Template talk:Timeline of iMac models

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Template size/EDU models

message: You wanna talk consistency? x86 = PPC (architecture level). Core = G (branding level). Therefore, Core and Core 2 is consistent with G3, G4, and G5. Complexity? "C2D/E" is a non-descriptive jumble of letters and numbers that makes an optional feature sound like it's a standard, defining characteristic of the product. Predicting the future? Future-proofing doesn't predict the future. If you can find any statement I made that directly predicts the future, then you have a valid point. However, "future-proofing" means making the template in a way that prevents these kinds of debates, arguments, and edit wars from happening again.
An edit war in the main Mac timeline brought about the "Core 2 2G" designation. Because that consensus has been enforced by an admin (and no other more established users have objected in any other templates that I have edited that involved the removal of references to Solo, Duo, and Extreme, and other users), your argument holds little to no weight. Butterfly0fdoom 03:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to predict the future to do what you call future proofing.  Preventing something from happening again means you decide what you believe can happen again and do something different based on your prediction.  I do not really care about an alleged edit war on another page.  There is no existing "2G" designation related to the iMac Core 2 Duo/Core 2 Extreme line other than those invented on Wikipedia.  I really do not appreciate your tone or implication of "established users" getting to decide things here.  I do not know what a Core 17 is, so I will be removing that from the template.  I do not know what a Core 20 is, so I will be removing that from the template.  When people refer to the various Intel-based iMac models, they generally do not truncate the name of the processor to Core or Core 2.  They use the full Core Duo, Core 2 Duo, and Core 2 Extreme names, especially when they are being formal, like in an Encyclopedia.  As such, those are changed too.  I have never heard of the PowerPC G3 Slot Loading processor, so that is changed too.  With that label section change gone, the inconsistent labeling of the current iMac models as having an Intel Core 2 Aluminum processor is apparent.  That is changed as well. Kaomso (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A violation of WP:Crystal Ball requires actually publishing said predicted future information. Your radical changes of the article disrupt naming conventions that have been accepted by the community of Mac users that commonly use the "Aluminum iMac" and "Slot-loading iMac" names. Furthermore, the formal name is "iMac (Early/Mid/Late (insert year) )", not "iMac Core # (version of aforementioned Core #)". If you want to use formals names, then you use Apple's official designations, which are more confusing. Your mix of letters and numbers, as I have said already, are more confusing than "Core" and "Core 2". Anyone that refers to something as "Core 2 Duo" would have the capability of realizing that "Core 2" can refer to "Core 2 Duo" and, by clicking the link, can confirm this. The template has a limited amount of space, and your proposed naming system shows the limitations of this. A "2G" designation is there because a compromise was reached on a related template and was therefore enforced by an administrator. This template was accepted by other users until YOU came along and objected to everything. Furthermore, you still fail to address points that I made in my previous statement; therefore, my argument still stands. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My edits are explained above in detail.  I will not be re-addressing your comments as your tone has not changed. Kaomso (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: About the template

