The iPhone Wiki:Community portal

From The iPhone Wiki
Revision as of 09:01, 8 January 2015 by Kirb (talk | contribs) (Mobile Stylesheet: reply)
Jump to: navigation, search
 • 2010 • 2011 • 2012 • 2013 • 2014 • 2015 • 2016 • 2017 •


I think we should include all this old stuff before it gets lost: I mean the wiki articles there. Most infos should be already here, but I'm sure a lot of things are missing too. --http 15:02, 26 June 2012 (MDT)

Boot-args cleanup

We need to clean up the boot-args pages. First the technical part: What I understand is that iBoot loads the kernel. And when loading it, it can pass some parameters to select certain behavior. So this only works with an iBoot or bootrom exploit. I understand that in earlier firmware versions there was simply an iBoot variable, but that doesn't exist or work anymore, now passing theses args requires a different or patched iBoot. There are various parameters in different kernel versions. The description for these arguments is scattered over various places:

So what do we want to do about this mess? I suggest to move the current Kernel content to the redirect page Boot arguments (or to another new page, maybe boot-args). The current content of Boot-args (iBoot variable) and all other content should get merged into there. Then change all references to this new page and on the Kernel page write just something short with "main article there". What do you think? --http (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I like Boot Arguments. --5urd (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
One addition: Maybe we should use boot-args as the main page, because all links are written like that. --http (talk) 07:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The iPhone Wiki re-design

The design of the iPhone wiki is now quite old and I think it should be updated. I made a concept. --Jaggions (talk) 10:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. If anything add an iPhone 5 to the logo but everything else is ok. --iAdam1n (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't change the logo to an iPhone 5, especially with iOS 7 and a new iPhone (that will probably look the same as the 5, admittedly) around the corner. I contemplated updating the CSS for iOS 7's UI but decided not to because of the UI's supposed volatility (during the beta period) and I don't have a live version to toy around with. (I personally don't like its current state, but that's not a factor in why I'm not changing it yet.) --Dialexio (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Can we not do flat? --Haifisch (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
This is what I was thinking. When iOS 7 finally comes out, we could change the CSS to look like that instead. --5urd (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
iOS 7 looks ugly. We do not want it like that. Maybe a bit more modern but nothing much. --iAdam1n (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
You may not want it like that. That's your opinion. --5urd (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
We could make a poll, and see if most users agree or disagree. --Jaggions (talk) 10:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
The idea looks nice. But before we make any changes, let's wait until iOS7 comes out. And I'd prefer to just add another skin instead (if possible). I'm still using the classic MonoBook skin by the way. You shouldn't impose design changes to everyone. --http (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
The problem with skins is that geohot needs to set them up... An idea I have is that we copy the Vector skin verbatim to a new skin (iOS6) and move the modifications (not general stuff) to Mediawiki:iOS6.css. Then we can do another verbatim copy to iOS7 and modify Mediawiki:iOS7.css. We could then set the default skin to either iOS6 or iOS7 so you don't need to be logged in to see them like currently. Then if someone doesn't like them, like you, just change your settings to your preferred skin. The only way around needing geohot is if he opens up the credentials to FTP or whatever to someone. --5urd (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I like 5urd's suggestion. --iAdam1n (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

What about just removing the text-shadow element for now? I think pages would be easier to read without it. Here's an example: File:Noshadow.png. Britta (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah removing the shadow will make everything seem more flat but like http I'm still using the classic MonoBook skin --Jaggions (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Hacker page

I would like to be added to the list of hackers for my work with the Private Dev Team and the Chronic Dev Team in addition to my release of the Phoenix Semi-Untethered. --Ph0enix (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Did you find any exploits? --Haifisch (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
No. phyrrus9, a team member found the vulnerability. I am the one who exploited it. --Ph0enix (talk)
I can back up this "claim". I was a part of it. --5urd (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Whatever happened to this? --phyrrus9
So this went cold and i am going to again request that this change be made. --Ph0enix (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm gonna say no. I don't see any notable accomplishments to merit this. --Dialexio (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
No. The first step would be to get to the category hackers. You can get there by finding a vulnerability that is used with an exploit in a jailbreak - or by writing a new exploit. Remember that it's not allowed to add yourself to that category. Instead of finding a vulnerability you could also be member of either The iPhone Dev Team or Chronic Dev or evad3rs. After being in that category, the next step would be that you're famous enough from all those hackers there to get to the main page. The people chosen are discussed here. --http (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned articles

This is an interesting search: Special:LonelyPages - "The following pages are not linked from or transcluded into other pages in The iPhone Wiki." I'm not sure where all of those articles should be linked, but figuring that out could be a useful project for somebody. Britta (talk) 05:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Easy tasks for new editors

  • Finish converting the remaining error codes listed here MobileDevice_Library#Known_Error_Codes into the proper mach_return_t codes they should be displayed as. (convert the negative number listed into hex, strip any leading "FF" so it should be in the format "0xe80000" followed by two numbers) --Dirkg (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

A1XXX model numbers vs. "GSM"/"CDMA"/"Global"/"Cellular"/etc.

