Talk:12-inch MacBook

Merge Discussion: MacBook (2015 version)→MacBook

Vote Counts

Agree: 10
Disagree: 6

Summary of arguments

Pro

• Macintosh articles are based on model names, not variants

e.g. iBook, iMac, Mac Pro, MacBook, MacBook Pro, MacBook Air

• Internals, design and features have not led to separate articles in the past

e.g. MacBook Pro with Retina Display has different internals, a new design and new features, but has no separate article

• Mentioning all models in one article shows the history better
• New MacBook is a revival/continuation of the suspended 2011 MacBook
• Apple identifies the new MacBook as “MacBook8,1” and “MacBook (Retina, 12-inch, Early 2015)”

Contra

• New/different line of laptops that reuses the old name
• New MacBook is a major revision of a discontinued product
• MacBook is not entry-level anymore, but mid-range/ultraportable
• Mentioning all models in one article is lengthy and potentially confusing
• Other Apple products are split into separate articles

e.g. iPad (3rd generation), iPad Air 2, iPhone 6

• New MacBook garnered unique attention for its features

Discussion

Agree with merger, why is what is a rejuvenation of the original MacBook line being excluded into it's own article? What will we do when Apple release a MacBook in 2016? Call it "MacBook (2016 version)? No. The article should be combined with the original MacBook article not just for neatness, but to save confusion on Wikipedia - newcomers might not know which MacBook is current (seriously, this could happen). For all those who think that this is a separate model of Mac: Apple haven't identified this laptop as a separate model in the MacBook line. If this does happen, then it is easy to re-create this article. I personally think that if we are going to start making articles for each different Apple product like this, then we should start making "iMac (2008 edition)" or even "MacBook Pro (mid-2014 edition)". That's all a little silly. Let's just put this where it belongs - with MacBook. MikeMeowz (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with merger, If this MacBook is updated in 2016, will it get its own article as well as the "2016 MacBook?" Why can't it just be MacBook as it was before? Buffaboy (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree with merger, No it should not get a different article for a minor revision in 2016. This is however a completely new line of laptop that happens to reuse the Macbook name. Combining the details with the existing Macbook article is confusing as they are completely different devices other than name.Bkellihan (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree with merger, While the 2015 version is technically part of the lineup of Macbooks, it is such a major change to the product that it deserves its own article. I feel that this should be done like how the iPhone articles are set up with each major release having it's own article, but there is a section on the main iPhone article that mentions each model and links to the respective article. Anonymoustofu (talk) 03:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with merger, I have yet to see any convincing evidence the new MacBook (2015) is really the start if a separate line of laptops rather the simply a revival of the old MacBook line. Unless Apple indicates otherwise at some point in the future then we should keep the info on the new MacBook (2015) in the MacBook article for now. See: Talk:MacBook for my argument as to why I don't feel this new MacBook deserves it's own article yet if ever. If anyone has a good argument why it does deserve it's own article let them speak now before the article is merge back. --50.152.139.176 (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree with merger,Please, tell me how this MacBook shares anything remotely similar - other than name - to the 2015 MacBook; I mean, they're both laptops made by Apple, that happen to share a name. Not to mention, Apple discontinued them in July 2011, which further supports the notion that they are indeed an entirely new product. However, if Apple had continued to produce and sell the "MacBook" up until March 9, 2015, then there would be a valid, logical argument to be had. Unfortunately, this is neither one of those. Owleaf (talk) 10:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree with merger, Owleaf, you're argumentation is invalid on so many levels. First of all, this is NOT a completely new laptop made by Apple. It's a continuation of the product that was "suspended", meaning production was halted. Second, MacBook has been, during most of it's product life, a middle person in the family, combining both pro and consumer side of the product. In this case, it has the pro feature of Retina Display, and consumer feature of having less ports.

Here's my take on this article though: keep it. In fact, I want each generation of MacBook to have its own article, like how iPhone and iPad and iPod touch (fifth generation forward) is split out. This way, it keeps the main MacBook article clean and at even length. Bentoman (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we shouldn’t keep this article separate if the current consensus seems to favour inclusive articles based on model name. You are free to argue for separate lemmas of course, but that would need to be changed for several models. This one seems to be the only exception so far.—Totie (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with merger, I think it would be prudent to wait until the release of the device, I have suspicion that the version numbering of the new MacBook will continue from where it left off(Macbook 7,1 was the last one). I found a page, thought not an entirely credible source [1] that indicates that the version number picks up from before. If this is the case upon release, then the new laptop is definitely a continuation of the previous line(like the retina MBP was to the original unibody MBP), and should remain in the original wiki page. 121.245.72.251 (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to be kinda naughty and weigh in with some of my own "original research" and WP:COI. The new MacBook isn't remotely connected, hardware-wise, to any of the previous MacBooks. It's like chalk and cheese - different in every way other than the naming of it. I say this as someone who's worked on both products at Apple, and I have a handful of the new ones in various stages of assembly, on my desk at work. As to the system-id, if the rumors sites are to be believed, it'll look like this, but I ain't sayin' .. - Alison ^❤ 19:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with merger, Apple indeed identifies the new MacBook as MacBook8,1 (source). For what it’s worth, I agree with the opinion that the articles should be merged. The aluminium MacBook was also integrated in the same article, even though the hardware differed substantially. The same is true for the MacBook Pro, also considering the Retina line. —Totie (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree: This new line of product has nothing similar with the old one but the name. In fact, the company did not make any linkage to the old product line and just treat this as a new product. Hkcoms (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The new MacBook's manual is lumped in with the rest of the lot: https://support.apple.com/manuals/#macbook --Jtalledo (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, and it’s mentioned along the other MacBooks as well on this page along with the model identifier MacBook8,1.—Totie (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