message: - You claim Apple and industry-standard nomenclature: "Core 2" is a blanket term for Core 2 Solo, Core 2 Duo, and Core 2 Extreme. Furthermore, even Apple uses "The Core 2 Processor" and "Core 2 processors" because they offer two variations of the Core 2 processor family. The Intel Core 2 article is called "Intel Core 2" as opposed to a disambiguation page to a page for each Core 2 variant.
- You claim self-consistency: The "Core 2" is a link that leads to the iMac page, where people can discover that Apple offers Duo and Extreme Core 2 processors. In terms of consistency, "Core 2" is more consistent with G#, as List of Macintosh models grouped by CPU type. Using (Aluminum) is consistent with using (Slot-loading) as it describes a physical feature that makes it different from other iMacs from the same processor family. Furthermore, it makes it consistent with other Mac-related templates (some of which may have been a result of my doing, but other editors have voiced approval by expanding upon them or by not reverting them). If you find (Aluminum) unacceptable, the Wikipedia community has also agreed on "2G" as an acceptable term for the current iMac revision (Timeline of Macintosh models, Talk:Timeline of Macintosh models).
- You claim most people use "C2D/E" to describe their iMacs: I claim otherwise, that people use screen size, processor speed, and, if applicable, "Aluminum"/"Alu"/"Al" more often than they do the processor name.  
You are now welcome to present EVIDENCE to disprove my claims. Just to note, you need to make some compromises. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 21:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the template should be consistent with Apple and industry-standard nomenclature for the names of the processors found in Apple's iMac computers.  As such, the name Intel Core Duo, Intel Core 2 Duo, and Intel Core 2 Extreme, like PowerPC G3, PowerPC G4, and PowerPC G5, are used.  Since you have asked for proof, Apple gives us an easy way to resolve this.  From Apple.com search for "Intel Core 2 Duo".  Then search for "Intel Core 2 processor".  You will find over 200 results for the former and 1 result for the latter.  The 1 result is an article titled, ironically enough, Apple - iMac - Technology - Intel Core 2 Duo processor.  You have already linked to this article.  Visit Intel's website to see how Intel has trademarked Intel Core, but not Intel Core 2, and this is why you should not rely on other WP articles as sources.  You end up perpetuating mistakes other editors have made.  I will stop here since it would be pointless to discuss other details until this is resolved. But one more thing, so I do not have to re-address this again: there is one processor family used in the Intel-based iMacs, the Intel® Core™ Processor Family.  The Intel® Core™ Duo processor, the Intel® Core™2 Duo processor, and the Intel® Core™2 Extreme processor are each processor brands in this family, known by the brand Intel® Core™.  Kaomso (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're not in much of a position to attack other editors, you realize, right? The easiest solution here, then would to just have iMac Core and iMac Core (Aluminum). An interpretation of Intel's trademark suggests that the white Core 2 iMac is a Rev. A of the Intel iMac, and, going by historic nomenclature/generation separation, that would make the Aluminum iMac a different generation. Yet that bring the problem of presenting too little information. The key is finding a solution that's also easy to read. Labeling Core 2 is hardly a mistake, by the way. Apple uses it as a blanket term to refer to both Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme, just as I was trying to get this template to reflect: that Apple uses multiple processors with the Core 2 name in the iMac line and that, in a general template, there is no need to detail such things out. Fact is, Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme can be labeled as "Core 2" collectively, as "Duo" and "Extreme" are suffixes that describe that particular type of Core processor under the Core 2 name (as Apple has done so in the page I linked to). Why does "Intel Core 2 Duo" yield more hits than "Intel Core 2 processor"? Because only the iMac uses more than one kind of processor in the Core 2 range; everything else either uses Xeon, or Core 2 Duo exclusively. Detailed information is for articles. Templates are simple guides to take people to the right article, and stuffing in combinations of letters and numbers is of no help to people that don't have that much of an understanding of computer parts. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have not attacked other editors.  I have provided proof for my claims, as you requested.  Apple's use of Core 2 apart from Duo and Extreme is an extremely rare exception.  Intel even says there is no Core 2 family.  Rather, all of the processors in the Apple iMac line of computers (Early 2006 and beyond) are in the Core family, more specifically the Intel Core family of processors.  As for generations of the recent iMacs,  Apple is rather clear here: the first generation of the Intel-based iMac line is the Intel Core Duo line and the second generation is the Intel Core 2 Duo line.  My desired version of the timeline respects Apple's naming for its iMac generations while providing the additional information that the latest 24-inch iMac has a Core 2 Extreme option.  For the label, this is Intel Core 2 Duo / Extreme.  I believe the meaning is clear.  In the more limited space in the chart, I have used the standard C2D abbreviation combined with C2E to yield C2D/E.  For the uninitiated, one only need look at the label ("Intel Core 2 Duo / Extreme") to see what this means.  Kaomso (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet, as I said, this is a generalized template that will link people to the article where there is the space to divulge such information. Furthermore, Apple's support documentation indicates the first intel iMac is the iMac (Early 2006), not the iMac Core Duo. Previous conflict over Apple naming conventions has resulted into a consensus that Apple's support documentation be used as "official" (such as here:  ). Because this was one of the templates that was part of the conflict, any decision to stick with Apple's official nomenclature thus will use their support documents. The support document link you provided not only demonstrates use of the community-accepted use of Early/Mid/Late (year) system, but also fails to mention Core 2 Extreme in any form (possibly because Core 2 Extreme is directly based off of Core 2 Duo). Therefore, the argument for the need to mention Extreme in the template dies. Marketing materials state that it's merely the iMac, and makes no mention of the processor or the screen size, information that, on the packaging, is only found on the spec table. Core 2 Extreme is an OPTION, meaning that the availability should be noted in the specific article, not in a generalized template meant to guide users to the correct page (for which screen size and Aluminum are the easiest identifiers). Furthermore, you make the statement that I am perpetuating the mistakes of other editors (which is pretty much a statement that questions their integrity). Care to elaborate on these "mistakes"? Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 08:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, Apple defines the first generation of Intel-based iMacs as Intel Core Duo and the second generation as Intel Core 2 Duo.  This is consistent with the consensus that has developed for this timeline to name the iMac models with respect to their CPU.  This standard usage is reflected in how the public refers to the iMac models, as Google attests.  In my post immediately above yours, I explain how my desired version of the timeline respects Apple's naming for its iMac generations while providing the additional information that the latest 24-inch iMac has a Core 2 Extreme option. For the label, this is Intel Core 2 Duo / Extreme.  Again, this is consistent with how Apple names its iMac generations (Intel Core 2 Duo) and employs a standard abbreviation to indicate an option (Intel Core 2 Extreme becomes / Extreme). Kaomso (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And yet two Mac communities   hardly directly reference the processor; rather, physical features is the most common used identifier. The very Apple support page you link to shows both Apple's identifier for generation, but the one you linked to and the one I linked to show what the community here has accepted for use, as there are differences between the Core 2 Duo iMacs. Your failure to accept what the community has accepted will only keep the article in its current state. After having dealt with (and contributed) to ending the "Does the iMac use Santa Rosa or not" naming debacle, I feel that what the community agreed upon is what should be used. The community has consented to edits I made to Template: Apple hardware since 1998. The community has also agreed to a consensus to use (Early/Mid/Late {year}) or #G as a differentiator between iMacs. You need to decide which Wikipedia editor community consensus you are willing to adopt, as I will not give on this matter. We need to reduce the different schemes being used across templates, and you need to accept that fact. We are using acceptable terms that are used by the public (by the way, that google search page leads to review and benchmark pages where the Duo is necessary; keep in mind, for the umpteenth time, that this is a general directory template where blanket terms are acceptable) and that members of Wikiproject Macintosh have decided are acceptable for use on Wikipedia. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discuss/Debate here, not in the edit history 