I know that this topic was already discussed earlier this year, but it didn't seem to come to a consensus, and the introduction of the iPhone 5c and iPhone 5s brought a lot of model numbers. Some of them may "overlap" (think models A1429 and A1442 for the iPhone 5), but there's simply too many to give names to. There are at least two that can connect to CDMA networks, and all of them can connect to GSM. In addition, with the sheer amount of models, it doesn't seem likely for one model to be treated as a "global" model. Therefore, I changed the iPhone 5c to use model numbers. I would like to do the same to some of the devices that are already present on the wiki though— the same ones from when I first brought up this idea. The GSM/CDMA names work very well for the iPad 2 and iPhone 4. Things are slightly murkier for the iPad (3rd gen.), iPad (4th gen.), iPad mini 1G, and iPhone 5 though; all of those devices' cellular models can connect to GSM networks, so it seems like nonsense to call some of them the "GSM model." The A1XXX model numbers are also how Apple tells the difference between the different models of these devices. Have any opinions changed? Or perhaps someone new might have something to say about this? --Dialexio (talk) 06:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I actually like the idea as it does get complicated now with the new devices coming like said and we would have to do this for all devices. Although, if we did this, we would have to move all the key pages that have keys on to support this. That would not be a big problem as we could limit the moves to say 20 per day. --iAdam1n (talk) 09:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I suggest we wait a bit until we see what models of the iPhone 5c and iPhone 5s will exist. But in general, I like the idea of using only the A1nnn numbers. The only issue I see right now is that Apple differentiates between A1532 GSM and A1532 CDMA. If there are real hardware differences between these two, then we're screwed again. That's why I suggest to wait until we know these exact model types. On the disambiguation page I added the GSM/CDMA model differentiation already (as Apple does). If they turn out to be the same, we can remove it again, but I wonder why Apple lists two models (with different bands supported) there now. Someone also added the "CDMA" mark to one of the others, but that's not how Apple marks them, so I suggest to remove that mark there again. If everything can be differentiated by these A-model-numbers, then yes, we should change the old pages too. Including all key pages. --http (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I do know there are 2 CDMA and 3-4 GSM for the iPhone 5c alone. --iAdam1n (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Ahem… All of the iPhone 5c models can do GSM communications. Hence one of the reasons why I want to ditch the "GSM"/"Global"/etc. labels in favor of A1XXX model numbers. ;P --Dialexio (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
One thing is, what about iPod touch 5 as that has two model numbers that are the same device, same with iPhone5,2. How would we get around that? I suppose we could like both separated with a forward slash. --iAdam1n (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, we could just use something like "iPhone 5 (Model A1429/A1442)." --Dialexio (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah I thought that but what about the iPhone 4 GSM and GSM Rev A? They both seem to be A1432. --iAdam1n (talk) 23:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
This is why I'm against using the A1XXX model numbers instead of the current GSM/Global thing. --5urd (talk) 23:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I had no plans to change the way we refer to the iPhone 4 or iPad 2 (Apple does use GSM/CDMA, and for those devices it works fine). If a new iPhone 5S revision comes along, Apple will probably refer to it as a "Rev A" thing, and so will we. --Dialexio (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Referencing Adam's reply above, if we had took that to the key pages, it'd be [[{BuildTrain} {Build} (A1432)]] which would mess everything up. What could we do? Use [[{BuildTrain} {Build} (A1432 Rev A)]]? No. That doesn't look good. The current way of referring to everything by their supported network type (GSM/CDMA/Global) helps in going to a different page.
Let's say I'm on BrightonMaps 10B329 (iPhone 4 GSM) and I want to go the CDMA device. What do I do? Go to the URL and replace GSM with CDMA. With the model numbers, I'd have to navigate to Firmware, then find the link, or find out what the model number of the CDMA variant is and replace the model number in the URL with that.
Ok, who navigates by the URL and search bar? I do. And I'm sure there's many people out there that prefer to navigate with the search bar if they know the page name. If we go by model number, the AJAX search results just list pages with a model number in parenthesis. How does that help? I'd either have to know the model number of the device I want, or visit each one until I find the page I need.
Sorry for the rant, but I am strongly against this. --5urd (talk) 23:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I do suppose we could just trash the buildtrain all together to shorten it down too. --iAdam1n (talk) 23:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Dropping the Build Train would only increase the workload. Besides, what's the harm with it? We've been using the same page title structure since forever, and it's worked. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". The current system works, so why, other than the fact that Apple refers to them differently, should we change this? In addition, we don't refer to everything the way Apple does. The iPad mini 1G is referred to as the "iPad mini". The iPad 3 is refered to as "The New iPad". The iPad 4 is refered to as "iPad with Retina Display"[1]. Are the key pages titled BrightonMaps 10B329 (The New iPad, Wi-Fi+3G for AT&T and Verizon)? No. --5urd (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
But the reason we want to not use the variants is because the new devices that are coming out are breaking he structure and also CDMA versions can use GSM in the 5c plus we have like 4 for GSM alone. I only meant drop buildtrain to shorten the urls down. For the iPhone 4 GSM Rev A we would have to list it as iPhone 4 A1432 Rev unless another idea is thought of. --iAdam1n (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
No. Anything involving moving key pages to change their title I am completely against. As for the iPhone 5s and iPhone 5c, we ultimately have to wait. There may be different types, but if they all work with the same firmware, then what do we do then? Use A1456/A1504? I don't want to do that. It can get confusing in the future if that list were to be huge. With 5 different models for the iPhone 5c alone, it's just not practical. For the fact that all support GSM, but not all support CDMA, we just do what we've been doing: "GSM" and "Global". --5urd (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with changing the titles of pages that don't even exist though. If *all* of the models use the same firmware, just go with "iPhone 5s." If they happen to be partitioned into two different firmwares again, that will certainly complicate things, but it wouldn't be worse than nonsense like "GSM," "GSM [Global]," "CDMA," "CDMA [Global]," or "GSM [Global Plus TD-LTE]." If it's just one oddball, we could just have "iPhone 5s" and "iPhone 5s A1XXX" (whatever the odd one is), and include a link on the former page to say "keys for model A1XXX are on this page." --Dialexio (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I probably didn't phrase that well… I wasn't thinking of how Apple markets the product, but rather more along the lines of how they refer to it in, say, the tech specs page or support documents— the pages that shows the messier side to their simple sugar coating. --Dialexio (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
You keep misinterpreting/misrepresenting what I'm proposing. I never said anything about dropping, say, "iPhone 5" so firmware page titles would look like Sundance 10A405 (A1428). I want to change the GSM/Global part to the A1XXX number, so it would probably show like Sundance 10A405 (iPhone 5 A1428). (If a hardware revision were made, it would probably look like Sundance 10A405 (iPhone 5 A1428 Rev A).) From time to time, I edit URLs to browse the wiki too. But the GSM/Global identifiers don't work that well; again, all iPhone 5 models can connect to GSM. That's not really helpful. --Dialexio (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I suggest we drop the A and use Rev. As for the idea of changing to A1XXX, I see no issues and am for the idea. I admit it can cause chaos when we move the pages but we could limit the moving per day of course. Overall, I think it will be worth it. --iAdam1n (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
No. Don't drop the A from Rev A. Why would you even think to? You want to call them what Apple calls them, and the revised iPhone 4 GSM is referred to with Rev A. In addition, there have been Rev B things before, such as the S5L8947 (A5 Rev B) used in the revised Apple TV 3G. In addition, think of all the redirects we would need to keep for sites that link to key pages directly. I have even seen sites that still link with the URLs as /wiki/index.php?title={Title} instead of the year old change to /wiki/{Title}. The wiki handles that internally for us, but the redirects made in the moves would have to be kept. Currently, only the iPhone 5 and iPad 4 are the only devices referred to by their model numbers. --5urd (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
That's why I don't want to change it. It's worked for us, and we have no idea how the new firmwares will be handled. I am betting that there will only be two firmware types - one for the GSM, and one for the Global (GSM+CDMA) model. The only reason they are split, IIRC, is because AT&T uses different LTE bands than rest of the GSM world.
Ultimately, the GSM/CDMA/Global monikors haven't caused any naming conflicts. Ok, you don't want to use the marketing title. What about the way they are referred to on ADC, because that seems to be what you want. I may be misreading what you're saying again, but if we're going to do that, let's use their full title. Something (iPad [4th generation Model A1458]) (iPad 4 Wi-Fi) and (iPad Wi-Fi + Cellular [model for Verizon]) (iPad 3 Global). Does the first one tell you if the device is Wi-Fi or a Wi-Fi+3G model? Does the second one tell you at all that it is an iPad 3, or that it supports GSM? No.
Apple has a history of being inconsistent. For example, the iPad 3 Wi-Fi is referred to on ADC (and iTunes) as "iPad Wi-Fi (3rd generation)" while the iPad 3 GSM is referred to as "iPad Wi-Fi + Cellular [model for AT&T]". What happened to the "3rd generation"? --5urd (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
We could always list as iPhone 4 (iPhone3,1) etc instead if that would be better. --iAdam1n (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Why is there a need to explicitly keep "Wi-Fi" in a key page's title? All you need is a way to distinguish what model it is from its other variants— the A1XXX model number does just that. It's not like we referred to the AppleTV3,2 as "Apple TV 3G (New Single-Core A5)" or something. And obviously, we can use common sense to address the 3rd generation iPad issue you brought up… Now you're just nitpicking. --Dialexio (talk) 05:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I think we should wait until we see the firmware for iPhone 5c/5s and then decide. TBH, as 5urd said, it is ok as it is but of course if once the new firmware is out it is more confusing, then we can think again. --iAdam1n (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Come to think of it, we can use a mix of both; we can keep the "Global" moniker, but drop the "GSM" moniker in favor of the A1XXX model number. (The "GSM" moniker is the one that's been bothering me.) I think this works well for the iPad 3 (which is actually split into "CDMA" and "Global—" it probably doesn't need to be done for this), iPad 4, iPad mini 1G, and iPhone 5, but this leaves the question of what to do for the iPhone 5C/5S. --Dialexio (talk) 04:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
That would look worse! If we are going to do it, we have to do it for all. --iAdam1n (talk) 09:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
What is the status on this now? --iAdam1n (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has stagnated, but I'm firing it up again— I want to fix this before the end of the year, so this can probably be seen as an ultimatum. Now that Apple has pushed a 7.1 beta to developers, we now know how Apple's splitting the new iPhones up— and it's by A1XXX model numbers still. :\ That's probably the path the wiki will go down, but I do have another idea. The other idea I have in mind is using the A1XXX model number for the cellular devices launched last year. But for this year's iPhones, the FCC ID is actually different between the two, so we could actually use that. Before this gets nitpicked on, the last letter can get changed to an "X" to signify that it's a wildcard of sorts. It's not a pretty solution so I do expect it to get shot down (hence why I'm going with the A1XXX model numbers unless everyone says otherwise), but I'm still throwing it out there in case everyone actually likes that. Everyone is welcome to suggest alternatives, but I will eliminate that GSM label before the year ends. --Dialexio (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
That is worse, nobody knows the FCC ID off the top of their head. I would suggest "iPhone 5 (iPhone5,1)" if anything. --iAdam1n (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Using "iPhone5,1" or "iPhone6,2" is even less friendly… The FCC ID can be looked up in Settings or the back of a device. --Dialexio (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Well that is not the point. I say either use the firmware name or leave it alone. See what others thing though. --iAdam1n (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I currently plan on using the A1XXX model numbers— the FCC ID proposal was just thrown out there in the off chance that someone might like it. I'm not really a fan of it myself, but the FCC ID is probably the simplest way to figure out if it's an iPhone6,1 or iPhone6,2 since both have multiple A1XXX model numbers. --Dialexio (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree to get rid of the "GSM" name, as almost all iPhones support GSM. The Axxxx numbers would be nice, but as some phones have several numbers, like A1457/A1518/A1528/A1530 (what is actually different between them?) we can't use it. For the FCC-ID, we can't use that either, because for example the iPhone 5 with FCC-ID BCG-E2599A stands for the GSM/A1428 and also for the GSM+CDMA/A1429 version. So I suggest to either use the identifier (like iPhone2,1) or better the internal name (like n88ap). That would have the advantage to separate them further, because the iPhone 4 A1332 has two internal versions: iPhone3,1/n90ap and the iPhone3,2/n90bap. The bigger question is where you want to use this. That determines mainly the name. On all the key pages? Then it must be a name that is different between models that use different firmwares. And regarding key pages, maybe we should delete all the key pages from this wiki and move them into some database instead and provide a nice user interface and API around it and integrate that into the wiki somehow. That way we can change all pages with one simple edit. For the name, I prefer the internal name. --http (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
We would have to edit key pages too. They should not be removed however. --iAdam1n (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't trying to say that we had to decide on one way to differentiate everything; "GSM" does work fine for, say, the iPhone 4. The proposal I brought up today was using the FCC ID only for this year's (2013's) iPhones— last year's cellular devices would get the A1XXX model numbers (i.e. two different solutions for two different years). But as of right now, I like how using A1XXX model numbers sounds for all of the affected devices, mostly because that's the path Apple's going in their developer portal. Something like "iPhone 5s (Model A1457/A1518/A1528/A1530)" is admittedly a mouthful for this year's iPhones though. At the moment, I'm inquiring about how to label it on Firmware and such pages, but I'm sure the outcome can be adapted for key page titles as well. As for differences between the models, it seems to be the supported LTE bands. --Dialexio (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I still think that unless it is "iPhone 5 (iPhone5,1)" it will be complicated but on the other hand, I kind of like the idea that http had, using the internal identifiers like this "iPhone 5 (n42ap)". The only problem is that it would cause quite a bit of a flood moving the key pages, although this can be done like 15 per day each or something. --iAdam1n (talk) 09:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the only key page that exists for an A5 (or newer) device is Telluride 9A406 (iPhone 4S). --Dialexio (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
That was an example. I know there are no more A5 pages, only the one you said and two beta for iPhone 4S. I just meant that it would show the design. --iAdam1n (talk) 13:36, November 21, 2013 (UTC)

