Talk:12-inch MacBook

Merge Discussion: MacBook (2015 version)→MacBook

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Summary of arguments

For

• 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)”

Against

• New/different line of laptops that just reuses an old name
• New MacBook is a major revision, rather than just a reviving of a previously discontinued product

e.g. single port, completely different chip range compared to other lines (MBP & MBA)

• New MacBook is not entry-level anymore, but mid-range/ultraportable, at higher price-point to old
• Mentioning all models in one article is lengthy, potentially confusing, and this model forms a natural page break
• 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

Votes

For (14: 10 registered users, 4 IP-only)
MikeMeowz, Buffaboy, 50.152.139.176, 121.245.72.251, Totie, Resplendent, Guess Who, AYTK, 65.95.3.175, Justinhu12, CookieMonster755, PaleAqua, 24.6.161.63, St3f

Against (10: 9 registered users, 1 IP-only)
Bkellihan, Anonymoustofu, Owleaf, Bentoman, Hkcoms, Mardus, 71.160.141.167, Molandfreak, EoRdE6, Jimthing

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)

 Disagree with merger. The 2015 edition is not an entry-level student notebook, as previous generations bearing the "MacBook" moniker were. I would agree with the alternative suggested below, however. --Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 04:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Molandfreak: Please add your thoughts to the move discussion.--84.25.103.90 (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree with merger, for reasons above. There is no need to have a separate article for a different edition of the same product. CookieMonster755 (talk) 05:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

What? They aren't the same product at all--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 05:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Reverse split/Merge - Subarticle should be unsplit and restored back to main article. This is no different than having unibody and pre-unibody models in the MacBook Pro article. Note per BRD, this really probably have been merged back first and then a split discussion made ( best to wait for close though at this point ); the reason I'm mentioning this is that for a no-consensus close the result is not to do nothing, but to go back to either the long standing version or the original version. In this case that would be before the split. PaleAqua (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree An entirely different product line, for a different market, with significantly different internals simple as that. Consider it like the Macbook Air or the Pro. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree - Although the 2015 version of MacBook is entirely different from an original series of MacBook, Apple Inc. is using the same name for this current model. Per User:Totie, see a webpage called "How to identify MacBook models - Apple Support". Three years and one month after 13-inch unibody polycarbonate models under the same name were discontinued, the MacBook was reintroduced as an "ultraportable notebook" on March 9, 2015, when WWDC happened. I would definitely agree that this article should be merged back into the MacBook article, since User:Servine739, the creator of this article, reverted the major content additions to the MacBook article on 11 March (UTC), without discussion on this talk page or Talk:MacBook. While the merge was being proposed, the editor removed a {{Merge to}} template from this article on 18 March (UTC), citing "Should not be merged; different product". Also, a corresponding French Wikipedia article was recently deleted, per fr:Discussion:MacBook (version 2015)/Suppression. --24.6.161.63 (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment If we merge, then the MacBook article would turn into a monstrously long page essentially about four different generations that have little to no relation to each other. Why do you want that to happen? --Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 06:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • If we hit WP:SIZERULE, then the logical thing would be to have MacBook briefly cover all the generations and split out various models. However, I don't think we are at that point. The two articles today are about MacBook: 38k and MacBook (2015): 14k, before this article was split out the MacBook article was about 44k. Well below the 60k to 100k where articles are normally considered for splitting. PaleAqua (talk) 06:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Wikipedias in other languages except Farsi do not have a separate article for this current generation of MacBook. There is no separate article for the MacBook Pro with Retina Display and the redesigned Mac Pro either. Those can be found at MacBook Pro and Mac Pro articles respectively. Also, iPod Touch (5th generation) has its own article here and is the only article that has been split from the iPod Touch article. Only three Wikipedia languages has a corresponding article about that. --24.6.161.63 (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree An entirely different product line. It bares little to no resemblance to the older models, which were entirely discontinued 3 years earlier. The new 2015– line of MacBook is a super-light, super-slimline, super-basic connection/power, and relatively high-priced, super-low power chips... vs. the older MB which was cheapest in the Apple laptop product line, average amount of i/o ports, average screen res, still normal-power chip range. Very different machines, that simply happen to re-use a name that has history for Apple, hence its reuse for a new product line. Jimthing (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree (I've switched my vote). The page Timeline_of_Apple_Inc._products has a column for family. This column has to point to a page that represents the brand of 'MacBook', no matter that that brand has been used for two radically different products. I think that either have to create a separate page to represent the brand or acknowledge that, no matter how different the products are, that link is a strong one and may be enough justification for them to share a page. — St3f (talk) 07:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment While I'm still opposed to the split, if it remains, I believe a more appropriate title for the pages would be "MacBook (Original)" and "MacBook (Retina)". This avoids the problem of tying the title to a single model, as "MacBook (2015)" does. --Resplendent (talk) 00:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I thought you were supporting the remerge based on the comments above. But agree that "MacBook (Retina)" would be a better name if we have to leave it split. PaleAqua (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Oops, you're correct. I haven't had enough sleep! Edited. --Resplendent (talk) 02:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Agree I believe the only reason the Macbook Retina was distinguished in Apple marketing from previous Macbooks was to emphasize it's experimental nature; to dissuade would-be Macbook buyers who were better-served by a Macbook Air from being disappointed by it. Basically, Macbook Air messed this all up. When it disappears and the Pro is the only other Macbook around, this merge will seem obvious.