message: So one of the discussions is between:
#calling it "Core" / "Core 2" (from proposals A, B, and C)
#calling it "Core 2" / "Core 2 Duo" (D)
Evidence for D is from here in 2007.  The only link I found in your discussion above for A/B/C is from 2004.  Do you have something more recent?  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 03:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite the header and the side bar, Apple uses "Core 2 processor(s)" in the text of the page describing the processors that the iMac. Even if we were to go in Kaomso's preferred direction, I feel that we should leave out references to Extreme (something that Kaomso continuously insists upon but I feel completely inappropriate as it's listed as being an option in the spec table). There are some other issues, but I'd rather not bring them up until a certain kind of situation happens so that I don't get accused of violating WP:Crystal Ball. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 04:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah.  I can't ignore the side bar and the title.  . . . and ignore the images beside the text.  I'd go with "Core 2" / "Core 2 Duo" (which is what Intel calls them anyways).  The next topic:  "iMac G3" vs "G3".  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 04:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If "iMac" isn't going to be stuck in front of Core, then it shouldn't be placed in front of G3 (there's not enough space either with "Duo" stuck in). It's unnecessary, too, as it is an "iMac models" timeline. I can easily accomondate adding "Duo" to my three proposals (and have now done so, but got rid of the second one as shoehorning "Duo" wouldn't fit it being based on trademarked names and physical changes), but Kaomso's argument is adding "Extreme" (which is an option and isn't mentioned in the header or the sidebar), as well, and that's part of the main issue; I presume you're only allowing for "Duo"? It doesn't resolve which format to use. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the title says that they're iMacs (i.e. "Timeline of iMac models").  There's no need to put iMac in the name.  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 05:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... That was my point. I was addressing your "The Next Topic". You still haven't quite answered on which template to use; I've modified the two remaining acceptable ones of mine to accommodate the "Duo". Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 05:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the thing I don't like about A is I don't understand the "mid 2007" thing.  Why does it say mid 2007?  The thing I don't like about C is it stretches too far into the future (for space issues I'm sure).  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 07:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mid 2007 is based on the original community consensus (I provided wikilinks to the talk pages where the Mid 2007 decision was agreed on) which I later disagreed with after thinking about it (therefore I made changes to this timeline and the Apple hardware template according to what I felt was more appropriate), which spawned C. It stretches far now, but, unless Intel were to announce a Core 3 soon, it will fill the artificially extended space. Aluminum can be substituted with Al, too, if needed. Because of it's nature of using the physical change, any further Core 2 Duo-based revisions wouldn't become a new block, making the stretch (future) a non-issue. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 07:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Slot-loading isn't that different from the original iMac G3, either, yet it is of note. For consistency, Aluminum is a separate item, for two events are used to determine a separate item on the timeline: when the processor changes (G3, G4, G5, Core Duo, Core 2 Duo) or when the case changes (Slot-loading, Aluminum). It also helps it to be consistent with other Mac templates, where Aluminum is noted in some form or another. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you're right.  And I now understand the "currently produced" thing.  Ok, I like proposal C now.  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  K. I'm going to wait until Kaomso makes a response before taking any further action, thank you for the assistance. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  Make sure to let him know that we changed proposal C somewhat.  I'm guessing that compromise helps with consensus.  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 22:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have listed some objections to the current incarnation of proposal C above. Kaomso (talk) 03:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  And I have addressed your objections. Do note that your "official nomenclature" argument is invalid as your use of "Extreme" is not part of Apple's official nomenclature in any way. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 05:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  These are objections to proposal C.  I did not say they support any other proposal.  Kaomso (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  However, you need to be consistent in your usage of evidence to object to any changes to be made, and your own proposal is a change to the status quo, therefore the objections that you have universally applied to my proposals apply to yours as well. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reformatting discussion