"GSM" Replacement Proposals

Since this discussion has become extremely lengthy, here are the proposals (to my understanding) for changing the labels, each of which can be subject to changes (i.e. dropping the word "Model" from Proposal A). In an effort to conserve space (ironically, this still adds a significant amount of length), I only included a few models, which should give an idea of the proposal. Basically anything with an A5 or newer is involved. Feel free to edit this list if I missed or totally misinterpreted something. --Dialexio (talk) 03:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

  1. Proposal A (A1XXX numbers)
  2. Proposal B (A1XXX + FCC ID)
  3. Proposal C (-AP Identifier)
  4. Proposal D (iPhoneX,Y Identifier)

I like this InnsbruckTaos 11B554a iPad 4 (3,4) or InnsbruckTaos 11B554a iPad 4 (iPad3,4). I see there are 4 ways to approach this;

1. Change every single device.
2. Change just devices with different variants, iPad 2+, iPad mini+, iPhone 4, iPhone 5+.
3. Change A5+ only (which I hate the idea of).
4. Change nothing at all.
--iAdam1n (talk) 09:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

My intention for this was to be a neutral (i.e. opinion-free) spot where all of the proposals were being mentioned, so people could easily see the proposed changes without any bias… v.v --Dialexio (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
TBH, I think it is better as it is, but I just stated my opinion that only A5+ would make in inconsistent. Though you could argue it is already, that is down to Apple and furthermore, just A5+ would still not eliminate iPhone 4 (GSM, GSM Rev A or CDMA). --iAdam1n (talk) 17:07, November 22, 2013‎ (UTC)}}
Do it like #4, and do them all. --CompilingEntropy (talk) 18:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
It will be a pain, but I like CompilingEntropy's idea as it would make it much much better in the end. --iAdam1n (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I would say A and B are impossible due to various numbers in the same model. I like C best. For variant C you could also leave away the "ap" at the end, because every model has that, so it would be even shorter. For D, that's simply longer names and these names are not used at many places, but I could live with that version as well. --http (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Taking into account everyone's thoughts on this, I think we'll probably go with option C. The wiki already uses the "-ap" identifiers for the model pages, and an identifier like "iPad3,4" may confuse someone into thinking it's a model of the iPad 3. (I would still like to use the A1XXX numbers since Apple does that, but nobody else seems to agree now…) I'll give this a few more days for any last words before acting on it. --Dialexio (talk) 04:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

It will get changed before the year ends. I don't know why your opinion keeps changing, but I have already explained the reason for changing it. You even agreed that it needs to be changed. I'm still open to suggestions on what to change it to though. Keep in mind that the change will affect not only key pages, but also how the devices will be referred to throughout the wiki. --Dialexio (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I know it will. I said it is fine to change. I like bot #3 and #4. Only point I must make is that I feel we should change all devices with multiple variants, including iPad Air and iPhone 4. This way, it is consistent and also removes GSM etc altogether. --iAdam1n (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Adam, if you're going to change some of them then change all of them. This includes iPods. Whatever the outcome, be consistent. As for the outcome itself, I really think we should just use device identifiers (iPhone2,1). That's what we're actually differentiating by, so it only makes sense to refer to devices by them. I don't think there would be any confusion, especially considering we'll keep the name of the device next to it regardless. Barring that, the next best option is ***ap. The other options don't make any sense considering modern devices. --CompilingEntropy (talk) 10:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I like CompilingEntropy's idea, though I do not mind if we do every device or just ones with multiple variants, as long as that included pre A5 (iPhone 4) too. --iAdam1n (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

"GSM" Replacement Proposals (cont.)

