Talk:iPad Mini

What should be the first section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by World Flying (talk • contribs) 18:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

• It could be largely similar to iPad's page. We can probably mine the keynote for additional information that might fit with a section on its introduction. T. trichiura Infect me 18:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Agreed. We will make it like the iPad/iPhone pages World Flying (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Is it worth mentioning that Steve Jobs said apple would never build a 7 inch tablet? --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 14:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes it is. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Why do you think it's worth mentioning? It has no effect on the product itself, and even if it was true then (questionable since they existed and he had a history of saying these things mainly to slam Apple's competitors) it's likely to have chnged given modern technology. T. trichiura Infect me 16:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

No. Steve said as much about a lot of products that Apple eventually introduced, and we don't always mention that in other articles. And what's the relevance? Not to mention that this is nearly an 8" tablet and he was talking about 7". That said, if someone wants to write it well and sourced, that might be another matter. "Although this size tablet was publicly opposed by Steve Jobs [source]..." T. trichiura Infect me 15:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

It's a detail that seems to be fairly widely mentioned in tech news coverage I've seen. I'd say it's both relevant and notable to include a mention. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 00:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

If the iPad Mini was actually a 7" tablet, then that Steve Jobs factoid would be worth including (with verifiability). But since the iPad Mini is significantly larger than 7", I'm not sure. How much larger? A 7.00" tablet at 4:3 aspect ratio has 24 sq. in. of screen space, while a 7.87" iPad Mini with 4:3 aspect ratio has 30 sq. in. of screen space. -- that's 12% more diagonally and 25% more display area. Size matters. ;-) --Ds13 (talk) 04:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

None of that actually matters though. We aren't drawing the connection between Jobs' statement and the iPad Mini ourselves, we'd simply be mentioning that many reliable sources make that connection. Mathematically true or not, if the connection is noted by enough reliable sources, we should include it. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 10:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

One point further. The device itself is 200 mm (7.87 inches) tall, but that includes the bezel. Most screens are measured from corner to corner of displayable area. A 52 inch TV may have a larger bezel. So perhaps the question is what the size of the screen is not the size of the device. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

But the screen diagonal measures 7.9 inches, or 29.6 square inches. The height of the device is 7.87 inches, a completely separate, if similar measurement, listed on the apple site. See iPad mini - Design for reference on the screen size, and iPad mini - Technical specifications for height. drewmunn (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

@NULL: Absolutely, if *many* reliable sources are connecting that Jobs 7" comment to the 7.9" iPad Mini then I agree... it's worth a mention. But if it's not a widely talked about connection then I would suggest it's undue weight, especially in such a small article. --Ds13 (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I don't have time at the moment to do any comprehensive work on this, but a quick Google search last night showed most of the major mainstream and tech news outlets mentioned it in some way, including Forbes, Al Jazeera, BBC, Gizmodo, CNET and others. I do support mention of the connection though, based on cursory investigation. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 22:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I believe it is worth mentioning because there is a history of the more commonly available 7 inch size vs the one that ended up being introduced and there is enough coverage from various sources to back this up Wikhull (talk) 10:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I should caution editors that there may be references that make it seem that something is globally available, that may not apply to the product in all markets. The clue comes whenever you use the US Apple store as a reference. Just because something is done or is available from the US store does not mean it will be available in the UK, Canadian, Australian or other localized Apple stores. This is why secondary sources should be used. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Can anyone link to a precedent for including that phrase? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

It was added due to a mix of taxed/non-taxed prices being shown. However, the pricing has now been removed from this article under WP:NOPRICE to ensure impartiality and alleviate the issue. drewmunn (talk) 10:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Per WP:ACLUE, I know why it was added, but no other articles showed that which is why I asked for a precedent. WP:NOPRICE doesn't really apply, as the prices were quoted, and the reason is that the Mini is more expensive than competitive products. Also, the standard is for the article space and not a prescribed template parameter. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I don't know of any precedent, I think it's removal was because of a complete lack of precedent. I've checked various other Apple gadgets' pages, and none of them list price in the infobox, I suspect to help alleviate lengthy infoboxes. The price of the MacBook Pro could be listed as important, as it's significantly higher than that of competing devices, but it's not. The price may be mentioned in context in the article, where it'd live happily, but the infobox is too much of a temptation; if the price is listed for the US, why not the UK, or France, or India? I think the question is less why the "excluding tax" was added, more whether there is precedent for having the price in the infobox at all? I've done some digging, and there doesn't seem to be precedent for either of these. drewmunn (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Forking the "excluding tax" thread above, because it's no longer about tax, but more about notability of price...