message: === Proposal K-0 ===
DateFormat=mm/dd/yyyy
Period = from:07/15/1998 till:03/26/2008
Define $skip = at:end # Force a blank line 
Define $now = 11/07/2007 # Please keep updated
Define $dayunknown = 15 # what day to use if it's actually not known
ImageSize= width:790 height:auto barincrement:22
TimeAxis = orientation:horizontal
PlotArea = right:4 left:0 bottom:100 top:5
Colors =
     id:bg         value:white
     id:lightline  value:rgb(0.9,0.9,0.9)
     id:lighttext  value:rgb(0.5,0.5,0.5)
     id:g3         value:rgb(1,0.85,0.85) legend:iMac_(PowerPC_G3)
     id:g32        value:rgb(1,0.9,0.9)
     id:g4         value:rgb(1,0.85,0.65) legend:iMac_(PowerPC_G4)
     id:g42        value:rgb(1,0.9,0.7)
     id:g5         value:rgb(1,0.85,0.45) legend:iMac_(PowerPC_G5)
     id:g52        value:rgb(1,0.9,0.5)
     id:cored       value:rgb(0.8,1,0.8) legend:iMac_(Intel_Core_Duo)
     id:core2d      value:rgb(0.5,1,0.8) legend:iMac_(Intel_Core_2_Duo)
     id:santarosa      value:rgb(0.2,1,0.8) legend:iMac_(Intel_Core_2_Duo_/_Extreme)
     id:emac       value:rgb(0.65,0.65,0.9) legend:eMac_(PowerPC_G4)
     id:emacl      value:rgb(0.85,0.85,0.95) legend:Limited_to_education
     id:current    value:rgb(0.9,0.9,0.9) legend:Still_currently_produced
BackgroundColors = canvas:bg
ScaleMajor = gridcolor:lighttext unit:year increment:1 start:12/31/1998
ScaleMinor = gridcolor:lightline unit:month increment:1 start:07/15/1998
Legend = orientation:vertical position:bottom columns:3
BarData = 
  barset:main
PlotData=
  width:15 textcolor:black
  barset:main
    shift:(5,-5) anchor:from fontsize:s
    $skip
    color:g3 from:08/15/1998 till:10/05/1999 text:"iMac G3"
  barset:break
    $skip
    color:g32 from:10/05/1999 till:01/07/2002 text:"iMac G3 (slot loading)"
  barset:break
    color:emacl from:04/29/2002 till:06/04/2002
    color:g4 from:01/07/2002 till:08/31/2004 text:"iMac G4 15"
    color:g4 from:07/17/2002 till:08/31/2004 text:"iMac G4 17"
    color:g4 from:11/18/2003 till:08/31/2004 text:"iMac G4 20"
  barset:break
    color:emac from:06/04/2002 till:10/12/2005 text:"eMac"
    $skip
    color:g5 from:08/31/2004 till:01/10/2006 text:"iMac G5 17"
    color:g5 from:08/31/2004 till:03/20/2006 text:"iMac G5 20"
    $skip
  barset:break
    color:emacl from:10/12/2005 till:07/05/2006
    $skip
    color:cored from:01/10/2006 till:09/06/2006 text:"Core Duo"
    color:cored from:01/10/2006 till:09/06/2006 text:"Core Duo"
    $skip
  barset:break
    $skip
    $skip
    color:core2d from:09/06/2006 till:08/07/2007 text:"Core 2 Duo 17"
    color:core2d from:09/06/2006 till:08/07/2007 text:"Core 2 Duo 20"
    color:core2d from:09/06/2006 till:08/07/2007 text:"Core 2 Duo 24"
  barset:break
    $skip
    $skip
    $skip
    color:santarosa from:08/07/2007 till:$now text:"C2D_ _ _20"
    color:santarosa from:08/07/2007 till:$now text:"C2D/E_ 24"
  barset:break
    $skip
    $skip
    $skip
    color:current from:$now till:end
    color:current from:$now till:end
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)
replies: text: It also seems a lot less cluttered with overlapping text.  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 23:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Yeah, "iMac" doesn't need to be cluttered all over.  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 05:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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  and "CD"/"C2D" were used for a while  Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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.  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)
replies: text:  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)

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

text: As stated, no "iMac" in the labels. No way. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kaomso's Proposals 

message: DateFormat=mm/dd/yyyy
Period = from:07/15/1998 till:03/26/2008
Define $skip = at:end # Force a blank line 
Define $now = 11/07/2007 # Please keep updated
Define $dayunknown = 15 # what day to use if it's actually not known
ImageSize= width:790 height:auto barincrement:22
TimeAxis = orientation:horizontal
PlotArea = right:4 left:0 bottom:100 top:5
Colors =
     id:bg         value:white
     id:lightline  value:rgb(0.9,0.9,0.9)
     id:lighttext  value:rgb(0.5,0.5,0.5)
     id:g3         value:rgb(1,0.85,0.85) legend:iMac_(PowerPC_G3)
     id:g32        value:rgb(1,0.9,0.9)
     id:g4         value:rgb(1,0.85,0.65) legend:iMac_(PowerPC_G4)
     id:g42        value:rgb(1,0.9,0.7)
     id:g5         value:rgb(1,0.85,0.45) legend:iMac_(PowerPC_G5)
     id:g52        value:rgb(1,0.9,0.5)
     id:cored       value:rgb(0.8,1,0.8) legend:iMac_(Intel_Core_Duo)
     id:core2d      value:rgb(0.5,1,0.8) legend:iMac_(Intel_Core_2_Duo)
     id:santarosa      value:rgb(0.2,1,0.8) legend:iMac_(Intel_Core_2_Duo_/_Extreme)
     id:emac       value:rgb(0.65,0.65,0.9) legend:eMac_(PowerPC_G4)
     id:emacl      value:rgb(0.85,0.85,0.95) legend:Limited_to_education
     id:current    value:rgb(0.9,0.9,0.9) legend:Still_currently_produced
BackgroundColors = canvas:bg
ScaleMajor = gridcolor:lighttext unit:year increment:1 start:12/31/1998
ScaleMinor = gridcolor:lightline unit:month increment:1 start:07/15/1998
Legend = orientation:vertical position:bottom columns:3
BarData = 
  barset:main
PlotData=
  width:15 textcolor:black
  barset:main
    shift:(5,-5) anchor:from fontsize:s
    $skip
    color:g3 from:08/15/1998 till:10/05/1999 text:"iMac G3"
  barset:break
    $skip
    color:g32 from:10/05/1999 till:01/07/2002 text:"iMac G3 (slot loading)"
  barset:break
    color:emacl from:04/29/2002 till:06/04/2002
    color:g4 from:01/07/2002 till:08/31/2004 text:"iMac G4 15"
    color:g4 from:07/17/2002 till:08/31/2004 text:"iMac G4 17"
    color:g4 from:11/18/2003 till:08/31/2004 text:"iMac G4 20"
  barset:break
    color:emac from:06/04/2002 till:10/12/2005 text:"eMac"
    $skip
    color:g5 from:08/31/2004 till:01/10/2006 text:"iMac G5 17"
    color:g5 from:08/31/2004 till:03/20/2006 text:"iMac G5 20"
    $skip
  barset:break
    color:emacl from:10/12/2005 till:07/05/2006
    $skip
    color:cored from:01/10/2006 till:09/06/2006 text:"Core Duo"
    color:cored from:01/10/2006 till:09/06/2006 text:"Core Duo"
    $skip
  barset:break
    $skip
    $skip
    color:core2d from:09/06/2006 till:08/07/2007 text:"Core 2 Duo 17"
    color:core2d from:09/06/2006 till:08/07/2007 text:"Core 2 Duo 20"
    color:core2d from:09/06/2006 till:08/07/2007 text:"Core 2 Duo 24"
  barset:break
    $skip
    $skip
    $skip
    color:santarosa from:08/07/2007 till:$now text:"C2D_ _ _20"
    color:santarosa from:08/07/2007 till:$now text:"C2D/E_ 24"
  barset:break
    $skip
    $skip
    $skip
    color:current from:$now till:end
    color:current from:$now till:end
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)
thread_title:  Proposal K-0 

