Talk:Apple News

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kxie16.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

{{Infobox OS component}} or {{Infobox software}}?

My recent changes to the article, in which I transplanted info into a new usage of the {{Infobox software}} was reverted and the existing {{Infobox OS component}} was kept in place. I come to this talk page now knowing that there hasn't been a discussion on this talk page even after a more-fierce-than-normal edit war between @KamranMackey and Codename Lisa: that saw some colourful language being thrown around. I'm surprised that there hasn't been a proper discussion on this, so yeah, here's such a discussion!

My rationale for this page implementing {{Infobox software}} instead of {{Infobox OS component}}, is that this article is the only one of the articles on iOS's default applications that uses the former, rather than the latter, which is used by all other articles on the topic. This includes the articles for Calendar, Files, Health, Notes, Maps, and Wallet. In addition, I concur with a rationale KamranMackey brought up in the scruffy edit history of the article, which is that {{Infobox software}} has more parameters for editors and allows more information displayed on the article to users reading. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 03:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Sub-optimal communication

Hello, PhilipTerryGraham {{Infobox software}} has more parameters to abuse, not more parameters to use. For example, the |latest release version=; he who inputs something in this parameter, in case of iOS components, either has mistaken (assuming good faith, my choice) or a liar (assuming bad faith, not my choice). Unlike Windows, it is impossible see the internet version numbers of components. None of these matters. In case of built-in OS components, a version number is merely indiscriminate info. The other oft-used parameter is |status=. "Other stuff exists" is the second most hated argument in Wikipedia and my most hated one. Aside from your hostile edit summaries, you dug up a lot of dirt too. What I actually did to you in this article was first reverting your change of infobox and then restoring your image and caption. You went to a great length of misrepresenting them. But please remeber that WP:CIVIL is a fundamental policy; if you don't want to edit collegially, you have no right to edit at all. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC) @Codename Lisa: Umm, I'm not sure what you meant by "hostile edit summaries". What exactly did I go to a "great length" to misrepresent? I'm confused as to why you're being such an aggressive editor that you're immediately attacking me on the first reply. You mention good faith in one of your points, but it seems you haven't shown that to me. I haven't shown you anything that could be considered hostility. I never edit-warred with you, or even did anything to start an edit war. When you switched the article's infobox back to {{Infobox OS component}}, I left it alone and started a talk page discussion, like a civil editor does. By the way, I restored my own image and caption, while you just reverted by syntax spacing fixes as literally demonstrated in the second link you showed, in which one can clearly see the image and caption (which I restored in the previous edit) was not changed. If anything your edit summary of "Salvaging some edits by User:PhilipTerryGraham" is the misrepresenting one. In any case, we're discussing the merits of using {{Infobox software}} in this article, but if you can't do that without making your third point of keeping {{Infobox OS component}} literally "you're being a bad editor", then this isn't going to be a substantial discussion, is it? Might want to re-read WP:CIVIL too, in addition to WP:AGF. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 07:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC) @PhilipTerryGraham: "When you switched the article's infobox back to {{Infobox OS component}}, I left it alone and started a talk page discussion". Yes. You did. Perhaps I should bear that in mind. That's something. But then "like a civil editor does" is ... Let's put it this way: I once met a Muslim, studying post doctorate. He said there are some sins that burn the hard-earned good deeds, the same way that a match burns down an edifice that took years to be built, even if that match is lit by the architect. You do such a nice thing as not disputing my edit. Well. That's very kind. But then you come here and in your second sentence, you dig up dirt. That's the worse type of personal attack, the kind that the most despicable people on the planet do. Not only does it null your good deed, it paints it in a bad light: It seems that the reason you didn't dispute my edit was because you were busy digging dirt! Just FYI, edit warring needs mens rea; there was in me or KamranMackey. Finally, there is such thing as "edit conflict". That's what happened. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC) @Codename Lisa: Wow, okay. Firstly, I wrote "like a civil editor does" as a reference to you telling me to read WP:CIVIL, so I wasn't trying to offend you, I was responding to your claim against me that I wasn't being a civil editor. Secondly, what do you mean "digging up dirt"? Do you mean when I referred to the edit history of this page to disprove your claims against me? Just like you tried to refer to the edit history of this page, but made false statements about them? Dude, I'm not trying to start anything with you, so just put down the verbal weapons such as grouping me with "the most despicable people on the planet". I know you've gone way beyond the reach of assuming good faith, but I still urge you to do so. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 07:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

@Codename Lisa and PhilipTerryGraham: Alright. Both of you, please listen. You two clearly did not have a productive discussion above. (It is evident from [1], [2] and [3]) So, I am hiding it, in accordance to the old wisdom: Out of sight, out of mind. (Update: PhilipTerryGraham has un-hid the most gross personal comment. Thought I'd better write this to make it clear that it wasn't my original decision. Also, I am not disputing it.)

