Talk:iPhone 5c

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Main photo

Considering that Apple really wanted to distinguish the 5c by its plastic shell and different colors, I really think there should be a new main photo that shows this. The current looks just like all the other previous monochrome iPhones. Richiekim (talk) 12:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We should definitely include some photos with the color back, perhaps lower down the page. I'm not sure if anyone on Wikipedia has had a chance to see the 5c in person, but once they have, it would be helpful to show it. CaseyPenk (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the color of the main image to use the blue shell on Commons (commons:File:IPhone_5C.png), but someone reverted my change, so my change may not stick. I've opened a discussion over there on Commons if you think the main image should either depict an iPhone 5c with white shell or one of the colored shells. —RP88 (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with iPhone 5

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 of this discussion was to not merge.
talk) 21:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Unlike the 5s, the 5c appears to be just a minor variation of the

Nintendo 3DS XL not getting its own article. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Actually, the 5c has a back facing 1080p camera, as opposed the 720p camera of the 5. The 5c also has an improved battery. These are more than cosmetic differencees. Richiekim (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have sources? Most sources say the front camera is the same. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you're right. Only the 5s has a 1080p camera. My apologies. The 5s does have an improved battery though. Richiekim (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. There are multiple differences (colors, cheese grater cases, battery, etc.), and independent sources have written articles exclusively on the 5c. It's a notable product given the immensity of reporting on the 5c specifically. Also, per
    Nintendo 3DS XL
    article).
I also note that editors have greatly improved this article since yesterday. I support keeping it even more given the valuable content in the article (and to reward their efforts - I think that's a worthwhile consideration to make when we want people, especially new editors who might get addicted to Wikipedia by editing articles on new products, to stick around). CaseyPenk (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Merge The phones are different enough that they are not considered the same phone with only slight variations.JOJ Hutton 17:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - reliable sources say they're different and not slight variations. Whether reliable sources with the 2are "correct" isn't the question per se.
follow reliable sources. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Note that we consider
    Microsoft's non-neutral PR. I consider this to be a similar case; it is essentially a minor variation of the existing iPhone 5. Apple exaggerated the changes just so they could draw in more profits by selling a "new" model instead of just moving the iPhone 5 to a cheaper price point (this is not it see the sources). ViperSnake151  Talk  17:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I agree that Apple exaggerated the changes. But "exaggerating the changes" is not a valid deletion rationale. We delete content that is not reliably sourced, but this article is very well-sourced from articles focusing exclusively on the 5c. Whether it's a minor or a major variation matters hardly one iota; how reliable sources cover it is what actually matters. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. ViperSnake151 cites the Nintendo 3DS XL not getting its own article as precedent. However, the Nintendo DS Lite does have its own article, and is essentially a cosmetic redesign of the Nintendo DS, similar to the iPhone 5c. Richiekim (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also note the
WP:OTHERSTUFF appeal to these examples, yes, but I also feel we made the right call in both cases, regardless of precedent. What may seem like minor differences (e.g. cosmetic) can actually be very influential. But even separate from their significance is the question of sourcing; a large number of reliable sources have articles and other coverage exclusively on the 2DS, GBA SP, and DS Lite. That works for me. CaseyPenk (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Those are not equivalent situations. The 2DS, GBA SP, and DS Lite do have significant differences beyond just minor hardware variations. The 2DS is a completely different form factor and has no 3D. The GBA SP had a completely different form to the GBA, and set the stage for the DS. The DS Lite was more like an iPhone 3G (an actual progression and replacement for the original); it took the original and fixed its problems (i.e. backlighting and its design), finally making the device a contender. This is different. Apple has merely reversioned the iPhone 5 so they can call it a "new" model. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Apple has merely reversioned the iPhone 5 so they can call it a "new" model."
  • That's your POV, but reliable sources report on it as it were a new phone, or at least a new version rather than a rebranding. Yet, regardless of whether it's a rebranding, we go by reliable sources. If Apple literally sold the exact same phone (i.e. same hardware and software) but gave it a new name, and reliable sources reported on it as a new phone, we would go with reliable sources and give the phone a new article. Now, this case is not so stark because there are substantive differences; so the decision passes the "common sense" threshold of being different enough from the base iPhone 5 to warrant its own article on the face of it. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge, considerably different construction from the original metal iPhone 5.Limefrost Spiral (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. The iPhone 5c is independently notable. Reliable sources discuss the 5c as a topic of its own rather than a side-note on the iPhone 5. - Josh (talk | contribs) 17:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. With a plastic exterior, specially made Apple cases, and a bigger battery, not to mention a lot of press interest means it is notable on its own.Frmorrison (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 100% Oppose The 5c is not just a re-branded iPhone 5, its a totally rengineered phone(e.x.screw holes, cases, bigger batteries) If the iPhone 5c was just a re-branded iPhone 5, this maybe a valid argument. Justinhu12 (talk) 10:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move, especially in line with the even stronger consensus at

