Template talk:Timeline of iMac models

Template size/EDU models

I never said this was about education iMacs; yet the 17" model is still "in production", albeit for education purposes. If Apple keeps releasing larger and larger iMacs, the timeline would reach an ungainly size eventually. Whenever a screen size is dropped, the next screen size takes its place in Apple's lineup, assorting it by positioning as opposed to screen size makes more sense IMO and keeps the timeline at a smaller size. Butterfly0fdoom 18:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You are missing that the Core Duo remained in production as an education model, the G5 remained in production as an education model, the G4 remained in production as an education model, the G3 remained in production as an education model. This is not a template of educational iMac models. Separating the iMac lineup by screen size makes sense. That is why it has been done since this template was created. Kaomso 01:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, look, I really don't think using C2D and C2D/E isn't appropriate for the timeline. It's an iMac based on the Core 2 platform. The fact that is offered with Duo and Extreme would normally give indication that the processor family should be used. You don't see ever sub-iteration of the PPC processors listed there. Every interval of change on the time line is when either the processor family changes or when there's a case design change. In this case, it's still in the Core 2 family, but with a new case design. If Apple were to decide to offer the iMac in every single Core 2 processor possible, what would you do then? There isn't a problem with using "Al" for "Aluminum". Generally, if you've been educated in any form, you'd probably know it "aluminum". Even then, there's a color-coded key at the bottom of the timeline. Fitting things onto the timeline is therefore a non-issue. Furthermore, "Core 2 (Al)" is much more consistent than "C2D and C2D/E", especially since, if you look at the G3, it says "G3" and then "G3 (slot-loading)", slot-loading being a visually apparent visual change, just like "aluminum" is. Either stay consistent with processor family changes, or use actual Apple document names (which would be "Mid 2007" for the iMac in question, what was on the template before it was reverted originally). That said, "Core" and "Core 2" make more sense than using "Core Duo" and "Core 2 Duo" as the issue of "Core 2 Extreme" has proven. Core is the processor family, Core Duo is the product in that family. As Intel expands their line of processors within the family and if Apple starts adopting more of then, the timeline will end up being cumbersome and loaded with letters that no one knows that they stand for. How do you plan to address that? Secondly, I have yet to hear typical people refer to their iMacs by "Core Duo" and what not. It's usually more like "the white one" or "the (screen size) one". Kinda invalidates your second point. Butterfly0fdoom 19:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Then shorten the models of iMac based on the PowerPC architecture. No Duo, no G3. No 2 Duo, no G4. No 2 Extreme, no G5. The PowerPC architecture is the basis for all of the non-Intel processor models. The Core architecture is the basis for all of the Intel processor models. If the timeline is only going to list architectures, then two of them exist. Moving on, Aluminum in no way belongs down in the labels, which are separated by major processor brand names. And it does not fit up in the timeline, even with your extended length (which, btw, does not fit on a regular-sized printout). Yes, I do agree T7300, T7700, and X7900, like 750CXe should not be included. Much like iMac (266 MHz), iMac (Summer 2000), iMac (Summer 2001), and iMac (20-inch Mid 2007) should not be included. Kaomso 01:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I never said by architecture; I said by processor family/brand. You haven't answered my question in regards to what you'd do if the iMac was offered with other Core 2 variants. The processor BRAND is Core 2. The processor PRODUCT is Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme, and the processor CHIP is T7300, etc. You're contradicting yourself, and you fail to offer any viable solutions to any issues in regards to who knows what kinds of plans Apple has for the future of the iMac. Stop avoiding the question itself and answering in a political fashion. Butterfly0fdoom 08:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've bumped the G3 models down a couple rows to fix the rather bizarre impression it gave of Apple halting production on them over a year earlier than in reality. Perhaps educational production needs to be indicated more, to keep WP:RECENTISM in check? 72.235.213.232 (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Kaomso's Proposals

Proposal K-0

This is my original proposal, previously referred to as my desired or preferred version. In the interest of compromise, I am not promoting this one at present. However, if other editors want to, I would be supportive. Kaomso (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal K-1

