Talk:IPhone 6 Plus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The iPhone 5C situation is completely different to this. This literally is just the same thing as the iPhone 6, but with just slight upgrades. The current iPhone 6 article adequately covers both phones. Separate articles will contain too much redundant information, as if having to re-explain every single aspect of the iPhone line to make the articles "self-contained" and FA eligible was silly enough already. It seems as if the only people who are arguing that it needs a separate article are Apple fanboys, because obviously, every single Apple product, no matter how in different they are, requires a separate page in their opinion. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't stop you from trying to merge the article with the iPhone 5 article. Can you please stop doing this every year? Its disruptive. Just let the articles grow naturally. And calling people Apple fanboys is akin to a personal attack. Please stick to the subject and do not comment on peoples motives.--JOJ Hutton 18:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not use my previous actions as justification for your personal consensus. Comment on the content, not the contributor. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the source of the comment is obviously biased, people should be weigh that when reading the comment. 12:14, 10 September 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonc291 (talk • contribs)
  • There won't be a merger. Get the fallopiantube on with life.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, now let me make individual articles for each Macbook Pro screen size variant in every generation of it, because they are clearly notable on their own as separate products per this discussion. /sarcasm ViperSnake151  Talk  19:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know you're butthurt that the world is against you on this one, but you'll survive.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have made no real comments on any of my points, not even me pointing out that larger screen does not always equal separate product. Both of you are colluding to prevent consensus-based discussion; consensus can change. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It just came out today, let the discussion a month to see if there's any consensus to merge. Lots people will see this thread because article traffic will be high (say HI folks!) But trying to do it on the day an Apple product comes out is just trolling.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose: Let me move my comment on the AfD request to here: They have many differences other than screen size. "The iPhone 6 has 'digital' image stabilization, whereas the iPhone 6 Plus has optical image stabilization." "The iPhone 6 Plus has a different User Interface." [1] I agree with Milowent that we'd better wait for a month before we decide to merge or not, based on how much we can write on iPhone 6 Plus itself. 2014Best (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're going by the shoddy wording of a single, Foreign media outlet. The interface on the 6 Plus is not "different" as they claim. The ability to have dual-pane widescreen apps, and the "pull the screen down to reach stuff on the top" thing is on both the 6 and 6 Plus. Any other differences between them can easily (and were prior to this shotgun divorce) be covered in a single article. I envision it like an iMac; there's different screen sizes and storage options. Not every individual SKU gets a distinct article, even if it DOES have a new name. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: OK, I changed my mind. I support the merge for now. Of course, if in the future, 6 Plus suddenly becomes very notable and we have lots of things to write about, then we can consider split at that time. 2014Best (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: With the differences being this minor, it seems the best way to distinguish the two is to explain those differences in one article. - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: not sufficiently different to warrant re-explaining 90% of the details. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: There are few differences between the two and a separate article is a waste of space. Teammm talk
    email     03:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Given that this device is a separate model, a separate name, has a separate price, and has different features, there is no reason to not have separate articles. Just as every other iPhone model has a separate article.JOJ Hutton 03:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Surely these slight difference will easily fit in a small section for the 5.5" model? MacBook Pro deals with three distinct generations over three screen sizes (some with different names: "MacBook Pro with Retina Display") in a single page. Notability of a subject is separate to having its own article. Having less articles is easier for the reader, and splitting pages is only beneficial when 1) the link between subjects is weak; and 2) if the combined article is becoming overly bloated. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I see no reason why we need a separate article to cover something that is almost identical to iPhone 6.--Kuailong (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Seems reasonable to merge as most of the details for the devices are the same. If the merged article grows to a point that it is too large or details end up differing for the two models enough, then it splitting can be considered at that point. PaleAqua (talk) 04:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Analogous to two trim levels on a car, really. The amount of shared components and information between the two models is extremely high. Any differences are easily denoted in a single article. --Resplendent (talk) 06:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: There is currently little to no difference between the two articles, and there's no reason to suspect this will change. I think the articles should we merged into one article called "iPhone 6" with maybe a small section that explains differences related to the iPhone 6 Plus. Absolution3241 (talk) 08:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The models are too similar to justify a separate article. The iPhone 6 Plus is an iPhone 6 with a larger screen. CPU, memory options, cellular radio options etc. are all the same. The software can make use of the bigger screen but those benefits can be mentioned in a section in the iPhone 6 article. Sjmsteffann (talk) 13:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose While the phones are very similar, in the media the phones are referred to separately, and there are articles just about the iPhone 6 Plus.
  • Oppose: It seems to me like the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus are as different as the Samsung S4 and Samsung S4 mini which both have different articles.

