Talk:iPad Mini 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IPad mini (2nd generation) → iPad mini with Retina display – The official name is iPad mini with Retina display and so the article should be moved there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least "Mini" should be capitalized. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; I'd love to see secondary sources that use this rather awkward proposed title. Red Slash
  • Oppose also; Wiki needs to focus on the sequence, the long names make it hard to know which came first. The only detail is cap the M, and in iPad Mini, OR change all wiki entries to use small m. -Flightsoffancy (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; why do you do this Walter: wasting editors valuable time, despite there being clear history of exactly why we do not use Retina Display as article names instead of "x (2nd generation)", which you haven't even bothered to check before preposing such an "idea", and other editors making you aware of this already, yet you ignoring them! The article should also be named with a capital letter (mini > Mini) – again, as per the gazillion previous explanations I am not repeating (yet again!) here. Just end this continual time waste already!! Jimthing (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He is not the only one trying to change the pattern. Zach Vega also want to call new iPad as "iPad Air" (of course, we do not need to follow Apples way of naming) =Flightsoffancy (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think unlike here there may be a case for that name since it does not appear to be a descriptive title like with retina display. I am not saying that it needs to be a iPad air but I see this as being a far less clear cut case as it is here.--174.93.170.47 (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll remind Jimthing one more time of WP:NPA that states "Comment on content, not on the contributor".
I'm not trying to "change the pattern", I'm trying to enforce the proper naming convention. If secondary sources call it the 2nd generation as opposed to Apple's name, then I'd be happy to go with it, but we must capitalize mini. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The fourth ipad was marketed as iPad with Retina display but the article uses iPad (4th generation) since it was regularly called iPad. There was also a consensus against using iPad with Retina Display as the title on that talkpage. I think we should wait to see if iPad mini with Retina display is actively used first especially since that did not happen with the last iPad. The Mini vs mini question is a bit more difficult sine the original Mini uses lowercase (and was supported in a move request) but it is not the case for the ipad Touch, MacBook Air, Apple Lisa, MacBook Pro, the recently announced iPad Air, or the Mac Mini. Personally I would suggest moving this to Mini and making another move request on the orginal Mini's article since it been some time since the last request and it appears that common practice with apple products is NOT have the second word lowercase.--174.93.170.47 (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I messed up regarding the original page, it's actually and iPad Mini and based on the fact that all the other articles I mentioned don't lowercase the second world using iPad Mini her is a easy choice.--174.93.170.47 (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you supply some proof that it's not the common name? The only place I've seen it is on the Apple site, and it is the name there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
YOU go and find any of the previous talks on why we use Mini and not mini, and those on why iPad (3rd generation) & iPad (4th generation) rather than the dumb iPad with Retina Display! Don't expect others to do this for you, if you're too lazy do to so BEFORE opening a proposal that's was wrong to start with! Jimthing (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think I didn't. Jim, seriously, stop commenting on the contributor (me in this case) and instead focus on the content. I am asking for at least one link, which is what I provided. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And the only reference here used retina display: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57608645-37/apple-ipad-mini-gets-retina-display/ not 2nd generation. What I am finding is "iPad Mini 2" not "2nd generation". https://www.google.com/search?q=IPad+mini+(2nd+generation) Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"(2nd generation)" is title disambiguation, not part of the "real" title. Not saying the current solution is best, but your idea is only temporary, at least until the next, next-generation iPad Mini with Retina display comes out. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but we can deal with it then. We should use the common name and assume that the Apple moniker was the common name. We may not know that today, but until we do, we should move to Mini rather than mini. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I was talking about Walter, and stop saying I'm commentating on the contributor when I am not: I'm commentating on your actions that ignore previous discussion histories I have already told you about a number of times now in favour to your "I know better" manner. I clearly meant the previous history on other WP Apple iOS pages for such devices. Seeing as you're seemingly incapable of finding any, I'll offer you a starter from the archives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:IPad_(3rd_generation)/Archive_1#Requested_move There are many others: go find for yourself. Jimthing (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're the only one talking about that though Jim. We were discussing common name here, not [: Wikipedia:Other stuff exists what exists elsewhere]. I know that the second generation iPad was called iPod 2, the third generation iPad was named iPad and it's a problem on Wikipedia to have two articles with the same name and so a new article with a DAB had to be created. I also know that the fourth generation iPad, etc. Marcus Qwertyus is correct in stating that either the common name should be used provided that it's not iPad Mini as well. We'll see how long it takes Apple's PR team to wrangle all of the writers on the topic into a unified whole.
And yes, when you state that another editor is wasting the time of other editors, and tell an editor to look things up you're discussing them rather than the content. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And don't even try to suggest again that just because I don't edit all Apple product articles I can't opine on this one or others. It's not a tenable position since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that everyone can edit. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you drop the fake ad hominem accusations, and actually deal with your lack of actions: advising someone to look something up is not a personal attack. So just stop using that as a reason not to deal with the request, and actually go and do it, before making further suggestions. Jimthing (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marcus Qwertyus has been kind enough to just go ahead and move the page "IPad mini (2nd generation)" to "IPad Mini (2nd generation)", as per WP:BOLD move per Talk:iPhone 5S precedent. So this pointless discussion is over. Jimthing (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a pointless discussion, and it's not over. Common name is the proper location of this article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with that, if you want to continue to ignore the previous reasoned discussions against this on other pages, that's fine. Yawn, night night. Jimthing (talk) 00:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IPad_Mini_%282nd_generation%29&curid=40859355&diff=578347734&oldid=578339643 Well at least that's what the infobox says. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the infobox mentions it since that is the official logo and and that part of the infobox is for logos. The only way to have a logo with iPad (Second generation) would be to make our own fake logo which won't happen for obvious reasons and therefore should not be a basis for determining the article's title. It should be noted that the part of top of the infobox (with is a section for the title) uses the current title not the retina display one. Also, the 4th generation iPad article also has the logo with the retina display title (since it too was marketed under that name) but that article was not moved to iPad with retina display (the title section of the infobox does not use it either) nor should this one be. In short, just because the logo section of the infobox mentions the retina display title does not mean the article has to be titled as such.--174.93.170.47 (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's the official logo, because that's the official name. So why are we using a made-up name? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not even close, we are calling it iPad Mini and adding secong generation for dab purposes to diferentiate it from the original whih is a standrad practice on Wikipeia. The fact that this is called ipad Mini is not made up nor is the fact that it is the second generation of the product. We also are not obligated to use official names per Wikipedia:Official names.--174.93.170.47 (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From the rest of the discussion, I don't believe you speak for the group. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And the essay you pointed to is not enforceable. [:WP:COMMONNAME]] is an actual guideline though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What evidence do you have that iPad Mini with retina display is the commonname? Please note that the fourth generation of the iPad used the retina display name as well but the consenusus was against using due to it not being the commonname. Is there any reason whatsoever to assume that it will be any different this time and if so why?--174.93.170.47 (talk) 03:45, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no evidence that it is, but that is the current product name. What I'm saying is that we can't discount a move from the current article name because other Apple products are named using this convention. We must wait to determine the common name, and that will eventually sway consensus.
As for other devices from Apple that include a retina display: none of them used "retina display" in the product's name so, mu. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true, the iPad (4th generation) was marketed as such but the consensus was against using that term. It was mentioned several times in this discussion. The consensus there was to not to include that term and I don't see anything that is different now than it was then.--174.93.170.47 (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, nothing has been mentioned as to why this would be any different than the iPad (third generation) which was marketed as the New iPad but also uses the third generation name for the same reason that this current request is being being rejected at least to this point.--174.93.170.47 (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A case of a different variation of the same product (the only significant difference being size) where the exact same marketing term you want added being rejected is not a otherstuffexists case its a virtually direct comparison and clearly undermines your argument. You are going to need to make a much stronger case than an essay which is not even relevant.--174.93.170.47 (talk) 05:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying, but precedent of other article names and what's happened before is not a guideline, common name is. I'm sorry that you don't get that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Jimthing, cut it out[edit]