This proposal, K-1, is probably most consistent with what I have been arguing recently. Still, in the interest of compromise, it omits the slot-loading iMac G3 and the Intel Core 2 Extreme processor. Kaomso (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It also seems a lot less cluttered with overlapping text. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 23:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The overall gist of K1 is acceptable. However, I still disagree with the constant inclusion of "iMac"; it looks especially awkward in the Core 2 Duo block. The iMac G3's row should be shifted down to the 15" row. This is an improvement over your original proposal. However, you have established the notability of the iMac G3 (Slot Loading), something that just simply cannot be ignored. Removing it from the template would be doing such a significant revision utter injustice. Furthermore, last I checked, the issue at dispute is how to present the iMac (Mid 2007), which I have established is just as notable as iMac G3 (Slot loading). Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, "iMac" doesn't need to be cluttered all over. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 05:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and to address clutter, I have created Proposal C2, which uses abbreviated "CD" and "C2D", abbreviations that Kaomso should not have objections to as he advocated the use of "C2D" and "C2D/E" in his original proposal (abbreviation usage is also validated as, when the timeline was started, "IC" was used for Intel Core [1] and "CD"/"C2D" were used for a while [2] Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The iMac G3 being on the top line actually was not intentional originally. I based this version of the timeline off the current one on the protected page. I would have changed it but two things. Looking up the original iMac, the 15-inch CRT screen actually only has 13.8-inches viewable.[3][4] So the iMac screen sizes do not line up. Also, in many ways the eMac is the proper successor to the original iMac due to the near-identical all-in-one form factor and CRT screen (all newer iMacs have LCD screens). See Apple eMac: G4 with CRT Display Is the True Successor to the Original iMac (Macworld, September 2002). For iMac in the Core 2 Duo block, aside from my already-stated reasons for its inclusion, I believe its presence is beneficial in drawing attention to the continuing production of the 20- and 24-inch models. About the slot-loading iMac G3, as discussed before, Apple produced it for more than 2 years while the Mid 2007 iMac has been around for under 5 month. The timeline also already shows the date of models and, for example, the iMac (Early 2006), iMac (Late 2006), iMac (Early 2001) and iMac (Summer 2001) models are not included either. Since there is a restriction on space, it makes things a lot cleaner (reduces clutter) not to include these sub-revisions. Without them, unnecessary abbreviations are not necessary. Kaomso (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The iMac G3, regardless of the viewable screen size, was marketed as being 15". It belongs with the rest of the iMacs in the timeline, as it is not an eMac. The eMac may be a spiritual successor of sorts, however, it is not marketed as an iMac and, in terms of purpose, it's an iMac G4 with a lower-cost CRT monitor. Regardless of what the opinion is, Apple says the eMac is not an iMac, therefore the eMac remains a separate entity on the timeline (as it is recognized as being part of the iMac family). The neutral party already agrees with me in the non-inclusion of "iMac" in every single possible block, as all the models on the timeline are iMacs, except the eMac, where is it noted that it is and eMac and not an iMac. Furthermore, production run is not the issue here, it's how we're going to aggress this model. I'm not stating we should include every subrevision, but include those where major physical changes were introduced. In this case, that would the (Slot-Loading), (iSight), and (Mid 2007). Now, looking at Intel's roadmap, and Apple's cycle with new case designs, it is clear that the iMac will not be changing case designs anytime soon. Therefore, using (Aluminum) is a non-issue, especially when its logical production run is considered. It is clear that, for the (iSight) model, that there is insufficient space. That's why it's noted in the legend. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 06:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[margin] The original iMac was advertised as having a 13.8-inch viewable CRT screen. This is different than the iMac G4's 15-inch viewable LCD screen. The screen sizes do not line up. They should not be on the same line. The reliable publication MacWorld says the Apple eMac is "the true successor to the original iMac". I do not care a whole lot if the original iMac and eMac are on the same line (the eMac can be one higher), but they can be. We cannot agree on what physical characteristics should be included, so not including them seems like a reasonable compromise. I have explained my reasons for including iMac in the names. Apple even does it. And even with iMac in the names where iMac fits, I believe my proposal K-1 is the least cluttered version so far. Kaomso (talk) 06:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

