LabLynx Wiki

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Lists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Apple Inc. Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Apple website has one of the rear cameras on both 11" and 12.9" iPad Pro models as a 10 MP camera. This article lists both rear cameras as 12 MP. Change? 154.160.14.85 (talk) 07:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! Cnscrptr (talk) 01:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about an anonymous user protection for this page for three months due to persist never-ending changing color codes to incorrect ones? Stephen"Zap" (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To anonymous users who are constantly editing this page, please stop editing unsourced claims until the products are actually obsolete or vintage. Stephen"Zap" (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is your second warning anonymous users. Stop with the unconfirmed edits or I'm requesting temporary protection from your edits a second time. Stephen"Zap" (talk) 01:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is your final warning anonymous users. Do it again or the temporary semi-protection is going to happen. Stephen"Zap" (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a semi-protection to this article should occur given unwarranted editors from anonymous users that continued even after you stated this. Cnscrptr (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past summer, changes have been made to support life cycle information that made a number of arbitrary changes. Let me go over them one by one on why they've been reverted.

1. The OS support date was split up between "Updates" and "Bug Fixes", not only is a bug fix a type of update - making these columns ambiguous - but the intended meaning is also not how iOS/iPadOS updates work. iOS 12 continued to receive feature updates after iPadOS 13's release, as did iPadOS 15 after the release of iPadOS 16. Putting the "Unsupported / Updates" date at the release date of OS version n + 1 is completely arbitrary. As a consequence, the release date of the last update has been put back as the end of support date, as has the date for the lifespan of the device.

2. "Support ending" was added as a support status. It is not a support status. Nor did its description actually give any clear indication of what it means. As no other variant of these tables uses it, it has been removed, because it too is completely arbitrary, and borders on WP:CRYSTAL. Ironically, a note was added to the top of the article begging other Wikipedians not to change designations without checking Apple's sources. Needless to say; there is no source for this either (it was also an incredibly clashing color, but I digress).

3. "SUPPORT ENDING" is - first of all - not something that needs to be capitalized (MOS:EMPHCAPS), and second is once again not a status as well, as also being WP:CRYSTAL. This was also inconsistently used in the iPad Pro section, helping to showcase how bad of a status label it is, as it clashed with the "Vintage" designation.

4. The wording of the legend descriptions is standardized across all iPad, iPhone, etc. pages. Changes were made to this table for no apparent reason than to just change the wording, these changes have been undone as well. The source note to Apple's documentation on what is obsolete and vintage has been kept, however, and may be something we'd want to apply to other pages as well.

Furthermore, I'd like to remind my fellow Wikipedians to not demand that changes are not undone or reverted just because you say so in your edit summaries, you do not WP:OWN this article, and frankly, edits like that deserve extra scrutiny. YannickFran (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been made aware that you've raised issues with the past edits. I'll try to address them here.

1. The distinction between updates and bug fixes is used in the iPhone article. Not to mention it is a noteworthy piece of information that shows when a device stopped receiving mainstream updates, and it also matters to many Apple device users.

2. Thank you for mentioning the problem with the "Support ending" status. It has been previously used in List of iPhone models but usually when the release dates for the upcoming OSes are announced. Personally, I believe including that support is ending soon (not as a support status but as a warning) is important to deter buyers from buying devices that are on the brink of losing mainstream support. Furthermore, a lot of your comment seems to deprecate my work warning against WP:NOR and comes off as bad faith.

3. Thank you for mentioning MOS:EMPHCAPS; I'll make sure it doesn't happen again. As for WP:CRYSTAL, Apple has already announced which devices will support iPadOS 18, hence there is no violation as far as I'm aware. As for the inconsistency, I will admit I have a skill issue regarding html and haven't learned how to color specific cells. That being said, any future introduction of "support ending" will not be used as a support status.

4. I didn't notice people were changing the legend descriptions, although I'm a frequent editor in this page. This shouldn't be happening without consultation.

