The iPhone Wiki:Community portal/2013

	This is an Archive Page This page is meant for archiving purposes only, do not modify the contents of this page! To see the list of archive pages, go to the main page for this archive. If you have a reply for one of these discussion topics, move it back to the main discussion page and edit it there.
	Other Archives • 2010 • 2011 • 2012 • 2013 • 2014 • 2015 • 2016 • 2017 •

Device naming

I have been thinking, should we not list "iPod touch 2G" as "iPod touch 2nd Generation"? The latter is the correct naming. --iAdam1n (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to change that. The only problem is the confusion with the iPhone 2G, which was the 1st generation. But that's pretty much solved for now. I suggest to leave it as it is. --http (talk) 09:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with iAdam1n; for example: "iPhone 2G" should be just "iPhone (1st gen.)"; "iPod touch/iPad 3G" should be "iPod touch/iPad (3rd gen.)". --Jaggions (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The "iPod touch 2G" naming was something that got carried over from how everyone referred to the regular iPods. (They were frequently called "iPod shuffle 3G," "iPod nano 4G," "iPod 5.5G," etc.) Also, the problem with "iPad 3G" is that you could be referring to a 3G-equipped iPad (what was used before Apple started using "Cellular"), or a 3rd generation iPad. Like http, I don't see a need to change the names because of that. If there's one device that would need "renaming," it would probably be the original iPhone, but Apple gave all of their iPhones unique names. --Dialexio (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Using "plainlinks"

I was wondering if we could use this throughout the wiki. I have done it already on my page and a couple of others, but I didn't want to do more if people want it left as is. --iAdam1n (talk) 10:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't something like this discussed before at some point? As I recall, the consensus was no. --Dialexio (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I too am opposed to this. The reason MediaWiki does that is so you can tell what is an internal link and what is not. MediaWiki supports "interwiki" links (like [[w:es:Wikipedia:Portada]] on Wikipedia for the Spanish Main Page) so they look like internal links while still being external. The reasoning for interwiki links, is to allow external links while saying that you, as a community, view that website as another resource for your site. For example, we link to Wikipedia a lot, and by using the interwiki link format ([[wikipedia:{PAGE}|{PAGE}]]), we are saying that Wikipedia is, in a sense, a part of us. Removing the external icon removes the ability for the user to know that they are leaving your "site". Sorry for that way of explaining it, it was the only thing that I could think of... --5urd (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm also against this. The "wiki standard" (whatever that is) shows them, so we should leave it like that. There's no need to make it look different. Also, before you start editing a few pages with any site-wide change, please discuss that first. Not after the fact that five pages have the new style (that we might have to reverse) and other ten pages not. The same happened with the key pages; before the discussion started, several pages were changed already (I was too late in the game to contribute to the discussion though). --http (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I did revert all pages to not use it except my user page. --iAdam1n (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent Changes page

All of us are working hard to make this wiki better and better and always up to date, but I see that recently the Recent Changes page is constantly flooded by edits on Firmware pages prevalently by iAdam1n. I find it quite annoying, and I wonder why those pages are continuously changed. --Jaggions (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, its not being flooded at all. I do 15 a day which was discussed on the keys discussion page. We agreed to edit all of those pages, so I have limited it. --iAdam1n (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

If you are offended by this, you should have said something while this was being discussed. As for "continuously change[ing]" the pages, there is a very clear line between adding keys and updating the format. In addition, as Adam said, we are limiting to 15 pages a day. If you are going to complain about flooding, you haven't seen anything. Before we imposed the 50 edits a day rule, when a new firmware version would come out, the recent changes would be flooded. Literally. Sometimes even 100 edits in an hour because people didn't use the "Show preview" button. --5urd (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Model Identifiers Such As N42AP

I think we should we move the pages to have the capitals etc as its listed as lowercase on here but not in FS. I mean, we know N78aAP is not all capitals but we do know just the 5 characters are. What do you all think? I would do just 10 edits per day on this. --iAdam1n (talk) 06:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. The device IDs are lowercase internally, so the pages themselves, such as n42ap should have a {{lowecase}} block at the top. As for the model definition files, I don't know why Apple decided to use capitals. --5urd (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Where are the internal ones found then? Anywhere we can view? --iAdam1n (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, the codenames are actually capitalized in some spots (e.g. SpringBoard capabilities, /System/Library/CoreServices/CoreTypes.bundle/Contents/Library/MobileDevices.bundle/Contents/Info.plist in Mac OS X) and lowercase in others (e.g. IMG3 file names). To me, it seems like there's no correct way to denote them. --Dialexio (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Page Deletions