MacWorld may have proclaimed the eMac as the iMac G3's true successor, but Apple didn't. Apple > MacWorld. Unfortunately, you have established why certain revisions are important, therefore important revisions must be included. This cannot be compromised, for it throws out the effort you took to point out how significant of a revision the iMac G3 (Slot-Loading) is. The iMac labels cannot be applied consistently and are unnecessary, as the neutral party and I have agreed on. You constantly insist on sticking with what Apple does, and yet you often don't follow what you're saying we should do. Make up your mind. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 07:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Do not insult me and expect a reply. Kaomso (talk) 06:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(1) Show how, precisely, I have insulted you. If you are referring to my last two sentences in my last statement, look at how evidence you use to say why my proposals are unacceptable and how they stack up against your own proposals. You object to my edits and yet you do not offer a feasible solution. Your attempt at a solution, your K-1 proposal, abandons the iMac G3 (Slot-Loading), a revision that you have demonstrated is notable enough for inclusion. As I said, this simply cannot be ignored and, unfortunately, it makes your K-1 proposal unfeasible. (2) Your decision not to reply has yielded no positive effect to the debate. (3) The neutral party has not voiced complete approval of your proposal. You failed to rectify your used of "iMac" wherever possible, something that both the neutral party and I have objected against. He made a comment that your proposal was less cluttered. This does not translate into approval of the proposal, but just one aspect of the proposal. "Ok, I like proposal C now" is approval, not "It also seems a lot less cluttered with overlapping text." Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you expecting a reply? This is not about me or you. This is about the Wikipedia article topic under discussion. Do not keep bringing me into it. Do not take a non-response to you when you do this to be consent. About your editing style on this talk page: (1) Stop changing comments already made hours or days earlier. It breaks continuity on the talk page that discourages other editors from joining in. Much of what is written on this page is non-sense because of changes you made. (2) Stop omitting edit summaries, especially for multiple successive edits to the same page, as a rule. (3) If you wish to discuss my proposals, do so where I made them. Kaomso (talk) 07:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't take it as consent, I took it as an abandonment of the argument, since it was gap of over a week, and the admin that locked the argue agreed with the assessment. Why don't you focus on the actual argument instead of nitpicking at other things. To get outside opinions, a part of the article that presents the argument and the issue needs to be neutral, and that's what I've been working at. Even before we moved to using the talk page, other editors weren't inclined to join in on the discussion. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 06:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I have two suggestions. First, don't take this template so seriously. You guys are going to come to a consensus today, but somebody is going to go back in there in six months (or six days, or six minutes) and completely rearrange it to accommodate a new Apple or their own aesthetic feelings or remove it altogether. Second, try to agree on one thing at a time. Pick one thing that's bugging you the most and compromise the heck out of that one thing. Though, don't let that be the only thing on which you compromise. So, that being said, lets start with K1 (because you agreed on the most things there), and decide whether to have "iMac" or no "iMac" in the labels. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As stated, no "iMac" in the labels. No way. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC: What should be done about the current iMac in the timeline?

Uninvolved RfC comment: this discussion isn't exactly easy-to-digest, so apologies in advanced for any mistakes. I think in general it's a good idea not to too finely divide up the number of products based on slight modifications which don't even warrant an article subheading, therefore I tend to prefer the simpler proposals, such as A, C3, and K1, (the iSight distinction seems minor to me, and so does slot loading). Incidentally, "Aluminum" refers to the case, doesn't it? Why isn't it in lowercase? It looks like it might be a trademark capitalized, but I understand it to be a form change, not unlike the "slot loading" distinction. Because it's a more minor change, I think it would be better to get rid of it in either case.