message: ImageSize= width:790 height:auto barincrement:22
PlotArea = right:4 left:0 bottom:100 top:5
Legend = orientation:vertical position:bottom columns:3
DateFormat=mm/dd/yyyy
Period = from:07/15/1998 till:03/15/2008
Define $skip = at:end # Force a blank line
Define $now = 01/05/2008 # Please keep updated
Define $dayunknown = 15 # what day to use if it's actually not known
Colors =
  id:bg       value:white
  id:line     value:rgb(0.5,0.5,0.5)
  id:line_    value:rgb(0.9,0.9,0.9)
  id:g3       value:rgb(1,0.85,0.85)    legend:iMac_(PowerPC_G3)
  id:g4       value:rgb(1,0.85,0.65)    legend:iMac_(PowerPC_G4)
  id:g5       value:rgb(1,0.85,0.45)    legend:iMac_(PowerPC_G5)
  id:d        value:rgb(0.8,1,0.8)      legend:iMac_(Intel_Core_Duo)
  id:2d       value:rgb(0.5,1,0.8)      legend:iMac_(Intel_Core_2_Duo) 
  id:blank    value:rgb(0.99,0.99,0.99) legend:~_#
  id:emac     value:rgb(0.65,0.65,0.9)  legend:eMac_(PowerPC_G4)
  id:emac_    value:rgb(0.85,0.85,0.95) legend:Limited_to_education
  id:current  value:rgb(0.9,0.9,0.9)    legend:Still_currently_produced
BackgroundColors = canvas:bg
ScaleMajor = gridcolor:line  unit:year  increment:1 start:12/31/1998
ScaleMinor = gridcolor:line_ unit:month increment:1 start:07/15/1998
TimeAxis = orientation:horizontal
BarData = 
  barset:main
PlotData = 
  width:15 textcolor:black
  barset:main
    shift:(5,-5) anchor:from fontsize:s
    color:g3 from:08/15/1998 till:01/07/2002 text:"iMac G3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _"
  barset:break
    color:emac_ from:04/29/2002 till:06/04/2002
    color:g4 from:01/07/2002 till:08/31/2004 text:"iMac G4 15_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ "
    color:g4 from:07/17/2002 till:08/31/2004 text:"iMac G4 17_ _ _ _ _ _ _ "
    color:g4 from:11/18/2003 till:08/31/2004 text:"iMac G4 20"
  barset:break
    color:emac from:06/04/2002 till:10/12/2005 text:"eMac _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ "
    $skip
    color:g5 from:08/31/2004 till:01/10/2006 text:"iMac G5 17 _ "
    color:g5 from:08/31/2004 till:03/20/2006 text:"iMac G5 20 _ "
  barset:break
    color:emac_ from:10/12/2005 till:07/05/2006
    $skip
    color:d from:01/10/2006 till:09/06/2006 text:"Core Duo"
    color:d from:01/10/2006 till:09/06/2006 text:"Core Duo"
  barset:break
    $skip
    $skip
    color:2d from:09/06/2006 till:08/07/2007 text:"Core 2 Duo 17"
    color:2d from:09/06/2006 till:$now text:"iMac Core 2 Duo 20"
    color:2d from:09/06/2006 till:$now text:"iMac Core 2 Duo 24"
  barset:break
    $skip
    $skip
    $skip
    color:current from:$now till:end
    color:current from:$now till:end
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)
replies: text: It also seems a lot less cluttered with overlapping text.  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 23:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Yeah, "iMac" doesn't need to be cluttered all over.  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 05:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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  and "CD"/"C2D" were used for a while  Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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.  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)
replies: text:  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)