Talk:iPhone 5S. -- tariqabjotu 03:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Where are these sources? And wouldn't it make more sense if it were called iPhone 5S since the 4S and 3GS have a capitalized S. The official Apple website lists them as the 5c and 5s. [Soffredo] 21:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What Apple call them does not actually matter in this case. What reliable sources show as the common name and display and what precedent exists including capitalisation is what should be taken into account.Blethering Scot 21:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apple, as the trademark holder and an influential tech company, is most certainly a reliable source. Tech blogs are also reliable in this situation, and many of them use the lowercase name. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apple are a Primary source not secondary which is superior and considered more reliable. The Trademark has nothing to do with either common name in sources or the precedent already set. In addition blogs really arent reliable and are far lower in the food tune of sources, Broadsheets and tabloids are far more notable and reliable. Blethering Scot 21:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"In addition blogs really arent reliable"
  • Again,
    WP:RS begs to differ: "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." CaseyPenk (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
"tech blogs which are never considered reliable or notable"
Tabloid does not equal an unreliable source. A lot of blogs can be written by users submitting stories not paid journalists, plus original research is often included. Blogs cannot point blank be considered reliable and when they are verified as such tabloids and broadsheets have a far heavier level of independence, and notability. They key words some news outlets, i,e. reliable new outlets such as the times, the guardian, the Scotsman all written by full time attributed staff. Tabloids or broadsheets are reliable and entirely independent sources that do not feature original research. Given your move was controversial and should of been reverted as such forcing you to do an RM you have been humbled enough. The burden is on you as the person who controversially moved it in the first place. Personally not one of your arguments and picking and choosing has convinced me one bit however i am shutting up and so should you, this RM should be let run getting the independent opinions it needs either way. Its not the CaseyPenk show or the Blethering Scot show for that matter. Well see where the consensus goes but Strength of source, common name or style in those sources and precedent should be heavily considered and i am sure it will.Blethering Scot 21:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have as much a right to participate in this debate as anyone else. I have presented my evidence clearly and calmly and have reached a different conclusion. We'll see what others have to say. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have a right to state a case not badger other editors when you disagree with their case. Either way this RM will run and a consensus will be reached either way.Blethering Scot 22:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not badger. Have a good night. CaseyPenk (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where does
MOS:TM suggest capitalizing the second letter of the second word of a trademark? If you are aware of such advice it would be helpful to hear. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
What's that got to do with anything; completely irrelevant. Trademark or non-trademark: the MOS very clearly states "Using all caps is preferred if the letters are pronounced individually, even if they don't stand for anything", as has been explained to you by two of us several times now, plus the other MOS:TM reasons I listed above. Jimthing (talk) 06:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review
. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit War

There is clear evidence in the article history of edit warring and this needs to cease immediately. Given its all about the title and wording of the name in article and an RM is in place please cease this immediately until the consensus emerges. Rather than pining on one or two editors i am adding the warning tag here.

reverts
on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's

BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Blethering Scot 22:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

  • A user in this diff has, unfortunately, decided to ignore your advice against making controversial changes to the capitalization scheme while the move request is underway. CaseyPenk (talk) 04:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you STOP repeatedly wrongly accusing users of doing things they are not doing! That user was VERY CLEARLY editing more than just that single issue on the page, quite obviously a great deal of other more important things were edited on the page there! Jimthing (talk) 06:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one's denying that you made constructive changes (thank you for those) as well as the controversial ones. But the helpful changes don't make the others okay. - Josh (talk | contribs) 17:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should we?

So far I've been dealing with TONS of changes to the article (most bad) mostly people changing the name. Should we? we could just say "stylized iPhone 5c" and then I don't need to deal with so many changes Justinhu12 (talk) 10:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the discussion is going on, neither side should be changing the name. When a consensus is reached, that's when we'll start enforcing one name or the other. - Josh (talk | contribs) 17:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation addition

I'm struggling to get the source to work in Product Placement section. Below is the source anybody else able to do this?

