Template talk:Timeline of iMac models

Template size/EDU models

I never said this was about education iMacs; yet the 17" model is still "in production", albeit for education purposes. If Apple keeps releasing larger and larger iMacs, the timeline would reach an ungainly size eventually. Whenever a screen size is dropped, the next screen size takes its place in Apple's lineup, assorting it by positioning as opposed to screen size makes more sense IMO and keeps the timeline at a smaller size. Butterfly0fdoom 18:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You are missing that the Core Duo remained in production as an education model, the G5 remained in production as an education model, the G4 remained in production as an education model, the G3 remained in production as an education model. This is not a template of educational iMac models. Separating the iMac lineup by screen size makes sense. That is why it has been done since this template was created. Kaomso 01:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, look, I really don't think using C2D and C2D/E isn't appropriate for the timeline. It's an iMac based on the Core 2 platform. The fact that is offered with Duo and Extreme would normally give indication that the processor family should be used. You don't see ever sub-iteration of the PPC processors listed there. Every interval of change on the time line is when either the processor family changes or when there's a case design change. In this case, it's still in the Core 2 family, but with a new case design. If Apple were to decide to offer the iMac in every single Core 2 processor possible, what would you do then? There isn't a problem with using "Al" for "Aluminum". Generally, if you've been educated in any form, you'd probably know it "aluminum". Even then, there's a color-coded key at the bottom of the timeline. Fitting things onto the timeline is therefore a non-issue. Furthermore, "Core 2 (Al)" is much more consistent than "C2D and C2D/E", especially since, if you look at the G3, it says "G3" and then "G3 (slot-loading)", slot-loading being a visually apparent visual change, just like "aluminum" is. Either stay consistent with processor family changes, or use actual Apple document names (which would be "Mid 2007" for the iMac in question, what was on the template before it was reverted originally). That said, "Core" and "Core 2" make more sense than using "Core Duo" and "Core 2 Duo" as the issue of "Core 2 Extreme" has proven. Core is the processor family, Core Duo is the product in that family. As Intel expands their line of processors within the family and if Apple starts adopting more of then, the timeline will end up being cumbersome and loaded with letters that no one knows that they stand for. How do you plan to address that? Secondly, I have yet to hear typical people refer to their iMacs by "Core Duo" and what not. It's usually more like "the white one" or "the (screen size) one". Kinda invalidates your second point. Butterfly0fdoom 19:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Then shorten the models of iMac based on the PowerPC architecture. No Duo, no G3. No 2 Duo, no G4. No 2 Extreme, no G5. The PowerPC architecture is the basis for all of the non-Intel processor models. The Core architecture is the basis for all of the Intel processor models. If the timeline is only going to list architectures, then two of them exist. Moving on, Aluminum in no way belongs down in the labels, which are separated by major processor brand names. And it does not fit up in the timeline, even with your extended length (which, btw, does not fit on a regular-sized printout). Yes, I do agree T7300, T7700, and X7900, like 750CXe should not be included. Much like iMac (266 MHz), iMac (Summer 2000), iMac (Summer 2001), and iMac (20-inch Mid 2007) should not be included. Kaomso 01:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I never said by architecture; I said by processor family/brand. You haven't answered my question in regards to what you'd do if the iMac was offered with other Core 2 variants. The processor BRAND is Core 2. The processor PRODUCT is Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme, and the processor CHIP is T7300, etc. You're contradicting yourself, and you fail to offer any viable solutions to any issues in regards to who knows what kinds of plans Apple has for the future of the iMac. Stop avoiding the question itself and answering in a political fashion. Butterfly0fdoom 08:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've bumped the G3 models down a couple rows to fix the rather bizarre impression it gave of Apple halting production on them over a year earlier than in reality. Perhaps educational production needs to be indicated more, to keep WP:RECENTISM in check? 72.235.213.232 (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

About the template

You wanna talk consistency? x86 = PPC (architecture level). Core = G (branding level). Therefore, Core and Core 2 is consistent with G3, G4, and G5. Complexity? "C2D/E" is a non-descriptive jumble of letters and numbers that makes an optional feature sound like it's a standard, defining characteristic of the product. Predicting the future? Future-proofing doesn't predict the future. If you can find any statement I made that directly predicts the future, then you have a valid point. However, "future-proofing" means making the template in a way that prevents these kinds of debates, arguments, and edit wars from happening again. An edit war in the main Mac timeline brought about the "Core 2 2G" designation. Because that consensus has been enforced by an admin (and no other more established users have objected in any other templates that I have edited that involved the removal of references to Solo, Duo, and Extreme, and other users), your argument holds little to no weight. Butterfly0fdoom 03:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You have to predict the future to do what you call future proofing. Preventing something from happening again means you decide what you believe can happen again and do something different based on your prediction. I do not really care about an alleged edit war on another page. There is no existing "2G" designation related to the iMac Core 2 Duo/Core 2 Extreme line other than those invented on Wikipedia. I really do not appreciate your tone or implication of "established users" getting to decide things here. I do not know what a Core 17 is, so I will be removing that from the template. I do not know what a Core 20 is, so I will be removing that from the template. When people refer to the various Intel-based iMac models, they generally do not truncate the name of the processor to Core or Core 2. They use the full Core Duo, Core 2 Duo, and Core 2 Extreme names, especially when they are being formal, like in an Encyclopedia. As such, those are changed too. I have never heard of the PowerPC G3 Slot Loading processor, so that is changed too. With that label section change gone, the inconsistent labeling of the current iMac models as having an Intel Core 2 Aluminum processor is apparent. That is changed as well. Kaomso (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

A violation of WP:Crystal Ball requires actually publishing said predicted future information. Your radical changes of the article disrupt naming conventions that have been accepted by the community of Mac users that commonly use the "Aluminum iMac" and "Slot-loading iMac" names. Furthermore, the formal name is "iMac (Early/Mid/Late (insert year) )", not "iMac Core # (version of aforementioned Core #)". If you want to use formals names, then you use Apple's official designations, which are more confusing. Your mix of letters and numbers, as I have said already, are more confusing than "Core" and "Core 2". Anyone that refers to something as "Core 2 Duo" would have the capability of realizing that "Core 2" can refer to "Core 2 Duo" and, by clicking the link, can confirm this. The template has a limited amount of space, and your proposed naming system shows the limitations of this. A "2G" designation is there because a compromise was reached on a related template and was therefore enforced by an administrator. This template was accepted by other users until YOU came along and objected to everything. Furthermore, you still fail to address points that I made in my previous statement; therefore, my argument still stands. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

My edits are explained above in detail. I will not be re-addressing your comments as your tone has not changed. Kaomso (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Discuss/Debate here, not in the edit history