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

text: As stated, no "iMac" in the labels. No way. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal K-1 

message: ImageSize= width:790 height:auto barincrement:22
PlotArea = right:4 left:0 bottom:100 top:5
Legend = orientation:vertical position:bottom columns:3
DateFormat=mm/dd/yyyy
Period = from:07/01/1998 till:02/28/2008
Define $skip = at:end # Force a blank line
Define $now = 01/31/2008 # Please keep updated
Define $dayunknown = 15 # what day to use if it's actually not known
Colors =
  id:bg       value:white
  id:line     value:rgb(0.5,0.5,0.5)
  id:line_    value:rgb(0.9,0.9,0.9)
  id:g3       value:rgb(1,0.85,0.85)    legend:iMac_(PowerPC_G3)  # value:rgb(0,0.58,0.71)
  id:g4       value:rgb(1,0.85,0.65)    legend:iMac_(PowerPC_G4)
  id:g5       value:rgb(1,0.85,0.45)    legend:iMac_(PowerPC_G5)
  id:c        value:rgb(0.5,1,0.8)      legend:iMac_(Intel_Core)
  id:current  value:rgb(0.9,0.9,0.9)    legend:Still_currently_produced
  id:blank    value:rgb(0.99,0.99,0.99) legend:~_#
  id:emac     value:rgb(0.65,0.65,0.9)  legend:eMac_(PowerPC_G4)
  id:emac_    value:rgb(0.85,0.85,0.95) legend:Limited_to_education
BackgroundColors = canvas:bg
ScaleMajor = gridcolor:line  unit:year  increment:1 start:12/31/1998
ScaleMinor = gridcolor:line_ unit:month increment:3 start:10/01/1998
TimeAxis = orientation:horizontal
BarData = 
  barset:main
PlotData = 
  width:15 textcolor:black
  barset:main
    shift:(5,-5) anchor:from fontsize:s
  barset:break
    $skip
    color:g3 from:08/15/1998 till:01/07/2002 text:"iMac G3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _"
  barset:break
    color:emac_ from:04/29/2002 till:06/04/2002
    color:g4 from:01/07/2002 till:08/31/2004 text:"iMac G4 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ "
    color:g4 from:07/17/2002 till:08/31/2004 text:"_17 _  _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ "
    color:g4 from:11/18/2003 till:08/31/2004 text:"_20 _ _ _ _ _ "
  barset:break
    color:emac from:06/04/2002 till:10/12/2005 text:"_eMac _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _"
    $skip
    color:g5 from:08/31/2004 till:01/10/2006 text:"iMac G5 _ _ _ _ _ _ _"
    color:g5 from:08/31/2004 till:03/20/2006 text:"_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _"
  barset:break
    color:emac_ from:10/12/2005 till:07/05/2006
    $skip
    color:c from:01/10/2006 till:08/07/2007 text:"iMac (Intel-based) _ _"
    color:c from:01/10/2006 till:$now text:"_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _"
    color:c from:09/06/2006 till:$now text:"24_ _ _ _ _ _"
  barset:break
    $skip
    $skip
    $skip
    color:current from:$now till:end
    color:current from:$now till:end
  barset:break
Kaomso (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal K-2 

message: DateFormat=mm/dd/yyyy
Period = from:07/15/1998 till:06/01/2008
Define $skip = at:end # Force a blank line 
Define $now = 01/20/2008 # Please keep updated
Define $dayunknown = 15 # what day to use if it's actually not known
ImageSize= width:790 height:auto barincrement:22
TimeAxis = orientation:horizontal
PlotArea = right:4 left:0 bottom:100 top:5
Colors =
     id:bg         value:white
     id:lightline  value:rgb(0.9,0.9,0.9)
     id:lighttext  value:rgb(0.5,0.5,0.5)
     id:g3         value:rgb(1,0.85,0.85) legend:iMac_(PowerPC_G3)
     id:g4         value:rgb(1,0.85,0.65) legend:iMac_(PowerPC_G4)
     id:g5         value:rgb(1,0.85,0.45) legend:iMac_(PowerPC_G5)
     id:core       value:rgb(0.7,1,0.8) legend:iMac_(Intel_Core)
     id:emac       value:rgb(0.65,0.65,0.9) legend:eMac_(PowerPC_G4)
     id:emacl      value:rgb(0.85,0.85,0.95) legend:Limited_to_education
     id:current    value:rgb(0.9,0.9,0.9) legend:Still_currently_produced
BackgroundColors = canvas:bg
ScaleMajor = gridcolor:lighttext unit:year increment:1 start:12/31/1998
ScaleMinor = gridcolor:lightline unit:month increment:1 start:07/15/1998
Legend = orientation:vertical position:bottom columns:4
BarData = 
  barset:main
PlotData=
  width:15 textcolor:black
  barset:main
    shift:(5,-5) anchor:from fontsize:s
    $skip
    color:g3 from:08/15/1998 till:01/07/2002 text:"G3"
  barset:break
    color:emacl from:04/29/2002 till:06/04/2002
    color:g4 from:01/07/2002 till:08/31/2004 text:"G4 15"
    color:g4 from:07/17/2002 till:08/31/2004 text:"G4 17"
    color:g4 from:11/18/2003 till:08/31/2004 text:"G4 20"
  barset:break
    color:emac from:06/04/2002 till:10/12/2005 text:"eMac"
    $skip
    color:g5 from:08/31/2004 till:01/10/2006 text:"G5 17"
    color:g5 from:08/31/2004 till:01/10/2006 text:"G5 20"
    $skip
  barset:break
    color:emacl from:10/12/2005 till:07/05/2006
    $skip
    color:core from:01/10/2006 till:08/07/2007 text:"Core 17""
    color:core from:01/10/2006 till:$now text:"Core 20""
    $skip
  barset:break
    $skip
    $skip
    $skip
    $skip
    color:core from:09/06/2006 till:$now text:"Core 24"
  barset:break
    $skip
    $skip
    $skip
    color:current from:$now till:end
    color:current from:$now till:end
Above, D, is Butterfly0fdoom's proposal. Kaomso (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal D 