As stated above, I Agree with the merger. My first thought is that models have never been separated before. Even MacBook Pro includes the Retina line, despite the fact that internals changed considerably and the design to a large degree too. Thus arguments on internals, design and unique features that are in favour of separation ought to apply in this case too. My second thought is that lemmas should correspond to people’s expectations when they type in “MacBook”. An article about discontinued products is arguably not the best possible result. Thus ideally, “MacBook’’ should be about this new MacBook, either in whole or in part. Finally, Apple identifies this new MacBook as MacBook8,1, even distinguishes it as “MacBook (Retina, 12-inch, Early 2015)”, and it’s mentioned alongside previous models on a number of support pages, e.g. here. Although I don’t think that this is a particularly strong argument, it nevertheless deserves mentioning. I think within the current framework, we should stick to the page names we have. I’d love to discuss a broader revision to split up models into separate articles, but that is currently beyond the scope of this merger discussion.—Totie (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

•  Disagree This is a separate device, has a different design and features, and has garnered unique attention on its own already, especiallyy this: [2]. -Mardus (talk) 12:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, what makes this device so different from all the iterations we've had in the MacBook and MacBook Pro lines? The Retina line of MacBook Pros was a significant departure from the previous MacBook Pros as well; a new unibody enclosure that was also thinner than the MacBook Air at the time, the removal of the DVD drive, Ethernet and FireWire ports, significant changes to the internal structure with custom-fitted batteries, fans as well as motherboard, the adoption of Thunderbolt and MagSafe 2. The latest 13" MacBook Pro even has that new force-touch trackpad, so it isn’t even unique to the new MacBook. This distinction is arbitrary and has no precedent in the present Mac articles on Wikipedia.--Totie (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

See also iBook, there couldn’t be more differences there, but they still share one article.—Totie (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The continuation of the model numbering is the most objective argument I've seen for merging. The only sound reason against merging is that the device occupies a difference space than its predecessors - it's now positioned as midrange instead of on the low end of Apple's portable line. 12:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with merger. For reasons stated above. The aluminum 2008 Macbook was very different from the earlier/later versions yet is included in the article. If that one can be included, so can this one. --Resplendent (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with merger, for reasons above. Every laptop line Apple has had sees substantial changes every few revisions; just because this is a particularly radical change doesn't mean it's not part of the same lineup. Today's iMacs bear little resemblance to the G3 or G4 iMacs, either. --Guess Who (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with merger, for reasons listed above. It would also make it much easier to view the history of the whole lineup, regardless of how different this generation is, instead of jumping between articles. Also, with arguments about it being nothing similar to the old generations, this could be easily resolved by stating the differences in its own section rather than a new article. See the MacBook Pro article structure. -- AYTK (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree with merger. The soon to be released Macbooks line shares nothing with the previous lines other than name. This laptop is completely different from the previous Macbook, which was discontinued in 2011. All of the internals are new components' designed specifically to create an ultra-portable systems. Thats' quite different from the original Macbook.

Also, the precedent with other things that undergo major revisions, like the iPhone line, is that each major revision is in it's own article. If this article were to be merged, the current Macbook article would need to be heavily reworked as general introduction that there are multiples of computers that have been named Macbook, then separate section for each majour line. As it is, it's very confusing to say Macbook was introduced in 2006 and the latest model is 2015, yet they are two separate lines of computers that happen to share a name. If Apple had named it "Macbook Thin" this wouldn't even be a discussion.

The Macbook Pro and Macbook Air are currently separate articles as well. This laptop's article should simply be Macbook (2015) and continue to capture history as long as the model continues to be revised.Bkellihan (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with merger The MacBook Pro with Retina Display has many new internals as well (battery and fans), new components (Retina Display, MagSafe 2, now also a new trackpad), even an entirely different unibody structure (thinner, lighter). Yet it’s still just mentioned as a new generation in MacBook Pro. I don’t see a compelling reason why this MacBook should be any different. The status quo is that major revisions of the MacBook family are not separated, only by name (Pro, Air), unlike the iPhone and iPad families.—Totie (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree with merger, In that case I would say the Macbook Pro with Retina Display should be broken out into its own article as well. It's unfortunate that Apple recycles names for completely different products. They did this with the 3rd generation iPad, just calling it "iPad"; see iPad (3rd generation)). I feel it's confusing to have an article about a specific device cover multiple devices. That's what the Macbook family article is for. Separate articles seems to be the standard for cell phones and tablets, even for non-Apple devices as well (see the Samsung Galaxy lines). Why should articles for laptops be treated differently than cellphones / tablets? Bkellihan (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with merger, Ok sure, new specs, new design an overhaul. But still it is the same name which means Apple is obviously trying to bring back the Macbook family back with a new legacy. It is still called a Macbook like all the previous MacBooks, its just different — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.3.175 (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with merger, Its a continuation of a product line which was halted. It's positioned in the same spot as the old one. Many Apple products have had the same treatment, (Retina MacBook Pro, Unibody MacBooks, iMac 2012), the only exception is the 5th generation iPod touch. Justinhu12 (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Alternative to merging

If the merger is not put into effect, we still have to deal with the naming. As I explained above, I think it would be a mistake to keep the lemma “MacBook (2015 version)” for the simple reason that people will expect to find the new MacBook when searching for MacBook, rather than a list of discontinued products. I therefore propose to move this article to MacBook and the old article to something else, like MacBook (discontinued models).—Totie (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)