Hi Walter. I see your point. I was the one who deleted infobox pricing per WP:NOPRICE. If the price is to be considered notable, there needs to be mainstream media (not product/tech review sites) that are giving actual commentary on the price as it relates to what they think are competitive products. This justification may actually exist, and I suggest that if it does then it needs to live as prose in the main article. This is probably going to preclude a list of per-country pricing differences (not notable) and tax inclusions or exclusions per country (not notable) -- unless someone finds mainstream media discussion *that* difference! The notability of the iPad Mini's price here, if it exists at all, will not be because of minor pricing or tax differences between countries so those details should be excluded. We can look to the iPhone 4S or iPhone 5 articles as examples, where price is not an infobox item, but included in the article with justification. --Ds13 (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

And those are two good precedents for the information.--Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you Ds13, as I wrote above (before seeing this new thread), there's no precedent for the price being there in the infobox, nor purpose. I see the point of putting it in the prose of the text, if it is mentioned, but the infobox isn't designed to be a substitute for prose. drewmunn (talk) 15:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Not quite correct to call it a generation as the hardware is essentially the same as the second generation, while it's also not correct to call it a product as both the WiFi and 3G versions are distinct products. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

True. Maybe "product" is not quite correct either, but I think it's closer. Unless the followup is that the product is available in two versions: WiFi and WiFi+3G. I'm open to anything else, but it was the article's timeline diagram that clarified (to me) the problem with calling the iPad Mini a distinct generation. --Ds13 (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Or... "variant", "revision", "version", "edition"... ideally we attribute the label to a consensus of reliable sources or maybe Apple itself. So even if "fifth generation" is widely used and verifiable, then that's what we use. --Ds13 (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

The news sources seem to agree for the most part that the "fifth generation" is a still-yet-to-come iPad. A quick look at some similar Wikipedia articles (iPod Mini, iPod Nano, iPod Shuffle, iPod Touch) shows no precedent for trying to count "overall" or "major" generation or product numbers, and that seems to work well for those articles. - Josh (talk | contribs) 20:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Well then maybe we're trying to force an original count on something that's not verifiably counted. I'd support dropping the count altogether, since the timeline is a good diagram and it conveys more than words can. --Ds13 (talk) 02:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Good plan. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Merge - I'd like to ask you User:The Anonymouse how is this any different from the iPad 2. You say it's "totally different product than the iPad 2 and has totally different hardware/software features", yet the iPad mini uses the exact same hardware from the iPad 2 (Apple A5) except that it's smaller, and runs the exact same software from both in terms of iOS (iOS 6.0.1) and the Apple Store since they both have the same resolution (1024 × 768). So tell me, how are they any different?--Arkhandar (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

So every computer that uses the Intel Core i7 processor is exactly the same because it uses the same operating system? The hardware is not totally different between the mini and the 2, but they're sufficiently different that it's essentially a new computer.

I closed the merge discussion and closed the merge as there is likely no hope for it to succeed. I reverted the closing of this discussion because the discussion should happen, but not as a merge discussion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

In that case, Arkhandar, you could say that the iPod classic and its many spinoffs are all the same exact product, right? --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 17:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Not the same product, only the same name. But you can't compare the iPod classic with the other iPod's because they simply don't share neither the same OS and other software nor the same hardware, which is the case of the iPad 2 and the iPad mini.--Arkhandar (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

And you could spell the plural with an apostrophe, but we don't do that on Wikipedia either. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I think this is a pretty compelling argument as to how different the iPad mini and iPad 2 are. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 21:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

What? A better camera?--Arkhandar (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Specifically: height, width, screen size, depth, weight, camera, Bluetooth 4.0 (versus 2.1), GPS and GLONASS (both of which are not present in iPad 2), lightning connector, Nano-SIM card (versus Micro-SIM), the inclusion of Siri, different enclosure style. So, yes, more than just a better camera. Besides, consensus remains at oppose against merging, so this doesn't really matter. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 00:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sorry that I didn't see this discussion earlier (I was on a wikibreak), but GSK has basically taken the words right out of my mouth.   The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 00:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

So much differences my yes can't stand it. I just love those height, width, screen size, depth, weight and enclosure style differences. Really deserves an entirely new article. We should all follow this beautiful example and make, say, a different article for every PlayStation Portable revision. Very encyclopedic. It would be a blast to really detail all those differences in 4 separate new articles. Well done GSK, I'm impressed.--Arkhandar (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Again, just because there are a few similarities doesn't mean it's the same. See the argument above related to Intel Core i7 processors. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Something to consider: sarcasm is really helpful. --Ds13 (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Arkhandar has been a problem before so this kind of behavior from them is not unexpected. Arkhandar seems to have a problem with being told they're not correct. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 00:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm not saying the iPad mini is the same as the iPad 2, I merely stating that it's a minor revision and shouldn't have an article of its own, especially considering that there's not really much to the the article besides the obvious iOS 6 features, which most of them are available in the iPad 2 already. I mean, the even the entire software section represents half of the article, and those features are not even exclusive to the iPad mini, but to the iPad 2 too. It just doesn't make any sense.--Arkhandar (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Why isn't the chip mentioned anywhere? That it's an A5 instead of an A6? --Diblidabliduu (talk) 05:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