- You claim Apple and industry-standard nomenclature: "Core 2" is a blanket term for Core 2 Solo, Core 2 Duo, and Core 2 Extreme. Furthermore, even Apple uses "The Core 2 Processor" and "Core 2 processors" because they offer two variations of the Core 2 processor family. The Intel Core 2 article is called "Intel Core 2" as opposed to a disambiguation page to a page for each Core 2 variant.
- You claim self-consistency: The "Core 2" is a link that leads to the iMac page, where people can discover that Apple offers Duo and Extreme Core 2 processors. In terms of consistency, "Core 2" is more consistent with G#, as List of Macintosh models grouped by CPU type. Using (Aluminum) is consistent with using (Slot-loading) as it describes a physical feature that makes it different from other iMacs from the same processor family. Furthermore, it makes it consistent with other Mac-related templates (some of which may have been a result of my doing, but other editors have voiced approval by expanding upon them or by not reverting them). If you find (Aluminum) unacceptable, the Wikipedia community has also agreed on "2G" as an acceptable term for the current iMac revision (Timeline of Macintosh models, Talk:Timeline of Macintosh models).
- You claim most people use "C2D/E" to describe their iMacs: I claim otherwise, that people use screen size, processor speed, and, if applicable, "Aluminum"/"Alu"/"Al" more often than they do the processor name. [1] [2]
You are now welcome to present EVIDENCE to disprove my claims. Just to note, you need to make some compromises. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the template should be consistent with Apple and industry-standard nomenclature for the names of the processors found in Apple's iMac computers. As such, the name Intel Core Duo, Intel Core 2 Duo, and Intel Core 2 Extreme, like PowerPC G3, PowerPC G4, and PowerPC G5, are used. Since you have asked for proof, Apple gives us an easy way to resolve this. From Apple.com search for "Intel Core 2 Duo". Then search for "Intel Core 2 processor". You will find over 200 results for the former and 1 result for the latter. The 1 result is an article titled, ironically enough, Apple - iMac - Technology - Intel Core 2 Duo processor. You have already linked to this article. Visit Intel's website to see how Intel has trademarked Intel Core, but not Intel Core 2, and this is why you should not rely on other WP articles as sources. You end up perpetuating mistakes other editors have made. I will stop here since it would be pointless to discuss other details until this is resolved. But one more thing, so I do not have to re-address this again: there is one processor family used in the Intel-based iMacs, the Intel® Core™ Processor Family. The Intel® Core™ Duo processor, the Intel® Core™2 Duo processor, and the Intel® Core™2 Extreme processor are each processor brands in this family, known by the brand Intel® Core™. Kaomso (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You're not in much of a position to attack other editors, you realize, right? The easiest solution here, then would to just have iMac Core and iMac Core (Aluminum). An interpretation of Intel's trademark suggests that the white Core 2 iMac is a Rev. A of the Intel iMac, and, going by historic nomenclature/generation separation, that would make the Aluminum iMac a different generation. Yet that bring the problem of presenting too little information. The key is finding a solution that's also easy to read. Labeling Core 2 is hardly a mistake, by the way. Apple uses it as a blanket term to refer to both Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme, just as I was trying to get this template to reflect: that Apple uses multiple processors with the Core 2 name in the iMac line and that, in a general template, there is no need to detail such things out. Fact is, Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme can be labeled as "Core 2" collectively, as "Duo" and "Extreme" are suffixes that describe that particular type of Core processor under the Core 2 name (as Apple has done so in the page I linked to). Why does "Intel Core 2 Duo" yield more hits than "Intel Core 2 processor"? Because only the iMac uses more than one kind of processor in the Core 2 range; everything else either uses Xeon, or Core 2 Duo exclusively. Detailed information is for articles. Templates are simple guides to take people to the right article, and stuffing in combinations of letters and numbers is of no help to people that don't have that much of an understanding of computer parts. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not attacked other editors. I have provided proof for my claims, as you requested. Apple's use of Core 2 apart from Duo and Extreme is an extremely rare exception. Intel even says there is no Core 2 family. Rather, all of the processors in the Apple iMac line of computers (Early 2006 and beyond) are in the Core family, more specifically the Intel Core family of processors. As for generations of the recent iMacs, Apple is rather clear here: the first generation of the Intel-based iMac line is the Intel Core Duo line and the second generation is the Intel Core 2 Duo line. My desired version of the timeline respects Apple's naming for its iMac generations while providing the additional information that the latest 24-inch iMac has a Core 2 Extreme option. For the label, this is Intel Core 2 Duo / Extreme. I believe the meaning is clear. In the more limited space in the chart, I have used the standard C2D abbreviation combined with C2E to yield C2D/E. For the uninitiated, one only need look at the label ("Intel Core 2 Duo / Extreme") to see what this means. Kaomso (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yet, as I said, this is a generalized template that will link people to the article where there is the space to divulge such information. Furthermore, Apple's support documentation indicates the first intel iMac is the iMac (Early 2006), not the iMac Core Duo. Previous conflict over Apple naming conventions has resulted into a consensus that Apple's support documentation be used as "official" (such as here: [3]). Because this was one of the templates that was part of the conflict, any decision to stick with Apple's official nomenclature thus will use their support documents. The support document link you provided not only demonstrates use of the community-accepted use of Early/Mid/Late (year) system, but also fails to mention Core 2 Extreme in any form (possibly because Core 2 Extreme is directly based off of Core 2 Duo). Therefore, the argument for the need to mention Extreme in the template dies. Marketing materials state that it's merely the iMac, and makes no mention of the processor or the screen size, information that, on the packaging, is only found on the spec table. Core 2 Extreme is an OPTION, meaning that the availability should be noted in the specific article, not in a generalized template meant to guide users to the correct page (for which screen size and Aluminum are the easiest identifiers). Furthermore, you make the statement that I am perpetuating the mistakes of other editors (which is pretty much a statement that questions their integrity). Care to elaborate on these "mistakes"? Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 08:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, Apple defines the first generation of Intel-based iMacs as Intel Core Duo and the second generation as Intel Core 2 Duo. This is consistent with the consensus that has developed for this timeline to name the iMac models with respect to their CPU. This standard usage is reflected in how the public refers to the iMac models, as Google attests. In my post immediately above yours, I explain how my desired version of the timeline respects Apple's naming for its iMac generations while providing the additional information that the latest 24-inch iMac has a Core 2 Extreme option. For the label, this is Intel Core 2 Duo / Extreme. Again, this is consistent with how Apple names its iMac generations (Intel Core 2 Duo) and employs a standard abbreviation to indicate an option (Intel Core 2 Extreme becomes / Extreme). Kaomso (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

