Talk:IPhone XS

Is it article will be maked after Apple Event 2018, or we should create this (iPhone Xs (Max)) right now? --93.81.50.159 (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

What is the screen to body ratio of the iPhone XS and the iPhone XS Max? Ram Zaltsman (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it might be worth noting in this entry that the size of the iPhone XS' battery was actually decreased from the battery size of the X. Due to the performance of the new chipset, battery life has actually remained about the same, but this was an unusual move in the new tech market, and might be worth noting, as it actually made a number of headlines. If no one has any opposition, I'll make this change and provide relevant references. Jcsmit46 (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC) James 09/22/18

Apple has actually done this a number of times, so personally I think the press made a big deal out of it because quite frankly there wasn’t much else to say about the XS (besides the high price tag). However it is still pertinent information, and I have no particular objection to mentioning it. Zecanard (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Good point, in my post, I'll make a point of noting not that this was a particularly unusual move, but rather it was noted heavily in the media. Potentially because of the high price point of these phones. Jcsmit46 (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

344917661X removed all the prices, which had been in the article since the beginning, claiming they were promotional. I restored them. Hayman30 removed all except US dollars with the claim that iPhones are designed in the US and Wikipedia is founded in the US, just the USD price is fine which is plainly against writing from a global perspective, embodied in WP:DUE and WP:GLOBAL. I think we should list the prices in the top markets for the iPhone, US, EU, UK and CN. I removed Rupees because that seems trivial and despite the large population of India from what I understand there is a relatively small market for iPhones. But let us discuss which if any prices should be listed. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I can't believe an edit war started because I removed the price tags. All I can say is that I am sorry for what I did. 344917661X (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

It's no problem, you didn't do anything wrong, you made a WP:BOLD edit per WP:BRD. The issue is with what followed from Hayman30 but that will be settled on the edit war noticeboard not here. We just need to decide how the article should read. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding. I would much rather not take part in the discussion on the edit war noticeboard though. 344917661X (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The people who are editing this article cannot seem to agree on which style is correct for how the iPhone XS is stylized. Some editors use the simpler option, "iPhone XS", which is found on Apple's website inside of the many paragraphs used to explain and/or market the XS. Others use the more complex option, "iPhone X🅂", simply because it matches the logo design found in most marketing videos and advertisements. Changes like these, although insignificant, have oscellated several times since the article's inception. This means that although people seem to disagree on which style is correct, nobody is really sure what the right style to use is.

Since nobody has done so yet, I would like to propose a compromise between these two forms, by putting both styles in the same area with different tags. For example, this is what I envision the compromise could look like:
iPhone XS and iPhone XS Max (stylized as iPhone XS and iPhone XS Max; marketed as iPhone X🅂 and iPhone X🅂 Max, Roman numeral "X" pronounced "ten")

Or if the suggestion above is seen as unnecessarily long, the compromise could be shortened to this:
iPhone XS and iPhone XS Max (stylized as XS and marketed as X🅂, Roman numeral "X" pronounced "ten")

Or the compromise could be something else entirely. I am willing to take suggestions from other editors who show concerns about this topic as much as I do. However, we cannot continue with what we are currently doing. The issue will not just go away by itself if we refuse to resolve this disagreement.

Regards,
TheTwoEyedMan
00:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• IPhone XS Gold.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Hayman30: The word "iPhone" is mentioned four times in the opening sentence, so I reduced two instances of these to improve the sentence flow. Why contest it? You've gone incognito (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Shortening "iPhone Xs Max" to "Xs Max" is inappropriate because that may mislead the reader into thinking that the bigger phone is simply called "Xs Max". This has nothing to do with repetitiveness, it's about clarity. It has been this way ever since Apple introduced a Plus variant for the iPhone. This is also the case for other smartphone series. Hayman30 (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Security wlan improved in iOS 13

https://support.apple.com/de-de/guide/security/sec8a67fa93d/web — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:6D40:34DA:9301:C0D0:A2FA:8C1:F311 (talk) 09:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