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)

Something along the lines of Macbook (2010 and earlier) would look good. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Jtalledo: Please add your thoughts to the move discussion.--84.25.103.90 (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I also thought History of MacBook would be good, but your suggestion is probably a better reflection of the article’s content. If no one objects then I would like to proceed with this mover, without prejudice to the merger discussion.—Totie (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Simplest and shortest would be best MacBook (pre-2011) or MacBook (2006–2011), & MacBook (post-2015) or MacBook (2015 onwards)...but which? IMO, the latter (bolded) of the two is clearest, as they give the actual years for the old model using this name, and then the current year onwards leaves it open for continuous expansion as things progress year-to-year going forward (Apple usage precedence on WP here: Apple TV (2nd generation) onwards. Jimthing (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Jimthing: Please add your thoughts to the move discussion.--84.25.103.90 (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The move discussion at MacBook has closed, I've opened up a similar discussion over there trying to work towards such a alternative. Please feel free to comment there. PaleAqua (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:MacBook which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 19 June 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to MacBook (Retina). Jenks24 (talk) 06:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

---

MacBook (2015 version) → MacBook (2015) – WP:CONCISE. 'Version' sounds redundant. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 05:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC) Sovereign/^Sentinel 14:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support move to MacBook (Retina) (per PaleAqua below) See also Talk:MacBook#Alternate approach with the suggestion for MacBook (Retina) (per PaleAqua). I would instead be in favour of following the same approach as with iPad (iPad (1st generation), iPad (3rd generation), iPad (4th generation)) and the first iPhone (iPhone (1st generation)): MacBook (4th generation). Adding the year makes it confusing next year when the model is still sold and updated.--Totie (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support move, but also support merge into MacBook. Are there any reasons to group the 2015 MacBook separately from the 2012 MacBook article-wise? ONR (talk) 02:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The merger discussion is unfortunately done, no need to consider it here unless you think that the situation has changed.–Totie (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• 3rd choice While I prefer just merging into MacBook or using MacBook (Retina), dropping version does seem reasonable, and the issue of what to do when/iff the next generation of Retina models come out can be made at that time. PaleAqua (talk) 06:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  To be clear this is a support of MacBook (Retina). PaleAqua (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per WP:NCDAB #2, year alone is not sufficient disambiguation. The title should either remain as is or be moved to something such as MacBook (2015 computer). –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

  In this case (2015) is actually more of a shortened natural disambiguation; the models full name—not it's common name however—is MacBook (Retina, 12-inch, Early 2015) as shown at various product information and support pages. Though news articles tend to refer to it as the Retina MacBook when necessary to disambiguate it from other MacBook models, see Ars Technica for example. PaleAqua (talk) 02:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Would you agree with the suggestion to move the article to MacBook (Retina) instead?–Totie (talk) 09:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to that title. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that MacBook (Retina) is also a good option. However, I do not agree with merging the page to MacBook because the new MacBook is an ultraportable notebook computer, as opposed to the old MacBook which is a mainstream notebook. Sovereign/^Sentinel 08:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Codename of authenticity"

What is the "Codename of authenticity" row in the specifications table? That's a strange phrase and they don't have references. Supersofts (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I was just wondering the same thing. A google search for the exact phrase "codename of authenticity" brought up only this article, and a search for those three words brought up this article and various other pages mirroring or lifting content from Wikipedia. It looks bogus to me, I'm going to delete it and will link to this discussion in the edit info. -Dayv (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Apple-macbook-2016.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)