And yet two Mac communities [4] [5] hardly directly reference the processor; rather, physical features is the most common used identifier. The very Apple support page you link to shows both Apple's identifier for generation, but the one you linked to and the one I linked to show what the community here has accepted for use, as there are differences between the Core 2 Duo iMacs. Your failure to accept what the community has accepted will only keep the article in its current state. After having dealt with (and contributed) to ending the "Does the iMac use Santa Rosa or not" naming debacle, I feel that what the community agreed upon is what should be used. The community has consented to edits I made to Template: Apple hardware since 1998. The community has also agreed to a consensus to use (Early/Mid/Late {year}) or #G as a differentiator between iMacs. You need to decide which Wikipedia editor community consensus you are willing to adopt, as I will not give on this matter. We need to reduce the different schemes being used across templates, and you need to accept that fact. We are using acceptable terms that are used by the public (by the way, that google search page leads to review and benchmark pages where the Duo is necessary; keep in mind, for the umpteenth time, that this is a general directory template where blanket terms are acceptable) and that members of Wikiproject Macintosh have decided are acceptable for use on Wikipedia. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposals

Terminology

Terminology used in describing the following four proposals are as follows:

• Rev.A: the original x86-based iMac using Core Duo processors released in January 2006, also known as the iMac (Early 2006)
• Rev.B: the iMac using Core 2 Duo processors released in September 2006, also known as the iMac (Late 2006)
• Rev.C: the iMac using Core 2 Duo processors and an aluminum case released in August 2007, also known as the iMac (Mid 2007)
• Status Quo: the revision of the timeline that was used for the locking of the article that can be seen in the main template page; the revision used is based on the original September 16, 2007 consensus (Template talk: Apple hardware since 1998, Talk: MacBook Pro, Talk: iMac (Intel-based).)

Debate summary

• Rev.C is deemed notable enough to be a separate "generation" as the iMac G3 (Slot-Loading) is a separate "generation" by comparing the specifications sheets for Rev.A, Rev.B, and Rev.C, as the changes between Rev.B and Rev.C are similar in magnitude to the changes between the Tray-Loading iMac G3 and the Slot-Loading iMac G3. How Rev.C should be noted in the timeline, however, is what is in dispute.

Proposal A

This proposal is is a modified version of the status quo.

1. Processor change is used as the justification for a new color block.

As thus, notable revisions such as the iMac G3 (Slot-Loading) and the iMac (Mid 2007) are noted, but no new color block is introduced, unlike the status quo. The end date for the timeline period is extended for readability. "iMac" is also removed from the timeline itself as the header says "Timeline of iMac models" and the only exception to that is the eMac, which is properly noted. "iMac" cannot be used consistently, either, due to space constraints.

• However, terminology used by Apple support documents are not commonly known terms (as even users on some Apple forums such as Mac Rumors and Macnn do not use the terminology of the 9/16/2007 consensus.
• In addition, Intel has only trademarked "Intel Core"

Proposal B

This proposal is based off of two factors:

1. Intel has only trademarked "Intel Core"
2. The timeline, because of the iMac G3 (Slot-Loading), also uses case changes as a distinction.

As thus, a section for the iMac G5 (iSight) has been added where appropriate. However, due to a lack of space, this case change is noted in the legend. Other Wikipedia editors (see history, scroll down to the edit made on November 12, 2007 at 03:26 UTC per the edit summary) and Mac community support for the usage of "Aluminum" as a means of making Rev.C distinctive from Rev.B. The end date for the timeline period is extended for readability. "iMac" is also removed from the timeline itself as the header says "Timeline of iMac models" and the only exception to that is the eMac, which is properly noted. "iMac" cannot be used consistently, either, due to space constraints.

• However, Apple counts Rev.B and Rev.C as part of the Core 2 Duo generation of the iMac. This proposal makes no note of this, and it also fails to make note of "Duo".
• Furthermore, "Aluminum" is a descriptor that, unlike "Slot-Loading" and "iSight", is not officially used by Apple.

Proposal C

This proposal is based on two things:

1. Apple's usage of "Core Duo" and "Core 2 Duo" to denote generations
2. Wikipedia editors (again, see history) and Mac community support for the usage of "Aluminum" as a means of making Rev.C distinctive from Rev.B.

As thus, this proposal uses Apple's "Core Duo" and "Core 2 Duo" generations and uses "Aluminum" as the means of making Rev.C distinctive. The end date for the timeline period is extended for readability. "iMac" is also removed from the timeline itself as the header says "Timeline of iMac models" and the only exception to that is the eMac, which is properly noted. "iMac" cannot be used consistently, either, due to space constraints.

• However, "Aluminum" is a descriptor that, unlike "Slot-Loading" and "iSight", is not officially used by Apple.
• In addition, Intel has only trademarked "Intel Core"

Due to concerns regarding clutter, sub-proposals C2 and C3 were created.

C1

C2

C3

Proposal K0

This proposal is based on the idea of listing every processor Apple offers for the iMac.

1. Apple makes references to Rev.C offering both Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme

As thus, this proposal shows that Apple offers the option of a Core 2 Extreme processor for Rev.C.

• However, Intel has only trademarked "Intel Core"
• Furthermore, Apple only uses "Core Duo" and "Core 2 Duo" to denote generations, noting Core 2 Extreme as an optional upgrade
• The Mac community references to Core 2 Extreme less frequently than they do screen size and "Aluminum"

Proposal K1

This proposal is the most stripped-down proposal, noting only processor changes.

1. Apple's usage of "Core Duo" and "Core 2 Duo" to denote generations

This proposal is very basic and easy to read.

• However, Intel has only trademarked "Intel Core"
• In addition, The iMac G3 (Slot-Loading) is too significant of a revision to ignore

Proposal discussions

Proposals A, B, and C

None of these proposals are consistent with the discussion from above. (As an aside, Intel has not trademarked Core, but rather Intel Core.) The discussion above goes into detail why Intel Core Duo, Intel Core 2 Duo, and Intel Core 2 Extreme are the names properly used in the timeline according to Apple's and Intel's usage. This usage is also consistent with prior versions of the timeline while the proposed usage is not. Kaomso (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

All three proposals are actually more consistent, as they use the same "processor group, screen size, and physical attribute" system that the PPC iMacs are labeled under. You still fail to realize what the purpose of this template is, as you are bent on putting more information than what is needed for a general directory template. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 03:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The proposals may be relatively consistent with each other, but they are not consistent with the discussion from above. (Also please note that Intel has not trademarked Core, but rather Intel Core.) The timeline has historically used Apple's processor nomenclature, screen size, and time as the differentiator for iMac PowerPC models. The one exception marks an over two year period, from late 1999 to early 2002, of iMac production—the slot-loading iMac G3. See Dan Knight's 2004 article on The iMac Legacy (under iMac Evolution) for why this is a worthy inclusion:

...the 333 MHz Revision D iMac wasn't a lot different from the 233 MHz original. Then came Kihei, Apple's code name for the slot-loading iMac design.

Work on Kihei began the day after the first iMacs shipped, and it was improved in almost every respect. The slot-loading iMac was a bit smaller and lighter, and it used a 100 MHz system bus (up from 66 MHz on the tray-loading models). New to the iMac was room for an AirPort card.