I see a lot of pages get deleted recently. For the filesystem pages that contain no useful info, we agreed to create a file structure tree overview page first, but that doesn't exist yet, so we should wait with all filesystem page deletions until we have that. I also see important pages getting deleted, like the Apple TV Firmware Versions with tons of edits without any discussion. As admin, I could look up the history of that deleted page and saw that there was a deletion request added (which I missed somehow) just two days ago. I can see now the reasons for the deletion (most, but not all info is now on the Firmware and Beta Firmware pages). But we need some time to discuss this. Nobody of us has access to the server logs, so you have no idea how many external sites link to deleted pages and are broken now. Not even a redirect was left. Remember that geohot said he doesn't see any reason to ever delete a page. So we should be more careful with this. And for the Talk pages, just because the related page has been deleted, that's no reason (by itself) to delete the Talk page. If we delete the Talk page, we should also move the discussion to the new place (wherever that is). --http (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It was my idea to delete them, though I marked them, I did not expect them all to go that quick. Which links also? I do not see any reason to keep any filesystem pages myself unless they have a summery of what they are etc. Due to the fact that there are so many wanted pages that are never likely to be made, I am in between unlinking but using just the text. If you, http, could create that page and do a couple of examples I would be happy to help out but I cannot create it as I do not have a clue what you would list on it nor the format--iAdam1n (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Administrators

Just wondering, how can someone become an admin here? Does he need to meet particular requirements? --Jaggions (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Just by being active, helping out and being patient. --iAdam1n (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Geohot also has to take notice— it's all up to him, actually. Admins/sysops are unable to make other users admins. --Dialexio (talk) 06:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Changing "Build" on Firmware and Beta Firmware

I was going to post this on the talk page of "Firmware", but then I realized it would involve creation of many pages, so I'm posting here.
What I'm proposing is we change the Firmware's and Beta Firmware's device's "Build" column to look like this (iPhone 2G used) [links removed to save bytes]:

Version	Baseband	Codename	Build	Release Date	IPSW Download URL	SHA1 Hash	Comments	File Size
1.0	03.06.01_G	Alpine	1A420	?	iphoneproto.zip	6e798e906c6590a7521ef89b731569be6d05b3aa	Prototype; macrumors	109,813,128
	03.11.02_G	Heavenly	1A543a	29 Jun 2007	iPhone1,1_1.0_1A543a_Restore.ipsw	fb8bb3ee2e9a997affbb97868599f2995c78209c	Initial US shipment.	95,604,348
1.0.1	03.12.08_G	SUHeavenlyJuly	1C25	31 Jul 2007	iPhone1,1_1.0.1_1C25_Restore.ipsw	a00b85a7a55d62a94be5fbf5effbc42fd63f3097		95,627,958
1.0.2	03.14.08_G		1C28	21 Aug 2007	iPhone1,1_1.0.2_1C28_Restore.ipsw	7f5c0ff1f84a0202b75a55c3fcb362e415334d1e		95,627,324
1.1.1	04.01.13_G	Snowbird	3A109a	27 Sep 2007	iPhone1,1_1.1.1_3A109a_Restore.ipsw	d441dd1c71ce18f25d8fc4faa71c1e6eaa02d02c		159,668,150
1.1.2	04.02.13_G	Oktoberfest	3B48b	12 Nov 2007	iPhone1,1_1.1.2_3B48b_Restore.ipsw	797c02e7d660940e8d9a16cc7229ccf3f67dd8b1	Initial Euro shipment.	167,927,501
1.1.3	04.03.13_G	Little Bear	4A93	15 Jan 2008	iPhone1,1_1.1.3_4A93_Restore.ipsw	b3dec7580bd00dc4faf28449d9618ef40aeacc96		169,950,551
1.1.4	04.04.05_G		4A102	26 Feb 2008	iPhone1,1_1.1.4_4A102_Restore.ipsw	000811bac096011b50ebf6ec1ec2285b62fda4cb		169,946,442
2.0	04.05.04_G	Big Bear	5A347	11 Jul 2008	iPhone1,1_2.0_5A347_Restore.ipsw	9c510a3cfce789fa5f92a8f763c231bac82ff6d4		228,768,637
2.0.1			5B108	04 Aug 2008	iPhone1,1_2.0.1_5B108_Restore.ipsw	61de6a2bd6ceddc9ecabad1671b91a59b3824bc4		254,048,068
2.0.2			5C1	18 Aug 2008	iPhone1,1_2.0.2_5C1_Restore.ipsw	b84b57bea919bdc720287ec908c1378e7d7b5e1b		253,589,000
2.1		Sugar Bowl	5F136	12 Sep 2008	iPhone1,1_2.1_5F136_Restore.ipsw	353b7745767b85932e14e262e69463620939bdf7		242,171,241
2.2		Timberline	5G77	21 Nov 2008	iPhone1,1_2.2_5G77_Restore.ipsw	cbfc6ff886ce89868a55547b9fb980dbf92e6418		257,576,980
2.2.1		SUTimberline	5H11	27 Jan 2009	iPhone1,1_2.2.1_5H11_Restore.ipsw	43b95ebe1e51f8d30eae916053396595c08440d3		257,593,705
3.0		Kirkwood	7A341	17 Jun 2009	iPhone1,1_3.0_7A341_Restore.ipsw	2afd3f8ede17390737f508473ed205506a0bd23f		240,394,111
3.0.1			7A400	31 Jul 2009	iPhone1,1_3.0.1_7A400_Restore.ipsw	34c391fbbc7b31b159372766de39ce5c9cc26ebb	Hotfix for an SMS exploit.	240,439,502
3.1		Northstar	7C144	09 Sep 2009	iPhone1,1_3.1_7C144_Restore.ipsw	b7b5f436f81c6f855410e8b44a3d432ccaacd6fc		252,536,460
3.1.2			7D11	08 Oct 2009	iPhone1,1_3.1.2_7D11_Restore.ipsw	e4a1171542dbbd3093516d9c02047b9f7e143050		252,515,888
3.1.3		SUNorthstarTwo	7E18	02 Feb 2010	iPhone1,1_3.1.3_7E18_Restore.ipsw	eab23a7f8d2a17cb71046c50fc5f67ec390a3c2b		238,319,275

We would then at the respective pages, give an overview of the build train, like what firmwares it was used on? Maybe even a link to the Wikipedia article of the ski resort it's named after? In addition, we could replace the the links of modified build trains, like SUTimberline, with a link to a section on Timberline (i.e. [[SUTimberline]] to [[Timberline#SUTimberline|SUTimberline]])? --5urd (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I would agree if we did not link to the codename pages, just have it as text. --iAdam1n (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I would move the build number next to the firmware version, and as Adam said, don't link the codenames. (Actually, maybe the codenames could get dropped altogether? Or even moved to a brand new page?) --Dialexio (talk) 07:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hm actually, I like the idea of trashing the codenames and moving build before baseband. Although this would be a big task of moving pages but we could just move say 20 each per day. --iAdam1n (talk) 07:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm against dropping the build train from the page names, but I'd be fine with removing the build train from the link text. --5urd (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

That would be just more complicated. We should either drop them on the key pages too, or better still, keep them here in a new column like you listed but without the linking to pages with [[]] and move it so that the build is next to version then codename then baseband. --iAdam1n (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was saying... --5urd (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Version	Build	Codename	Baseband	Release Date	IPSW Download URL	SHA1 Hash	Comments	File Size
1.0	1A420	Alpine	03.06.01_G	?	iphoneproto.zip	6e798e906c6590a7521ef89b731569be6d05b3aa	Prototype; macrumors	109,813,128
	1A543a	Heavenly	03.11.02_G	29 Jun 2007	iPhone1,1_1.0_1A543a_Restore.ipsw	fb8bb3ee2e9a997affbb97868599f2995c78209c	Initial US shipment.	95,604,348
1.0.1	1C25	SUHeavenlyJuly	03.12.08_G	31 Jul 2007	iPhone1,1_1.0.1_1C25_Restore.ipsw	a00b85a7a55d62a94be5fbf5effbc42fd63f3097		95,627,958
1.0.2	1C28		03.14.08_G	21 Aug 2007	iPhone1,1_1.0.2_1C28_Restore.ipsw	7f5c0ff1f84a0202b75a55c3fcb362e415334d1e		95,627,324
1.1.1	3A109a	Snowbird	04.01.13_G	27 Sep 2007	iPhone1,1_1.1.1_3A109a_Restore.ipsw	d441dd1c71ce18f25d8fc4faa71c1e6eaa02d02c		159,668,150