Now, I would like to politely ask you two re-state your concerns, and this time discuss contents only. Shall we?

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 16:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, FleetCommand

I don't mind the change of infobox itself; I mind the new contents that are the cause of the infobox change, e.g. the version number. They are unreferenced. But let's not sugarcoat it: There is no source for them because they are false.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: "e.g." counts as a weasel word here. Please give us a full list. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 16:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Very well. I will itemize.

Serious ones:

1. Released: At least redundant, at worst wrong. This date is the same date as that of the OS release. But are you sure the app didn't come with a point release, say, for AT&T?
2. Version number: Wrong and violating WP:IINFO. Wrong because this is the same version number as the OS. The app itself might have a different version number or not even have a version number. Violating IINFO, because a component is a take-it-or-leave-it matter; updates to components come with OS updates. Hence, the version number is usless trivia. On standalone apps, on the other hand, version number shows development and helps verifiability. (In fact, it is the only evidence of development.)
3. License: Wrong. This app is not licensed at all. It is part of the OS and only the OS is licensed.
4. Status=Active: Violation of WP:DATED and totally based on the assumption. You won't know the truth of whether it was Active or no, when the next version of the OS comes out and you see whether it is discontinued, untouched or updated.
5. {{Infobox OS component}} clearly communicates that we are not dealing with a standalone app; {{Infobox software}} does not communicate that and instead uses wrong terms of "release", "license" and "status" to give them impression that the app is in fact standalone. It is possible not to fill these out to assuage the latter, but not the former.

Minor ones (can negotiate):

1. Screenshot size: Why does this person upload 280px screenshots and then uses 250px shots in the boxes, where the standard size is 300px anyway?
2. Caption: Period at the end of the caption is a violation of MOS:FULLSTOP.
3. Developer: Redundant. When the infobox clearly communicates that it is a component, not a standalone app, there is no need to name a developer.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@FleetCommand: It'd be great if we could get some other editors in as well. I was originally going to go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc./iOS task force and/or the iOS Task Force, but they state to have discussion on articles on the talk pages of the articles themselves, so this is why I originally started the discussion here instead of the appropriate wikipage. How can we get them involved in the discussion? Should we just ping all the active members of the WikiProject, or would that be burdensome? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 17:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@PhilipTerryGraham: It does not matter because you don't have an argument so far. You need to rationally answer Codename Lisa. If you don't have an argument, no one would comment anything useful. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 19:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@FleetCommand: You can't dismiss somebody's argument just because you don't agree with it, and you can't try to hide somebody's argument under a collapse box (restored in this edit). I started this discussion because I thought it'd be good to have a consensus on what infobox should be used across all these articles, and it is a multi-article deal, after all. These kind of sweeping changes I felt needed to be agreed on by multiple people. What isn't a good argument against needing a consensus, because its just more unsubstantiated spiting on other users is, "consensus doesn't matter because your argument sucks", which is basically what you said in a nutshell. I made absolutely no controversial statement against anybody in the passage you directly replied to, and you decided to go into "sub-optimal communication", which is what you described Lisa and I's little spat above. Please don't reply to this one with another spat.

To repeat, here's what I stated verbatim above so that there isn't a single excuse to claim that I didn't have an argument. If people want to reply, please keep it on-topic and discuss my points, and please do not devolve into insulting anybody here, whether it be me, Lisa, Fleet, or Guy below. Anyway, here's the copypasta goodness:

My rationale for this page implementing {{Infobox software}} instead of {{Infobox OS component}}, is that this article is the only one of the articles on iOS's default applications that uses the former, rather than the latter, which is used by all other articles on the topic. This includes the articles for Calendar, Files, Health, Notes, Maps, and Wallet. In addition, I concur with a rationale KamranMackey brought up in the scruffy edit history of the article, which is that {{Infobox software}} has more parameters for editors and allows more information displayed on the article to users reading.

– PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count)

So I'd say that "this article is the only one of the articles on iOS's default applications that uses the former, rather than the latter" means that the other articles need to be changed to use {{Infobox OS component}} as well, not that this article needs to be changed to use {{Infobox software}}; the people who used {{Infobox software}} may not have been aware of {{Infobox OS component}} and of the rationale for its use (I wasn't until this discussion came up).

And I'd say that "that {{Infobox software}} has more parameters for editors and allows more information displayed on the article to users reading" is a bug, not a feature; there is no useful information provided by saying the version of app XXX in iOS N.M is "N.M" - that's redundant. It may also be incorrect if, in fact, the internal version of app XXX in iOS N.M is A.B, for A != N or M != B, as may well be the case (it's definitely the case for apps bundled with macOS, as, for example, the version of Contacts in macOS 10.12.6 is 10.0, and the version of System Preferences in macOS 10.12.6 is 14.0, and...). Guy Harris (talk) 06:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, here's my USD .02:

To quote the documentation for {{Infobox OS component}}:

{{Infobox OS component}} is intended for use with articles that discuss a component of an operating system. For instance, Paint (software) article discusses a software application of the same name included with Microsoft Windows. The advantage of this infobox over {{Infobox software}} is that it is lighter, as it does not expose some of the parameters that are not to be populated. For instance, in Microsoft Windows, most components are published by Microsoft, only receive major updates with an operating system release and have the same licensing scheme as that of the operating system. Thus, information such as version number, release date, license and developer are either redundant or without context, lacking encyclopedic value.

The apps bundled with iOS - and most of the apps bundled with macOS - are published by Apple, only receive major updates with an operating system release, and have the same licensing scheme as iOS as a whole, so that comment applies to them.

Furthermore, while macOS bundled apps generally support the {app} > About menu item, showing version and build numbers separate from, and generally different from, the OS version and build number, there's no equivalent to that, that I know of, in iOS. iOS bundled apps may well have their own internally-known version number, separate from that of the iOS release with which they come (e.g., stored in a version.plist file in the application bundle), but there's no way I know of to get that from the UI. And if that version number is separate, giving the OS version number as the app version number would be incorrect. (For that matter, giving a macOS bundled app version number based on popping up {app} -> About and copying and pasting the version number into an article might be considered "original research".)

So I'm not convinced that {{Infobox software}} is appropriate for bundled apps in iOS, and not convinced it's even appropriate for bundled apps in macOS except for those that have releases separate from OS releases, such as Safari and iTunes. Guy Harris (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Support. Guy Harris's view, at its core, seems to be a restatement of Codename Lisa's view. I see lots of overlaps but Guy has complemented it with very useful observations of facts and quotation from the documentation page. Besides, it seems to be the current consensus through implementation. I tried to be a neutral party but ... (sigh!) I am attacked above. So, I am going to support the pre-existing consensus to form an explicit local consensus as well. That should end the conflict. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 06:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Closure

@FleetCommand, Codename Lisa, and Guy Harris: in response to Fleet's declaration of the discussion's closure, I've gone ahead and replaced uses of {{Infobox software}} with {{Infobox OS component}} on the following articles for iOS applications and components: Calendar, Files, Health, iBooks, Mail, Maps, Notes, Notification Center, Photos, Photo Booth, Reminders, Siri, and Wallet. Uses on Clock, Messages, and Weather were implemented by Fleet, with a few syntax spacing fixes by me. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 07:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 23 September 2018

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 (page mover nac) Flooded with them hundreds 16:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

---

News (Apple) → Apple News – Per WP:NATURAL and WP:COMMONNAME. News has been officially renamed as Apple News recently [4], and I think it is a good oppourtunity to change this article title. News articles also mainly uses "Apple News" more than just "News" [5] (not the best evidence I know). What do you all think? Cheers. Wefk423 (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support Also brings continuity with Apple Maps, Apple Books, Apple Music, etc. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk
• Support per nom. Already redirects here. Station1 (talk) 06:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support Makes sense as it would not be called "News" in a generic context anyway even though its website title just uses "News" it the text starts with "Apple News...". See Social norms as a similar example. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2018 (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.

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• Apple News on iOS 12 on iPhone X.jpg (discussion)
• Apple News on macOS.png (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

New subscription service coverage

Since Apple has announced a new subscription service called "Apple News+" yesterday (3/25), I was wondering if anyone would take the initiative to finish the new section I just started which is dedicated to this new service.

Thanks in advance! RayDeeUx (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)