Talk:IPhone tethering

From ArchWiki
Latest comment: 12 April 2016 by Alad in topic Unification


A single, unified iThings guide

It seems silly to have this as an entirely separate page from , nor is this article mentioned or linked from there. Would anyone be opposed to merging these into a single iDevices article?

Pid1 (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, from the looks of it, both articles cover different subjects, that don't benefit much from each other at current. (Usecase for tethering is different to accessing the devices, i.e. different categories). Crosslinking where possible definetely makes sense, maybe it is even possible to handle a particular section for both in one article only along with an update. But there may be synergies which I don't see, so don't see this as opposition ..
Yet anyway it might make sense to move the iPod article to iThings (or iDevices). It already has a mix of sections which seem applicable for both the iPod and iPhone. Or (playing ideas) you split the two major parts on both hardware devices, add a short iThings overview for devices' Arch support, iThings/iPhone, iThings/iPod, iThings/iW... etc. (another thought: moving forward it can only be that iPhone Linux support gets better, a separate article on it might be a good preparation to have a proper space for it).
--Indigo (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Understandable concerns all. Now that I think about it, iDevices a brand, so we may want to refrain from using that. Perhaps the current proposal should be thus; All i* products can be indexed in the iThings article, with subsections for iPod, iPhone, etc. Even if the iPhone starts to need its own article, we can always just have that linked from iThings, similar to how Dm-crypt works as an index for the relevant subsections.
Pid1 (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know on the exact name, but a similar approach used in Chrome OS devices, including subpages, was quite successful. -- Alad (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]