Seriously, Jimthing, cut it out and give the proposer a break. There is no need or place for that kind of harshness. Red Slash 23:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, this editor does not know the "history" he professes to do so, and is doing it wrongly across other Apple pages accordingly. So no I won't "cut it out", as I wish he would! Jimthing (talk) 23:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's the WP:NPAs, but I could be wrong, and honestly Jim, I do know how articles are named so stop stating that I don't know the history because that too is a personal attack. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPAs in your imagination. That's not what I said, don't put false words in my mouth. Read what I put above. If you knew what had gone before, then you'd have known about these types of discussions across iOS article pages wouldn't you. But you clearly don't, and you haven't even bothered to go and check the archives either, before then proposing a previously discussed naming scheme on other almost identically named articles. Why not go and read them then come back and advise what they said (which the other experienced Apple editors on here have already been through a number of times, and continually wastes more of our time, whenever a new product is released with exactly the same naming scheme!). Jimthing (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another you could have found before wasting time opening this, exactly the same reasons apply: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:IPad_(4th_generation)#Requested_move Jimthing (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moved?[edit]

Well, I feel vindicated, but is this against consensus? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More about ordinals here. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with IPad Mini (1st generation)[edit]

Not a lot of info that is not covered in iPad Mini (1st generation), just like iPod Touch TheChampionMan1234 08:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, per Justinhu12. gsk 00:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why?, there is no separate article for each generation of the iPod Touch. --TheChampionMan1234 03:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely true. There was one at iPod Touch (5th generation) and it was moved to iPod Touch (fifth generation). No previous generation article exists. Your reasoning is otherwise sound. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, this has previously been discussed in depth several times now. As above, each generation has significant changes hence separate pages for each model, and future models will strongly likely get their own pages in future accordingly also. Furthermore, it makes sense as it matches most other Apple iDevices having their own pages for similar reasons. Jimthing (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely true. There are not significant changes in each generation that couldn't be summarized into a brief section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Limited cellular frequency mentioned[edit]

Why isn't the full range of all covered frequencies listed?