The motherboard incorporated ATI RAGE 128 graphics with 8 MB of video memory, a 4x DVD-ROM drive was standard on the 400 MHz and 450 MHz models, and the faster models also had FireWire ports. (The base 350 MHz model included a CD-ROM drive instead, had no FireWire ports, and doesn't have an AirPort slot.) Apple supported memory to 512 MB, another improvement over the original iMac.

One more thing - the slot-loading iMacs were whisper quiet. The fan-free design meant that the only noise coming from your computer came from the hard drive, optical drive (and then only when you accessed it), and the speakers.

From an OS X perspective, the slot-loading iMacs have one huge advantage...

The established consensus of the timeline is to use Apple's processor nomenclature in the legend and not to use physical characteristics. This is not respected by proposals A, B, or C. Kaomso (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the established consensus (as part of the group the formed the consensus) is to use Apple's general nomenclature as Apple does use the Slot-loading distinction [6]. Furthermore, you jump columns in the G5/Intel article, as the same column that says Intel Core Duo and Intel Core 2 Duo also says First, Second, and Third. The column that says G5, however, merely uses Early/Mid/Late 2006/2007. Therefore, proposal C stands. You constantly used names that the community uses to refer to the iMacs as a reason for C2D/E, which I have disproven, as most people use "Aluminum", which is consistent with the usage of "slot-loading". Therefore, by using your own argument of what people usually use to refer to the iMacs with, proposal B stands. You say Intel only trademarked "Intel Core". That can be replaced easily into the template (along with PowerPC for consistency). My point is the FORMATTING. Now, because Intel only trademarked "Core", technically, Late 2006 and Mid 2007 are just rev. A and rev. B, therefore are not significant. HOWEVER, because of the physical change (and Apple has listed the iSight G5, a physical change, as a generation, and has used the Slot-Loading distinction for the iMac G3s) that occured in the Mid 2007 model, the Aluminum distinction needs to be added. Therefore, proposal C stands. The established consensus actually leans in favor of proposal A (because Core 2 Extreme is an option, using Core 2 Duo is not an option any longer for simplicity in a GENERALIZED DIRECTORY TEMPLATE). Your own reasoning supports proposal A, as well. Consistency with other Mac-related timelines and templates leans towards proposal B (which is also a community-established consensus). Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I'm here from this discussion. Even though this discussion seems to have gone stale, Butterfly0fdoom asked me to chime in here. Kaomso, do you have a competing proposal? If so, can you add it above under A/B/C? It's unclear (by reading the overly-long discussion) which columns you guys are disagreeing on. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 01:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Reformatting discussion

So one of the discussions is between:

1. calling it "Core" / "Core 2" (from proposals A, B, and C)
2. calling it "Core 2" / "Core 2 Duo" (D)

Evidence for D is from here in 2007. The only link I found in your discussion above for A/B/C is from 2004. Do you have something more recent? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 03:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[7] Despite the header and the side bar, Apple uses "Core 2 processor(s)" in the text of the page describing the processors that the iMac. Even if we were to go in Kaomso's preferred direction, I feel that we should leave out references to Extreme (something that Kaomso continuously insists upon but I feel completely inappropriate as it's listed as being an option in the spec table). There are some other issues, but I'd rather not bring them up until a certain kind of situation happens so that I don't get accused of violating WP:Crystal Ball. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 04:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I can't ignore the side bar and the title. . . . and ignore the images beside the text. I'd go with "Core 2" / "Core 2 Duo" (which is what Intel calls them anyways). The next topic: "iMac G3" vs "G3". ~a (user • talk • contribs) 04:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If "iMac" isn't going to be stuck in front of Core, then it shouldn't be placed in front of G3 (there's not enough space either with "Duo" stuck in). It's unnecessary, too, as it is an "iMac models" timeline. I can easily accomondate adding "Duo" to my three proposals (and have now done so, but got rid of the second one as shoehorning "Duo" wouldn't fit it being based on trademarked names and physical changes), but Kaomso's argument is adding "Extreme" (which is an option and isn't mentioned in the header or the sidebar), as well, and that's part of the main issue; I presume you're only allowing for "Duo"? It doesn't resolve which format to use. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well the title says that they're iMacs (i.e. "Timeline of iMac models"). There's no need to put iMac in the name. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 05:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

... That was my point. I was addressing your "The Next Topic". You still haven't quite answered on which template to use; I've modified the two remaining acceptable ones of mine to accommodate the "Duo". Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 05:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well the thing I don't like about A is I don't understand the "mid 2007" thing. Why does it say mid 2007? The thing I don't like about C is it stretches too far into the future (for space issues I'm sure). ~a (user • talk • contribs) 07:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Mid 2007 is based on the original community consensus (I provided wikilinks to the talk pages where the Mid 2007 decision was agreed on) which I later disagreed with after thinking about it (therefore I made changes to this timeline and the Apple hardware template according to what I felt was more appropriate), which spawned C. It stretches far now, but, unless Intel were to announce a Core 3 soon, it will fill the artificially extended space. Aluminum can be substituted with Al, too, if needed. Because of it's nature of using the physical change, any further Core 2 Duo-based revisions wouldn't become a new block, making the stretch (future) a non-issue. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 07:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I HATE to confuse things. But here I go and confuse things. Why exactly does Aluminum need to be a separate item? Aluminum isn't really all that different, right? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Slot-loading isn't that different from the original iMac G3, either, yet it is of note. For consistency, Aluminum is a separate item, for two events are used to determine a separate item on the timeline: when the processor changes (G3, G4, G5, Core Duo, Core 2 Duo) or when the case changes (Slot-loading, Aluminum). It also helps it to be consistent with other Mac templates, where Aluminum is noted in some form or another. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. And I now understand the "currently produced" thing. Ok, I like proposal C now. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

K. I'm going to wait until Kaomso makes a response before taking any further action, thank you for the assistance. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Make sure to let him know that we changed proposal C somewhat. I'm guessing that compromise helps with consensus. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have listed some objections to the current incarnation of proposal C above. Kaomso (talk) 03:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And I have addressed your objections. Do note that your "official nomenclature" argument is invalid as your use of "Extreme" is not part of Apple's official nomenclature in any way. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 05:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

These are objections to proposal C. I did not say they support any other proposal. Kaomso (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

However, you need to be consistent in your usage of evidence to object to any changes to be made, and your own proposal is a change to the status quo, therefore the objections that you have universally applied to my proposals apply to yours as well. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal C discussion

This proposal is a combination of Proposals A and B and is based on a consensus made on November 12, 2007 (as can be seen in the revision history of Template:Apple hardware since 1998). It uses the status quo's way of noting the Late 2006 and Mid 2007 models, but uses Aluminum in the place of Mid 2007 and uses a different color. This is my preferred proposal, as it is the most consistent with the naming conventions established prior to the introduction of the Intel-based iMacs (by using processor or case changes to denote a new block as opposed to revision changes and ignoring processor changes that could be confusing). Butterfly0fdoom

• I do not see a flaw with this, and Kaomso has not made any specific objections to any specific elements of this proposal, either. Butterfly0fdoom

Some objections / flaws with proposal C as of 03:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC) as noted by Kaomso (talk).