So this entire discussion came up because we need to remove "GSM" from models, because there are many models nowadays where the non-GSM model or Global or whatever model, all support GSM. One suggestion was the FCC number, but I think we already agreed that this is out of discussion (only used within USA and nobody refers to this number). So we have to use either

  • The Axxxx number (like A1332 for the iPhone 4). This is how Apple identifies their devices.
  • The ap number (like n94ap or just short N94). This is the internal name and used in internal references, like in the iBEC or iBSS filenames within an IPSW. (This is also what iH8sn0w has on his stickers on the devices.)
  • The 1,2 number (like iPad1,1 for the iPad 1G). This identifier is used in the IPSW filenames.

There are several issues with using one over the other:

  • Some devices (iPad 1G, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, iPhone 5c, iPhone 5s to be exact) have multiple Axxxx numbers for the same ap number/1,2 number. For example the iPad 1G: A1219 (WiFi model) and A1337 (GSM model) both have k48ap / iPad1,1. So only the Axxxx number could be used to replace the "GSM" identifier.
  • The iPhone 4 has for A1332 two ap numbers/1,2 numbers: A1332 stands for both n90ap/iPhone3,1 and also for n90bap/iPhone3,2.
  • The iPod touch 5G has the same 1,2 number for two ap numbers/Axxxx numbers: iPod5,1 stands for both A1421/n78ap and also for A1509/n78aap.

I understand the point from iAdam1n somehow that we should make it consistent and change it everywhere in the same manner. The question is where to change what. So where do we use these terms?

  • The biggest affected change would be the key pages, so any change there should be carefully considered. Currently we use something like: "InnsbruckTaos 11B554a (iPhone 5c Global)". So the discussion here is just about the change in the brackets. For the devices where no different hardware versions exist, I think the current naming is ok. So let's just continue using that. Only where different (sub-)devices exist for the same main model (like for the iPhone 5c) and they require a different firmware file, then we need to specify it. So we need to add something after the "iPhone 5c" to specify the difference. For older devices, we should leave it as it is, because it works very well there. For example the iPad 1G WiFi and GSM require different firmware, but can be differentiated that way. And we can't use the ap number, because both versions use k48ap, respectively iPad1,1. So I think we should leave the old devices as they are. For newer devices, like the iPhone 5c, there are only two variations for the firmware, but six different Axxxx numbers and we don't want to list all of them in the firmware name. We also cannot use "GSM" for the reason mentioned at the introduction. I would prefer to use the ap number there, but that yields to problems. In case of the iPod touch 5G, we have two models (A1421/n78ap and also A1509/n78aap). Fortunately both use the same firmware, so we don't have to specify anything. But if Apple would release an additional model that would require a different firmware, we would have to specify the name even here and we can't add a name like "n78ap+n78aap". The name iPod5,1 there seems to be the obvious choice, as it is contained in the ipsw name already, so it is unlikely that Apple will change that. The only question is the format then. My choice would be to keep it short, something like "InnsbruckTaos 11B554a (iPhone 5c [5,4])" instead of the current "InnsbruckTaos 11B554a (iPhone 5c Global)". We shouldn't repeat the word "iPhone" there. And we shouldn't remove the "5c" of the original name.
  • We also have some hardware lists, for example on the key pages titles where we list under iPad 2: Wi-Fi, GSM, CDMA, Wi-Fi (A). They link directly to our ap-pages, for example the "Wi-Fi (A)" name links to "k93aap". I think we don't need to change this. For the iPhone 5c, we have GSM and Global and they also link to the ap-pages. The link remains there, so we would only change the name. I suggest to use the same short name as in the key page extension, so something like my suggested "[5,4]" for example (instead of "GSM").
  • On the Models page, we have the column "Variant", which also lists "GSM" and "Global" etc. That would also need to change. I suggest to leave it for older devices where "GSM" is a valid differentiation. For newer devices we might list the bands it supports or something else.
  • On hardware pages, like iPhone, we also have names and links in the title bar. For devices that have different sub-devices (like the iPhone 4 and iPhone 5/5c/5s) I suggest to rename the title names to the ap-names, as they link to the respective page. I would not change the title "iPhone 3G" to "N82ap" although it links there. So this change would only apply to sub-titles.

--http (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Include iPhone 4 in the change and use same format everywhere on the wiki. I agree that we do not need to change devices with only one variant such as iPhone 3GS. --iAdam1n (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree on that. 3GS, 3G and the 1st iPhone are anyway devices where I do not see too many wiki-related changes in the future.--M2m (talk) 09:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't like how the abbreviated form of "iPad3,4" looks— I understand wanting to keep "iPad 4" in the name, but I can't come up with alternatives besides going with only the identifier. (Another issue is that MediaWiki's markup parser doesn't seem to like square brackets in links— I tried using <nowiki />.) Having thought it over for a few days, I'm more receptive to changing all multi-variant devices (i.e. including the iPhone 4), but my concern about the Recent changes getting flooded with page moves still exists. The page moves should be done on "quiet" days, when the wiki doesn't see much activity. That being said, this is my understanding of the proposed changes. Does everyone agree with the following?
Do let me know if I missed something. --Dialexio (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with your idea Dialexio, but make every page use iPhone 4 (iPhone3,1) etc. Of course if pages use iPhone 4 (GSM) now, change that to iPhone 4 (iPhone3,1) or iPhone 4 (3,1). I would suggest moving 10 pages per day for the iPhone 4 to avoid flooding. I do not want some pages to include the AP identifier and some others iPhone3,1 for example. --iAdam1n (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Several comments:
  • The square brackets were just an idea, nothing agreed on that yet. And yes, let's forget this idea if it has problems with MediaWiki.
  • The beginning of the name should remain, otherwise we're getting inconsistent with other pages. I agree with iAdam1n on this. To keep it short, my favorite would be something like "iPhone 4 (3,1)" then. But to make it more clear, "iPhone4 (iPhone3,1)" is also ok to me. If you wanted to leave the first part away and just use "iPhone3,1", then we would have to rename ALL pages (that's also an option).
  • Regarding flooding, I prefer that we do all changes at once, at an agreed date/time, done by Dialexio. Maybe in two steps: first step to change the few hardware pages plus one page of each device of the key pages. In the second step the rest. This would ensure that any misunderstandings get catched in the first step, before all pages are renamed. I don't like to have 20 edits per day that I have to go through. Better all at once, but only after agreement of all.
  • Yes, we can do iPhone 4 too, if that't the only missing one. It was a misunderstanding on my part for iPad GSM/WiFi, as this doesn't have different firmwares (only on hardware pages needed).
  • Regarding the proposed listing of the bands on the Models page, Variant column, we could only list the bands that are different to make it short.