Also, I do not believe I'm acting like I own the article or anything, and it is not my intention to come across that way. I urged individuals to think twice before changing the classification based on date alone, which was a widespread problem in the List of iPhone models article. Seeing these issues develop, I agree that these edits should be scrutinized and that the Apple devices lists need higher protection to prevent bad edits. Cnscrptr (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. The iPhone article doing it doesn't make it correct. Again, old iOS and iPadOS versions have received feature updates after their successor was released. I'd also like to point out that regardless of that, the 2 tables serve a different purpose. The tables on this page are parts of the table in the main iPad article which in turn is based on the table in the main iPhone article.

2. It is not Wikipedia's place to steer or deter people from buying anything (that wouldn't be WP:NPOV) (and I'll argue that the fact that you'll be hard pressed to find a 6th gen iPad or second gen iPad Pro will better deter than this). And again, this is still WP:CRYSTAL. iOS 18 not releasing for a device doesn't mean future iOS 17 updates may not include new features (again; we've seen this happen before). This is the entire crux of the issue, which you didn't address at all other than "but the iPhone article does it too". Furthermore doing this also introduces an expectation to do it for "bug fixes" too, for which we have absolutely no frame of reference at all. And while I didn't mention WP:NOR at all in my previous comment, you're exactly right: this is WP:NOR too. There is no source for these dates.

3. Apple has in the past added hardware/software it previously didn't support throughout previews across various of its software. Until iOS/iPadOS 18 goes final, the list of supported hardware is at best a "very likely". As a matter of fact, if this is the rule we'd go by, we would have to mark every iOS/iPadOS device that doesn't have an M-series SoC or an A17 Pro SoC as "Support ending", because none of them support iOS/iPadOS 18.1, but of course that isn't how that works. Regardless "support ending but still receiving support" is a self-contradictory statement. Not receiving new features isn't "support ending" in the first place. This is exactly why the iPad 6 and iPad Pro 2s still shows "Latest iPadOS" and not "iPadOS 17.x.x".

4. You are the one that changed the descriptions.

The comments I made here weren't all directed at you. The WP:OWN comment specifically was directed at IP user 75.168.132.78 for saying "Please do not undo or revert THIS edit" in the edit summary of one of their edits, which is nearly a word-for-word example listed on WP:OWN, and then proceeding to follow that up with "You can continue editing this article" (also its own separate example on WP:OWN) as if anyone needs permission from that IP user to edit (that part of) this article. The classification changes are separate from that. I just called that out because it came across incredibly hypocritical given - as I said - the introduction of a completely arbitrary support classification.

I am reverting these changes again because none of these dates have any source to back them up. I also want to make very clear that I did not assume bath faith, as a matter of fact, before my initial revert, I did spend a considerable amount of time trying to find any reliable source mentioning this with the differentiation between feature updates and bug fix updates for devices, but they just don't exist outside of Wikipedia itself, which frankly is problematic for a whole bunch of reasons. We really cannot have Wikipedia become the primary source of these claims (WP:WINARS, WP:CIRCULAR).

I am leaving the comment about checking Apple's support document in, however. I've also moved it up so it doesn't disappear in the markup of the legend, changed the wording slight, and add the support document directly so people do not have to go and hunt for it themselves. YannickFran (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1.

- The first part seems to be turning into a semantics issue that distracts from relevance. We might as well use "major updates" and "minor updates" at this point. We should also use the context of what "feature updates" and "bug fixes" mean instead of focusing over technicalities in definition and taking it literally.

- The release dates for each major version that drops support for old devices do reveal when major update support ends for them since they aren't receiving said update. In other words, a major iPadOS version won't support this device; this major iPadOS version was released on this date; therefore, a device's support for major iPadOS versions ended on this date based on current information, sourced within an article mentioned in this one.

- If we were to take your approach, then maybe the dates you are also including would also be invalid and therefore should not be included, which would cascade toward excluding relevant information.

2-3.

- Call me a hypocrite, but there is a difference between limited support and support ending, the former of which hasn't been historically addressed in any of these list articles at least in a very long time.

- However, as per WP:NPOV, any form of support ending will no longer be mentioned.

- Also, I did not state anything about the distinction between major and minor updates as being WP:NOR.

