? I have no idea. So, in full, I really don't know to agree with here. Mesocarp (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. It does not. Having excessive detail on what version supports what is way too technical - and it does indeed violate WP:NOTCATALOG. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 04:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3O: How is it "way too technical"? By what standard? Is there some accepted Wikipedia guidelines on technical is too technical to be included in a Wikipedia article? Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTACATALOG has nothing to do with this. If it did, many Wikipedia articles would have to be stripped of their tables. Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YannickFran i kindly ask you to stop reverting a change that was made weeks ago to the article. the table is redundant and unnecessary, and is not a focus of the article. So kindly stop edit warring and reinstating a useless change. Edit: The table also kinda violates WP:NOTCATALOG as well. Wikipedia is not a device support database. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 10:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I kindly request you to stop acting as if this is your article and continously removing content that has been part of this article for years with not a single valid reason. WP:NOTCATALOG has nothing to do with these kinds of tables (which can be found all across Wikipedia), which you'd have known if you'd actually read those rules. The version tables on this page are closer related to that rule than the compatibility tables, and don't get me wrong, even that is one hell of a stretch. This is yet another example of you throwing a rule at this that has absolutely nothing to do with it. Please provide either a valid reason that can be discussed and let's come to a conclusion then, or just stop doing this.
And let me respond to the message you put in your edit: "this is a article focused on the development of iOS". No. It is not. This article is about its version history. Also, wasn't your argument just a few days ago that this was duplicating information on this page? So why was that information that it was duplicating here in the first place? This is yet another example of you throwing random arguments that make 0 sense at the wall to see what may or may not stick. If you'd like to read articles that actually are about the development of an OS, I'd like to refer you to Development of Windows XP and Vista. That's what an article "focused on the development of iOS" would look like. YannickFran (talk) 10:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YannickFran Any reasons I give you, you are more than likely going to outright disregard. I have been an editor of this page for literally years, and those tables with the abundance of checkmarks didn't exist until you added them in February of this year, so kindly stop with that - they were not part of the article for years, only a couple months maximum before they were removed due to the fact that they unnecessarily exploded the article size for no valid reason. Yes, there were device support tables, but none of them (aside from maybe the iPod touch table?) used checkmarks excessively. The version overview table already serves the same purpose via a secondary purpose (in that it shows when a device is end of lifed, along with its final iOS update), as I've said, and its been enhanced with more detailed information recently. Therefore, I do not agree with the tables, in their current checkmark-heavy state, existing on the article, due to the existence of the version overview table. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 11:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Every reason you've given was citing either rules that do not apply to the type of content at all (like WP:NOTCATALOG), rules that it doesn't actualy violate (include size, etc.), things it doesn't do (repeat information, "[this article is about development therefor it is not relevant]") or are downright nonsensical ("[don't include information that future edits might add elsewhere]"). And you either keep repeating them without actually addressing the rebutals on those reasons or just pull another one out of nowhere. I feel arguing with you is pointless because you clearly aren't listening and just keep coming up with yet another argument as to why something you personally don't like shouldn't be here despite not having any objective reason for its removal. Case in point: accessibility.
Because it's absolutely rich that you now come with this "but they are not accessible" argument. Don't worry. They are. I would know. I need those tools. As a matter of fact, being accessible is partially - ironically - why they are the size that they are in the first place (your first argument that I've already pointed out is not actually a problem nor true). You could very easily have just checked if they are accessible. But at this point I can only assume that you don't actually have these concerns, because you're just throwing things at a wall to see what sticks and this happened to be another thing you could think of. Regardless, yet again this isn't even a reason to remove it. At worst you'd put a request for improvement on that with the accessibility concern at best you'd address these concerns yourself.
This is not your article. It doesn't matter how long you've been editing it. It's doesn't matter how much you've edited it. It doesn't matter how much you know about its subject. It doesn't belong to you. You're editing on Wikipedia, everyone can come in and improve these articles as they see fit. You are not the arbiter of what does and does not go. You're making no effort to actually resolve this and you're ignoring the opinions of others that try to do so.
Now, I gladly also admit I was wrong in how long these tables have been here, because indeed, they were only put on this page last year. After it was decided they'd be moved from the pages where they came from because they made more sense here. Much like the tvOS and iPadOS articles. With this article's entire history destroyed due to its copyvio it was kinda hard to check, but Wayback to the resque. Regardless, if "this was not on the page before" is something we should mind when making edits, Wikipedia might as well close shop right now.