Can we list here what pages would be affected by the changes? Feel free to edit this list here within my comment. Here's what I have in mind:

The key pages would get moved without redirect and all references updated. The references should also be in this list above. Add it to the list if I forgot anything. --http (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes that is fine. I said the 10 a day to avoid a big flood, but I do not mind either way. --iAdam1n (talk) 15:13, January 1, 2014‎ (UTC)
Looks good. I amended the list to include the iPads as well. --Dialexio (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
So most of you seem to agree on the the generic change now. But what is missing is the exact naming. We have three variations still in discussion:
  1. "iPhone 4 (3,1)"
  2. "iPhone 4 (iPhone3,1)"
  3. "iPhone 4 3,1"
  4. "iPhone 4 iPhone3,1"
I just noticed that we cannot use the round brackets, because this entire part is already enclosed in round brackets - otherwise we would have nested brackets and in grammar I think you have to use square brackets which are not allowed in MediaWiki. So this leaves us with #3 and #4. #3 looks silly without the brackets, so we probably have to use #4 as Dialexio suggested. --http (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with #4, looks better as I feel that #3 needs some sort of brackets if we used that. --iAdam1n (talk)
Wow, time really flies when you sleep all day. I've missed a lot. Ok. I'm happy we decided to use the firmware moniker instead of something else. Personally, I don't like #1 because it just looks weird IMO. In addition, #1 and #2 would require the use of brackets ((iPhone 4 [3,1])) which would require the use of <nowiki/> all over the place, and that will get not only ugly, but annoying. I agree #3 looks weird. However, #4 just looks redundent. I personally would like just iPhone3,1, but if I would have to put my vote on one of those last two, it would be #4. --5urd (talk) 08:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
One last comment: We could also just use "iPhone3,1" (leaving the leading "iPhone 4" completely away). That would have two advantages and two disadvantages:
  • + shorter
  • + future-proof; if we ever decide to rename the rest as well, this is the way to name it
  • - somehow inconsistent with non-ambiguous other key pages (although ambiguous and non-ambiguous pages are different now anyway)
  • - less easy to understand from the name what device it is (but the iOS version is also not directly visible)
--http (talk) 11:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
To me, that makes it worse. Why can we not use the rounded "()" brackets? I mean, it will only be duplicated in the key page urls, in which if it must be, just do "iPhone 4 iPhone3,1". Does not seem too bad to me. --iAdam1n (talk) 11:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
We don't want to use parenthesis because then we get double parenthesis (Telluride 9A334 (iPhone 4 (3,1))). We would have to use braces (Telluride 9A334 (iPhone 4 [3,1])), but MediaWiki chokes when there's braces in a link unless you use <nowiki/>; and that would mean everywhere there's a firmware link. --5urd (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
That is what I suggested in my reply... As for your first disadvantage, it only applies to the iPads where Apple has gotten confusing. Actually, now that I think of that, option #4 above does look nice. However, I still don't like the redundency of having iPhone in there twice. And as I said before, options #1 and #3 just look weird. So we're stuck at either redundency or looking weird. But then again, it wouldn't be redundent for the non-existent iPad key page links where Apple decided to be annoying with their firmware monikers. --5urd (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Could we not just use the parenthesis but just not in the key page URL's? I mean, "iPhone 4 (iPhone3,1)" but in the urls for key pages, Telluride 9A334 (iPhone_4_iPhone3,1)? That seems fine here. The underscores are currently there anyway. --iAdam1n (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
This seems fine to me… Well, aside from the underscores. Other than that, we're actually already doing the same thing until the changes are implemented. (Key pages say "(iPhone 4 GSM)" while other parts of the wiki say "iPhone 4 (GSM model).") --Dialexio (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I think that "iPhone 4 (iPhone3,1)" does look the nicest, and I don't really feel like it's redundant. I also like the idea of just saying 'iPhone3,1'. If either of those options doesn't work, it might be good to do something like "iPhone 4; iPhone3,1" or "iPhone 4 | iPhone3,1".--CompilingEntropy (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The underscores were stated due to the key page URL's use that. I did not mean use that throughout. Was just to give an example, Dialexio. --iAdam1n (talk) 13:16, January 2, 2014‎ (UTC)
So we have to decide between
  1. "Telluride 9A334 (iPhone 4 iPhone3,1)" (name on link could be "Telluride 9A334 (iPhone 4 [iPhone3,1])" or whatever fits best in the context)
  2. "Telluride 9A334 (iPhone3,1)"
I would prefer #2 (for advantages/disadvantages see list above), but could also live with the other one. Votes? --http (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I would prefer #1 because it would be more consistent. --iAdam1n (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Count my vote for #2. I could go either way, but option #2 looks nicer. But just to double-check (yet again), we are using "iPhone 4 (iPhone3,1)" in places like Firmware's headings, right? --Dialexio (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Headings/titles/links: we didn't decide on that, but I think we can put whatever fits best in the context of a page. So that's a 'yes'. --http (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
This has been completed. --iAdam1n (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Key page template

I actually like the idea of a database to an extent. I bet I could put together an extension that creates a special page that allows read access to everyone (and r/w access to users). Any edits to the key "pages" wouldn't cause a recent changes log. If we ever needed to update the layout, we would just need to update the extension. We could even have an API. The only limitation is that updates to the extension would require either George or Alex needing to upload the fix. If we were to set up an external site, then all links to it would need to be wrapped with <span class="plainlinks">...</span>. Maybe a simple extension that takes links and redirects you to the external site? That could work. Like, we would have a link to, say, [[Special:Keys/iPad1,1/9A405]] which would give an HTTP 301 Moved Permanently header to, say,,1/9A405. Granted, someone would have to pay for the domain, but it would solve this problem. I may be able to pay for the domain if I make enough money by the time I finish writing everything. Any opposition? --5urd (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not like the idea. I like the idea of the database to a degree, but I think that the pages should remain on this wiki. --iAdam1n (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't see this solving any problem— the backlash against changing the key page template was because of (unnecessary?) changes to the arguments, and the frequency of how often such changes were being proposed/applied. How would a database prevent it? For instance, let's say the database columns are all decided on. Suddenly, it's decided that SHA-1 hashes should be added as well, or perhaps "VFDecryptKey" will be renamed to "FSKey." People submitting keys would still be bothered with having to adjust for those changes. --Dialexio (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
That with the database is something I'll implement anyway (if not someone else is faster, as I'm quite busy). I just threw that in here as it might solve the problem of the frequent template updates (which is/was wrong anyway). From there it would be easy to create the VFDecrypt page with an overview link or lists of missing keys and that stuff, so the wiki would not need any direct links. But it would mean that we either completely remove all keys here from the wiki and embrace that solution or have them still duplicate (which then doesn't solve the problem). Dialexio: renaming columns can be handled without interface changes, but that's another topic. So let's forget about this database thing for now and we can discuss again when I have something. We certainly don't want to add extensions for that. So back to the discussion about the renaming: If I understood this correctly, you only want to rename A5+ devices and therefore no key pages would be affected. Is my understanding correct? --http (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
As long as the pages stay on this wiki, I do not mind. Although, a database could be pointless as with only 50 more pages to edit for the new format, there is no planned new format/changes again. --iAdam1n (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
About the renaming, that is correct; I'm only interested in changing the cellular labels on A5/+ devices. (Well, the iPad 2 can remain as-is.) --Dialexio (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, well that would just make things more complicated/inconsistent. We should do all or none. About the template idea, there is also no need as it is not likely we will change the format again. --iAdam1n (talk) 00:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Do we really need to CHANGE THE FORMAT 50 TIMES IN A ROW? The old one before everything was messed with worked fine enough. Winocm (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
It was actually one change, which was completed. --iAdam1n (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Login prompt revision suggestion

I wrote a suggestion here: MediaWiki talk:Loginprompt (since I don't have permission to edit MediaWiki:Loginprompt directly) - I'd be interested in whether it sounds like a good idea to other people. Britta (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Homepage suggestions

Under "Application Development", what about linking to iPhoneDevWiki? It's also a community-edited technical resource, and it links to this wiki. It could be helpful to add a little more detail to "Get up to speed in the community.", like this: "Get up to speed in the community - learn about how jailbreaks work." Under "Definitions", it could be helpful to list all the firmware tags in one line or sub-list, similar to how Jailbreak is organized next to Tethered jailbreak and Untethered jailbreak, both to save space and help readers understand the list. --Britta (talk) 23:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

