Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Apple Inc.

Since 2024, Apple's "technical" name for iPads has been iPad followed by the chip name; for example, the iPad Air (6th generation) was instead called iPad Air (M2). When the iPads were first released, they were assigned the former naming scheme, and User:Padgriffin moved them in mid-2025, citing it as the official and common name. On the other hand, the iPad (11th generation) suffered a different story as when it was moved to iPad (A16) by User:TwoGamer1000, a requested move was opened to sucessfuly move the article back to iPad (11th generation) with the consensus being that it wasn't consitant with other iPad names, such as iPad (4th generation) when the official name was iPad with Retina display.

And then we come to today, where the articles for the M1 iPad Air and M1/M2 iPad Pros suffered a move war where they were recently moved back and forth from the generation moniker to the chip name by users User:WebTimster69420, User:Slackintosh, and User:Padgriffin. Keep in mind that these articles were about iPads with the old generation naming scheme. I've also come across a statement by User:YannickFran in Talk:iPad Mini (A20 Pro) noting that most sources don't even refer to it by the chip moniker, and that Apple markets the iPads as simply the iPad, iPad Air, etc. Everybody should give it a read.

So I decided to open this RfC to reach consensus on how we should handle iPad names going forward, as we have a dispute over the interpretations of WP:ARTICLETITLES. Should we keep it precise, consistent, and/or recognizable? EvanTech10 (talk, contribs) ⚡ 01:11, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

1. Status quo (iPad (chip name))
2. iPad (xth generation)

1. iPad (chip name)
2. iPad (xth generation)

1. Status quo (iPad (11th generation))
2. iPad (A16)

Currently, there is a problem about the article title of the iPad (A16), also known as iPad (11th generation). Apple uses the chip name, while Wikipedia uses the generation name. This is a post-2024 iPad, and it has been introduced after Apple changed the naming scheme for iPad models.

The article title used to have the name of the chip. After the discussion on 4 February 2026, consensus said the article should be moved to "iPad (11th generation)" since it would be consistent with previous base iPad models.

I consulted every possible high authority by attempting to move back to the official Apple name, but unfortunately, I couldn't. (I was also months late to the discussion.) Now, to prevent another page-move war, I made this discussion to see whether the article title should use the chip name or generation name. (It's also unlikely that when announced, the twelfth-generation iPad would be called "iPad (12th generation)".) Slackintosh (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Pinging relevant people @Padgriffin, YannickFran, WebTimster69420, Champion, Mr Wikony89, and Slackintosh: EvanTech10 (talk, contribs) ⚡ 01:11, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Personally I much prefer the chip names, especially for the M-series iPad Air and Pros. The real problem is that the iPads have the single worst naming scheme known to man.

Practically nobody calls the iPad Pro M1 the “iPad Pro 5”, for example, virtually every source either uses “M1” or “2021”, similar with the M2 Pro and the M1 Air.

If we put “iPad Pro (6th Generation)”, for example through WP:CRITERIA:

• Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that would be recognized by someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area.

  Possible, you can identify that the subject is an iPad, though an average reader is unlikely to be able to identify the specifics about said iPad.

• Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look for or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.

  No, given that virtually no source uses this name and is exceedingly uncommon even on forums

• Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects.
• Concision – The title is not longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects

  These two can be lumped together- it’s longer than necessary to identify the subject, doesn’t actually unambiguously identify it because the 13 inch variant exists and is technically of another generation, and now you’re dealing with collisions with the iPad 6th Gen.

• Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern used in the titles of similar articles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above.

  Debatable, but the post-2024 iPads have already established this naming scheme.

  We could use the year, which does meet COMMONNAME and is used by a lot of sources, but somehow that breaks the consistency of the naming scheme even harder.

Considering that Apple has settled on a far more sensible way of naming the iPads (with the chip name) and it’s far easier to comprehend for readers, (e.g. iPad Air (2022) would imply that it’s related to the iPad Pro (2022) for example, but in reality it’s more akin to the iPad Pro (2021)… iPad Air (M1) and iPad Pro (M1) solves this issue nicely, and gets rid of the problem of the 13 inch technically being a different generation.) it’s probably easier to just retroactively apply the naming scheme to the M-series iPads.

Also bear in mind that Apple has never used the “generation” wording in official marketing, just technical documentation.

Using the x generation naming scheme on post 2024 iPads would be stupid given that it’s not even the official name at this point, we’d just be making it up ourselves.