Counter-arguments are noted by User:Butterfly0fdoom in the tabbed bullets.

Reply comments added at 04:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC) by Kaomso (talk) and are indented twice.

Comments added by Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Whereas Apple uses (Slot Loading) and (iSight) as part of the names of particular iMac models, Apple does not use Aluminum.
  • Apple doesn't use Core 2 Extreme in the actual model naming. They only reference it as an available processor. You want official nomenclature, you use "Mid 2007". As stated already. You version violated this argument with your use of C2D/E, as Apple, in your own sources, does not use Extreme to denote a generation. Therefore you are prohibited from using this argument as a reason against mine and the neutral party agrees with the use of aluminum.
    • These are objections to proposal C. They are not necessarily in support of any other proposal. The timeline ceases to be consistent if the granularity of Apple's Early <year>, Mid <year>, Late <year> naming is used in some places but not others. For this reason and because a timeline already shows the date, Mid 2007 should not be used on the timeline.
      • Usage of Early/Mid/Late <year> has been explained as a community established consensus. If you are unwilling to accept this fact, then you're essentially disagreeing with everyone that was involved with that consensus, for no one aside from random unregistered editors that copy and paste your edit summaries supports your proposal whereas, by accepting similar edits on Template: Apple hardware since 1998, the community has accepted the changes that I aimed to implement in this timeline. The neutral party agrees with my explanations and acknowledges the established consensuses in regards to how Apple hardware naming should be used. You fail to provide an alternate proposal that conforms to the evidence you cite to dispute my proposals, therefore my argument (and proposal) stands.

• Prior to this, the timeline only made one exception for including an outward physical characteristic (the one exception also coincides with Apple's nomenclature). As explained above, the slot-loading iMac is an exceptional case. The reasons for its inclusion are not met by other outward characteristics.
  • That is not the reason for Slot-Loading to be an alledged "exception". The reason is because it is not only a phrase that Apple uses, but also a phrase people use to make the two iMac G3 casings distinct in conversation. Aluminum is used by the mac community (and in blog circles) to describe the iMac that uses an aluminum casing as opposed to the white plastic casing. In addition, the Mid 2007 iMac uses a new chipset. It is thinner, has a faster FSB, offers improved graphics cards, can be expanded with 1 GB more RAM than the Late 2006 model, a default improved AirPort card (as N-capability required paying Apple a fee previously), and offers a Firewire 800 port in the 20" model (which previously didn't offer that port). The "aluminum" iMac is improved over the "white" iMac in every way that the Slot-Loading iMac was improved over the Tray-Loading iMac and is therefore just as notable. The neutral party also agrees with the use of aluminum for reasons that I have stated.
    • I do not see any reliable published sources backing your claim. I disagree that the magnitude of change signified by the slot-loading iMac is less than the minor improvements of the current iMac models over the last models (Apple does not even consider the current models a new generation). Nevertheless, the inclusion of the slot-loading iMac exception is marked by a more than 2 year period of iMac production.
      • Apple's spec pages for you to compare and contrast: [8] [9]. Faster FSB, support for more RAM, 802.11n (as opposed to 802.11g), FireWire 800 port added to 20" models, improved graphics cards, completely new chipset (see Intel for this information). Duration of time is a non-issue, as Intel's roadmap points to no Core 3 for a while and Apple's history of case changes is one every two years or so.

• Prior to this, no outward physical characteristics were included in the legend.
  • However, since the source you cited proclaimed the Slot-Loading iMac G3 as a significant change, it should then be noted in the legend. The iSight iMac was a complete reconfiguration of the interior of the iMac, as it no longer allowed users to easily open the case and rearranged the internal components. The Mid 2007 iMac, as I've said, is as notable a change as the Slot-Loading iMac.
    • Still, no outward physical characteristics were included in the legend prior to this. The next objection explains this.
      • This is explained below.

• The new legend is disorganized and messy.
  • POV statement that should be left out. I think the legend in your version is lacking.
    • I am not seeking to include the statement in the article. So a POV criticism of the statement is not relevant. The new legends are disorganized and messy, particularly when compared to prior legends on this timeline.
      • No, it is your point of view that the legend is messy. The legend is the way it is because the neutral party has decided that processor and case changes are to be used with his selection of proposal C. Because of space constraints for the iMac G5 (iSight), it is required that it be noted in the template. Because of that, all other iMac case changes are to be noted as well so that the legend is consistent. It is chronologically organized and is in neat, orderly columns. It does not appear "disorganized and messy" in any way.

• The color difference between the Intel Core Duo and Intel Core 2 Duo generation of iMacs lacks contrast. The original colors should be used.
  • That can also be changed in the implementation.

• The timeline goes out to 2009. There is no good reason to extend it this far beyond our ken.
  • The extension is for readability, and the neutral party agrees with the extension. I am willing to use "CD" and "C2D" if the extension bugs you by that much (as the neutral party has indicated that "Duo" is to be included), but any inclusion of "Extreme" in some form or another is out of the question (see above). This has been addressed with "Option B".
    • Again, the criticisms are for proposal C and not necessarily in support of any other timeline. I do not think Arichnad has made any specific comment on the timeline going out to 2009 and beyond.
      • He made a note of the timeline extension ("The thing I don't like about C is it stretches too far into the future (for space issues I'm sure)" and I addressed that concern, after which he dropped the issue, obviously satisfied with my answer. His support for Proposal C demonstrates acceptance of the extension as he was aware of the extension when he made his decision.

• iMac is not included in the timeline tags where there is space for it.
  • Because it is an iMac timeline. The headline already says iMac. Therefore iMac is not needed in the timeline itself and the neutral party agrees.
    • There is space for iMac in many places. It also helps to differentiate from the eMac listed in the timeline itself. I do not think it would be standard usage to omit iMac, as Apple's tables demonstrate: here (even though iMac Model is listed at the top of the table, iMac is repeated in each table entry) and again here.
      • To quote Arichnad, "Well the title says that they're iMacs (i.e. "Timeline of iMac models"). There's no need to put iMac in the name.".