message: ImageSize= width:790 height:auto barincrement:22
PlotArea = right:4 left:0 bottom:100 top:5
Legend = orientation:vertical position:bottom columns:3
DateFormat=mm/dd/yyyy
Period = from:07/01/1998 till:02/28/2008
Define $skip = at:end # Force a blank line
Define $now = 01/31/2008 # Please keep updated
Define $dayunknown = 15 # what day to use if it's actually not known
Colors =
  id:bg       value:white
  id:line     value:rgb(0.5,0.5,0.5)
  id:line_    value:rgb(0.9,0.9,0.9)
  id:g3       value:rgb(1,0.85,0.85)    legend:iMac_(PowerPC_G3)
  id:g4       value:rgb(1,0.85,0.65)    legend:iMac_(PowerPC_G4)
  id:g5       value:rgb(1,0.85,0.45)    legend:iMac_(PowerPC_G5)
  id:emac     value:rgb(0.65,0.65,0.9)  legend:eMac_(PowerPC_G4)
  id:emac_    value:rgb(0.85,0.85,0.95) legend:Limited_to_education
  id:blank    value:rgb(0.99,0.99,0.99) legend:~_#
  id:c        value:rgb(0.5,1,0.8)      legend:iMac_(Intel_Core)
  id:current  value:rgb(0.9,0.9,0.9)    legend:Still_currently_produced
BackgroundColors = canvas:bg
ScaleMajor = gridcolor:line  unit:year  increment:1 start:12/31/1998
ScaleMinor = gridcolor:line_ unit:month increment:3 start:10/01/1998
TimeAxis = orientation:horizontal
BarData = 
  barset:main
PlotData = 
  width:15 textcolor:black
  barset:main
    shift:(5,-5) anchor:from fontsize:s
  barset:break
    $skip
    color:g3 from:08/15/1998 till:01/07/2002 text:"G3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _"
  barset:break
    color:emac_ from:04/29/2002 till:06/04/2002
    color:g4 from:01/07/2002 till:08/31/2004 text:"_G4 15_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ "
    color:g4 from:07/17/2002 till:08/31/2004 text:"_G4 17 _  _ _ _ _ _ _ _ "
    color:g4 from:11/18/2003 till:08/31/2004 text:"_G4 20_ _ "
  barset:break
    color:emac from:06/04/2002 till:10/12/2005 text:"_eMac _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _"
    $skip
    color:g5 from:08/31/2004 till:01/10/2006 text:"G5 17_ _ _ _"
    color:g5 from:08/31/2004 till:03/20/2006 text:"G5 20_ _ _ _"
  barset:break
    color:emac_ from:10/12/2005 till:07/05/2006
    $skip
    color:c from:01/10/2006 till:08/07/2007 text:"Intel-based 17_ _"
    color:c from:01/10/2006 till:$now text:"Intel-based 20_ _ _ _ _ _ "
    color:c from:09/06/2006 till:$now text:"Intel-based 24_ _ "
  barset:break
    $skip
    $skip
    $skip
    color:current from:$now till:end
    color:current from:$now till:end
  barset:break
Kaomso (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal K-3 

message: Any progress on this dispute? Cool Hand Luke 07:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Kaomso has abandoned the argument again. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  "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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Well?