A link to the iPhoneDevWiki sounds good. I wonder if we should have an "External Links" or "Other Resources" section to include links to other sites (such as the iPhone Dev Team blog) though. As for the "Up to Speed" page, I feel like the entire page could be reworked a bit— and perhaps even receive a new, clearer name (Introduction? Preface? Or something else?)— the current name makes it sound like it's for people that last paid attention to jailbreaking when the App Store didn't exist. And yeah, moving the IMG3 tags to a sub-list sounds like a really good idea. (Admittedly, I actually don't care for its inclusion in the first place, but that's just a personal preference.) --Dialexio (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
There's already Useful Links with some links to other core community resources (which could be updated and rearranged) - I was just thinking that it'd be especially useful to link to iPhoneDevWiki prominently since it's likely for TheiPhoneWiki visitors to also be interested in relatively-organized technical information about development. Changing the name of "Up to Speed" sounds fine to me too - that page didn't get much attention since 2008 until I sort of commandeered it to serve as an "intro to jailbreaking" page. :) It could be renamed "getting started", as in "how to get started on learning about research into iOS devices, especially security research (such as jailbreaks)". Britta (talk) 00:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Also I'd love to see a dedicated section for "Good tasks for new editors", where we could maintain a list of relatively easy/straightforward suggested edits that wouldn't require vast technical knowledge, like updating that links page. Where would that go? Add it as a sub-section of The iPhone Wiki:Current events and link that section from the homepage or something? Or make a new page? Britta (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

What is 0x5265c384 in the boot process?

Does anybody know where 0x5265c384 points to in the boot process? I haven't been able to find anything on it. --Ph0enix (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

License for contributions

This wiki has never had an official license for contributions. Now, IANAL, but IIRC, this means that you can't use anything posted here unless it qualifies as fair-use. What I propose is that we set a license and add a notice that states that any contributions after a set date are to be licensed under that license (that's kindof a mouthful). I think we should use the CC-by-SA 3.0 as Wikipedia uses it, but that's just me. Any ideas? --5urd (talk) 19:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, the edit info already says all this:
Please note that all contributions to The iPhone Wiki may be edited, altered, or
removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly,
then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public
domain or similar free resource (see The iPhone Wiki:Copyrights for details). Do not
submit copyrighted work without permission!

For me, that's enough. I don't need a 50 page license. But if you want to formalize this more, go ahead. --http (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. It's good practice to have an official license, just in case any disputes happen someday, and to ensure that it's OK to copy text over to Wikipedia (for example). Britta (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I kinda feel like the banner on the front page is getting a little stale, so I'm interested in seeing it replaced. I tossed a proposal on Twitter a couple of days ago (which is admittedly plain, but Myriad Set…), but I haven't heard any opinions on replacing the banner. Are there any thoughts on this matter? --Dialexio (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Or, this. --iAdam1n (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Looks nice in Myriad! More professional. Britta (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Date Format

I see that iAdam1n started to unify the date formats in this wiki. While I like this to be consistent, actually we should've talked about what format to use before changing it. I like the d_mon_yyyy format though. I also saw that he removed the &nbsp; between the date parts on the iFaith page that I added once purposefully. The reason was that when making the browser window small (or on the iPhone) that the date wraps to two lines, which is almost always undesired. The question is if we should do that everywhere too? Additionally, as we now seem to have a "standard" here, we should document it, so that new users know what format to use. -- http (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I just made it consistent. If you want the &nbsp; back, feel free to add it. I removed it as it did nothing (previewing on OS X). We should use the format I used throughout the wiki and not Dec 23, 2013 etc. --iAdam1n (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
&nbsp; stands for "non-breaking space". It is essentially a space, but with a property that prevents word wrap from occurring between the two words it's between. Look at Firmware Keys on a small enough screen (1024 across should do it). Your browser should preserve the space between the date "words". Now, go into the edit page and remove the &nbsp; from everything in one table. Your browser will now word wrap the date "words". --5urd (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
What I actually want to do is use {{start date}} instead of plain dates in areas where dates are used as a statistic; for example, Firmware, Firmware Keys, SHSH, Timeline, etc. Places where dates are used to record when something happened, for example on evasi0n7, "On 28 December 2013...", should use the date flat out in the source. --5urd (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Template documentation

Whenever using templates that are copied here from Wikipedia, I almost always forget the parameters of the template. I then have to open Wikipedia and search for the template. What I want to do it copy the template documentation from Wikipedia here. To work around the licensing issue, we can create our own template that you would include at the bottom of the copied documentation that says the documentation comes from Wikipedia (because Wikipedia uses CC-BY-SA 3.0 which says our copied text must be under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and attribute Wikipedia and her editors. I can write the text for license template. Any ideas? Any opposition? If not, I'll begin in a few days. --5urd (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why not. That's what I've seen done on other wikis. — Spydar007 (Talk) 16:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Mainpage "iPhone Hackers" List

I think the "iPhone Hackers" List of the mainpage needs to be updated. Here are some people that need adding:

Are there any others you can think of? — Spydar007 (Talk) 16:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the list except I do not think that SquiffyPwn has done anything huge, except help with p0sixspwn and i0n1c shouldn't be added. Just my opinions. --iAdam1n (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Me, 5urd and phyrrus9 have definitely earned our keep refer to --Ph0enix (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I disagree, you are not that well know, like pimskeks etc. --iAdam1n (talk) 09:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with iAdam1n. You are not known enough. — Spydar007 (Talk) 14:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Are you kidding me?? we have worked with many "well known" hackers and are in constant communication with people like p0sixninja! this is a joke we dont have to be "well known" to be influential hackers who not to mention have been running support and hacking in the community for 4 almost 5 years! --Ph0enix (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Support does not count. I am sticking with my original decision. AFAIK, you released no jailbreaks or found any new exploits, not as well know as the main hackers. Feel free to share what you have found/made if you want and also you can see what others say. --iAdam1n (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
are you kidding me!! that is the reason i have high quality followers like posixninja and nitotv just because you guys are too young in the community to know about our major help to the community doesnt mean we are it is a closed sourced exploit but very functional and based off of redsn0w that implements our exploit now if you wanna get your thumb out of your buts and pay attention it would be great --Ph0enix (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Why is this being brought up again? The answer was no before, and it's going to remain no for the reasons http stated before. I should add that who follows who on Twitter doesn't really mean anything— I have nitoTV, chronic, iH8sn0w, and winocm as followers, but that doesn't mean this was a legitimate jailbreak by any means. --Dialexio (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Jeez idk maybe because we RELEASED A WORKING TOOL AND KEEP BEING BLOWN OFF BY INFERIOR ASS HOLES WHO REFUSE TO ADMIT IT! when you create a tool then challenge it till then we should be put on the list for discovering and implementing a previously unknown userland exploit and building a tool to ease the process... --Ph0enix (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Your insults aren't helping your credibility. Just saying. --Dialexio (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
well if i wouldn't have to have been asking for so long then i wouldn't be so upset my credibility is there whether you choose to ignore it or not is up to you. our tool is a working tool and we discovered and implemented a exploit that should be grounds for our names to be on the list,and the followers point is that we may not be well known but the people who follow us are legit people. quality over quantity. --Ph0enix (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
And now, your arguing with the administration. The answer is no. End of. — Spydar007 (Talk) 09:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Coming back to this old discussion, the decision at that time was to not even include iH8sn0w there, so I don't see a reason to include much lesser known people. For the overview list, we already have the Category:Hackers. The main page is just for the 5-10 currently most important people. Regarding names, there should be a wide consensus of the people listed. If you ask me today, I'd comment like this:
  • i0n1c is not working on public jailbreaks, so don't include
  • geohot has retired from the scene, he could get removed, but as founder of this wiki and best contributor to the scene of all time, better leave him there
  • winocm new shooting star, could get added
  • iH8sn0w could get added with all the tools created
  • all others I would not add or only added to category mentioned above
Remember that the list should be really short, so adding anyone would most probably mean to remove someone less important. Also, number of followers on Twitter doesn't mean anything; all these people follow me too and I wouldn't claim to be that important. This shouldn't discourage anybody not on this main page to continue his/her work. If this is causing these feelings, I think we should remove the list there entirely. --http (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks http I feel like in that case their should be a new category made for the people who have worked very hard but by those standards do not fit in that category, something like security researchers for the people who are doing a lot of behind the scenes work and certainly deserve some recognition somewhere on here. Just a thought though. --Ph0enix (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Category Security Researchers