4. Thank you for clarifying who this statement was addressed to. Cnscrptr (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I'm not gonna bother going through the trouble of discussion. Change the article as you see fit. Frankly, do whatever you want.

I'm moving on and leaving this page behind. Goodbye. Cnscrptr (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the latest attempt, I'd like to point out that yet again, in Apple's existing X.Y.Z update scheme, they have repeatedly released Y-updates after X + 1 updates for older versions, and Y-updates in and of themselves are in fact also feature updates. This completely contradicts the arbitrary use of the release date of an X + 1 update as the previous version's "end of features" date. You cannot just pretend something Apple regularly does isn't happening to make it fit, much less only then define your definition in the edit summary. Nobody is going to sift through past edits to figure out what "feature"'s intended meaning was. YannickFran (talk) 09:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying the end of mainstream support is arbitrary when Apple literally states which devices will and will not receive the next major release (the whole argument you made of limited support is false equivalence). Also, looking at the updates for a version after a major release, these are always bug fixes regardless of whether it is a Y or Z update (except in the case of the COVID pandemic, which was an exceptional circumstance). Hence, mainstream support (or whatever you want to call it) is a type of support, not to mention it is relevant to Apple users who care about the next update and also relevant in light of app support and the remaining time for bug fixes.

I also mentioned the term was subject to change, but yet again, you threw the baby out with the bathwater instead. Don't undo people's hard work just because it doesn't fit your particular view of what a page should be. Cnscrptr (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying the end of mainstream support is arbitrary when Apple literally states which devices will and will not receive the next major release

Wait... is that what this is about? You may want to look up what the words "mainstream support" mean. That is very much a very Microsoft-specific term that nearly nobody else in this industry uses (and one even Microsoft is phasing out in recent years). So yes, trying to paste Apple release schedule on Microsoft's terminology is very much arbitrary (and it also shows that you misunderstand how even Microsoft uses it, because subsequent (e.g.) Windows versions don't mean the older ones don't receive new features anymore either). Apple makes no distinction between when a device is receiving feature updates or when it is only illegible for bug fixes, which is why these tables have never made a distinction either because there is no actual source for it which is because there is no telling when Apple will dig up a years old iOS version and patch something in it as they've repeatedly done (although when devices are left behind on a particular version, that chance increases). There is also no telling when they'll go back to a previous iOS version and put new features in that. I've already mentioned some iOS releases where that's the case above. This isn't something that only happened with Covid-19, and even if that was the case, that still makes it something we cannot just pretend doesn't happen. So yes, any distinction you, me, or anyone ever tries to make on this is very much arbitrary as long as Apple doesn't define it themselves first.

it is relevant to Apple users who care about the next update and also relevant in light of app support and the remaining time for bug fixes

...but we never know how long any device would continue to receive bug fixes (or feature updates) until they just... stop. Getting stuck on an iOS version doesn't tell anyone anything about how long feature and bug fix releases will continue after that happens (if it does, please proof me wrong here by telling me when iPadOS 17 will stop receiving updates). Which - again - is why we don't mention that because any date you'll ever put there is just an arbitrary date picked with no actual meaning to the device itself. It is why we don't fill in a date for "support end date" until after (a few) security updates have been released for more recent versions that older versions didn't get, and even that has been proven a faulty method with iOS 9.

Just to make this point even clearer: what exactly changed for the iPad 5 on September 18, 2023? The answer is nothing. It got its last feature update on September 21, 2023 (notice how that is after the date you put). But the last major update - the date which would have made it "unsupported" for "major updates" - is October 24, 2022. Not the September 18, 2023 date you're trying to insert. This is not me saying that we should put October 24, 2022 in that table, by the way... Writing down the date of the first update that isn't supported isn't how anyone else would note "end of support". Note how every iOS article doesn't mention when that version's support ended (only ever the "latest update"). It is because we don't know. Also note that every time an article does mention such a thing (like on articles about Windows) it is a date set by the creator of that OS and often the date of the last update it got, not the date of the first update that it didn't support anymore. E.g.: Windows 10 will be EOL on October 14, 2024. That's also the last day it gets an update. Technically speaking, it will still be current and up-to-date with every other supported OS for the next month until November 8, 2024 when the next update comes out; the first one it won't get. The later is the date you are putting in these tables, but that doesn't make any sense because it has absolutely no relation to that version of the OS.