For people who cannot visualise this. --iAdam1n (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

As we are all agreed, I will do this later. I have also asked 5urd on iMessage and he said he was going to do it but is busy so I will. --iAdam1n (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

What beta number was 5A308?

I get the reasoning. Apple released one for enterprise use, then one for standard developer use. However, are we sure it was 2.0 beta 6? Why would Apple drop the suffix letter from the build on the same version? In addition, Wikipedia's "iOS SDK" reports that it was 2.0 beta 7 that received the two builds, not beta 6. Wrapping it all together:

5A292g - 2.0 beta 6
5A308  - 2.0 beta ? (Now in the 300s and suffix letter dropped)
5A331  - 2.0 beta 7

The Wikipedia article reports that 5A292g was released May 28. Ok, that's correct here. Wikipedia also reports that (the supposed two) beta 7 firmware was released June 9. Ok, the wiki is also correct for 5A331. However, we report that 5A308 was released on May 29. Now, either we are wrong, or Wikipedia is wrong. Either way, someone is wrong about the beta number and release date of 5A308. Anyone know of anything that can solve this?
The very first version of "Firmware Keys" already lists 5A308 as beta 6. In addition, the revision is dated July 27, so there is no timestamp to help solve this. --5urd (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I've tried Google, and of the sites I've looked at, they report as 5A308 being "iPhone SDK beta 6", not "iPhone OS beta 6". Here are some excerpts from a MacRumors thread (emphasis mine):

I'm really confused about the 3G rumors relating to iPhone 2.0 Beta 6. (5A308).

Here is the title of one from World of Apple (dated May 29) (emphasis mine):

Apple Releases iPhone SDK Beta 6, iPhone OS 2.0 Build 5A308

This points in the direction of us being right, but can anyone help confirm this? --5urd (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

This has been found since. --iAdam1n (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Key page idea

I was wondering if it would be a good idea to make another category for key pages which do not have a complete key listing which has a bootrom exploit? That way, if people know how to get the keys, it would be easy to know which need to be added to. To me, the age does not matter as some people keep beta IPSW's stored no matter the age. Let me know what you all think. --iAdam1n (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we should create a category for that, because ultimately that list will be empty. Maybe we could list them here (or somewhere else) and then just remove the references as we complete the pages? That way we avoid editing lots of pages without adding anything to them. --http (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe Incomplete Key Pages? I could add the links to the pages on there if we agree and then like you said, remove when complete. --iAdam1n (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer to add it to an existing page, as it will get deleted when complete. If you want to keep that page forever (like to list the A5+ devices) then yes, create that new page you mentioned. If it's only for the incomplete pages, adding the list to one of the comment pages is enough. --http (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It is only for pre A5 although it will never be complete. 5urd has an idea but he is away atm so cannot do it which is to make it go to another category if it sees "TODO". --iAdam1n (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

One additional idea: I think redsn0w and/or sn0wbreeze has a list of all keys included in it. You could use that to complete any missing information here or point out any differences. --http (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I checked redsn0w but it does not have all the keys just a few. sn0wbreeze will likely be the same as it only needs a few files patched. --iAdam1n (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I went through sn0wbreeze completely about a week ago, and every key it contains has been added here. --5urd (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

5urd made an edit that made it automatically show on Incomplete Key Pages category if it sees any TODO on the page. --iAdam1n (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Completed template

I was wondering, what about if I make a template with a completed stamp? I think this would be useful to mark talk pages as done. Let me know what you think and how I add colors to templates. --iAdam1n (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not particularly fond of this. I'm not going to object to this, but the way I see it, if a consensus is reached, then the topic is over and can be archived. If someone wants to reply to an archived topic, they just need to copy the topic back to the main page, delete it from the archive, and then reply to the appropriate person. --5urd (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok but most topics here have been done so should be archived. Theme for one, ATV3,2 for another. --iAdam1n (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. As for how long to wait before archiving after a consensus, a week or two seems reasonable enough. --5urd (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I will wait two then archive if needed. You may now archive this. --iAdam1n (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