The neutral party's ruling is pretty much the end of the discussion as to which proposal to use, but I am willing to make slight modifications, hence this discussion still continuing. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 09:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Arichnad has not ended the discussion by any stretch. ~a is here to help us discuss this and to help us build consensus. Kaomso (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Arichnad has expressed his opinion as the neutral party. Had he agreed with you, I would have backed down so as to establish consensus. Consensus requires compromise, and you need to compromise in order for any consensus to ever be established. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Kaomso's Proposals

Proposal K-0

This is my original proposal, previously referred to as my desired or preferred version. In the interest of compromise, I am not promoting this one at present. However, if other editors want to, I would be supportive. Kaomso (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal K-1

This proposal, K-1, is probably most consistent with what I have been arguing recently. Still, in the interest of compromise, it omits the slot-loading iMac G3 and the Intel Core 2 Extreme processor. Kaomso (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It also seems a lot less cluttered with overlapping text. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 23:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The overall gist of K1 is acceptable. However, I still disagree with the constant inclusion of "iMac"; it looks especially awkward in the Core 2 Duo block. The iMac G3's row should be shifted down to the 15" row. This is an improvement over your original proposal. However, you have established the notability of the iMac G3 (Slot Loading), something that just simply cannot be ignored. Removing it from the template would be doing such a significant revision utter injustice. Furthermore, last I checked, the issue at dispute is how to present the iMac (Mid 2007), which I have established is just as notable as iMac G3 (Slot loading). Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, "iMac" doesn't need to be cluttered all over. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 05:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and to address clutter, I have created Proposal C2, which uses abbreviated "CD" and "C2D", abbreviations that Kaomso should not have objections to as he advocated the use of "C2D" and "C2D/E" in his original proposal (abbreviation usage is also validated as, when the timeline was started, "IC" was used for Intel Core [10] and "CD"/"C2D" were used for a while [11] Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The iMac G3 being on the top line actually was not intentional originally. I based this version of the timeline off the current one on the protected page. I would have changed it but two things. Looking up the original iMac, the 15-inch CRT screen actually only has 13.8-inches viewable.[12][13] So the iMac screen sizes do not line up. Also, in many ways the eMac is the proper successor to the original iMac due to the near-identical all-in-one form factor and CRT screen (all newer iMacs have LCD screens). See Apple eMac: G4 with CRT Display Is the True Successor to the Original iMac (Macworld, September 2002). For iMac in the Core 2 Duo block, aside from my already-stated reasons for its inclusion, I believe its presence is beneficial in drawing attention to the continuing production of the 20- and 24-inch models. About the slot-loading iMac G3, as discussed before, Apple produced it for more than 2 years while the Mid 2007 iMac has been around for under 5 month. The timeline also already shows the date of models and, for example, the iMac (Early 2006), iMac (Late 2006), iMac (Early 2001) and iMac (Summer 2001) models are not included either. Since there is a restriction on space, it makes things a lot cleaner (reduces clutter) not to include these sub-revisions. Without them, unnecessary abbreviations are not necessary. Kaomso (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The iMac G3, regardless of the viewable screen size, was marketed as being 15". It belongs with the rest of the iMacs in the timeline, as it is not an eMac. The eMac may be a spiritual successor of sorts, however, it is not marketed as an iMac and, in terms of purpose, it's an iMac G4 with a lower-cost CRT monitor. Regardless of what the opinion is, Apple says the eMac is not an iMac, therefore the eMac remains a separate entity on the timeline (as it is recognized as being part of the iMac family). The neutral party already agrees with me in the non-inclusion of "iMac" in every single possible block, as all the models on the timeline are iMacs, except the eMac, where is it noted that it is and eMac and not an iMac. Furthermore, production run is not the issue here, it's how we're going to aggress this model. I'm not stating we should include every subrevision, but include those where major physical changes were introduced. In this case, that would the (Slot-Loading), (iSight), and (Mid 2007). Now, looking at Intel's roadmap, and Apple's cycle with new case designs, it is clear that the iMac will not be changing case designs anytime soon. Therefore, using (Aluminum) is a non-issue, especially when its logical production run is considered. It is clear that, for the (iSight) model, that there is insufficient space. That's why it's noted in the legend. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 06:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[margin] The original iMac was advertised as having a 13.8-inch viewable CRT screen. This is different than the iMac G4's 15-inch viewable LCD screen. The screen sizes do not line up. They should not be on the same line. The reliable publication MacWorld says the Apple eMac is "the true successor to the original iMac". I do not care a whole lot if the original iMac and eMac are on the same line (the eMac can be one higher), but they can be. We cannot agree on what physical characteristics should be included, so not including them seems like a reasonable compromise. I have explained my reasons for including iMac in the names. Apple even does it. And even with iMac in the names where iMac fits, I believe my proposal K-1 is the least cluttered version so far. Kaomso (talk) 06:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

MacWorld may have proclaimed the eMac as the iMac G3's true successor, but Apple didn't. Apple > MacWorld. Unfortunately, you have established why certain revisions are important, therefore important revisions must be included. This cannot be compromised, for it throws out the effort you took to point out how significant of a revision the iMac G3 (Slot-Loading) is. The iMac labels cannot be applied consistently and are unnecessary, as the neutral party and I have agreed on. You constantly insist on sticking with what Apple does, and yet you often don't follow what you're saying we should do. Make up your mind. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 07:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Do not insult me and expect a reply. Kaomso (talk) 06:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(1) Show how, precisely, I have insulted you. If you are referring to my last two sentences in my last statement, look at how evidence you use to say why my proposals are unacceptable and how they stack up against your own proposals. You object to my edits and yet you do not offer a feasible solution. Your attempt at a solution, your K-1 proposal, abandons the iMac G3 (Slot-Loading), a revision that you have demonstrated is notable enough for inclusion. As I said, this simply cannot be ignored and, unfortunately, it makes your K-1 proposal unfeasible. (2) Your decision not to reply has yielded no positive effect to the debate. (3) The neutral party has not voiced complete approval of your proposal. You failed to rectify your used of "iMac" wherever possible, something that both the neutral party and I have objected against. He made a comment that your proposal was less cluttered. This does not translate into approval of the proposal, but just one aspect of the proposal. "Ok, I like proposal C now" is approval, not "It also seems a lot less cluttered with overlapping text." Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you expecting a reply? This is not about me or you. This is about the Wikipedia article topic under discussion. Do not keep bringing me into it. Do not take a non-response to you when you do this to be consent. About your editing style on this talk page: (1) Stop changing comments already made hours or days earlier. It breaks continuity on the talk page that discourages other editors from joining in. Much of what is written on this page is non-sense because of changes you made. (2) Stop omitting edit summaries, especially for multiple successive edits to the same page, as a rule. (3) If you wish to discuss my proposals, do so where I made them. Kaomso (talk) 07:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't take it as consent, I took it as an abandonment of the argument, since it was gap of over a week, and the admin that locked the argue agreed with the assessment. Why don't you focus on the actual argument instead of nitpicking at other things. To get outside opinions, a part of the article that presents the argument and the issue needs to be neutral, and that's what I've been working at. Even before we moved to using the talk page, other editors weren't inclined to join in on the discussion. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 06:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I have two suggestions. First, don't take this template so seriously. You guys are going to come to a consensus today, but somebody is going to go back in there in six months (or six days, or six minutes) and completely rearrange it to accommodate a new Apple or their own aesthetic feelings or remove it altogether. Second, try to agree on one thing at a time. Pick one thing that's bugging you the most and compromise the heck out of that one thing. Though, don't let that be the only thing on which you compromise. So, that being said, lets start with K1 (because you agreed on the most things there), and decide whether to have "iMac" or no "iMac" in the labels. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As stated, no "iMac" in the labels. No way. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC: What should be done about the current iMac in the timeline?