Making a distinction between when new iOS versions still come out for it and when not is exactly why we use "Latest iPadOS" in tables like this all across Wikipedia and start to define specific versions after n + 1 has been released. Either way, a better way to showcase this kind of data anyways is through Template:iPad supported OS release, which I'm hereby adding to this article.

I also mentioned the term was subject to change, but yet again, you threw the baby out with the bathwater instead.

I'd like to inform you that when someone asks to take it to the talk page, that that usually means "let's have a discussion and see how we can compromise or further improve on the changes". It isn't a call to immediately put that back without any discussion and trying to start an edit war as you've done. As for throw the baby out with the bathwater; you published incorrect information, I removed your incorrect information (and explained why on this talk page, and what the issues were with it). You don't get to publish incorrect info based on your own personal definition of a word, never actually describe what that term means and then put in the edit summary "whatever I meant with that word is subject to change", and then get mad when someone undoes an unsustainable edit.

If you want to experiment or something is a work in progress, that's what drafts and in this case this talk page are for. Mind you I'm not saying that just because it is WP:IMPERFECT it shouldn't go into mainspace, but publishing something based on a definition nobody but you knows (and one you even indicate you don't have any actual rules for) is inevitably going to result in more arguments. If even the creator of the game doesn't know the rules, nobody can play. YannickFran (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Wait... is that what this is about? You may want to look up what the words "mainstream support" mean. That is very much a very Microsoft-specific term"

This is about including the end of support for major updates. Even the iPhone article includes the end of support for major updates, and every article where such thing occurs mentions the devices that drop support for that version. Even among the Apple community, including publishing sources and forums, Apple users understand the end of major updates as "unsupported". You are the one who is suggesting a novel interpretation that goes against consensus in Wikipedia, publishers focused on Apple, and even Apple forums, based on your overly semantic interpretation of "support" that is irrelevant to the context here (iOS is not Android or Windows).

Also, Apple has stated which devices are compatible with iPadOS 17 here: https://www.apple.com/ipados/ipados-18/, and compatibility and support are similar terms in this case.

I'll admit my choice of words wasn't the best, although the use of "features" was taken from the iPhone list article, but the argument over the specific term could have been settled later. That's what I meant by "not throwing the baby out with the bathwater"; just because the current term is bad doesn't mean the whole thing is.

"Just to make this point even clearer: what exactly changed for the iPad 5 on September 18, 2023?"

The device stopped receiving official major releases, being limited to bug fixes in the previous release.

Imagine you buy a new iPad. One year later, the device gets a major update. Another year later, the device gets a major update. At one point, the device doesn't get a major update anymore. That's what happened with the iPad 5 on Sept 18, 2023.

"you published incorrect information, I removed your incorrect information"

I think this is a question you can answer yourself: Did the iPad 5 get iPadOS 17?

"the date which would have made it "unsupported" for "major updates" - is October 24, 2022"

Again, you are thinking that it is all somehow a conspiracy involving me apparently cherrypicking the release date of a version. The end of support for major updates is the point in which the device no longer receives major updates, which happens to coincide with the time a new version releases.

" we never know how long any device would continue to receive bug fixes (or feature updates) until they just... stop."

Based on your arguments, you've also constructed an argument for yourself to also exclude "support end date" and the entire unsupported section. The same logic you used to justify removing the major update support section based on a notion of "release dates" can also be applied to the bug fix section. Frankly, the entire argument could end with the removal of the "end of support" section entirely, yet that's not what either of us seeks.

--

Somewhere, you mentioned that you brought it in line with the main article. I also noticed you modified the main article and possibly removed the end of support dates for major updates from every device (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IPad&oldid=1116937497). In the end, you've taken your own interpretation of "support" there (which seems to have gone well with that article's editors) and tried applying it here, which doesn't sit well here.