If all the other S-model iPhones are now minuscule instead of majuscule, then surely this should be changed too, especially since it uses the same font. 2A02:C7C:847D:400:19C6:5909:835E:E1E (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The redirect IPhone Excess has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 27 § IPhone Excess until a consensus is reached. TzarN64 (talk) 10:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Jojhutton: In all but a few contexts, the company is known simply as “Apple”, without the need for “Apple Inc.” Same as we would talk about “Microsoft” rather than “Microsoft Corporation”, the full legally incorporated title of the company isn’t necessary, and adds no useful disambiguation or new information to readers on this page (or pages like it). Any users who wish to know more about the company that makes the iPhone, they can click through to the article. And of course, in print they can go look up Apple at the relevant section.

Generally, we want to refer to topics by their common name, which is not necessarily the same as their full name (consider “Bill Clinton” vs “William Jefferson Clinton”). This is the same name that is usually chosen for the title of the article (see Wikipedia:Common name), but in the case of Apple Inc. we use that full name for the article title because the most commonly understood definition for “apple” is of course Apple. — HTGS (talk) 03:46, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Throughout the article that is fine, but the first mention should use the company name, espacially since the word "Apple" has multiple meanings. In my opinion, the Microsoft example shpould also do this as well.--Jojhutton (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I don’t see any advantage to using the legal name at any point in the prose, but we could use it in the infobox if you like? We should be assuming our readers are competent, and that they will see a capital A and with context know that we are not talking about a fruit or a record company producing a smartphone though. — HTGS (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

That's because you assume everone uses Wikipedia the same way that you do. Many artricles get printed and translated, as such, an ambiguous word like apple, even capitalized can be misconstrued. There's plenty of reasons as to why the first mention should mention the official name of the company, as of yet, I haven't seen any argument as to why it shouldn't be written that way. It hurts noone to write it as Apple Inc. What harm is there from writing it this way?--Jojhutton (talk) 13:09, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

What harm is there in writing it without the Inc? Readers who are unfamiliar with “Apple” will be no more familiar with “Apple Inc.” I haven’t seen any reason why it should be written out with the full legal name any more than we should write about “William Clinton”.

I addressed print articles in my comment above, but it’s worth noting that Wikipedias in other languages will have their own style decisions to make, based on discussions and style guides in their own language. How we decide to write things in English shouldn’t place any burden on how editors in other languages are able to choose to translate company names. This discussion is about the English encyclopedia only. — HTGS (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I already addressed the harm. Print and translations. But it harms noone to write it as Apple Inc, yet there is harm in writing it without. Jojhutton (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

You cannot say you “addressed the harm” while ignoring my comments about those same specific issues. — HTGS (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I already addressed this. Just because you don't accept the answer doesn't mean that the answer wasn't valid. There is no harm in having the first metion use "Apple Inc." No harm at all. In fact, its very common in many articles to use full names in the first mention of an article while subsequantly using a more common and shorter version throughout.

Please do not assume that everyone uses the internet the same way that you do. We need to be more inclusive and understanding of the various ways that people use the internet. Using the corporation's full name in the first mention of the article is just a small part of making the internet and Wikipedia more inclusive to everyone. It doesn't harm anyone at all.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I would also like to point out the irony of you using the Bill Clinton article as your example while if you open the article about Bill Clinton, you will note that teh artcle mentions his full name in the first mention, while using the more common name throughout.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

You have not been changing the name at Apple Inc. though; you have been changing it elsewhere, and articles that mention Bill Clinton do not use his full name at first mention, as you are suggesting we should. — HTGS (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I would agree that "Apple" is the common name. The title of the article about the company is only "Apple Inc." for the purpose of disambiguation and so we generally don't need to include the suffix. Graham11 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2025 (UTC)