Talk:iPhone 6s

Uppercase ...again.

Do NOT change device name mentions to lowercase (i.e so NOT use "iPhone 6s", use "iPhone 6S"). It is described in the lede (as in previous years on WP!), and does not get altered in the rest of the article. Thanks! Jimthing (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I put (marketed with a stylized lowercase s) for clarification, similar to iPhone 5S. Wasill37 (talk) 06:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

If the initial letter is capitalized, why can't the final "s" be so likewise?--HerbSewell (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

What is the logic in misspelling the name of this phone? It's not the 6S, it's the 6s. Apple very consistently only used a lowercase s. Is there some Wikipedia rule that I'm not aware of that says final consonants must be uppercase? It's not stylized and marketed as the 6s — the name is the 6s. Notice that even though the page URL has an uppercase I at the beginning because of a MediaWiki flaw, the page name is properly iPhone, not IPhone or Iphone. I don't care what the pages for previous models have done (they're also wrong). The question is whether there is an actual policy which forces this name to be incorrect. My reading of the Manual of Style/Trademarks says otherwise:

When a name is almost never written except in a particular stylized form, use that form on Wikipedia: Deadmau5, 3M, 2 Fast 2 Furious

Compare with:

• iPhone which is properly referred to as the iPhone — the article does not say it is stylized as iPhone
• LaTeX isn't shown as Latex or LaTex, and there's a note that says often stylized as LaTeX.
• dBase is properly dBase and says it is also stylized as dBASE, and does not refer to the name as Dbase or DBase
• Mountain Dew which is called Mountain Dew in some country and Mtn Dew in others (including the US). Saying it is stylized as Mtn Dew is accurate
• 7-Eleven which is how the company normally uses it (and the article about 7-Eleven, Inc.), plus there is a note that says stylized as 7-ELEVEn, as it appears in their logo.

RoyLeban (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

One more thing ... the article should properly call the phone the iPhone 6s and say that it is sometimes stylized as iPhone 6🅂.

RoyLeban (talk) 08:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

If you have comments to add, please reply in the page move discussion below. Most of my comments have been duplicated there. RoyLeban (talk) 08:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Tele-conferencing

Which smartphone can do tele-conferencing, nowadays? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.151.11.28 (talk) 09:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I mean that it's not using teleconferencing service — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.151.11.28 (talk) 09:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

New title is better

For the record, I think the new title iPhone 6S and 6S Plus i s a good solution, if perhaps a bit WP:BOLD. I think however that it ought to be applied more consistently (i.e. to iPhone 6). I also think iPhone 6S and iPhone 6S Plus would be even better. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

iPhone

awesome Budhathokipritam (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Limited changes?

There are many changes with the 6s: Series 7000 Aluminum, More durable display, 70% cpu increase, 90% gpu increase, 2nd generation Touch ID, 4K video recording, 12 MP pictures, Live Photos, OIS for video (on 6s Plus), 5 MP front facing camera, Flash for front facing camera, LTE Advanced, and 3D Touch 97.103.155.112 (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Battery

Johnlyh77 (talk · contribs) has changed the battery type from lithium polymer to lithium ion, a couple of times. He is of the mistaken belief that the iPhone 6s does not use a lithium polymer battery, but is very, very clearly editing in good faith. The problem is, he believes a lithium polymer battery is not a lithium ion battery which is not accurate. Anyway, I undid his most recent edit and added a citation indicating the battery is indeed lithium polymer. Apple's still correct and Johnlyh77 is still correct; this is a lithium ion battery, it's just in a polymer package. Anyway, I'm not going to engage in an edit war. If Johnlyh77 reverts my edit again, I will not reintroduce it. If others revert my edit, I will not reintroduce it. But if the consensus of others are that this is indeed a lithium-ion polymer battery, I will enforce the consensus. --Yamla (talk) 11:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Sources contradict each other

I have noticed sources saying things like Apple only has major upgrades every 2 years. However, other sources such as specs show major changes in the 6s.Charlie pepin (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Generally, the "S" cycle is a hardware refresh while non-"S" devices have been design refreshes, according to sources I've read. I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. Do you have any issues? Maybe I can help. :) LocalNet (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

In one of the sources about why sales were going down, it mentioned that major hardware changes only happened every two years and people were waiting for the next major hardware upgrade. It implied that it meant the 7. Charlie pepin (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe, at the time of article publishing, there existed only rumors about the next device, so they couldn't precisely describe the next device correctly yet. LocalNet (talk) 20:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Source 43: "Apple’s weak results were partly a result of the company’s position at the end of its product cycle. In September, it is expected to announce major upgrades to its iPhone hardware and software, which happens every two years." Charlie pepin (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah. It is technically true; the hardware did receive major upgrades in the iPhone 7, but contrary to popular belief, it did not receive a significant design change, which breaks from tradition. Am I misunderstanding you? I feel like I'm misunderstanding you. LocalNet (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The source said that Apple introduces major upgrades to the iPhone every two years. Charlie pepin (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