Here are the differences for reference: -iPhone 6 is a 4.7" smartphone, 6 Plus is a 5.5" phablet -iPhone 6 resolution is 1,334 x 750 with around ~320 ppi and 6 Plus is 1,920 x 1,080 with 401 ppi -Multiple sources say 6 Plus has optical image stabilization, instead of 6's digital image stabilization -6 Plus's battery is bigger, 12 hours of internet versus 10 hours of internet use -6 Plus is .28 inches thick, 6 is .27-inch. 6 Plus weighs in at 6.07 ounces while the 6 is 4.55 ounces

These model differences can be shown in one article, see my edits to Amazon Kindle for one way to do it.Frmorrison (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

S4 Mini is not intended to be a "trim level" of the S4. It is more of a low-end product that only shares the name and design of the S4, and does have downgraded specs. The iPhone 6 Plus has minor spec bumps alongside the screen (the bigger battery is probably required to power that larger screen), but is otherwise functionally identical. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support: While the other previous iPhone models most certainly should NOT be merged as they have clearer differences, these two are too similar to have whole separate pages at this time, and if the Plus model becomes a regular thing, they may well get separated back out at that time, although it's a 'weak support' as I really don't think it matters much in this case whether we have one or two pages to be honest. They're more of a simple size differentiation, hence all spec diffs are about size, except for two fairly minor specs differences (the PPI Retina Display and the OPTICAL Image Stabilisation, both on the iPhone 6 Plus), which could be covered in a "iPhone 6 Plus" paragraph, along with the various tables where specs get listed across WP. Jimthing (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: 65.166.89.2 (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Given what all the other articles are like on each edition of previous iPhones, I am predicting that not only will this article grow in leaps and bounds once the device comes into the hands of the public, but there will also one day be an article on the iPhone Plus aside from all its individual editions that will come. Sebwite (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Agree with the merge as long as you keep the iPhone 6 history as the main article and delete the iPhone 6 Plus article and redirect. Giggett (talk) 07:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The iPhone 6 variants are so similar that having two articles just causes a lot of duplication of content, or partial coverage, or flipping back and forth from one article to the other. Reify-tech (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this should be merged ASAP now, as there's clear overall support for the merge above. Especially as many other pages are starting to link wrongly to the iPhone 6 Plus page, so need editing ASAP to point at the edited iPhone 6#iPhone 6 Plus section instead. Jimthing (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Far more in common (design, features, marketing) than distinguishes them, and the differences can more easily and effectively be described in a single article. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The optical/digital image stabilization difference is reason enough to keep the article. Richiekim (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: pace Richie, I don't think the OIS is enough to keep the article. Functionally, the iPhone 6+ is just a bigger iPhone 6. There's no substantive difference to the two devices like there was between the iPhone 5c and 5s. Sceptre (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with the merging, because the ipad mini with retina display should not have a separate article because it is just a smaller ipad air.Ninux2000 (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is different. The iPad Mini line has always been marketed as a distinct product line with separate generations. The iPhone 6 Plus is explicitly marketed as a model variant of the iPhone 6. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per Jason A. Quest. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: It's impractical to have two articles for the different phones because they share so many similarities and were released at the same time. The iPhone 6 article is longer than the 6 Plus, which means the Plus's article is already lacking content. We should also consider what the average Wikipedia browser would want when searching for the iPhone 6 or 6 Plus: two articles with similar content to browse separately or one condensed article that is easy to read and makes noting the differences between the phones easier to understand side-by-side. Apblinn (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - admittedly, I was under the mindset of having two different articles; that is until I actually read the discussion above and the articles themselves. There's no need to keep them seperate at this point. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Glad we've had a vibrant discussion. I don't plan to further oppose any merger edits.--Milowent • hasspoken 22:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pardon the dead-horse flogging, but this bit from MacRumors.com (a prominent commentator on Apple products) supports the arguments for merging: "Apple's two new devices are essentially identical in design aside from the difference in screen size and the battery life/optical image stabilization in the iPhone 6 Plus, so we've chosen to combine the device reviews into one post." [2] -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because the iPad Mini and iPad Air have separate pages. This is the same thing, they are separate products, the iPhone 6 is just a larger version of the iPhone 6 as the iPad Mini is a smaller version of the iPad. --Kgartm1185 (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT GO AROUND MIS-EDITING PAGES AGAINST THE PREVIOUS CONSENSUS! And this conversation is over, so stop wasting other users' time reverting your edits. Good bye! Jimthing (talk) 03:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't deleted, it was merged. The arguments against the merge are adequately answered in the above discussion (mainly: the iPad Mini and iPad Air have distinct product cycles). -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IPhone_6_Plus&oldid=1195020533"