Most of you seem dead set on including the aluminum/mid 2007 revision (that's one of the things you list in the "debate summary"). If that's the consensus, we might as well include the other revisions. I think C3 best captures this option, with a minimum of over-abbreviated jargon. I also like how it only includes color codes for different chip sets, which seems less superfluous than the other options. Just uncapitalized "aluminum." Cool Hand Luke 21:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in, Cool Hand Luke. The K proposals are mine and the others are all Butterfly0fdoom's. Aluminum is not a part of official Apple naming for the iMac. I do not think there is consensus for it. The full sets of names can be found here, here, here, and here. Mid 2007 could be used, but that presents the problem of Late 2006, Mid 2006 (17-inch model only), and Early 2006 being the equivalent names of the preceding models (with the 24-inch model not officially having a part-year name until Mid 2007). The chart quickly gets filled up and messy to be consistent if part-year names are used. With all of this in mind, here is a chart (K-2, below) that simplifies things even more and uses the names found at iMac#iMac_models verbatim. The minor scale has been changed to quarterly instead of monthly. Combining Intel Core Duo and Core 2 Duo (and Core 2 Extreme) into Intel Core is supported here. What do you think? Kaomso (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

K2 looks clean, it links to articles by their common names, and it gets rid of unofficial descriptions. I like it.

However, if there's a consensus that something like K2 is too little detail, you guys should feel free to add more. My preferences are simply: (1) don't capitalize unofficial descriptions like "Aluminum", and (2) if you have different shades for different forms, there's no need to add that shade to the legend—C1 looks superfluous to me. I think K1 handles it more consistantly by only using the legend for processors.

Good luck with the RfC! Cool Hand Luke 05:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

K2 is unacceptable for a simplified template. Intel trademarked "Intel Core" as Kaomso pointed out, therefore "Intel Core" is to be used. This following template conforms to arichnad's and my opinion that putting "iMac" at every possible space is superfluous, and Kaomso's argument that only trademarked/offical terminology is to be used because we "should not rely on other WP articles as sources" or else we "end up perpetuating mistakes other editors have made", to quote Kaomso's own words. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 06:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a proposal K3. K2 (below) is not that repetitive; it does not place "iMac" before every line. That said, I think the new proposal D is basically as good. I think "(Intel-based)" is more immediately understandable than the "Core" (compare WP:NAME policy), but I do see some virtue in going with the trademark "Core." Cool Hand Luke 06:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the point of Proposal D is to adjust K2 in a way that conforms to the line of reasoning Kaomso used to object to my original proposals, and I feel K2 oversimplifies in some regards. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 07:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand your justification for proposal D. In what regard does proposal K-2 oversimplify? Kaomso (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well the lack of a 15" label for the 15" iMac G4 among things. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Does the iMac G3 need to be labeled 15"? What are the other things? Kaomso (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Whereas most people can identify the models by color, I still feel at least putting which model it is in each space is appropriate. Putting it once in each color set, I feel, is minimizing the information presented to an extreme. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I think it avoids superfluous designations. Kaomso (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it adds clarity. Adding "iMac" to every possible instance would be superfluous in a "Timeline of iMac models". Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