More Esser Info

i0nic's slides from his CanSecWest presentation have been released. Where should we link to them from? --beej 17:38, 17 March 2012 (MDT)

Added to i0n1c. --iAdam1n (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Source Code as defined in the Ground Rules

The ground rules state no source code from Apple is allowed, however IDA + HexRays reversed C code is not from Apple, but determined by analizing the assembly (which is technically public), and building a document that would compile to code that does the same thing. So, is it legal to post HexRays C code here? IIRC, their EULA does not prohibit it. Now, IANAL, but it appears to be legal from my understanding of US copyright. Also, look at MobileDevice Library - it's a header file of a copyritten program determined by reverse engineering... --5urd (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know US copyright. The assembly code is not public. But I don't see a problem with reversed code, because that is more like a describing language of what the machine code does. But if it actually matches exactly the source code, which you found somewhere, I think that would be a problem. It also depends on the amount of code you have; small portions to show something would be no problem, while the entire kernel is a different issue. --http (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense. As for the kernel, OS X's versions are open sourced, so those can be included with the appropriate license notice. --5urd (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

iPhone 5

Since Apple uses the A1XXX model number to tell the difference between models[1], I was thinking about changing the key page names accordingly. What does everybody else think? (This may also apply to the 3rd and 4th generation iPads, and the iPad mini.) --Dialexio (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm against it as it breaks the consistency --5urd (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

We should use Apple's terminology wherever possible. Where's the consistency problem? And yes, if Apple names them that way, we should rename all devices that way, not only the iPhone of course. But before starting such a project, we should be 100% sure Apple continues this usage. --http (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The consistency I was refering to is how Apple references the iPhone 4 variants as AT&T (GSM) and Verizon (CDMA), the iPad 2 variants as Wi-Fi, Wi-Fi+Cellular (AT&T) for GSM, and Wi-Fi+3G (Verizon) for CDMA, but the iPhone 5 is the only one I've seen where the separate models are referred to by their model number. We have kept the x##ap variation the entire lifetime of the site, so changing it would be a **MASSIVE** job to fix all the redirects. Plus, when have we followed Apple's outward marketing?

We use iPad 4 and such while Apple uses iPad (4th generation) and iPad with Retina Display. We use S5L8945 while Apple uses A5X. Apple labels the S5L8942 as just a plain A5, not A5 Rev A like we use here. The only reason we use that is becuause Apple referes to the revised Wi-Fi iPad 2 as a "Rev A" on the **Dev Center**.

What makes the dev center a choice for naming conventions? The fact that it is a **developer** center - a place where things are supposed to get a little technical. Anyways, that's my "rant". --5urd (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think I was talking about replacing the p101ap, etc. pages; I was talking about the device names on key pages (e.g. "Brighton 10B141 (iPad 4 GSM)"). Since there are no keys for the newer devices, it's not going to make redirects. We're only using "iPad 4" because we couldn't find a good replacement, and "Brighton 10B141 (iPad (4th generation) Wi-Fi)" would be way too long/ludicrous. (You should know this, actually; I remember you chiming in.) But what's the problem with relying a little on the iOS Developer Center for some names? Using the A1XXX model numbers actually seems like a better distinction method to me. I was actually reluctant to use "GSM" and "Global" when I coined them for this generation of cellular iOS devices, since all cellular models are capable of GSM communications. But now that there's a way that Apple decided on to differentiate between them, why not use it? --Dialexio (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

AppleTV3,2

AppleTV3,2 is a Revision A[2] --5urd (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please add this to Firmware Keys. I tried but cannot work out how this works. --iAdam1n (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Add what? --5urd (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It has been done in the meantime. --iAdam1n (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

THIS IS THE NEW MIRROR

Isn't migration fun? --geohot (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

So much --Haifisch (talk) 23:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The migration is complete and the old site has been taken offline. Costs me about $50 per month to run, but for now am still avoiding donations or ads. The old one was unacceptably slow, this site gets about 100,000 page loads per day and it was time to move to server that could handle it. It's using a Squid proxy and barely loaded now, so it is capable of handling much more traffic. And it's much more of a pleasure to visit. I'm hoping the increase in speed will encourage more content creation, and if there's anything else I can do to encourage that, let me know, I'm happy to do it. --geohot (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the migration geohot. This helps a lot. See the comments on your talk page since when we have this problem, I think since February or so.

