Talk:iPad

Clumsy wording

What on earth does this mean, and is there possibly a better way to word it? "The second screen expression is a consequence of the media multitasking which is doing well." 50.0.80.184 (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

That sentence makes absolutely no sense by itself. Zach Vega (talk) 05:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed! While I'm not responsible for the sentence as it stands, I'll try rewriting it for clarity.StandardPerson (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I tried to replace the existing final sentence with the following, but the page is "semi-protected." Hence I'll try what follows. I believe that my change is clearer, but it may be too long.

{{Edit semi-protected}} /* Replaced confusing use of "Second Screen" as discussed on Talk Page */

The iPad has also greatly increased Social Television use. Viewers can use the iPad as a convenient second networked computer (or "second screen") for communicating with other viewers or with the television provider. Viewers can use a web browser or specialised applications to discuss a program with other viewers, while it is being broadcast, while content providers may use the second screen to interact with viewers in real time. The latter facility allows content providers to conduct (e.g.) real-time polls or to collect comments about the program, that can be displayed as text on the main television screen. Viewer interaction via a second screen is becoming increasingly popular. StandardPerson (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Please replace "Social Television " with "Social Television" StandardPerson (talk) 02:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Ipad 3.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ipad 3.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Ipad 3.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

History of name

It seems to me that this article is missing the history name of Ipad like why did they name it Ipad? What is the meaning of the word? Stories behind it...? I found a link that perhaps can satisfy it a little bit here but due to my crappy writing skill. I won't able to write it according to standard! So someone should use this link i provided to add this information. I'm sure some readers will interesting in reading it!65.128.159.201 (talk) 04:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Split

Dear Fellow Wikipedians, This page should be split into two iPad and IPad (original), just like the IPhone page. TheChampionMan1234 (talk) 05:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Strongly support – Why didn't we do this earlier? Zach Vega (talk to me) 06:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so please put a message that it has been discussed that it should be split on the page. Regards. TheChampionMan1234 (talk) 02:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Zach Vega (talk to me) 15:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Support – It is necessary for making iPad an adequate article --Dj777cool (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Guess what I just found Zach Vega (talk to me) 22:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

@Zach Vega I have left a message on the talk page of the one that made the redirect, hope he will participate in the discussion. TheChampionMan1234 (talk) 02:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose (but I am prepared to change my mind) this wasn't done earlier because there wasn't enough material. Are we really in a position where there is enough material to split out for such an old device? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

To expand there was an issue initially with the iPad 2 article initially where it really had very, very little unique content. It seems like iPad 3 is a GA, so its a much higher standard than iPad 2 was initially. I am worried that if we create an iPad (original) article it will go down the same route as the iPad 2 article did, rather than how the iPad 3 article went, which is to a much higher standard. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Not that I'm supporting or opposing this split but the iPad article was promoted to GA status in June 2010, 2 months after the original iPad was initially released. I would imagine that the content in the article at the time entirely revolved around the original iPad hence, I don't think lack of sources would be a problem. If most of the links in the June 2010 version of this article was dead then the article at its current state would certainly be demoted but that's not the case so I'm assuming otherwise. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 09:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Lack of sources wasn't the issue, the issue was lack of unique prose - as you can see from the link in my last comment there was surprisingly little useful prose in iPad 2 at that point.

My worry about creating an iPad (original) article is that it won't contain any useful additional information that isn't already covered by this article, if enough effort is going to be taken to avoid that issue then I have no objection. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It could be like the iPhone article. Zach Vega (talk to me) 22:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding my redirect of that article, if you read my edit comment, you'd see that I did it because someone just copy and pasted the iPad article to iPad (original). If you're going to split, then be sure to sandbox the new article first and take note of what needs to be removed from the original article so we don't just end up with a second article as a fork of the first, but rather two articles that complement each other nicely. Gary King (talk · scripts) 02:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I have historically been opposed to these kinds of splits due to the replication of prose. There's so much in common with these devices that there become wide swaths of identical text, which diverge over time due to copyedits, new sources, old sourcing link rotting, and so on. If you take the iPhone route, with an overview and daughter pages, you can sometimes have good content allowed to flourish on the daughter pages. I recommend this approach. If there is not enough content, merge all the model-specifc pages and perhaps cover the History of (the?) iPad and retain iPad as a general overview. The key thing to remember is that form follows function, rather than dictating how content must be arranged. Be flexible and willing to change your mind when you see something does not work. Also, this really shouldn't be a vote but rather a discussion to forge consensus on the best way forward. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

inaccuracies from the outset

quote "Like iPhone and iPod Touch, the iPad is controlled by a multitouch display—a departure from most previous tablet computers, which used a pressure-triggered stylus—as well as a virtual onscreen keyboard in lieu of a physical keyboard." (sic)

This is an extremely vague sentance. Did previous tablet computers rely on either a stylus and or physical keyboard, both or neither? Some had neither. The example that springs to mind is the Amtek iTablet T221. Released in 2007, it looks very much like the 2010 ipad but predates it significantly. It had a capacitive screen, ran vista, but reled on finger input and not stylus and or physical keyboard.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/hands-on-with-amteks-itablet-t221/

inaccuracies from the outset

quote "Like iPhone and iPod Touch, the iPad is controlled by a multitouch display—a departure from most previous tablet computers, which used a pressure-triggered stylus—as well as a virtual onscreen keyboard in lieu of a physical keyboard." (sic)

This is an extremely vague sentance. Did previous tablet computers rely on either a stylus and or physical keyboard, both or neither? Some had neither. The example that springs to mind is the Amtek iTablet T221. Released in 2007, it looks very much like the 2010 ipad but predates it significantly. It had a capacitive screen, ran vista, but reled on finger input and not stylus and or physical keyboard.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/hands-on-with-amteks-itablet-t221/