But if iMac is superfluous (and not considered part of the model name), then the colors are being relied upon to convey the information (clarity). So this graph should be acceptable. Nevertheless, a proposal (K-3) to address your concern is below. Kaomso (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No, K-3 is still unacceptable. You say we should use trademarked terms and only Intel Core has been copyrighted. Therefore, only Core is acceptable for the timeline by your own reasoning (since PowerPC is relegated to the legend, so should Intel) and therefore only Proposal D is acceptable by both your reasoning and my reasoning. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[<-] You are mistaken. The trademark Intel has is on the name Intel Core. Intel Core is trademarked. Not Core, not Core 2, Intel Core. Core alone is generic. Apple does not use it in isolation to refer to iMacs or MacBooks or Mac minis or other products. Intel's trademark is on Intel Core. There would be plenty of confusion, of course, to use the informal Core in isolation on a Mac product due to Core Graphics, Core Audio, Core Video, Core OpenGL, Core Animation, and Core Image all being Apple technologies. Kaomso (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand the trademark is "Intel Core". However, the trademarks are also "PowerPC G3", "PowerPC G4", and "PowerPC G5", not just "G3", "G4", and "G5". The useage of "Core" in lieu of "Intel Core" is in line with the use of "G#" in lieu of "PowerPC G#". There is no confusion issue, either. Most people on the consumer end don't know any of Apple's "Core ______" technologies in OS X, and those that do would more likely than not be capable of realizing that, in the context of "G#", "Core" relates to "Intel Core" as the legend states. You're bringing up a non-issue. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are mistaken. PowerPC G3 is not a trademark. Nor is PowerPC G4. Nor is PowerPC G5. PowerPC is a trademark. Apple Core technologies, known as the Core Foundation, also include Core Data, Core Services, and Core Text. You are avoiding the issue -- Apple does not refer to the iMac as Core, ever. That is just wrong. Kaomso (talk) 05:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I may be mistaken. You just provided evidence, however, that invalidates the entire timeline. Apple Core technologies and Intel Core have nothing in common, and using Core in this context is appropriate as there is no confusion. Apple may refer to the iMacs as "Intel-based" but considering that Apple has erroneously referred to the MacBook Pro as using Santa Rosa, not everything Apple says is 100% credible. Your statement in regards to the PowerPC trademarks validates the argument for having "Core" and "Core 2", by the way. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 06:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No, actually PowerPC being the trademark shows the breakdown is at Duo, 2 Duo, and 2 Extreme. Your acceptance validates my original timeline -- we could have avoided this whole thing. Still, Apple shows us the way by breaking down its models between G5 and Intel-based. Proposal K-3 fits this perfectly. Since you want to bring up the dead horse, Apple's only reference to Core 2 processors is on a page entitled Intel Core 2 Duo processor. Good thing you believe not everything Apple says is 100% credible. And, as you have already conceded, Intel's trademark is on both words: Intel Core. So no meaningful argument remains against proposal K-3. Kaomso (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No, my objection to your original proposal is the inclusion of "Extreme". To you, the breakdown is at "Duo" and "2 Duo", etc. However, the breakdown, to me, is at 1 and 2, with "Duo" and "Extreme" being additional descriptors. I accept that Intel has trademarked "Intel Core", I do not accept that references to Core 2 Extreme should be made in the timeline. The same page that is titled "Core 2 Duo" is not only titled "Core 2 Duo" but, as I have said, makes more references to "Core 2 processors" than it does to both specific processors. I still disagree with the use of "Intel-based", as, if someone doesn't read the legend, they could assume that the iMac offers Celeron or Pentium processors as Intel does offer more than one family of processors. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not just use "Intel Core" instead of abbreviating it "Core"? I think it makes it easier for readers to tell a large hardware shift occurred in that release (that's why I like "Intel-based," but Intel indeed makes more than one line). Cool Hand Luke 01:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that using "Intel Core" is somewhat extraneous. When you click on the link, it leads you to a page that references Intel, and the legend already says Intel Core. You don't see the timeline saying "IBM PowerPC G5" in the timeline itself. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal K-2

Kaomso (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal D

Above, D, is Butterfly0fdoom's proposal. Kaomso (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal K-3

Kaomso (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well?

Any progress on this dispute? Cool Hand Luke 07:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Kaomso has abandoned the argument again. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Apple calls it the Intel-based iMac. This is confusing? I have repeatedly compromised my position and use Apple's, Intel's, and the predominant naming found on Wikipedia for Apple products in formulating these compromises. This should be done. I really cannot diverge to non-standard, slang-like usage. This is an encyclopedia, not a web forum. Kaomso (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"Core", "Core 2", "Core Duo", and "Core 2 Duo", are hardly slang terms. You have hardly compromised your position. I have compromised my position multiple times to conform to reasons that you presented for why my initial edit (that no other editors aside from you and 2 sporadic anons objected to), and yet your own original proposal didn't meet the reasons that you used to invalidate my proposal. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