Anyways it did get me to dig: I did went and look what was said about the removal of these tables originally in early January, and this comment was made about it by the person who deleted it (@DFlhb): "I agreed with someone else to delete, but two people isn't remotely a binding consensus". Who, by the way, also was the one to originally restore them in the first place 3 weeks later (on January 23rd), after which they have remained on this page for months until you started removing them on May 9th. So even your implications that they didn't use to be here and that your edit is the status quo is - yet again, and I cannot stress this enough - not true. YannickFran (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that those templates were overly visual-heavy, which could be bad for people who are blind and require the use of a screen reader. Accessibility is important, even on encyclopedia platforms like Wikipedia, and those templates are downright awful when it comes to that. Screen readers, to work effectively, require captions, or alt text. Using checkmarks is not text. And to be honest I am unsure if the template that even generates the checkmark has alt text, but regardless, templates that are visually heavy should be avoided, or updated to rely more on strictly text. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 11:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's readable with screen readers (which read the column header every time you go left or right in a row, and the row header every time you go up or down a column), but could be better, and contains a lot of cruft. We should reduce it to 3 columns: model, first supported version, last supported version.
The Overview table was much worse for accessibility. For example, I go to the iOS 4 row. I go right, and it says: "June 21, 2010, initial release date". Then I go to the right, and it says: "4.2.1, latest version". But that's not the latest version; we list three because different devices had different end-of-life, but EOLs are mentioned further right, and it'll be unclear to people who use screen readers (4.2.10 was also unclear to me even though I can see fine). Non-header cells should also not be merged even when their contents are identical, since it'll only read it as the topmost, leftmost cell, and otherwise will skip over it instead of reading it. I've fixed the Overview table now. DFlhb (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Evelyn Marie: I can personally confirm that my screen reader has no problem with this table. It seems you didn't even bother checking before trying to make this argument, which suggests you are not engaging in good faith with @YannickFran but rather are just trying to invent new excuses to avoid letting YannickFran include the table, possibly due to a misguided belief that your years of editing this article means the article belongs to you (it does not). Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it is an eyesore- just don't look at it!
The table is useful information. It should be included. Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YannickFran: Respectfully, stop re-adding the template. There was no conensus to keep the tables and you are the only one arguing for the tables to stay by forcefully re-adding them to the page. They have no reason to exist on this page - The overview table, as previously discussed, already serves this purpose. Those hardware support templates do nothing except to repeat information in an arguably uglier manner. This is all I'm going to say on this subject. The tables stay gone - stop re-adding them without seeking consensus to re-add them. And another thing: Wikipedia's style guide literally says to avoid information-dense tables unless absolutely necessary. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 20:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this discussion alone I'm already not the only one arguing for these tables to remain on this page. Further down on this talk page, more people request for the restoration of the article prior to your removal of them. I am not the only one arguing for these tables to remain on this page (and let's keep that in mind: this is about content remaining, not adding). You on the other hand are the only one arguing for their removal. "This is all I'm going to say on this subject"? Fine by me if you don't want to discuss it, but then don't demand something is removed either. You have refused to actually discuss this in the past (and no, throwing random arguments at the wall and hoping one sticks is not "discussing"). But just throwing your hands up and going "this is the last thing I say so now anything I've said is set in stone and nobody else's opinion matters" is not how this works.
I've in the past asked you multiple times to actually discuss their removal but you have continued jumping around from one reason to another every time I pointed out that your reasons didn't make sense. You already made the claim that these tables were "too large" and caused the article to get to close to its inclusion size, but they very clearly don't and even if they did, at best that's an argument for an article split (and I'd argue that the version tables in that scenario are the one's that would have to be moved to their respective articles to reflect the structure for similar articles like the version histories for macOS, Windows 10 and others), not for their removal. Then you moved on to "these tables are not accessible" and that that somehow was grounds for their removal despite the fact that they very much are accessible (so you didn't even bother to check and tried to made an argument about something you don't know anything about). You've then argued that these tables duplicate the "End of life" column in the overview table. And sure, much like that table, these tables show which version was the last one to support a device. But sharing 1 data point doesn't make it duplication. These tables visualize both the progression and expansion of support as time goes on, and shows all versions of the supported OS by device. Even completely disregarding that, the same data represented differently is also a valuable resource. But again, that's assuming this data is on this page, which it's not. You then brought up that the version tables also include which versions of the OSes are supported on which device and thus "duplication". Except of course that first of all, difference in presentation matters and second, you are completely ignoring the fact that these version tables don't actually exist. Your argument there is that they might duplicate information that someone might add in the future. This also directly contradicts the existence of the Overview table which then also would be duplicating information (unless you want to argue that presentation matters). You decided to repeat these false claims once more when you began removing them again 2 week ago.