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:IPod Touch (fifth generation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not merged. --Frmorrison (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that iPad Mini 3 be merged into this article or a name such as iPad Mini 2 and 3, whatever consensus agrees upon. I think that the content in the iPad Mini 3 article can easily be explained in the context of iPad Mini 2, and the iPad Mini 2 article is of a reasonable size that the merging of iPad Mini 3 will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned.

Apple lists the processors, dimensions, weight, cameras, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and cellular modem as the same between the iPad Mini 2 and 3. The only differences are storage sizes available (Mini 2 is 16 or 32 GB since October 2014, with 64 or 128 GB options available beforehand; Mini 3 is 16, 64 or 128 GB) and the addition of Touch ID on iPad Mini 3. These two minor changes make these two iPad generations practically the same. No notable changes would warrant a brand new article. Therefore, my conclusion is that one article is more than enough to cover both generations. --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge. The iPad Mini 3 is independently notable. Reliable sources discuss the Mini 3 as a topic of its own rather than a side-note of the Mini 2. It has two noticeable differences, Touch ID and the storage sizes available.Frmorrison (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge unless a teardown proves it would be beneficial. Teardowns by people/companies such as iFixIt can prove whether or not the guts of the iPad mini 2nd generation are almost the exact same (barring Touch ID and storage) as its predecessor. Until then, I would hold off on a merge until some reputable company does a teardown of the 3rd gen iPad mini and proves whether or not the guts are almost the exact same. Haseo9999 (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I could see merging it into iPad. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge. No matter how similar, each iPad has had its own page. iPad (3rd Generation) and iPad (4th Generation) were also very similar, and yet were not merged together. Besides, if we merge iPad 2 and 3 then does that mean we should merge iPad mini (1st Genereation) too? Also, we do not yet know entirely if perhaps certain qualities of the iPad screen have been improved, or just how Touch ID and Apple Pay will change the iPad Mini experience. Keep the iPad Mini 3 as a separate article. JesusInTheProcess (talk) 06:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: only one of the iPod Touches (5th generation) has a dedicated page. Every other iPod Touch is on the main iPod Touch page. The reason iPad Mini 1 and 2 have separate pages is because of significant spec changes. The SoC, CPU, GPU, RAM and display resolution all change significantly between the two. Mini 2 also features a motion coprocessor, whereas Mini 1 does not. If the only landmark change between the two is a Touch ID sensor, this is insignificant to warrant an iPad on its own page. All it does is help process payments and prevent theft. i agree that we should wait for a teardown to see which component changes, but if it's "like for like" (for example: flash storage is not significantly faster/slower), i still support a merge of both articles. --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At least iPad (4th Generation) features new processor, Lightning connector and higher-res front camera compared to iPad (3rd Generation). -- Wasill37 (talk) 03:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge. A merge is completely unnecessary and more effort than its worth. Also, Touch ID plus Apple Pay will possibly play a significant role in what one can do with an iPad, which we will hopefully see in the future. Just keep both pages seperate. JorgeHeyZeus (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Teardown by iFixit confirms the two share similar spec except Touch ID. -- Wasill37 (talk) 03:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose a move?[edit]

Should we go forward with proposed move to iPad Mini 2, or should we wait and see?

We need to wait for consensus, give it a week before doing anything. Frmorrison (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move Proposal to Update Name[edit]

iPad Mini (2nd generation) → IPad Mini 2 – Since Apple is now officially calling and selling this iPad as the "iPad mini 2" (as of October 16, 2014), I propose we go ahead, move and rename this article iPad Mini 2. It is simpler and more concise to refer to this iPad both in the title of the article and within it as "iPad Mini 2" than "the second generation iPad Mini", or "iPad Mini (2nd generation)". We can just clarify within the article that originally it was marketed as the "iPad Mini with Retina Display", but since the introduction of the iPad Mini 3, this iPad is now officially called the iPad Mini 2. I feel this change would be beneficial and would simplify the name. JesusInTheProcess (talk) 07:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This name is simplified and is the current name. --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 17:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The iPad Mini 2 is now the official name and it is what most people have been calling it for the past year. Frmorrison (talk) 13:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. iPad Mini 2 is simplified and the current official name. It also helps clearly distinguish it from the iPad Mini 3. JorgeHeyZeus (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. So long that we state that the former name is "iPad Mini with Retina Display". Thelegoers (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Simpler yet distinguishable between models, unlike names like "new iPad" or "iPad with Retina". -- Wasill37 (talk) 03:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got iPad Mini 1 and 2 back-to-back?[edit]

I was thinking about an image of the iPad Mini 1 and 2 back-to-back for the reception section to suppliment the thickness of the iPad Mini criticism. Anyone have any? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on IPad Mini 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mac Mini which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Latest iOS Version[edit]

The latest iOS version needs to be changed to iOS 12.5.3, which was released on May 3rd, 2021. GabrielBloom28 (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Advertised and actual storage capacities[edit]

A discussion about the difference between advertised and actual storage capacities of this device is taking place at the MOSNUM talk page. Interested editors are invited to comment there. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IPad_Mini_2&oldid=1206490394"