Hi all! i've created the category Security Researchers in order to cut down on the pages categorized as hackers as it apparently needs to be more exclusive. i've been adding the less known or inactive hackers from the hacker page but have not removed them from the hackers page. I feel that it should be a vote on who gets removed from the hackers page so my first suggestion is User:Fallensn0w‎ as he has been inactive for a very long time and didn't do a lot in the first place. --Ph0enix (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Replacing old/broken download links

I have noticed on pages like evasi0n and p0sixspwn that some of the dwonlaod links no longer work because the developers have taken the revision of the software down. Rather than leave them there, I suggest we replace the links with ones that can be accessed (such as with ones in my MEGA). For example, version 1.0 of evasi0n was taken down from MEGA and no longer exists. However, I have version 1.0 saved in my MEGA Drive so I could replace the broken links with ones to downloads in my MEGA Drive. What do you guys think of this? — Spydar007 (Talk) 10:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not like this idea as it breaks copyright. We normally just put a line through with style="text-decoration: line-through;". --iAdam1n (talk) 10:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I know but I think that people should still be able to download the old versions. — Spydar007 (Talk) 11:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. Except for evasi0n7, latest versions work best and with evasi0n7, all links work. We do not want unofficial links because of copyright. --iAdam1n (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
This contradicts your actions a bit— I've never seen official MEGA links for newer releases of evasi0n7, yet you filled it in for some of them. But I digress… In all honesty, I wouldn't mind, as long as no copyrights are violated. There should be some sort of distinction that it's not an official link though. --Dialexio (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
The MEGA links that I have added myself have been from with "view source" in a browser. The earlier releases, 5urd added them so I don't know about those. --iAdam1n (talk) 07:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
To be honest, it is only violating copyright if the jailbreak tools cost money. Since they are free, it is not violating copyright. — Spydar007 (Talk) 15:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Copyright laws are always in place, regardless of how much something costs, unless the creator waives their copyrights. --Dialexio (talk) 05:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
So, should I go ahead a do it? I could put a warning triangle symbol before it so that it is shown to be an unofficial link. — Spydar007 (Talk) 14:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I say no. On JailbreakQA, one moderator was told by MuscleNerd to remove a hosted version that included the edit for 7.0.6 before evasi0n7 1.0.7 was released. There is no need for older versions since the latest works, with the exception of evasi0n7 1.0.8 but 1.0.7 links are still valid. I strongly disagree to add this. Also it should have at least a week on discussion. --iAdam1n (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
That sounds more like MuscleNerd not wanting tampered copies of evasi0n7 to float around. That being said, I don't know whether he or the rest of the evad3rs would be fine with rehosting untouched copies of their files though. --Dialexio (talk) 05:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


I think we should make a page for geeksn0w. It is a jailbreak tool used by a significant amount of users who have iPhone 4's. I don't see why there isn't a page already. What do you guys think? — Spydar007 (Talk) 15:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I personally like the idea. I would at least like to see it added to iPhone 4 on the jailbreak page. --iAdam1n (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Exactly, we should add it to the Jailbreak page and create a page on it. What do you think of creating a page for the developer/hacker, BlackGeekTutorial? He is just about to start working on iFaith for iOS 7.
Personally, we don't need a page on him I don't think until he has made a lot. --iAdam1n (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
On the page, I am thinking of having download links to previous versions (in my MEGA drive) since BlackGeek doesn't give out other links. What do you think? — Spydar007 (Talk) 16:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I think we should only use official links but thats just me. --iAdam1n (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I know we should use official links, but BlackGeek doesn't keep the links active. Also, he doesn't use MEGA. He just hosts it in the portfolio for his website. But he uses Adfly links to host them too. Do we really want Adfly links here? — Spydar007 (Talk) 12:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
If that is the official link, I would say yes. --iAdam1n (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


I think we should make a page for Cyberelevat0r (i0n1c's 7.1.x Untethered Jailbreak). There is multiple proof that he might release it and we can fill it with information about all other hackers that have 7.1.x untethered jailbreaks as well. What do you think? — Spydar007 (Talk) 05:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

No. If (and it's a massive if) it gets released, then ok. Not until. --iAdam1n (talk) 08:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Email notifications?

Is it possible to get emailed when a watchlist page changes? I'd love that feature. This looks relevant. --beej (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Ambiguous names

I feel like the names for Symlinks and Symbolic Link Vulnerability is a bit too ambiguous. Now, I don't anticipate there being much confusion, particularly since nobody really cares about 1.x anymore, but I would like to make the distinction clearer. I think both articles should be renamed, but I have no idea on what to rename them to (or even if you guys approve). I thought of using the CVE ID, but Apple doesn't provide one for Symlinks (or even any indication that they fixed it). (Symbolic Link Vulnerability was assigned CVE-2013-5133.) --Dialexio (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

They are referred to as the Symbolic Link by people like MuscleNerd and iH8sn0w so, in my opinion, they should be kept as their current names. — Spydar007 (Talk) 18:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't mind if one of them keeps their current name, but there should be something to make the distinction clearer. --Dialexio (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

IRC Channel on Freenode

Howdy iphonewiki folks, I have #theiphonewiki registered on freenode, and am ready to have people come in (it's been ages since this idea has been brought up). Shall we open it? I'd like to get some ops in there to help out. --Haifisch (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I think we should make an IRC channel for this wiki. It can be either #theiphonewiki or #iphonewiki on freenode. The channel would be used for discussions, such as the TLC of the Jailbreak page for example. It would make getting things sorted a lot easier, since we could just ping each other different ideas. I know this idea was made before, but the channel never really got anywhere. What do you guys think of this idea? We would need to decide who has founder, op and voice etc. on the channel here. — Spydar007 (Talk) 06:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