It commonly has. I think they've done design changes one year, hardware upgrades the next year, and repeated that for a few years. But right now, I'd just like to get down to what you're trying to accomplish: What changes do you want made? And do you have reliable sources that back up those changes? LocalNet (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The source says major changes every other year implying that they are doing major upgrades one year then minor upgrades the next not design and hardware. Charlie pepin (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we can't base article info on what sources imply. LocalNet (talk) 07:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Availability by country

No source no problem! Please find the CORRECT source for the availability of the iPhone 6S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.0.64.183 (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

No source is a big problem. Wikipedia requires verifiability. LocalNet (talk) 11:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

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

• IPhone 6s vector.svg

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

Orphaned references in IPhone 6S

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of IPhone 6S's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "GSMArena":

• From IPhone 6: "Apple iPhone 6 – Full phone specifications". GSMArena.
• From IPhone 7: iPhone 7 specification sheet on GSMarena

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

"IPhone (9th generation)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect IPhone (9th generation). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 25#IPhone (9th generation) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

"IPhone 6S, iPhone 6S Plus" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect IPhone 6S, iPhone 6S Plus and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 7#IPhone 6S, iPhone 6S Plus until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 17:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 3 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus emerged that the lowercase spellings are both the WP:COMMONNAME and the name preferred by the manufacturer. A small amount of opposition did emerge around the 4s title, arguing that secondary sources have continued to prefer the "4S" capitalization for that particular model (originally capitalized "4S", officially changed to "4s" in 2013), but this opinion does not seem to have swayed the consensus. (non-admin closure) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

---

• iPhone 6S → IPhone 6s
• iPhone 5S → IPhone 5s
• iPhone 5C → IPhone 5c
• iPhone 4S → IPhone 4s

– These phones names are named the 6s, 5s, 5c, and 4s, not the 6S, 5S, 5C, and 4S. They are sometimes stylized as the 6🅂, 5🅂, 5🄲, and 4🅂. This is clear from Apple's pages and from many, many articles about the phone. Wikipedia policy is to respect both current names and the casing of names. In some cases, consensus on the current name was reached ten years ago, but the world and consensus changes. If we did not respect current names, the Altria page would still be named Philip Morris. (This is explained in more detail on the iPhone 6s Talk page.) RoyLeban (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – MaterialWorks 14:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

In the interest of facilitating this discussion, I have copied my original comments:

What is the logic in misspelling the name of this phone? It's not the 6S, it's the 6s. Apple very consistently only used a lowercase s [NOTE: This is true of the 6s, but the 4s was renamed in 2013; I have not looked into the full history of the 5s and 5c names]. Is there some Wikipedia rule that I'm not aware of that says final consonants must be uppercase? It's not stylized and marketed as the 6s — the name is the 6s. Notice that even though the page URL has an uppercase I at the beginning because of a MediaWiki flaw, the page name is properly iPhone, not IPhone or Iphone. I don't care what the pages for previous models have done (they're also wrong). The question is whether there is an actual policy which forces this name to be incorrect. My reading of the Manual of Style/Trademarks says otherwise:

When a name is almost never written except in a particular stylized form, use that form on Wikipedia: Deadmau5, 3M, 2 Fast 2 Furious

Compare with:

• iPhone which is properly referred to as the iPhone — the article does not say it is stylized as iPhone
• LaTeX isn't shown as Latex or LaTex, and there's a note that says often stylized as LaTeX.
• dBase is properly dBase and says it is also stylized as dBASE, and does not refer to the name as Dbase or DBase
• Mountain Dew which is called Mountain Dew in some country and Mtn Dew in others (including the US). Saying it is stylized as Mtn Dew is accurate
• 7-Eleven which is how the company normally uses it (and the article about 7-Eleven, Inc.), plus there is a note that says stylized as 7-ELEVEn, as it appears in their logo.

[Comment above originally: 03:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)]

One more thing ... the article should properly call the phone the iPhone 6s and say that it is sometimes stylized as iPhone 6🅂.

[Comment above originally: 08:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)]

Wikipedia regularly updates page names to reflect changes in the names of companies and products, and even people. See, for example, Apple Inc. which would be Apple Computer Company or Apple Computer, Inc. if we insisted that the original name had to be kept forever. And look at the page for Altria which is no longer named Philip Morris. And let's not forget BackRub and Cadabra, Inc. which we know today as Google and Amazon, Inc.. Or maybe you drink Brad's Drink, known today as Pepsi.

In all of those examples, it didn't take ten years to update the names (yeah, some, like Pepsi, predate Wikipedia). For example, Apple renamed themselves on January 9, 2007 and the Wikipedia page was moved that same day.

