Template talk:iPad models

5th gen iPad, or iPad "Air"?

Speculation of a bigger iPad in future, so should we use Air in naming? Perhaps for now just go by gens. -Flightsoffancy (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

"Air", we don't name them all generations, as it's misleading given they have their own name, and WP uses actual article name unless an appropriate reason against doing so. More importantly, each article has at the bottom of it another info box stating the generation, so doing this here would be redundant. Jimthing (talk) 01:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Now we have a mixed name structure (short and long). Perhaps the Apple name and year made? But then we wiki page title names get messed up. AND, if you say this is redundant, why have this box? IMHO, this box (the upper one) should simply say generations, and the one at bottom the actual names.Flightsoffancy (talk) 14:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Separating iPad Air models from iPad lineup

Several attempts have been made to separate the iPad Air models from the iPad lineup, both at this page and at Template:Apple Inc. hardware and List of iOS devices. I've started a discussion regarding the virtue of this change at Talk:List of iOS devices#Separating iPad Air models from iPad lineup. —RP88 ^(talk) 16:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Adding the 5th and 6th gen identifiers

@Emphrase: Hi. I would like to explain in more detail my reasoning behind removing your additions to the navbox. You added, beneath the 2017 and 2018 links, a small 5th and 6th generation number identifier that links to the same articles. The primary reason why I removed this was primarily that it is an unnecessary addition to the template, the existing links served their full purpose and didn't really need the generation number identifiers. Secondly, the syntax that is now required to make your addition work runs the risk of making the template too confusing for future editors that do not understand how it works to make additions to the template. Thirdly, IMO the positioning of the generation number identifiers pushes the rest of the template down and makes the template look off slightly. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 03:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your points regarding the the edit-ability for future editors. However, for the generation identifiers, in what I have observed and contrary to last year, it seems that a sizeable amount of reliable sources refer to the 2018 iPad as the "sixth-generation", in line with Apple's official names, and unlike the 2017 iPad. Hence that was the reason I added the generation identifiers as small text under 2017 and 2018, such that readers can relate the links (mostly the 2018) to the somewhat commonly known name of 6th gen. Whether the article's name and the link should only be 6th gen IMO belongs to the article itself, but I think having the generation identifiers, especially for the 2018 one, have a place on this template. For the layout, if the genration identifiers were to be kept, either the {{·}} will not be on the same line for the two, be visually the same as it is currently, or there will be wrapping to the next line (if the generation identifiers are on the same line). And out of the three I found the current one to be the most reasonable, as having the {{·}} between the line breaks in terms of vertical aligning for the last two links looks less off than the current. For the syntax, as I mentioned I agree that it is harder for other editors to edit, however, table is probably the easiest way to implement the current layout. But maybe the lines for Mini and Pro can be separated into content2 and content3? Emphrase - 💬 / 📝 17:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)