I'd also like to have an emergency contact where we could reach you (just for wiki related issues, maybe only for admins, so that you don't get bothered with nonsense) - you have our emails to contact us for this if you think it's a good idea.

If the hosting fee gets a problem, just let us know. Just open a targeted donation and you'll have the money for the next ten years hosting or so. I'm happy to sponsor a month per year or so. --http (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Im willing to contribute to the costs, if needed. --Haifisch (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Ditto --5urd (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice to see an option for donations, even if not for current running cost for future upgrades or running cost. (Possibly to support related research projects) Just wondering if theres any problem with that?

Geo, this is a great site, resource its great to see you working behind the scences. I know you could probably afford it and is easier to pay your self but if we can share the cost why not :) --Blue Skies (talk) 09:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

evad3rs page

I made this page but 5urd deleted this. I was wondering why? Also what are everybody's thoughts on this? --iAdam1n (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

We had this discussion in the past already on some similar pages. But I think when several of these respected hackers bring this term up several times, then we can also have a page for it. But iAdam1n (talk), don't just create the page again, wait for this discussion to finish. --http (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I had already made it before seeing this. In future I will just wait. I did put a note to 5urd saying that he left no reason for deletion. --iAdam1n (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC) There is also a twitter account and it has been mentioned that its them by pod2g.

I also think when a page is deleted the user should give a reason for it. Otherwise no one knows why. --iAdam1n (talk) 12:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It is correct that deletions should be discussed first. 5urd, can you give a reason why you acted so fast, with no discussion at all? --http (talk) 12:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. I deleted it as we had an edit war about 2 1/2 years ago on unpopular dev "teams" which resulted in the 3 year block of the main page. There were numerous pages made and a flood of edits to the main page. A simple mention my pod2g does not validate a "team"'s "worthiness" unless it was stated that he is working with them. On a side note, just because you see a "team" that claims to have a jailbreak for 6.0 does not mean they are legitimate. I now looked the team up and it is legitimate, so again, my apologies. --5urd (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Editing help

I noticed on the edit page there is a link to Help:Editing. This is actually an empty page. Should we remove this from the page or add some info to it? I am not sure what to add to it even so I haven't touched it. I was wondering what you all think. --iAdam1n (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

To remove it requires knowing the page it is set on (in the Mediawiki: NS). If you can find that, I'll be fine with changing it. --5urd (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It's at MediaWiki:Edithelppage. (Special:AllMessages is helpful.) --thekirbylover 11:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. I changed it to link to Wikipedia's page. --5urd (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

iPad mini

Me and Alex were chatting on Twitter and the topic of what to do with the iPad mini and two solutions came up:

• New section on iPad
• New page: iPad mini

The problem I see with the new page is there are three different models and when we have multiple models for a device, we make the page with that name a disambiguation page. Maybe we could have iPad mini have a note at the top to a disambiguation page (iPad mini (disambiguation) or iPad mini (first generation))? I don't want iPad mini 1G as we don't list the key pages with the 1G in the title (Wildcat 7B500 (iPad)). Any thoughts? --5urd 09:51, 25 October 2012 (MDT)

So let's see what we have right now for all the other categories:

• iPhone -> m68ap for 1st gen, n82ap for 2nd gen, n88ap 3rd gen, iPhone 4 with different models n90ap, n90bap, n92ap, etc.
• iPod touch -> n45ap for 1st gen, n72ap for 2nd gen, etc.
• iPad -> k48ap for 1st gen (both Wi-Fi and 3G), iPad 2 for 2nd gen with k93ap, k94ap, k95ap, k93aap, etc.
• Apple TV -> k66ap for 2nd gen
• iPad mini -> ? for 1st gen with kap123 etc. for the different models

So previously we didn't have the problem, because:

• 1st gen iPhone was only available in one model, m68ap
• same for iPod touch, only one model, n45ap
• for iPad, both models (Wi-Fi and 3G) had the same model number, later devices have different numbers.
• for Apple TV, the first iOS version was 2nd gen, so the name without a version number can be used for the device category

For me it's clear that iPad mini is for the category of device and must be a separate page. As long as we have only one model, we can add all infos to there and don't create another page between the category and the individual models.