Uninvolved RfC comment: this discussion isn't exactly easy-to-digest, so apologies in advanced for any mistakes. I think in general it's a good idea not to too finely divide up the number of products based on slight modifications which don't even warrant an article subheading, therefore I tend to prefer the simpler proposals, such as A, C3, and K1, (the iSight distinction seems minor to me, and so does slot loading). Incidentally, "Aluminum" refers to the case, doesn't it? Why isn't it in lowercase? It looks like it might be a trademark capitalized, but I understand it to be a form change, not unlike the "slot loading" distinction. Because it's a more minor change, I think it would be better to get rid of it in either case.

Most of you seem dead set on including the aluminum/mid 2007 revision (that's one of the things you list in the "debate summary"). If that's the consensus, we might as well include the other revisions. I think C3 best captures this option, with a minimum of over-abbreviated jargon. I also like how it only includes color codes for different chip sets, which seems less superfluous than the other options. Just uncapitalized "aluminum." Cool Hand Luke 21:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in, Cool Hand Luke. The K proposals are mine and the others are all Butterfly0fdoom's. Aluminum is not a part of official Apple naming for the iMac. I do not think there is consensus for it. The full sets of names can be found here, here, here, and here. Mid 2007 could be used, but that presents the problem of Late 2006, Mid 2006 (17-inch model only), and Early 2006 being the equivalent names of the preceding models (with the 24-inch model not officially having a part-year name until Mid 2007). The chart quickly gets filled up and messy to be consistent if part-year names are used. With all of this in mind, here is a chart (K-2, below) that simplifies things even more and uses the names found at iMac#iMac_models verbatim. The minor scale has been changed to quarterly instead of monthly. Combining Intel Core Duo and Core 2 Duo (and Core 2 Extreme) into Intel Core is supported here. What do you think? Kaomso (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

K2 looks clean, it links to articles by their common names, and it gets rid of unofficial descriptions. I like it.

However, if there's a consensus that something like K2 is too little detail, you guys should feel free to add more. My preferences are simply: (1) don't capitalize unofficial descriptions like "Aluminum", and (2) if you have different shades for different forms, there's no need to add that shade to the legend—C1 looks superfluous to me. I think K1 handles it more consistantly by only using the legend for processors.

Good luck with the RfC! Cool Hand Luke 05:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

K2 is unacceptable for a simplified template. Intel trademarked "Intel Core" as Kaomso pointed out, therefore "Intel Core" is to be used. This following template conforms to arichnad's and my opinion that putting "iMac" at every possible space is superfluous, and Kaomso's argument that only trademarked/offical terminology is to be used because we "should not rely on other WP articles as sources" or else we "end up perpetuating mistakes other editors have made", to quote Kaomso's own words. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 06:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a proposal K3. K2 (below) is not that repetitive; it does not place "iMac" before every line. That said, I think the new proposal D is basically as good. I think "(Intel-based)" is more immediately understandable than the "Core" (compare WP:NAME policy), but I do see some virtue in going with the trademark "Core." Cool Hand Luke 06:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the point of Proposal D is to adjust K2 in a way that conforms to the line of reasoning Kaomso used to object to my original proposals, and I feel K2 oversimplifies in some regards. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 07:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand your justification for proposal D. In what regard does proposal K-2 oversimplify? Kaomso (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well the lack of a 15" label for the 15" iMac G4 among things. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Does the iMac G3 need to be labeled 15"? What are the other things? Kaomso (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Whereas most people can identify the models by color, I still feel at least putting which model it is in each space is appropriate. Putting it once in each color set, I feel, is minimizing the information presented to an extreme. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I think it avoids superfluous designations. Kaomso (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it adds clarity. Adding "iMac" to every possible instance would be superfluous in a "Timeline of iMac models". Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

But if iMac is superfluous (and not considered part of the model name), then the colors are being relied upon to convey the information (clarity). So this graph should be acceptable. Nevertheless, a proposal (K-3) to address your concern is below. Kaomso (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No, K-3 is still unacceptable. You say we should use trademarked terms and only Intel Core has been copyrighted. Therefore, only Core is acceptable for the timeline by your own reasoning (since PowerPC is relegated to the legend, so should Intel) and therefore only Proposal D is acceptable by both your reasoning and my reasoning. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[<-] You are mistaken. The trademark Intel has is on the name Intel Core. Intel Core is trademarked. Not Core, not Core 2, Intel Core. Core alone is generic. Apple does not use it in isolation to refer to iMacs or MacBooks or Mac minis or other products. Intel's trademark is on Intel Core. There would be plenty of confusion, of course, to use the informal Core in isolation on a Mac product due to Core Graphics, Core Audio, Core Video, Core OpenGL, Core Animation, and Core Image all being Apple technologies. Kaomso (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand the trademark is "Intel Core". However, the trademarks are also "PowerPC G3", "PowerPC G4", and "PowerPC G5", not just "G3", "G4", and "G5". The useage of "Core" in lieu of "Intel Core" is in line with the use of "G#" in lieu of "PowerPC G#". There is no confusion issue, either. Most people on the consumer end don't know any of Apple's "Core ______" technologies in OS X, and those that do would more likely than not be capable of realizing that, in the context of "G#", "Core" relates to "Intel Core" as the legend states. You're bringing up a non-issue. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are mistaken. PowerPC G3 is not a trademark. Nor is PowerPC G4. Nor is PowerPC G5. PowerPC is a trademark. Apple Core technologies, known as the Core Foundation, also include Core Data, Core Services, and Core Text. You are avoiding the issue -- Apple does not refer to the iMac as Core, ever. That is just wrong. Kaomso (talk) 05:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I may be mistaken. You just provided evidence, however, that invalidates the entire timeline. Apple Core technologies and Intel Core have nothing in common, and using Core in this context is appropriate as there is no confusion. Apple may refer to the iMacs as "Intel-based" but considering that Apple has erroneously referred to the MacBook Pro as using Santa Rosa, not everything Apple says is 100% credible. Your statement in regards to the PowerPC trademarks validates the argument for having "Core" and "Core 2", by the way. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 06:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No, actually PowerPC being the trademark shows the breakdown is at Duo, 2 Duo, and 2 Extreme. Your acceptance validates my original timeline -- we could have avoided this whole thing. Still, Apple shows us the way by breaking down its models between G5 and Intel-based. Proposal K-3 fits this perfectly. Since you want to bring up the dead horse, Apple's only reference to Core 2 processors is on a page entitled Intel Core 2 Duo processor. Good thing you believe not everything Apple says is 100% credible. And, as you have already conceded, Intel's trademark is on both words: Intel Core. So no meaningful argument remains against proposal K-3. Kaomso (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No, my objection to your original proposal is the inclusion of "Extreme". To you, the breakdown is at "Duo" and "2 Duo", etc. However, the breakdown, to me, is at 1 and 2, with "Duo" and "Extreme" being additional descriptors. I accept that Intel has trademarked "Intel Core", I do not accept that references to Core 2 Extreme should be made in the timeline. The same page that is titled "Core 2 Duo" is not only titled "Core 2 Duo" but, as I have said, makes more references to "Core 2 processors" than it does to both specific processors. I still disagree with the use of "Intel-based", as, if someone doesn't read the legend, they could assume that the iMac offers Celeron or Pentium processors as Intel does offer more than one family of processors. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not just use "Intel Core" instead of abbreviating it "Core"? I think it makes it easier for readers to tell a large hardware shift occurred in that release (that's why I like "Intel-based," but Intel indeed makes more than one line). Cool Hand Luke 01:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that using "Intel Core" is somewhat extraneous. When you click on the link, it leads you to a page that references Intel, and the legend already says Intel Core. You don't see the timeline saying "IBM PowerPC G5" in the timeline itself. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal K-2