For the base iPad I wouldn’t mind just keeping to the generational names, given that “iPad 11” and “iPad (A16)” both seem to be in use (note: the official Apple product page name is named “iPad 11-inch (A16)”, but the page itself has references to the “iPad 11”. Make up your mind, Apple). Padgriffin (Squawk) 02:30, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Using the x generation naming scheme on post 2024 iPads would be stupid given that it’s not even the official name at this point, we’d just be making it up ourselves. Yes, but that also goes for the SoC-based names; these only appear in technical documentation too. That's kinda the point of the discussion I started; Apple doesn't name their iPads anything other than just "iPad", "iPad Air", "iPad mini", and "iPad Pro". Except for the iPad 2, iPad Air 2, and iPad mini 2 to 4, all of these devices have the exact same name. And while for the Pro line it does appear to be more common to use the chip to identify the version (in which case it is more often just "iPad Pro with M5" rather than using it as an actual name), for the base, Air, and mini third party sources seem to refer to those more often with a number rather than the SoC. Notably these are also the series that used to have numbered entries rather than plain names. YannickFran (talk) 08:30, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've found some contemporary reviews from as many different outlets as possible for the iPads to see what sources were calling them in their coverage.

iPad Air (M1/2022/5th Gen):

Reviewed.com: The new M1 iPad Air is plenty of machine for most people, but don't get the base model

CNET: iPad Air 2022 Review: M1 Is a Very, Very Nice Addition

The Verge: Apple iPad Air (2022) review: it’s the nice one

Note: it could be argued that the COMMONNAME for this one is iPad Air (2022).

iPad Pro (M2/2022/5th Gen):

The Guardian: iPad Pro M2 review: tremendous hardware, but software needs work

CNN: The iPad Pro M2 is the fastest tablet ever, but is it right for you?

Tom's Guide: iPad Pro 2022 review

iPad Air (M4/2026/8th Gen)

PCMag: Apple iPad Air (M4, 2026) Review: Speedy, Smart, and Well‑Rounded

TrustedReviews: Apple iPad Air M4 Review

Gizmodo: M4 iPad Air Review: The ‘Better’ iPad Is Now Really That Good

In exactly none of these articles is the term "8th generation", or even which generation it is brought up or of any relevance.

At this point the chip or year names are absolutely the WP:COMMONNAME, which states that Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred.. Considering that no review or coverage even uses the generation name for these tablets, it cannot be considered COMMONNAME. Applying them to post-2024 iPads becomes complete nonsense, given that it's not even a name used by Apple themselves at this point.

If you walk into the Apple Store and ask for an iPad Pro 6, you'll just get a lot of confused looks before someone quickly looks it up. If you ask for the iPad Pro M2, they'll probably instantly point out that's 2 generations behind at this point.

Using the chip name for the iPad Air and Pros is a compromise that lets us keep some consistency, has supporting contemporary use, and avoids the problem of having 4th gen > 2022 > M2 > M3 for the Air. Padgriffin (Squawk) 10:20, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

(note: the official Apple product page name is named “iPad 11-inch (A16)”, but the page itself has references to the “iPad 11”. Make up your mind, Apple) This is also just Apple's disambiguation. "iPad" in the page title and URL are for the iPad line and not a singular product. The official product name for the 11th generation iPad is just "iPad". If you go and order an iPad, the store calls it "iPad Wi-Fi 128GB - Blue". For the current Pro you'd get the name "11-inch iPad Pro Wi‑Fi 256GB with standard glass - Space Black" in the store for a specific SKU. They don't use the SoC name there either. YannickFran (talk) 08:38, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

The banner at the very top of the Apple.com product page states: Spread the cost of your new iPad 11 interest-free with the Flexible Finance Account., so Apple is also apparently using the iPad 11 name in an official capacity. I have no clue why, and there are plenty of reviews and coverage that use the iPad 11 name just to make it more confusing. Padgriffin (Squawk) 10:22, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I also noticed this page from Apple's US website. On the footer, it says "iPad 11" (appearing above the site map). Either the "11" on the name could refer to the 11-inch size or the eleventh generation of the iPad. Slackintosh (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

As mentioned on the iPad mini's talk page; I primarily made the discussion not necessarily to dispute the article disambiguation that is being used (although I would argue that we're not following guidelines there either), but rather about how the articles deal with the name in the body. The articles are treating "iPad Air (M4)" and "iPad Mini (A20 Pro)" as official and/or marketing names when that simply isn't the case, they're written as if the disambiguation we picked are the official names. YannickFran (talk) 08:22, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

In the case of the iPad Pro (M4) (and all post-2024 iPads), that is indeed the official name used by Apple in their technical documentation. Padgriffin (Squawk) 02:37, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I've been pinged.