Even then, a list of models article goes more in-depth into each model compared to the main article. That's why model lists exist in the first place. Cnscrptr (talk) 23:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had written out an entire reply to quotes prior to the next one, but frankly, I just realized I'm repeating myself from earlier. As a matter of fact, my next comment also repeats an earlier argument, but the examples are shiny and new.

Again, you are thinking that it is all somehow a conspiracy involving me apparently cherrypicking the release date of a version. - No, I'm pointing out a contradiction. You keep repeating that a device's end of major feature updates is a year after it actually got its last major update. That's not how anyone interprets that, putting the end date of major updates for the iPad 5 on September 18, 2023 implies it got its final major update that day. Take the Google Pixel article, it points out that support for the Pixel 9 ends on September 2031, which is roughly when Android 22 comes out, which is the last Android upgrade that will be supported on that device. Note how it isn't dated for the day Android 23 comes out. Devices in that table that already did see their support end have set the date to the month they last received an update, not the first month they didn't receive an update. Or let's turn to the Microsoft Surface article instead and note how the support end date is the last day any given device received an update, not the first day on which it didn't receive an update. This is consistently done on pretty much any occurrence of this pattern (about Windows and any of its devices, Android devices, macOS devices), the iPhone article getting it wrong doesn't mean everybody else has to adjust.

Based on your arguments, you've also constructed an argument for yourself to also exclude "support end date" and the entire unsupported section. - No, I'm pretty sure I clearly explained to you the difference. An iOS/iPadOS release is released and from there on out it is just maintained. Apple doesn't put it through various stages like e.g. Microsoft with its "mainstream support" and "extended support". It's either supported, or it isn't, Apple doesn't make or announces any distinction here. Artificially putting a date in between there just to mirror something other companies do is senseless. On the other hand, when an iOS version doesn't receive updates for years, it's fairly safe to assume Apple has stopped supporting it. On the issue with that "Unsupported" column though...

You are aware that there is an edit history, right? You're the one who changed the table heading to "Unsupported" for those dates, not me or anyone else. Before you began editing the tables, these headings simply read "Final supported OS" and "Support status", you changed these titles to something that the data underneath wasn't showing, so don't come here and tell me that I'm contradicting myself on what these columns are.

These columns never meant to give definitive dates on end of support, they merely said when the last update was. You've made adjustments, I've tried to accommodate some of these changes through compromises and as a result these headings ended up the way they have been today. Compromises that indeed make no sense in the full context of this table or the main article. I'm rectifying these tables with updated headers that do properly name what the columns are, based on their old, original meaning, but including some better grouping. YannickFran (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize in advance if I don't get all of what you mean in my response.

No, I'm pretty sure I clearly explained to you the difference.

I didn't mean that you were actively arguing to completely do away with the "support end date" section, just that your arguments could equally be used to build a new argument advocating for the removal of said section, albeit a shaky one.

Apple doesn't put it through various stages like e.g. Microsoft with its "mainstream support" and "extended support". It's either supported, or it isn't, Apple doesn't make or announces any distinction here.

It's true that Apple doesn't explicitly put an operating system through stages (the whole "mainstream" classification I proposed at one point was bad terminology; let's not beat that dead horse any longer). However, Apple does announce if a device will receive the next major release or not. This could arguably make it a kind of support; Apple is no longer supporting a device with the most recent version, but instead provides mainly bug fixes through an earlier version (regardless of .y or .y.z).

We could get into the specifics of what "support" means, but then it will become an argument over semantics, hence the old adage, "let's not argue over semantics". We could even resolved this by creating two separate categories for each type of support that use different terminology.

Take the Google Pixel article, it points out that support for the Pixel 9 ends on September 2031, which is roughly when Android 22 comes out, which is the last Android upgrade that will be supported on that device.

Google's support policy is an entirely different issue entirely.

Funnily enough, Google makes an explicit distinction between support for Android versions and support for bug fixes (https://support.google.com/pixelphone/answer/4457705?hl=en#zippy=) that is not addressed by the Google Pixel article.