Kaomso (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal D

Above, D, is Butterfly0fdoom's proposal. Kaomso (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal K-3

Kaomso (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well?

Any progress on this dispute? Cool Hand Luke 07:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Kaomso has abandoned the argument again. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Apple calls it the Intel-based iMac. This is confusing? I have repeatedly compromised my position and use Apple's, Intel's, and the predominant naming found on Wikipedia for Apple products in formulating these compromises. This should be done. I really cannot diverge to non-standard, slang-like usage. This is an encyclopedia, not a web forum. Kaomso (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"Core", "Core 2", "Core Duo", and "Core 2 Duo", are hardly slang terms. You have hardly compromised your position. I have compromised my position multiple times to conform to reasons that you presented for why my initial edit (that no other editors aside from you and 2 sporadic anons objected to), and yet your own original proposal didn't meet the reasons that you used to invalidate my proposal. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

iMac Core Duo, iMac Core 2 Duo, and iMac Core 2 Extreme are fine ways to refer to the Intel-based iMacs. But, referring to a computer's processor as "Core" when what is really meant is Intel Core is slang reminiscent of the lower-quality found on message boards not in encyclopedias. Are you abandoning your position that Intel-based iMacs are confusing, even though that is what Apple calls them? Kaomso (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said way in the past, my primary objection to your original proposal is your inclusion of "Core 2 Extreme" (formatting issues aside). There is no need for you to have evolved the argument to the extent that it has evolved into. I work in a computer store. Never once has I heard ANYONE reference the Core 2 Extreme processor ("Aluminum iMac", "Core 2 iMac", "that iMac" are the most common references). Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Anecdotal experience is irrelevant to this discussion. You have provided no meaningful support for using "Core" in isolation to refer to the computer. And you have not answered the question regarding the Intel-based iMac. Let me revise it: Do you have a meaningful objection to referring to the Intel-based iMac the same way Apple's does? Kaomso (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because it is too general and inconsistent. If you want to do Intel-based, then do PowerPC-based. As I have said, if you didn't insist on including Core 2 Extreme in the template (which, once you did, you insisted on stick iMac at every possible nook and cranny, which I and arichnad disagreed with), this argument would not have dragged on as long and become as trivial as it has become. Your proposals for the template, in the alledged spirit of compromise, has become a watered down version of the template that does not convey sufficient information, whereas your original proposal attempted to squeeze too much information. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

iMac timeline vision for Apple's new models on April 28, 2008

Fit for Apple and Intel nomenclature. Match for iMac article titles on Wikipedia. Easy expansion to accommodate new models. Kaomso (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternate proposal in response

The main objection I had with Kaomso's original proposal was the use of Core 2 Extreme, which was previously an option. With the discontinuation of that option, the argument of needing to include it is now moot. I disagree with Kaomso's proposal; it's too general and doesn't give enough information, a stark contrast from his original edit that had too much information. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 05:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Apple calls this generation Intel-based. Like they call the prior generation G5, the prior generation G4, and the prior generation G3. So does Wikipedia. Please unlock the template so the encyclopedia can proceed. Kaomso (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No. A consensus must be met before any unlocking occurs. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

A consensus was met, with you stating: "iMac (Intel-based) sounds much better and is more consistent with using Apple's official terminolgy." Apple's official terminology is Intel-based iMac. Kaomso (talk) 07:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't take my statements out of context. Like I said before, the timeline serves a directory purpose, and therefore a certain amount of information needs to be presented, and using "iMac (Intel-based)" is insufficient information in a timeline, which happens to be a visual representation of the various versions of the iMac. Now, considering that the Intel-based iMacs are similar in form to the G5s, arguing case design obviously doesn't apply. Arguing platform does no good, as, it is unlikely (by any sort of common sense reasoning) that Apple will be changing from the Intel platform. As thus, the most logical option is to detail when the iMac changes from various Intel processor brandings as seeing a 2-year chunk of "Intel-based" communicates nothing. Apple still uses "Core 2 Duo", just not in their support page. Editorials criticizing Apple for ambiguous naming have been written already. For naming the iMac (Intel-based) article, using the support name was the most logical because of the nature of the article. Different contexts; the same argument doesn't apply. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 09:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, there are instances on Wikipedia where Apple's official terminology isn't used. The different iterations of the PowerBook G3, the iMac (tray-loading), the iBook (clamshell), the PowerMac G3 (Outrigger), PowerMac G4 (Graphite), and all the iPod generational designations. Because Apple's naming conventions are so inconsistent and lacking, the Apple fan/user community has created their own terms to describe Apple products. If you wish to stick to Apple's nomenclature in this template, then you may as well come through Wikipedia and change everything. But then all Apple-related templates and articles would be too ambiguous. As thus, I reject your proposal. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And, again, Apple's official terminology is iMac (Intel-based), to which you and Wikipedia have agreed. And its use in the timeline is the perfect choice for directory purpose, as it takes a person right to the article based off the same name. The existence of the Intel Core 2 Extreme processor in the prior iMacs is not something that can be ignored. Deciding what to do about Apple's inconsistent Intel-based processor choices is not something we can agree upon. As such, it does not belong in the timeline. (Also, please stop making significant changes to content you have already posted on the talk page. It makes it difficult for outside observers to understand the state of things at a given point in the discussion.) Kaomso (talk) 05:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

And I repeat, don't take my statements out of context. Furthermore, Core 2 Extreme was an OPTION and a derivative of Core 2 Duo. Like I said, if you want to use "Intel-based" here, you may as well go around all of Wikipedia and change everything to match all official terminology. The timeline is something seen only at the bottom of the iMac pages; the Apple Hardware since 1998 template occurs more often, and no one has raised any issue with the non-official terminology used there. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)