Personally, I feel like consistency is one of the most important parts of a discussion such as this that affects a whole series of articles, and both the number argument and the chip argument are operating at least partially off of consistency. The difference is what kind of consistency is prioritised: consistency with what Apple themselves have decided or consistency with the naming sequence that has been established.

In my experience, the only reason why the iPads would be called by their chip’s name is because that is what Apple decided to call them from 2024 onwards, before then noone did. While Apple's decision is obviously not to be dismissed, I think that to be reasonable evidence that the iPads from before 2024 should definitely be called by their generation number.

Additionally, the standard iPad series has only had one model released after that date, and from what I can see not many people at all call it by the chip name, mostly by the generation number. I think the existing first sentence ("The eleventh-generation iPad, marketed as the iPad (A16), [...]") is a prominent enough mention of why it may be called by the chip name while still referring to it by the most common name. Maybe a few years down the track Apple's names will become dominant and we reconsider, but for now I definitely think a generation number is better.

The only thing that might go one way or the other is the names for the post-2024 iPad Pro, iPad Air and iPad Mini models. They seem to be about equal between the generation numbers and the chip names in how they are referred to from what I've heard, maybe even slightly on the side of the chips. The main reason against the chip names in my opinion is that the information given in the title may cause confusion. For instance, the iPad Mini went straight from A17 to A20, whereas the iPad Air went sequentially from M1 to M2 to M3 to M4. The number in the chip name corresponds only slightly to the position in the chronology (especially given that the same chip may be given to different years' models in the different lines, implying a connection where there is none) and importantly isn't really what someone would search for. The exact SoC is a detail that one wouldn't expect everyone to know, whereas a number in a sequence is comparatively straightforward.

Finally, while the third idea of numbering them all by the year they were released is curious, especially given that many people would search for that, it would only really work if new models were released on an annual schedule, which is not something that Apple seems to do very strictly.

To conclude, I strongly believe that all pre-2024 iPads and post-2024 standard iPads should be named by their generation numbers, and weakly believe that post-2024 iPads of the other product lines should also.

Thank you. Mr Wikony89 (talk) 08:30, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

The exact SoC is a detail that one wouldn't expect everyone to know, whereas a number in a sequence is comparatively straightforward.

I would make the argument that one is significantly more likely to know the exact SoC of their iPad than the generation number, given that the SoC (especially with the M-series) is heavily focused on by the marketing and can be found in the headline of quite literally every piece of coverage on the device, while the generation number is hidden, not marketed, not used by coverage, and only used in Apple’s technical documentation.

There’s also the problem that the generation numbers are outright wrong for the 11 inch iPad Pros, which also happens to be the more common model. Apple considers the iPad Pro 11 inch released in 2020 to be the 2nd generation iPad Pro 11 inch, and there is absolutely no evidence that ANYONE has ever used that name for anything. (Also note that searches for “iPad Pro 5th generation 11-inch” results in results for the iPad Pro (M5) which doesn’t help.) iPad Pro (M1) cleans up that problem and stops the article title from being technically incorrect for the more common variant of the device. Padgriffin (Squawk) 02:28, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

As an additional point to this, you can look at Apple’s own press release for the 2021 iPad Pro.

Apple introduces new iPad Pro featuring breakthrough M1 chip, ultra-fast 5G, and stunning 12.9-inch Liquid Retina XDR display - Apple Pressroom

The SoC used in this iPad (the M1) is the first and most obvious marketing point. “M1” appears 15 times.

The exact generation of the iPad appears exactly zero times. I’m not sure how an average person is supposed to know the generation of the iPad when not even Apple will discuss it. Padgriffin (Squawk) 02:44, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Also notably. Apple themselves seem to expect users to know what SoC is in their iPad- The list of supported devices for Apple Intelligence lists iPad models with M1 or later for example. Padgriffin (Squawk) 02:54, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I am neither an Apple user nor prospective user. I do not see that I can make sense of this nor offer any helpful contributions.JonRichfield (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Let's keep it simple. The names of the iPad models stated above should be recognizable. At the talk page for the iPad mini (A20 Pro), I said, "The official names by Apple are 'iPad Pro (5th generation)', 'iPad Pro (6th generation)', and 'iPad Air (5th generation)'." Chip names don't retroactively apply to these products, even by the company, so they're not called the "iPad Pro (M1)", "iPad Pro (M2)", and "iPad Air (M1)" respectively. You can confirm the names just by looking at this Apple Support page. Slackintosh (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

The problem is that the generation names are NOT recognizable, as evidenced by the complete and utter lack of coverage in sources that use them.