It's in the infobox, but it could be in the hardware section as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Create iPad Mini (1st generation) (naming convention as per other Apple iOS devices), and add info specific to that model.
• Create iPad Mini (2nd generation) (add in lead, "stylized as iPad mini with Retina Display"), again as done on previous iPad.
• Keep this article as general article, again as done on previously for iPhone et al.

And stop the crud redirects edits PLEASE! Jimthing (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

No. The new Mini isn't called the 2nd generation and the first isn't called the 1st generation. Who cares what other article names are, and you're actually wrong: iPad, iPad (1st generation), iPad 2, iPad (3rd generation), and iPad (4th generation) where the second uses the official product name. The new iPad article will be called iPad Air and the new iPad Mini article should be called iPad mini with Retina display as it's currently known at the Apple site: http://www.apple.com/ipad-mini/ Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yeah right, you clearly know absolutely nothing about WP history here, both concerning previous naming conventions used on these "Retina Display" products (that's Retina Display – with a cap!), nor the "generation" debates either vs. "the new iPad" et al. I'm one of the editors that actually maintained the naming as iPad 2 and NOT iPad (2nd generation) and many similar others, so please stop telling me what I already know, thanks! We don't use "mini" either (again a gazilion previous discussions on why, have been had), we use "Mini". Jeez, you make comments about things you know absolutely NOTHING about, and making yourself sound VERY silly. Jimthing (talk)

1. WP:NPA Discuss the content not the contributors.
2. I do know about history as can be seen from my edits and the fact that I know that product names are used. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

With all due respect, you know absolutely nothing about the history of articles, as if you actually did, you wouldn't have said the entirely UNTRUE factually incorrect "and the new iPad Mini article should be called iPad mini with Retina display as it's currently known at the Apple site" which goes entirely against previous Apple article discussion on correct article naming. So please stop pretending you "know about history" when you do not! As for "WP:NPA Discuss the content not the contributors." again, wrong: if you notice I said you make "yourself sound VERY silly" and NOT "you are very silly" – hence not a personal attack. Learn the difference before moaning about something irrelevant. Jimthing (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry Jim, I have shown why I was right in both cases, but I am willing to discuss the retina display issue there, without discussing editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Did you guys decide what to do? As of now, there are two articles with the same content. I would make this page a redirect, but there is some disagreement. Frmorrison (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Basically, think something like a Venn Diagram, with an intersection of models within each set... There is the iPad overarching range set of devices, which the iPad Mini is a sub-range set of, with the Mini 1st and Mini 2nd being individual models within both sets. As per the fullsize models in the iPad range being a sub-range set, with 1st, 2, 3rd, 4th, and perhaps Air (although that could be argued to be a new sub-range set of it's own, depending on how one defines sub-range sets). Each individual model has enough detail to merit it's own page, with the general pages to give an overview. Sorry I continue to be very busy with work at the mo to be able to start to doing any serious editing myself of these two pages to be make them more specific to their job. But please feel free to edit the general iPad Mini page to better reflect an overview of the Mini sub-range, and make edits to the two Mini model pages to reflect their individual details. Thanks for the heads-up reminder. Jimthing (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Here's a super-quick graphic I did that better explains the ^above^ http://i.imgur.com/ybMp1YS.png with each of those text titles (the 3 series, AND the 8 models) having a page of their own. (of course iPad Air on the graphic is just an idea of what will possibly come next: so as we're not on a second model yet —it could be called "iPad Air Ⅱ" for all we know!— so we can just use iPad Air and leave the breakdown until the next release! ;-) Jimthing (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

It should conform to the guidelines at WP:EL which states, at WP:ELOFFICIAL, "Official links are still subject to standard formatting requirements, such as rich media labeling and not placing links in the text of the article." So then we have to rely on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking which states, in the External links section, that shows that the entire link, along with description, should be inside the link. So if the rest of the Apple product articles are doing it wrong, we can fix them too, but stating that they're all doing it wrong is no reason to do it wrong here, and definitely not an argument to edit war over. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've already started making it correct as described above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