[Comment above originally on the iPhone 5c talk page (with some edits): 05:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC]

RoyLeban (talk) 08:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: How do third-party sources refer to these phones? A quick check seems to favor the lowercase letters, but it may be worth looking further into. O.N.R. ^(talk) 09:59, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  I know that's a criteria we tend to use, but I oppose it. Third-party sources aren't an authority on this, not because they shouldn't be, but because I doubt they see themselves as an authority on it, given the lack of intention, consistency or care behind the capitalisation they use. (Ask any French or German editor whether they think monolingual English sources are "generally" reliable on capitalisation for foreign organisation names; I think the same problem applies, to a lesser degree, on some product names, except of course those where reliable sources are consistent.)

  NYT using lowercase: [1][2][3][4], and uppercase: [5][6][7]. WSJ using lowercase: [8][9][10], and uppercase: [11][12]. FT using lowercase: [13] and uppercase: [14]. Reuters using lowercase: [15][16][17], and uppercase: [18]

  I think third-party sources use lowercase more than uppercase, but that belies the fact that there's no intention or care behind it; they don't follow a consistent style guide, so it makes little sense for us to see them as authoritative, rather than just go with the official lowercase. DFlhb (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2023 (UTC) edited 18:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  Third party sources sometimes use 6S but Apple never did. As you say, it is the "official lowercase."

  The history: Apple renamed the 4s, 5s, and 5c in 2013, with lowercase letters. When they released the 6s, it was only lowercase and also stylized as 6🅂. But some people had "missed the memo" from two years earlier and used an uppercase S (in articles that appeared ten years ago). That doesn't make it correct. The definitive source, Apple themselves, only used the lowercase s for 6s and has used lowercase letters for all four phones for ten years at this point. Just like the other examples I gave, it is high time that Wikipedia reflects this, not insist that some of these phones used an uppercase letter so they must all use uppercase letters forever. I don't see people arguing that the Altria page should be Philip Morris forever. :)

  RoyLeban (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comnment: Regardless, none of this justifies "fixing" file names or any other markup, like reference titles. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 01:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  I did not intentionally change any filenames. My intent was to only change text. The proper thing for you to do is to fix any mistakes I made (like inadvertently changing a file name), not start an edit war by reverting an entire change a second time. That is not a constructive change. You're not in charge. That's not how Wikipedia works. RoyLeban (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  It appears I broke a few image filenames with my edits. I don't know how I missed them, but I was making a lot of changes to four pages, and I did. I have restored the edits and fixed the filenames in the two pages where there were problems. If you are aware of any other problems, please don't make work for others by reverting. You can ignore the problems, mention them on the talk page, or actually fix them yourself. Thank you. RoyLeban (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see the point in making the title a version of the form its nearly never referred to as. In nearly all cases they've been 6s, 5s, 5c, NEVER "6S", except maybe by certain people. Regardless of whether or not it's styling, the lowercase letters are correct and use to refer to the devices way more frequently, therefore the pages should absolutely be lowercased.

Spacebyte (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Already supported the general proposal, but I'd exclude the iPhone 4S from this. Lifehacker, a mainstream (though seemingly unreliable per Headbomb's script) outlet, refused to switch to lowercase. So did Tidbits, a highly established and reliable Apple-specific publication (not blog), which complied with lowercase for the 5s/5c onwards, but not the 4S. John Gruber, who runs—yes, a blog—but a highly established one, and is regularly quoted by mainstream tech press (WP:UBO), refused the lowercase for the 4S and the others (I disagree on the others, but I won't lie by omission and not bring him up; despite running a blog, he's one of the few reliable voices to be punctilious about following a consistent style guide, unlike most outlets, Cf. my comment above). The 4S is also better known under its capitalised name, so I think the arguments for switching are far weaker. This whole discussion is nitpicking of the best kind, but I'd keep 4S capitalized, despite being one of those people who think we should spell "iPod touch" lowercase (pro Tidbits, contra Gruber, for the record) DFlhb (talk) 08:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  I don't agree here. Sources shouldn't be the determining factor of how something is named on Wikipedia. Products should always follow the manufacturer's naming scheme, incl. whether or not they use lowercase letters in the product name. Just because third-party sources do it doesn't mean the product's actual name should be ignored. iPhone 4s (despite all the publications you brought up) is its proper name, and publications tend to outright ignore the proper capitalization, which is bad. Apple changed the product name to use the lowercase S in 2013 - regardless of publication, that should genuinely be respected. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 12:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

  Well, typically sources ARE the determining factor per WP:COMMONNAME, and I don't see a good reason to go against that here casualdejekyll 13:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting to get a clearer consensus. – MaterialWorks 14:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Apple Inc. has been notified of this discussion. – MaterialWorks 14:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Electronics has been notified of this discussion. – MaterialWorks 14:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Technology has been notified of this discussion. – MaterialWorks 14:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support I'm surprised these articles capitalize the "S", I've never actually seen anyone spell them with a capital "S". InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

•Support - Even if the reasoning wasn’t completely sound (as it is in this requested move), just going based on stylization, it would have to be specifically noted by Apple that the “S” and the “C” are to be capitalized in order for a Wikipedia articles title to sway from convential practices when it comes to capitalization and stylization. So, on more than just one level, the requester of this change has a point and I fully support the change. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

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.