[1]

I fixed the problem. The code you have here is correct, but there was some extra code (including a nowiki tag) surrounding it in the article. I'm guessing what happened is you were using the VisualEditor but tried to type in the ref code manually? - Josh (talk | contribs) 19:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Apple discontinues iPhone 5, iPhone 4S will remain available". IBN Live. 2013-09-11. Retrieved 2013-09-11.

Capitalisation

Why is iPhone 5c redirected to iPhone 5C? Should really be the other way round... could we vote on it? mintchocicecream (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because some nimrod decided that product name is trumped by their own ideals.Cky2250 (talk) 00:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haha!! (Well I'll start with stating my case here; will see if anyone opposing 5c responds...) Whether or not someone likes/dislikes Apple's switch to using lowercase for iPhone 5c, surely whatever the manufacturer says should be the right way to name the article. Just as one should respect a person's way of spelling a name, (say, Charmaine vs Charmaine, Sharmane, Charmayne, Sharmaine) surely we should respect manufacturer's names for their products. After all, on Wikipedia we spell iOS as iOS (and not Ios), and even accepted Samsung's inconsistency in moving from Roman numerals in Samsung Galaxy S III to Samsung Galaxy S4, I'd have thought that iPhone 5c would quite evidently be the correct article name for the phone... mintchocicecream (talk) 00:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And regarding
MOS:TM, the examples given for "using all caps is preferred if the letters are pronounced individually" all refer to cases where the entire name is a set of initials. There are always exceptions, e.g. NASA is capitalised even though nobody would ever refer to it as N-A-S-A; while NEET is pronounced "neet" but it is capitalised. mintchocicecream (talk) 01:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I guess they think the iPhone 5C is iPhone 5cheap. These nimrods eh?Cky2250 (talk) 03:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Read the history before adding a post trying to re-start something already explained and discussed IN DETAIL by experienced users. This discussion has been dealt with by other users several times now. It's over. Jimthing (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Experienced user"? ha. mintchocicecream (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

maintenance tags

Salutations. Some maintenance tags were recently added to this page by User:Zach Vega and then removed. I thought it might be appropriate to open a discussion here. I don't know very much about the iPhone 5C, but at this point the only issue(s) I could make a case for would be that that article could use a few more citations to denounce the possibility of original research. This seems especially evident in the Product Positioning section and those following it. The Software section, in my opinion, also reads a bit like an advertisement, though I'm not sure if that's repairable (or if it's just my personal perception). Anyway, that's my two cents. Perhaps if the original tagger could also clarify their intentions a more useful discussion could be generated. ~ Boomur [☎] 00:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article's introduction section may not adequately summarize its contents: The lead section does not tell anything more about iOS.
  • This article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject: The hardware section does not accurately describe the hardware; it just shows changes from the iPhone 5.
  • The neutrality of this article is disputed: Opinionated statements are unsourced, such as "new users who were otherwise turned off to the company's practice of using "last year's" iPhone as the cheaper option".
  • This article may be in need of reorganization to comply with Wikipedia's layout guidelines: 1/2 of the "Product positioning" section is violating
    WP:PRICE
    - I know that the reviewers may have praised the reduction to $45 in some stores and panned the $550 unlocked price, however this needs to be stated.
  • This article possibly contains original research: With much of this article unsourced, many claims such as "so that Apple can retain its high profit margins per device" appear to be original research.
  • This article needs additional citations for verification: This one is self-explanatory.
Zach Vega (talk to me) 08:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added the cite needed tags to the "Product positioning" section nearly a month ago now and they haven't been addressed. If the article isn't going to carry a "possible OR" header then this unsupported supposition should probably be removed. danno_uk 23:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Generation of the device

This device was released during the 7th iPhone cycle and should be referred to as a 7th generation device and not a 6th. Calling it a 6th generation device is

WP:OR. JOJ Hutton 21:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Reception?