"that shows that the entire link, along with description, should be inside the link" – that's not true though is it. It does not say it should be inside the link, this page merely describes the method one uses for such linkage with text, it says nothing of putting ALL the text inside the brackets. It's not as prescriptive as you're suggesting. This is evidenced across WP by the huge amount of external links that use the better format of identifying the source they are linking to in the line, e.g. {{Discogs artist}} or canonically {{Discogs artist|artist=Miles Davis|name=Miles Davis}} produces "Miles Davis discography at Discogs" so we know exactly what the subject of the link is along with the source the link is going to on pressing it, rather than the blind "Official website" that tells us nothing. Jimthing (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

If you're suggesting [[http://apple.com/product_url Product Name]] page at [[Apple]] (or similar) I would agree. In this case you have to deal with two links. That also happens if you use a language icon or other entries with multiple links. We're talking about a single link though. What you have shown is [[http://apple.com/product_url Product Name]] – official site, which is not correct per my reading of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking even though other article use that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Board link: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Official_site_question Jimthing (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

As reported there --MOS/Linking : Official site question-- this exchange concerns WP:External links, and the latter page is a content guideline whose hatnote points to MOS/Linking only for internal links.

This exchange also concerns use of template {{official}}, whose documentation says of the linkname, "it should not include the article subject's name as the reader reasonably expects that all external links pertain to the subject."

For official webpages that match article subjects, I always follow the latter maxim and use {official} with URL only, thus the default linkname "official website":

• Official website

Along this line, this exchange (as reported there) properly concerns only how to link the official iPad Mini webpage in another article --perhaps about a competing product, or predecessor or successor product, or the biography of a developer. Offhand I suggest using both proper names there, displaying essentially:

• [iPad Mini] at [Apple]

--P64 (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

The full template is to use {{official website}} rather than just {{official}} which subordinates to it. But anyway, a compromise would be to use {{official website|http://www.apple.com/ipad-mini|iPad Mini}} at [Apple Inc.|Apple], which uses the {{official website}} template to both achieve the goal of WP site grouping of "official website" template links (partially why such templates exist in the first place), and also makes clear both it's exact subject (especially useful on pages where the article is not directly the same as the official website link, and also the text "Official website" doesn't tell the reader what the link is the official site of), AND it's location (e.g. here being on Apple Inc.)? Jimthing (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Rather than block anybody I have protected the article for one week. I now expect the editors to whom the changes are important to thrash it out here and achieve a consensus with the help of other editors. I will be happy to facilitate this process if necessary. --John (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've proposed redirecting iPad Mini (1st generation) back to this article. The discussion can be found at Talk:iPad Mini (1st generation)#Redirect back to iPad Mini. - Josh (talk | contribs) 15:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

It appears that the intent of the info box is to be inclusive of all generations (like the info box on iPad). However, it needs work in several areas:

• Operating system lists the models, even though it's not necessary to list models when they are both the same.
• Display shows specs for only the 1st generation device.
• Successor should exist, since this info box should be for the product line as a whole.

There may be more problems. This is just what I noticed at a quick look. --Ed Brey (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Are you suggesting that we fix the problem by adding multiple items into a single infobox, add multiple infoboxes to this article (one for each generation), splitting the article to avoid the problem or something else? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Currently, there are three pages: one for the iPad mini product line, and one for each of the actual products (1st and 2nd generation). The "Redirect 1st gen back here" topic above is the right place to discuss whether that is the right approach. Assuming it is, this page should summarize the product line as a whole. Accordingly, it should have a single info box, which lists specs that are common between the models. Where practical without being too verbose, it should also include specs that differ so long as it indicates which spec applies to which model. The iPad page's info box is a good example. --Ed Brey (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Done This has been fixed now. Thanks. Jimthing (talk) 03:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Is the final section about "criticism of setup process" appropriate to include? I cleaned up the grammar but the three references to "criticism" link to pages about how to set up the iPad Mini and to one discussion on the Apple iPad forums about how to set up without internet or a computer; the "criticism" just seems to be someone's complaint. Thoughts? Eridax700 (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

For example, if you look at the articles for the Ipad mini 3 and 4, the dates they give are different from the timelline's dates for those products by one year.

tharsaile (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on IPad Mini. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160411025816/https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/ipad/iPadmini3_PER_oct2014.pdf to https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/products/ipad/iPadmini3_PER_oct2014.pdf

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

 Y 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

Why iPad Mini? Most of the references call it iPad mini and, apparently, Apple also calls it iPad mini. Just wondering. Leschnei (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

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 10:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Currently the latest iOS is shown for the iPad mini 4, not iPadOS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.140.171.21 (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

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) 00:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)Reply