Template talk:IPhone supported OS release

Do not delete

This table is currently not transcluded anywhere, but that'll hopefully be resolved shortly. It should be added to iOS version history, alongside an iPadOS equivalent of it (which doesn't exist yet). DFlhb (talk) 05:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring and major changes

@Evelyn Harthbrooke: Respectfully, and as someone who does not have strong feelings between the two options, you cannot argue that the former version is not the status quo. It was in place last year, and the major form of it has been uncontested until you started making changes. This may reflect a lack of proper consideration, but when you receive pushback, this means that the current form has at least some support, and BRD and QUO are good movements forward. I do not want to suggest you make no changes, but I suggest, in the interest of putting forward your best case, and to minimize disruption to an active template, you use the sandbox to at least work on major changes.

It may be that your version is useful in places that this version is not, but that this version is still useful in other places. In that case, there may be a good case for us to have two templates, and you may wish to work on your version at a new template, or in your userspace (eg, User:Evelyn Harthbrooke/IPhone supported OS or similar). — HTGS (talk) 03:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have given a billion reasons why the previous (and now reinstated) template format was bad. And there is a question of whether or not these templates even belong on iOS version history as they have absolutely zero relation to the overall development and version history of iOS. I do not approve of re-instating the old format. And the guy who disagreed on the format is an editor who has acted as if they WP:OWN the templates since the very beginning, having reverted almost every single edit I have made that touched the templates, even when I tried merging the cells. They have continuously acted in bad faith, and is an editor I have been having constant disagreements with since May of 2023 to where I have never been able to agree with them at all.

I considered what is best for the vast majority of people; and the current template is just bad for scanning and for retrieving information quickly. There is no reason for this template to be a bunch of yes/no cells or list every single iOS version. It also has no significant usefulness, and if they need to exist, they should go back to the device-specific articles, as these templates are better suited for them and would allow for consistency with pretty much all other Apple articles that use these tables, such as MacBook Pro and MacBook Air. They don't belong on iOS version history. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 04:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In running through, some of your edits have been fine, while others have been wrong, or against typical use or guidelines. In most cases, table layout will be somewhat subjective, and a lot of your changes have been.

I don’t see any real evidence of bad faith, to be honest. Whether it feels like someone else is being OWNy or not, you cannot do much about table and template styles by simply warring back and forth. Realistically, a lot of this will be subjective. For better or worse, the standing version has consensus by WP:SILENCE, and when two parties disagree on a subjective question, the standing version gets priority. If you want to make this easy for everyone, you should put together your best idea of what should be included on a given article, then hold a straw poll, or if it comes to it, an WP:RfC.

But really, at the end of the day, I see no real need for a change. Your version may or may not be better, but if it is better, it is not by any discernable threshold, and so I would recommend considering walking away to work on matters that just matter more. (I still need help converting American Cinema Editors Awards 2014 and earlier to use infoboxes, like American Cinema Editors Awards 2015 does, for instance...) — HTGS (talk) 04:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]