This is idiotic. You just want to do it yourself cause you want power. We won't help you feed your ego. --goeo_ (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
You have never edited on this wiki in your life before so STFU. — Spydar007 (Talk) 05:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Being that I own #theiphonewiki, the original channel in which the wiki's channel was going to be on, I have control over who's moderating the channel. One op will be me, I have 3+ years of IRC moderation experience (To be honest, Is this even CV worthy? :P) we can choose the other operators when the channel becomes somewhat popular. ps. Why make two topics for this? --Haifisch (talk) 08:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
That most definitely is CV worthy. I've seen Spydar007 moderate a channel, it crashed in a week or so. Not to mention the channel wasn't even his, and he kinda took it over anyway. --goeo_ (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
No, no, no. The community decides. Juts because Farahtwiggy asked you to register it before, doesn't mean you get to be an op there now. This was my idea (Dialexio can vouch). You have no control over who are ops there. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spydar007 (talk) 04:11, July 6, 2014 (UTC). Please consult this page for more info on how to sign pages, and how to fix this.
One "no" is enough. Farah, really, doesn't have much (if anything) to do with this, the channel was registered a year ago. Your childish response above does not show me that you can handle owning the channel, nor do the rumors of you abusing channel control in your personal channel. It's really not your idea, it may have just now come to your mind, but adaminsull and I have gone through this whole deal before (one year ago). Join me on #theiphonewiki if you'd like to chat this out. --Haifisch (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what's happening off of the wiki so I might only have part of the picture. I definitely don't see Haifisch as trying to steal credit for this idea, which actually was brought up about ages ago. I'm not much of an IRC guy, so my opinion might not have that much weight for a lot of this discussion, but I feel that the channel would be better in Haifisch's hands given his experience. Ownership/management/whatever for the IRC channel should certainly be open for discussion though. I really don't care too much about whoever gets to run it, as long as the person is someone that the community knows, respects, and trusts. (Same goes for the channel ops.) --Dialexio (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
It does not sound like a good idea to have an IRC channel for this wiki. It is useful for discussion of this wiki's articles to continue to be be done publicly on the wiki (on the appropriate talk pages), so that everyone interested in the wiki can easily contribute to the discussion, and so that there is a well-organized public record of discussions that we can all easily refer to. IRC channels are also very fertile breeding grounds for social conflicts and unhappiness (as we've seen already), which is helpful to skip. In any case, this should be discussed at The iPhone Wiki:Community portal instead of here - this page is for discussing modifications to the Main Page, and that one is for general discussions about TheiPhoneWiki. Britta (talk) 09:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Moving to Canada

I'm moving this server in the next few days to a quality server in Canada. It'll be running inside a VM, so I'll also look into giving admins more access. Hopefully the periodic outages will stop. Maybe I'll add some SSL certs. --geohot (talk)

Nice, thanks! HTTPS would be great. --Britta (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
So we're not in canada yet?--Awesomebing1 (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You should all be in Canada now, with 8 GiB of Canadian RAM. We also have HTTPS, but it avoids the Squid proxy. It's fine for people making edits but I don't plan on changing the default anytime soon. --geohot (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks as always George! Any plans on adding back SSH? There's a few things I'd love to have done. --5urd (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks geohot! Hopefully now there will be less downtime ;p --iAdam1n (talk) 07:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Sweeeeeeeet. :D --Dialexio (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

iPhone serial cable

Could somebody document how to use uart cable (i.e. setup, bitrate, ...) ? Some intructions are available at instructables. Can two iPhones' serial inputs be connected to each other (i.e. TX of 1st iPhone to RX of 2nd and RX of first to TX of second) and minicom used on one of them to connect to /dev/uart.iap such that no USB to 3.3V TTL (FT232RL in the link) would be needed provided that you already have multiple iDevices with dock connector --The preceding unsigned comment was added by ‎Danzatt (talk) 10:57, 15 September, 2014. Please consult this page for more info on how to sign pages, and how to fix this.

Original iPad mini name

Seeing as we use (at least mostly) "iPhone" instead of "iPhone 2G" and "iPod touch" instead of "iPod touch 1G", I feel we should change how we reference the original iPad mini. The reason for adding the "1G" was because of the name conflict between pages. But we could probably fix that by moving iPad mini 1G to, say, iPad mini (first generation). --5urd (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. "iPad mini (1st generation)" is fine, but for the sake of length I would go with either "iPad mini" or "iPad mini 1." --Dialexio (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. "iPad mini" would follow the other 1st generation devices page. — Spydar007 (Talk) 04:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I also think this is a good idea because of how Apple is listing it like that too. I would say use "iPad mini". Another thought I did have is that it might confuse people with iPad mini and making them think that it is the page to list all the mini's. To correct this, I would suggest iPad mini (1st Generation) and roll that out across iPod touch, iPad and iPhone too. Just thought I'd put that out there to see what others think. --iAdam1n (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I feel "iPad mini (1st Generation)" is too long. "iPad mini" is fine IMO. — Spydar007 (Talk) 05:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Except that "iPad mini" already exists. It's the overview page for the iPad mini, just as iPad is for iPads, iPhone for iPhones, and iPod touch for iPod touches. --5urd (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
If we do this, I suggest doing it for iPad, iPhone and iPod touch too. --iAdam1n (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. I like the usage of "iPod touch 2G", "iPod touch 3G", etc. Sure, drop the "1G" from the original iPad and iPod touch (and "2G" from the original iPhone), but don't change anything else. Unless we can come up with something other than "iPad mini (1st generation)", we should use that though. However, I don't like that title as it would look inconsistent with other devices. Wikipedia uses the parentheses to separate pages that would have the same name, but are about different topics. --5urd (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The only problem is that we can't use iPad mini for it's current purpose and the first generation. I would also suggest anything that is changed would be consistent throughout all of the devices. That is why I liked the iPad mini (1st generation) idea but then again, would not be good if it is not like that for all devices. I like iPad mini (1st generation) because it is how Wikipedia lists it and to be honest, it avoids confusion. There is one other idea I can think of but not sure I even like it that much, iPad mini (original). This again should be for iPad, iPod touch and iPhone if we do this. --iAdam1n (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Apple A8 chip

According to Wikipedia, the A8 chip's product code is not "T7000", but "APL1011" (see the "product code" line of the infobox). If you look at the page for the A7, it's product code is "S5L8960X". Where does "T7000" even come from? --5urd (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Take a look inside one of the IPSWs for the iPhone 6 or iPhone 6 Plus. ;) --Dialexio (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Correct CPU "Names"

All CPUs before the A8 are titled using the "S5L####" scheme, but everywhere I look, it's actually "S5L####X". It's that way with the kernel version also. In addition, the T7000's product code is "APL1011" and the T7001's is "APL1012", but the IPSW's manifest files title them "T7000" and "T7001". I'm not sure how it is listed in the kernel version, but it's probably the same as the IPSW, so we could wait on those until we know for sure. But, for the pre-A8, should we switch? --5urd (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Mobile Stylesheet

I was thinking recently, if geohot agrees to accept it, that I could make a mobile.css file in order to attempt to make a few changes to the site on mobile. This would make it so that it would not be so ugly and if possible, the text might be easier to read. What would everyone think about this? For one thing, I'd like to mobile the "Log out" off the black part of the screen and put it near the "Contributions" button or thereabout. --iAdam1n (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Instead of a mobile stylesheet to hack up the skin more (like the ios6 and ios7 skins do), I would create a whole new skin. I could write the PHP and JavaScript, and you can write the CSS. --5urd (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
If you mean a skin just for mobile, that would be ok but not sure how you could make it selectable with a mobile device but not on desktop. If you could do this, it could work but personally I think a mobile.css would be easier since it has to be previewed in the iOS simulator (that's the way I do it). I couldn't say I'd edit a page without being an admin (unless it's made that I could). --iAdam1n (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I was going to mention that MediaWiki includes a sorta-mobile theme called Chick, but it seems that's long gone. MW's changed a lot since I used it, but the way it worked was it subclassed MonoBook (so there was no need to duplicate the HTML template) and swapped its CSS for its own (screenshot).
Come to think of it, whoa, I even wrote my own skin called iWiki. Was never updated for MW 1.17, which made breaking changes to the skin API. I probably won't have the time to update it, but maybe someone else could? kirb (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)