You keep repeating that a device's end of major feature updates is a year after it actually got its last major update.

No, I'm stating that the end of support for major updates is the point when a device no longer receives major updates, not when it last received a major update.

That's not how anyone interprets that

That's a bit of a stretch. There are people in wikipedia and outside of it that interpret support for major updates ends when it no longer receives one.

putting the end date of major updates for the iPad 5 on September 18, 2023 implies it got its final major update that day.

Not necessarily; given the category was support status, it states when support ended for a particular device, not when it received its last update.

You are aware that there is an edit history, right? You're the one who changed the table heading to "Unsupported" for those dates, not me or anyone else.

I already know that the menu for edit history exists; it's right next to the edit button.

Thank you for pointing out that I changed the heading; frankly, I tend to be work-focused.

However, sometimes I feel like you don't appreciate my contributions and think that I've been a burden to this article. Cnscrptr (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, Google makes an explicit distinction between support for Android versions and support for bug fixes - Yes this is kind of my point; we don't even make the distinction when a company does have explicit dates for it, so why do it for Apple who doesn't do that at all?

That's a bit of a stretch. There are people in wikipedia and outside of it that interpret support for major updates ends when it no longer receives one. - My comment wasn't in regard to the end of support, it was in regard to how people would interpret a date being listed as "[last major update]" as it was in your original edits. It strongly implies that that's the last date an update that qualifies for that title was released on, but that isn't the case here. Again; every other article lists the end of something as the last day it did get that update, not the first time an update was released that it didn't.

However, sometimes I feel like you don't appreciate my contributions and think that I've been a burden to this article. - For the record, I do appreciate people editing Wikipedia, and I do appreciate some of the changes you've brought in here (I hope that was clear from the fact that I didn't blindly undo everything in later edits). If I didn't, I would have left just an edit summary and not bothered with coming to the talk page. I do hope that you agree that especially how it was when I reverted it the first time there were some clearly problematic issues, and writing down in detail why I thought as such was both an invite for discussion as well as done with the hope that the editors involved - you as well as the IP user - may pick up on some things.

This article isn't mine. Anyone is free to do with it whatever they want (well... I mean... within the guidelines, of course). But the constant back and forth in the article itself is not the way to do it and came close to WP:3RR. When asked to discuss a change before applying it, its best to take it to the talk page per WP:BRD. It needlessly disrupts the continuity of the article and its edit history. YannickFran (talk) 10:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is kind of my point; we don't even make the distinction when a company does have explicit dates for it, so why do it for Apple who doesn't do that at all?

Although Apple doesn't make an explicit distinction, they do state when a device stops receiving major updates and later imply implicitly that an OS won't receive further bug fixes.

However, it isn't as clear cut as I stated previously; Apple states certain devices will be "compatible" with an upcoming OS, rather than supporting it; hence, the solution could be splitting it into two sections focusing on "end of compatibility" and "end of support", respectively.

Nonetheless, the latest OS section does imply that a device stopped receiving major updates, hence making the split non-essential and solving this debate.

However, sometimes I feel like you don't appreciate my contributions and think that I've been a burden to this article.

Thank you for stating that you appreciate my contributions and also stating your dedication to compromise (which was frankly greater than mine). I already knew you appreciated edits, but I did want some emotional validation.

----

Either way, we've settled this issue (perhaps) once and in for all. There's no need to distinguish both types of support when the major updates support is implied through the latest version and including the end of support alone is more convenient and less arbitrary (even if including "compatibility" would perhaps not be so arbitrary) within a more digestible and standardized format.

Hopefully, we can continue working together in improving these articles. Cnscrptr (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think a good compromise, which you already implemented, is to drop the "end of support" entirely and instead focus on when the last update was released for a device not guaranteed to receive any future updates. Glad we could reach a compromise.Cnscrptr (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Following a heated debate regarding support status, it seems that it'll be best to discuss where to take this article from here. Cnscrptr (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's unsigned and unrestorable without saving the SHSH2 blobs for the 1 day it was signed. VitAlv13 (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]