None of what I mention in the previous paragraph here is new information to you. I've already pointed all of this out to you. The above discussion is proof of that. What it also proves is that every time I did point this out, rather than acknowledge these arguments and explain what you were actually trying to say, you moved on to the next argument in line to see if anything you could think of might stick, or worse just went "no I want them gone end of discussion" and think that means you have a consensus. If you read up, you'll also notice that the original deletion was done without consensus. You don't get to say "I removed them and since I disagree with everyone else that they should stay there is no consensus for them to stay". That is - again - not how it works.
And now you come with what I can quiet frankly only describe as a "bullshit argument" that they are an "eyesore"? Please point me to the Wikipedia guidelines that explain when a table is an eyesore and how that is grounds for the removal of useful information. This also goes, once again, to show that you don't actually have a rational argument on why these tables shouldn't be here. If you don't like what these tables look like, feel free to either update their visuals yourself or add a template requesting improvements to the content (but then again, these tables are already built with various Wikipedia templates that are specifically designed for these kind of things). You personally disliking what a table looks like is not a reason for their removal. But again, you already know how senseless of an argument that is because now you come up with "Wikipedia's style guide literally says to avoid information-dense tables unless absolutely necessary". ...you are aware that everyone can look that up, right? These tables are direct counterparts to other tables that are very much commonplace in articles about Apple products and their support cadence and other similar products. Yet nobody ever made an issue about this. These tables aren't "information-dense", a "yes/no" matrix is as simple as a table can possibly get. And that argument yet again seems to fly directly in the face of your previous argument that these tables only duplicate the "End of life" column of the "Overview" table. So are you saying that the "Overview" table is also information-dense and thus must be removed, or are you saying that these tables do actually provide information that isn't elsewhere stated in this article, or are you saying that your argument there made no sense from the start?
So, respectfully, restore the page until an actual consensus is reached. There is no consensus for their removal, there are however multiple users who have now asked and argued for this article to keep (not "add", "keep") these tables. YannickFran (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully I am not going to re-add the templates. They add no useful information. Listing "device support" for every single iOS version is redundant and unnecessary, it does not have anything to do with iOS' version history, but rather the respective device's lifespan in terms of software support, which can be found on the respective device's Wikipedia page. This article was made to be a concise overview of each iOS version and its subversions, not how long each device was supported for, which I believe I've mentioned previously.
And by "information-dense", I meant putting information in a table that simply doesn't need to be a table - tables are useful, no doubt about it, but arguably a table that does nothing other than show a checkmark or an "X" for something is a bit on the useless side. The "Overview" template, as I brought up in conversation months ago, is far more useful in its purpose in that it shows more than just device end-of-life, it also shows current iOS version, release date, etc. That kinda table is okay and I'm all for it. But three separate templates that only shows a device's lifespan, is a bit out-of-scope and unnecessary for this article, which I brought up before. There are no valid reasons for those tables to exist, especially not for the iPod touch which was EOL'd back in 2022. And that table will eventually become difficult to manage, especially as newer iOS versions come out. That's why I said the tables are an eyesore, because they don't really provide anything of value, and yes, they *do* indeed significantly increase the internal inclusion size, because tables use a lot of complex HTML code to render. And each table that is added, causes the page to take longer to render / load.
To get a gist of what I mean, here is the current inclusion size reported by Wikipedia's internal HTML code for the article:
That is an additional 300k bytes that has to be loaded by the browser, which means longer loading times, especially for people on slow Internet connections which is incredibly common in less developed countries, for tables that are probably only cared about by very few people, and which contains information that can be found on a respective iOS device's article under its infobox. And once more and more iOS versions and devices come out, the more those HW support tables have to grow both vertically and horizontally, which will become even more of a maintenance burden. I'm honestly just providing my two cents here. The tables respectfully do not add anything of value that is not already covered either in the Overview table, or the individual iOS device articles.