message: ImageSize= width:790 height:auto barincrement:22
PlotArea = right:4 left:0 bottom:100 top:5
Legend = orientation:vertical position:bottom columns:3
DateFormat=mm/dd/yyyy
Period = from:07/01/1998 till:05/30/2008
Define $skip = at:end # Force a blank line
Define $now = 04/29/2008 # Please keep updated
Define $dayunknown = 15 # what day to use if it's actually not known
Colors =
  id:bg       value:white
  id:line     value:rgb(0.5,0.5,0.5)
  id:line_    value:rgb(0.9,0.9,0.9)
  id:g3       value:rgb(1,0.85,0.85)    legend:iMac_(PowerPC_G3)
  id:g4       value:rgb(1,0.85,0.65)    legend:iMac_(PowerPC_G4)
  id:g5       value:rgb(1,0.85,0.45)    legend:iMac_(PowerPC_G5)
  id:emac     value:rgb(0.65,0.65,0.9)  legend:eMac_(PowerPC_G4)
  id:emac_    value:rgb(0.85,0.85,0.95) legend:Limited_to_education
  id:blank    value:rgb(0.99,0.99,0.99) legend:~_#
  id:c        value:rgb(0.5,1,0.8)      legend:iMac_(Intel_Core)
  id:current  value:rgb(0.9,0.9,0.9)    legend:Still_currently_produced
BackgroundColors = canvas:bg
ScaleMajor = gridcolor:line  unit:year  increment:1 start:12/31/1998
ScaleMinor = gridcolor:line_ unit:month increment:3 start:10/01/1998
TimeAxis = orientation:horizontal
BarData = 
  barset:main
PlotData = 
  width:15 textcolor:black
  barset:main
    shift:(5,-5) anchor:from fontsize:s
  barset:break
    $skip
    color:g3 from:08/15/1998 till:01/07/2002 text:"G3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _"
  barset:break
    color:emac_ from:04/29/2002 till:06/04/2002
    color:g4 from:01/07/2002 till:08/31/2004 text:"_G4 15_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ "
    color:g4 from:07/17/2002 till:08/31/2004 text:"_G4 17 _  _ _ _ _ _ _ _ "
    color:g4 from:11/18/2003 till:08/31/2004 text:"_G4 20_ _ "
  barset:break
    color:emac from:06/04/2002 till:10/12/2005 text:"_eMac _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _"
    $skip
    color:g5 from:08/31/2004 till:01/10/2006 text:"G5 17_ _ _ _"
    color:g5 from:08/31/2004 till:03/20/2006 text:"G5 20_ _ _ _"
  barset:break
    color:emac_ from:10/12/2005 till:07/05/2006
    $skip
    color:c from:01/10/2006 till:08/07/2007 text:"Intel-based 17_ _"
    color:c from:01/10/2006 till:$now text:"Intel-based 20_ _ _ _ _ _ "
    color:c from:09/06/2006 till:$now text:"Intel-based 24_ _ "
  barset:break
    $skip
    $skip
    $skip
    color:current from:$now till:end
    color:current from:$now till:end
  barset:break
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  No. A consensus must be met before any unlocking occurs. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  iMac timeline vision for Apple's new models on April 28, 2008 

message: DateFormat=mm/dd/yyyy
Period = from:07/15/1998 till:07/01/2008
Define $skip = at:end # Force a blank line 
Define $now = 05/15/2008 # Please keep updated
Define $dayunknown = 15 # what day to use if it's actually not known
ImageSize= width:790 height:auto barincrement:22
TimeAxis = orientation:horizontal
PlotArea = right:4 left:0 bottom:100 top:5
Colors =
     id:bg         value:white
     id:lightline  value:rgb(0.9,0.9,0.9)
     id:lighttext  value:rgb(0.5,0.5,0.5)
     id:g3         value:rgb(1,0.85,0.85) legend:iMac_(PowerPC_G3)
     id:g4         value:rgb(1,0.85,0.65) legend:iMac_(PowerPC_G4)
     id:g5         value:rgb(1,0.85,0.45) legend:iMac_(PowerPC_G5)
     id:core       value:rgb(0.7,1,0.8) legend:iMac_(Intel_Core_Duo)
     id:core2      value:rgb(0.6,1,0.8) legend:iMac_(Intel_Core_2_Duo)
     id:emac       value:rgb(0.65,0.65,0.9) legend:eMac_(PowerPC_G4)
     id:emacl      value:rgb(0.85,0.85,0.95) legend:Limited_to_education
     id:current    value:rgb(0.9,0.9,0.9) legend:Still_currently_produced
BackgroundColors = canvas:bg
ScaleMajor = gridcolor:lighttext unit:year increment:1 start:12/31/1998
ScaleMinor = gridcolor:lightline unit:month increment:1 start:07/15/1998
Legend = orientation:vertical position:bottom columns:4
BarData = 
  barset:main
PlotData=
  width:15 textcolor:black
  barset:main
    shift:(5,-5) anchor:from fontsize:s
    $skip
    color:g3 from:08/15/1998 till:10/05/1999 text:"G3"
  barset:break
    $skip
    color:g3 from:10/05/1999 till:01/07/2002 text:"(slot loading)"
  barset:break
    color:emacl from:04/29/2002 till:06/04/2002
    color:g4 from:01/07/2002 till:08/31/2004 text:"G4 15"
    color:g4 from:07/17/2002 till:08/31/2004 text:"G4 17"
    color:g4 from:11/18/2003 till:08/31/2004 text:"G4 20"
  barset:break
    color:emac from:06/04/2002 till:10/12/2005 text:"eMac"
    $skip
    color:g5 from:08/31/2004 till:01/10/2006 text:"G5 17"
    color:g5 from:08/31/2004 till:01/10/2006 text:"G5 20"
    $skip
  barset:break
    color:emacl from:10/12/2005 till:07/05/2006
    $skip
    color:core from:01/10/2006 till:09/06/2006 text:"Core Duo"
    color:core from:01/10/2006 till:09/06/2006 text:"Core Duo"
    $skip
  barset:break
    $skip
    $skip
    color:core2 from:09/06/2006 till:08/07/2007 text:"Core 2 Duo 17""
    color:core2 from:09/06/2006 till:08/07/2007 text:"C2D 20""
    color:core2 from:09/06/2006 till:08/07/2007 text:"C2D 24""
  barset:break
    $skip
    $skip
    $skip
    color:core2 from:08/07/2007 till:$now text:"(aluminum)"
    color:core2 from:08/07/2007 till:$now text:"(aluminum)"
  barset:break
    $skip
    $skip
    $skip
    color:current from:$now till:end
    color:current from:$now till:end
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  No. A consensus must be met before any unlocking occurs. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Alternate proposal in response