The argument isn’t that Apple has retroactively renamed those products to follow the current convention, but rather that those names weren’t recognizable in the first place, and Apple has simply adopted the convention that everyone was using anyways. Padgriffin (Squawk) 16:26, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Apple uses the generation names on the iPad models I stated above, as seen from this Apple Support page (when you click Show more), the article about identifying iPad models, and the drop-down menus in comparisons of iPad models. Slackintosh (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

The problem, as previously stated, is that the generation names completely fail WP:COMMONNAME. What Apple calls them in technical documentation is entirely irrelevant when close to zero sources use it, and still does not address the fact that the name iPad Pro (sixth generation) is completely incorrect for the iPad Pro 11-in. (third generation), which ALSO happens to be the subject of that article. Padgriffin (Squawk) 15:07, 5 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Here's to the ones who didn't know about the history about the iPad Pro:

Let's go back to 2015. Apple announced the 12.9-inch iPad Pro. In 2016, the 9.7-inch Pro came out. Both models are considered first generations of iPad Pro models. In 2017, Apple announced another larger-model Pro, while the 9.7-inch was upgraded to the 10.5-inch; these models are the second generation of iPad Pros.

In 2018, the 12.9-inch retained the same display size, but the 10.5-inch was upgraded again to the 11-inch. This became the third generation of the product line. The models were upgraded but kept the same size in 2020 with the fourth generation, in 2021 with the fifth, and in 2022 with the sixth. These models were referred using generations. (The 12.9-inch and 11-inch had different generation numbers; regardless, I still prefer the generation names.)

In 2024, Apple announced the 13-inch iPad Pro to replace the 12.9-inch. The 11-inch had the same size, but both models were upgraded to use the M4 chip. For every iPad model released in 2024 or later, they are named after chip names. Instead of the iPad Pro (7th generation), we call it iPad Pro (M4). The same happened with the iPad Pro (M5) in 2025.

Had we moved the article titles of the fifth- and sixth-generation Pro to use chip names, the prior models would have to do the same. The first-, second-, third-, and fourth-generation iPad Pros would have to be called the iPad Pro (A9X), (A10X Fusion), (A12X), and (A12Z) respectively; all of these names are never used by us, Apple, or any other sources.

To summarize, any iPads released before 2024 should use the generation monikers or the number-based naming scheme (e.g. iPad mini 2) instead of chip names, however the generations are used for the iPad Pro screen sizes. Slackintosh (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

(The 12.9-inch and 11-inch had different generation numbers; regardless, I still prefer the generation names.

That is a pretty big issue by itself.

Had we moved the article titles of the fifth- and sixth-generation Pro to use chip names, the prior models would have to do the same. The first-, second-, third-, and fourth-generation iPad Pros would have to be called the iPad Pro (A9X), (A10X Fusion), (A12X), and (A12Z) respectively; all of these names are never used by us, Apple, or any other sources.

Absolutely nobody has proposed this, and there would be no sources that support those names either. The ones that are specially under debate are the ones with M-series chips.

Could you please address WP:COMMONNAME? I have already shown that there is effectively no source that remotely supports the article titles we currently have for the iPads. Padgriffin (Squawk) 17:09, 13 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Generation names for iPads before 2024 are the official names by Apple, on the links I stated above. Article titles that use generation names for these models will match with the previous-generation iPad Pro models, which used A-series chips. Slackintosh (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've found the box for my mother's Apple. The lid simply says "iPad Air", twice. The bottom of the box has some labels, showing things like "32GB iPad Air 2 Wi-Fi" "MNV728/A iPad Air 2 Wi-Fi 32GB Gold" and "Model A1566". The receipt (dated 27 September 2016) says "iPad Air 2 Wi-Fi 32Gb Gold" and "Part Number: MNV728/A". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Question Do the articles for recent generations of iPads need to be separate? Why not combine each product line into something like "iPad ____ (M series)"? Something like the MacBook Air (Apple silicon) article: so it doesn't have to be M1 Macbook Air, M2 Macbook Air, M3 Macbook Air, M4 Macbook Air, M5 Macbook Air. HenryMP02 (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2026 (UTC)Reply