My argument for the version history tables is that they do indeed provide value. A lot of people care about how iOS has evolved, and having the version history tables there mean that a overview of how a given iOS version has made iOS better (or worse depending on who you ask) is always there for people who are curious. And by not having the hardware support tables there, there is more space for proper text content. These reasons (and the others I've mentioned) are precisely why I believe that the hardware support tables do not belong in the article. They do not really provide value that is not already there, and its why I am not going to add them back. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 01:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And this is exactly what I mean: you just keep repeating the same point over and over again as if you actually have a point. To get - once again - back at the inclusion size: this is not an issue. Once again; at best that merits an article split, not removal. Second, you are now just inventing definitions for what "information dense" means, the fact that something could be formatted as something other then a table doesn't make the table-version of it "information dense" (and yet again, we'll entirely ignore presentation of information I guess) because quiet frankly everything you can format as a table can be formatted as plain text (including the content of version history tables, which actually makes much more sense as text compared to trying to format support evolution, so there's that too if you really want to argue on your "information dense table" definition you bring up here). Third, just because the iPod is EOL doesn't mean we can just go around and scrap all information about it from the article. Fourth, these tables are perfectly manageable (again, stop repeating easily disprovable thing, if you want to see an "unmanageable" table, I suggest you go and take a look at articles like Apple silicon, and people manage those just fine).
Finally, I never argued against having the version history tables, but if space constraints become an issue (and lets yet again be very clear about that: they very much are not right now) and an article split would become necessary, it's those tables would be the ones that would have to be moved to their respective version articles as has been the precedent for many other articles like it. Regardless, here you argue yet again for the need of "more space for proper text content" and I'll repeat yet again: that is not an argument for information removal. Also ignoring that you're basically repeating the claim that information is repeated in tables that do not exist.
But I've already made all those arguments. You've just opted to ignore it and instead repeat yourself as if that makes you're right and then shut down any conversation people are willing to have with "and that's final". Meanwhile, there never was a consensus for their removal in the first place, and as long as there is no consensus for their removal, they should be kept. YannickFran (talk) 08:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're the only one who's defending them now, the other one who defended this left Wikipedia. I disagree with their creation as a whole. And regarding your Apple Silicon argument, those tables actually have a reason to exist in that they actually have proper information other than checks and X's. Hardware support tables? No. And I'm repeating the reasons I've already mentioned because they are valid reasons, you just refuse to accept them as valid reasons, for reasons I don't entirely understand. I've discussed a multitude of reasons here, you've refused to accept every single one.
And you literally disregarded Wikipedia's entire discussion process just to revert a removal that has ONLY been reinstated by YOU. That is not consensus, its the same person adding the same stuff over and over again. Those templates, again, have no reason to exist. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 08:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are repeating arguments that, even if valid, wouldn't require removal, but at best an article split. And by the way: And you literally disregarded Wikipedia's entire discussion process just to discuss a change that has ONLY been reinstated by YOU. That is not consensus, its the same person removing the same stuff over and over again.
You haven't been discussing anything. What you have done is throw about 10 different arguments, some of which contradict each other, at the wall, hope one of them might stick, and completely disregard anything anyone has said. You've been holding a monologue. You've refused to actually argue on any points other than just repeating yourself over and over again. Example given: the "inclusion size" "issue". I'm not arguing it doesn't make the article larger, of course it does, that's what any information does, that's what information is. Disregarding that at this point it very much is not an issue, that still wouldn't warrant removing information, that's what article split requests are for.
On this talk page, there are multiple people that have either argued or asked for these tables to remain. You are the only one arguing for their removal. And frankly, at best it seems you just have some weird personal vendetta against these tables.