So the question comes up what to use later when there are more generations, what to use as disambiguation page between the category page iPad mini and the individual models, something that describes the first generation. We can't use iPad mini, because that's for the category. Why not use iPad mini 1 or iPad mini 1G? I mean the only problem is that it doesn't match the key pages. So either we start the key pages to include the generation as well, or we simply ignore this difference. I mean why is this a problem if this single page to describe the specifics of the first generation iPad mini has a generation number in the page title? Everybody knows that leaving this 1G away gets you to the device category page iPad mini. So I don't see a problem here. And as long as there is no 2nd generation, we don't even need such a page. Ok, so I suggest:

• create iPad mini for the device category
• while no 2nd generation exists, put all links onto that same page iPad mini
• when 2nd gen iPad mini comes out, create a page iPad mini 1 and iPad mini 2 (or with the "G" if you wish)
• the key pages can be with our without the "1G", I don't care

--http 14:46, 25 October 2012 (MDT)

I went ahead and moved the stuff to iPad mini with a possible link to iPad mini 1G. I kept the G because everything else has it. I also put a note up on iPad for the link. The key pages should be determined on how they are with other devices:

• One model type (like iPad 1G)
  • (iPad mini)
• Multiple (all else)
  • (iPad mini Wi-Fi)
  • (iPad mini GSM)
  • (iPad mini Global)

I don't think we should put the 1G on the key pages as we don't use (iPhone 2G), (iPod touch 1G), or (iPad 1G). --5urd 21:38, 25 October 2012 (MDT)

I will make them all iPad mini. When/if we get a 2G iPad mini, add iPad mini 2G. --iAdam1n (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Firmware page

I know I just created the iPad mini and iPad (4th generation) entries on the Firmware page, but I was thinking… Instead of keeping the firmware tables unique to each model, could we keep the firmware tables divided by generation instead? (i.e. Instead of editing three pages for the iPad mini to add a new firmware, there would be just one page that holds the three firmware tables.) It'd certainly help keep the amount of changes made with each new firmware to a minimum. --Dialexio 19:50, 30 October 2012 (MDT)

That would certainly reduce the amount of edits. They were separated as the source was getting ridiculously long. I'm for it. --5urd 20:00, 30 October 2012 (MDT)

As long as no information gets lost, feel free to change it. But I wonder how you want to put all this into a horizontal design. I think it won't fit or you'd have to remove infos. Can you explain further? --http 00:31, 31 October 2012 (MDT)

I think you might be misunderstanding a bit; I'm planning on, as one example, copying all of the iPad 2 firmware tables into one embedded page, instead of having four different pages that require editing. Everything's still going to look the same. :P --Dialexio 01:21, 31 October 2012 (MDT)

Yes, I misunderstood you. I thought you wanted to regroup the lists by iOS version. Yes, just grouping more devices together seems like a simple change and seems to be useful. --http 04:06, 31 October 2012 (MDT)

Maybe we could do it like Beta Firmware where all current devices are on the page while deprecated devices are separated off. --5urd 18:45, 31 October 2012 (MDT)

This would make the code very long, horrible and hard to detect. Maybe someone can make a template like "Latest Public Release" on device pages? --iAdam1n (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

What? I made Beta Firmware like that so that instead of editing 15 pages per beta, you would only need to edit one. --5urd (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I was thinking you meant all devices on one page. Would you like me to attempt to do it? Obviously I will preview it first to make sure its ok. I feel that this would be a good idea. --iAdam1n (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, but I would move the "deprecated" devices off of it to their own like Beta Firmware is to reduce clutter a bit. --5urd (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok sure. Or what about making a new page for them like Unsupported Devices ? This would make more sense I would think. I could also do this on Beta Firmware too. --iAdam1n (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I have made a depreciated devices template for each device type and have added them to that. Sorry for lots of edits but this was required to make the wiki in shape. Enjoy. --iAdam1n (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

This now also applies to Beta Firmware. I did this because it uses less templates, looks neater and is easier to add devices to if/when needed. --iAdam1n (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)