This article is within the scope of WikiProject iOS, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of iOS 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of apps 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.
You might actually want to come up with a merge proposal then; as none exists at present, then there shouldn't be any banners. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 14:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
There are inklings of a proposal at the AfD discussion I've linked to. Perhaps Don Cuan or GSK would care to elaborate. ~KvnG 14:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose iOS multitasking is notable by itself, mainly due to the hype that surrounds many Apple products. A simple search will display hundreds of news articles talking about the impact and quality of the multitasking pane in iOS. Zach Vega (talk to me) 23:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
If we agree that iOS multitasking is notable there's then no requirement to do a merge but it doesn't prevent us from doing a merge if we decide a merge would improve presentation of the subject. ~KvnG 20:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Regardless of the number of search results, distinctive functions get pages on there own due to their complexity thus needing greater explanations, and so not squashing via a merge to fit within related pages on the subject. Jimthing (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
You probably should read IOS#Multitasking. There currently isn't much if any additional material to add. ~KvnG 20:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Support:Multitasking is definitely notable, but I don't think that having it in a separate article necessarily improves presentation of the subject. IOS#Multitasking covers pretty much everything there is, so why split things up? Sociallyacceptable (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Sociallyacceptable here. Besides, the article is only about 7.2 KB, so the merging process wouldn't be difficult. |CanadianDude1| 06:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)