iMac Core Duo, iMac Core 2 Duo, and iMac Core 2 Extreme are fine ways to refer to the Intel-based iMacs. But, referring to a computer's processor as "Core" when what is really meant is Intel Core is slang reminiscent of the lower-quality found on message boards not in encyclopedias. Are you abandoning your position that Intel-based iMacs are confusing, even though that is what Apple calls them? Kaomso (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said way in the past, my primary objection to your original proposal is your inclusion of "Core 2 Extreme" (formatting issues aside). There is no need for you to have evolved the argument to the extent that it has evolved into. I work in a computer store. Never once has I heard ANYONE reference the Core 2 Extreme processor ("Aluminum iMac", "Core 2 iMac", "that iMac" are the most common references). Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Anecdotal experience is irrelevant to this discussion. You have provided no meaningful support for using "Core" in isolation to refer to the computer. And you have not answered the question regarding the Intel-based iMac. Let me revise it: Do you have a meaningful objection to referring to the Intel-based iMac the same way Apple's does? Kaomso (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because it is too general and inconsistent. If you want to do Intel-based, then do PowerPC-based. As I have said, if you didn't insist on including Core 2 Extreme in the template (which, once you did, you insisted on stick iMac at every possible nook and cranny, which I and arichnad disagreed with), this argument would not have dragged on as long and become as trivial as it has become. Your proposals for the template, in the alledged spirit of compromise, has become a watered down version of the template that does not convey sufficient information, whereas your original proposal attempted to squeeze too much information. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

iMac timeline vision for Apple's new models on April 28, 2008

Fit for Apple and Intel nomenclature. Match for iMac article titles on Wikipedia. Easy expansion to accommodate new models. Kaomso (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternate proposal in response

The main objection I had with Kaomso's original proposal was the use of Core 2 Extreme, which was previously an option. With the discontinuation of that option, the argument of needing to include it is now moot. I disagree with Kaomso's proposal; it's too general and doesn't give enough information, a stark contrast from his original edit that had too much information. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 05:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Apple calls this generation Intel-based. Like they call the prior generation G5, the prior generation G4, and the prior generation G3. So does Wikipedia. Please unlock the template so the encyclopedia can proceed. Kaomso (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No. A consensus must be met before any unlocking occurs. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

A consensus was met, with you stating: "iMac (Intel-based) sounds much better and is more consistent with using Apple's official terminolgy." Apple's official terminology is Intel-based iMac. Kaomso (talk) 07:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't take my statements out of context. Like I said before, the timeline serves a directory purpose, and therefore a certain amount of information needs to be presented, and using "iMac (Intel-based)" is insufficient information in a timeline, which happens to be a visual representation of the various versions of the iMac. Now, considering that the Intel-based iMacs are similar in form to the G5s, arguing case design obviously doesn't apply. Arguing platform does no good, as, it is unlikely (by any sort of common sense reasoning) that Apple will be changing from the Intel platform. As thus, the most logical option is to detail when the iMac changes from various Intel processor brandings as seeing a 2-year chunk of "Intel-based" communicates nothing. Apple still uses "Core 2 Duo", just not in their support page. Editorials criticizing Apple for ambiguous naming have been written already. For naming the iMac (Intel-based) article, using the support name was the most logical because of the nature of the article. Different contexts; the same argument doesn't apply. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 09:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, there are instances on Wikipedia where Apple's official terminology isn't used. The different iterations of the PowerBook G3, the iMac (tray-loading), the iBook (clamshell), the PowerMac G3 (Outrigger), PowerMac G4 (Graphite), and all the iPod generational designations. Because Apple's naming conventions are so inconsistent and lacking, the Apple fan/user community has created their own terms to describe Apple products. If you wish to stick to Apple's nomenclature in this template, then you may as well come through Wikipedia and change everything. But then all Apple-related templates and articles would be too ambiguous. As thus, I reject your proposal. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And, again, Apple's official terminology is iMac (Intel-based), to which you and Wikipedia have agreed. And its use in the timeline is the perfect choice for directory purpose, as it takes a person right to the article based off the same name. The existence of the Intel Core 2 Extreme processor in the prior iMacs is not something that can be ignored. Deciding what to do about Apple's inconsistent Intel-based processor choices is not something we can agree upon. As such, it does not belong in the timeline. (Also, please stop making significant changes to content you have already posted on the talk page. It makes it difficult for outside observers to understand the state of things at a given point in the discussion.) Kaomso (talk) 05:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

And I repeat, don't take my statements out of context. Furthermore, Core 2 Extreme was an OPTION and a derivative of Core 2 Duo. Like I said, if you want to use "Intel-based" here, you may as well go around all of Wikipedia and change everything to match all official terminology. The timeline is something seen only at the bottom of the iMac pages; the Apple Hardware since 1998 template occurs more often, and no one has raised any issue with the non-official terminology used there. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)