Talk:Multitasking (iOS)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Multitasking (iOS) redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 July 2013. The result of the discussion was keep.

Apple Inc.

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc. articles

Apps

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Apps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of apps on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AppsWikipedia:WikiProject AppsTemplate:WikiProject Appsapps articles

Contribute to the project:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Good article nominations : Improve Application software, Facebook and Instagram to good article status
Stubs : Category:Mobile game stubs, Category:Stub-Class apps articles

This redirect was nominated for deletion on 30 January 2015. The result of the discussion was keep.

iOS 7 thumbnail previews

Might want to consider adding that iOS 7 redesigned the task switcher in addition to allowing background data for apps... 2602:306:BCA6:8300:E9C0:2C1B:294D:54A8 (talk) 06:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to iOS

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merged by KvnG. --BDD (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the merge banners. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multitasking (iOS). ~KvnG 13:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might actually want to come up with a merge proposal then; as none exists at present, then there shouldn't be any banners. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are inklings of a proposal at the AfD discussion I've linked to. Perhaps Don Cuan or GSK would care to elaborate. ~KvnG 14:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose iOS multitasking is notable by itself, mainly due to the hype that surrounds many Apple products. A simple search will display hundreds of news articles talking about the impact and quality of the multitasking pane in iOS. Zach Vega (talk to me) 23:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we agree that iOS multitasking is notable there's then no requirement to do a merge but it doesn't prevent us from doing a merge if we decide a merge would improve presentation of the subject. ~KvnG 20:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Regardless of the number of search results, distinctive functions get pages on there own due to their complexity thus needing greater explanations, and so not squashing via a merge to fit within related pages on the subject. Jimthing (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You probably should read IOS#Multitasking. There currently isn't much if any additional material to add. ~KvnG 20:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong opinion about this. If Multitasking (iOS) is kept separate, the Multitasking section in the iOS article needs to be trimmed considerably. If we decide Multitasking (iOS) isn't necessary, there isn't much merge work to be done because most of the information is already in IOS#Multitasking. I'd be happy to help with edits either way. ~KvnG 20:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support:Multitasking is definitely notable, but I don't think that having it in a separate article necessarily improves presentation of the subject. IOS#Multitasking covers pretty much everything there is, so why split things up? Sociallyacceptable (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sociallyacceptable here. Besides, the article is only about 7.2 KB, so the merging process wouldn't be difficult. |CanadianDude1| 06:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find the arguments against the merge compelling and there was support for it so I've gone ahead and done the merge. ~KvnG 15:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.