And now you're arguing that because people who already voiced their opinion on keeping this information on this page aren't repeating those opinions, we can just disregard their opinion? There was no consensus to remove them the first time around, exemplified by the fact that the person who removed subsequently restored them for the very reason that they agreed that there was no consensus. There was no consensus when you removed them earlier this year with multiple people arguing against you. And here yet again is no consensus to remove them this time around, and again, I'm not the only person arguing for them to remain (so what are you even talking about that it is just me?). You don't get to restart this discussion over and over again every few months until everyone is tired of it and then go "see, nobody wants to keep this". YannickFran (talk) 08:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, the template went weeks with being gone until you suddenly decided to readd them. That's not cool, its an abuse of the process. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 09:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, but people don't constantly keep an eye on articles. Regardless, I was not the one initially restoring them. You are the one abusing the process here, these tables are part of this article. Your removal has been disputed by me and others. You're the only one pushing for this. If a change is under dispute, discuss it first and reach a consensus. Adding these tables has never been disputed, its you removing them that has however. YannickFran (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, yes, I somehow have a personal vendetta against ones and zeroes on a screen. No, I don't. I just really don't think tables related to "hardware support" belong on an article involving an operating system's version history, and version history alone. Those tables would be better off on some sort of article involving iOS devices instead. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 09:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note how, yet again, you aren't actually arguing any points. But you did, yet again, introduce a brand new point: hardware support doesn't belong on an operating system's version history. Which is weird because your earlier argument was to keep repeating that these tables duplicate information on this page from the overview table and version tables. So which one is it? Is it or is it not duplicated information? And if it is, then we should remove that information from those tables as well, shouldn't we, because it doesn't belong here? Regardless, these tables were specifically moved here from hardware lists because people argued this is where they belonged. YannickFran (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as you continue to refuse to have an actual discussion on any of the counterpoints raised, instead opting to only react to an obvious hyperbolic statement rather than any of the actual arguments, it's very clear that you are just not willing to discuss this in good faith (then again, your "my opinion is final and I don't care what anybody else thinks"-stance made that very clear too). These tables may have been gone for weeks "without anyone noticing it" (note that you're reacting in a discussion created by someone who at the time did notice it), but they've also been here for months without anyone actually raising concern about it but you. When you removed it, that was again immediately followed up by someone asking them to be restored. And of course a couple of people have in this discussion also raised their voice for its restoration or have shown an indifference. Neither of which positions supports removal. You are not the sole arbiter of what goes in this article. So until an actual consensus can be reached, I'll restore that section to the last agreed upon revision, which I'm happy to say, you made. This is also in line with decisions made on other articles to move these tables here because this was the more appropriate article for them in the first place.
There is clearly no point in discussing this with you, every time I point something wrong out in your argument, you don't even acknowledge that counterargument, let alone discuss it and instead just jump to another - sometimes even contradicting - argument ("it duplicates info elsewhere in this article" vs "this info doesn't belong in this article"), a technical aspect that you clearly don't know anything about (accessibility), random Wikipedia policy that doesn't even apply (like the size limit (and even if that was an issue, split at best, not removal), and WP:NOTCATALOG), a weird personal preference that has absolutely no bearing on what content should be on Wikipedia ("eyesore"), or go back around again to an previous argument whilst yet again not acknowledging or addressing any concerns raised against that or any other argument. You're not even willing to acknowledge that there have been other people in this thread who've said they think it should remain, are indifferent to it, and/or agree that there is no consensus to move forward with their removal, because that would mean admitting you're the only one who wants it gone and that's a consensus you don't want, so you just disregard their opinion because "they left". There is no use in discussing anything that way. YannickFran (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully I am not going to re-add the templates.
Respectfully stop acting as if you own this article. It is not solely up to you. Saying stuff like this while simultaneously accusing @YannickFran of "edit warring" heavily suggests that you believe you have privileged editing rights over this page. You do not. Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was also no consensus to remove the tables, yet you deleted them from the article. Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
iOS 16.4.1 is not a Rapid Security Response update[edit]
iOS 16.4.1 (released on 7 April 2023) contained bug fixes and security updates. It is not a Rapid Security Response (RSR) update as stated in the table and should be corrected.
iOS 16.4.1(a) (released on 1 May 2023), was in fact the first RSR. It is a separate update in its own right, to be distinguished from iOS 16.4.1. 128.106.123.247 (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
um it doesn't say its a rapid security response, just that it *received* a rapid security response. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 08:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with deleting all the Release Note and the previous table; as stated by @Loknar this is just a Pedantry exercice. But if the author of all deletions really believes it is the right approach, it is time to export this Pedantry to all the other pages with these tables.
I'm surprised that they didn't start yet to do the same in other pages, so I have started to work on this and the first page is tvOS. 151.81.51.223 (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2023[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please add the hardware support tables again that were removed some days ago as they are relevant information.
Not done: The discussion above (#Missing hardware support table?) failed to reach consensus on this issue. Please continue or restart the conversation to seek consensus before reactivating this request. Liu1126 (talk) 12:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: The discussion above (#Missing hardware support table?) failed to reach consensus on this issue. Please continue or restart the conversation to seek consensus before reactivating this request. Liu1126 (talk) 12:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