I had assessed this as B-class, but I am knocking it down to C-class as I realize this article is missing a section detailing its critical/consumer response. The rest of the article seems reasonably well-written. A few sentences were removed in the "Product positioning" section as being unsourced. Feel free to re-add them if you find a reliable source that verifies the information.

talk) 22:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I changed it back to B-class, since it has a reception section now. Frmorrison (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

“iPhone 5c”, not “iPhone 5C” (lowercase “c”)

According to Apple, “Color is more than just a hue. It expresses a feeling. Makes a statement. Declares an allegiance. Color reveals your personality. iPhone 5c, in five anything-but-shy colors, does just that. It’s not just for lovers of color. It’s for the colorful.” (no emphasis in original) Cup o’ Java (talk • edits) 03:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Denied, Wikipedia uses standard naming conventions that is not necessary what the company uses. Frmorrison (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Typical Wikipedia stupidity. The phone's name is 5c, no matter what you insist it be called. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.233.82.134 (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cup o' Java .xmxmm,xml. 2A04:CEC0:1175:40D1:0:2:7D71:1601 (talk) 09:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on

Talk:IPhone 5S which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2015

. ›

Redundancy in History and Positioning

"The 16 & 32 GB versions of the iPhone 5C were also discontinued globally, replaced by the 8 GB model. However, some carriers in the US like AT&T kept the 16 GB and 32 GB models instead of having the 8 GB model, thus the 16 GB model was $0 (on-contract) and the 32 GB was priced between $50–$100 (on-contract).[12]

On September 9, 2014, with the announcement of the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus, the 16 and 32 GB iPhone 5C models were discontinued and replaced by the 8 GB model. The 8 GB iPhone 5C succeeded the discontinued iPhone 4S as Apple's entry-level smartphone." 205.149.152.13 (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Stickee (talk) 01:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2015

. ›

40.130.206.17 (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] 

The Iphone 5c is a smartphone device desinged by apple. To some kids this might be the best phone ever just because this is one of the Iphones that you can get with different colors. And you can any color you choose, you can also get you fav.color too.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

iphone 5 c

I wondered how old i was in 2013 because that would have been really weird — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5C1:5E80:C9BB:83F1:93C4:AE9A (talk) 05:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with
iPhone 5S
?

The iPhone 5C was released alongside the iPhone 5S is an experimental phone. The main phone as the 5S, while the 5C came in various different products. If the other iPhones share the same page with their Plus/Max counterparts, I see no reason not merge these to into one page as well. The 5C wasn't a main iPhone, rather an experimental one, so it doesn't deserve it's own page prior to the iPhone 11 Pro and 11 Pro Max.

Name change to 5c, not 5C

It's been 10 years since the phone has been called the 5c. Most sources properly refer to it as the 5c. Wikipedia policy is to respect casing in names. I wrote more about this on the page for the iPhone 6s that I won't repeat here. See also: Apple's list of iPhone models.

There are plenty of arguments that this is a bad name, but they are irrelevant. The name of the phone is clear and Wikipedia should respect it.

Therefore, I am being

BOLD
and changing the page and requesting a move.

RoyLeban (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's also been ten years since consensus was reached not to move it. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 02:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about discussing rather than reverting a clear good faith edit?
Consensus changes over time. Ten years ago, it could be argued that the real name was 5C and that it was just stylized as 5c (though I don't believe that was ever true). Since then, it is absolutely clear that the name is the 5c, not the 5C. Wikipedia policy states clearly that correct names should be used. It's not appropriate to say that Apple is wrong about their own product name because Wikipedia editors reached a consensus otherwise ten years ago.
Even if the name was 5C and it is now 5c, Wikipedia regularly updates page names to reflect changes in the names of the company. See for example
Brad's Drink, known today as Pepsi
.
I'm restoring and please discuss here or on the
iPhone 6s Talk
page. Don't edit war. I first brought up the issue on that page on February 15 (75 days ago) and nobody argued against the change. So I made part of the change and, again, nobody argued against it, so I made the rest of the change and then proceeded to change the other pages. This is the right thing to do.
Thank you.
RoyLeban (talk) 05:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care about the capitalization, so long as "fixing" it doesn't introduce errors. Which you did. In spades. By no strech of the imagination is that "the right thing to do". "The right thing to do" would be to use the preview button before publishing. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 01:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sumanuil: What you're doing is certainly not "the right thing to do". If you are aware of errors, fix them or mark them — don't revert a good change because there may be mistakes. Of course, I preview (and I don't appreciate the insinuation that I don't), but it looks like I did miss one thing, which I just fixed after restoring the change.
If you are aware of other problems, the well to be helpful and constructive is to fix them rather than reverting a good change. Thank you.
RoyLeban (talk) 03:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on

Talk:IPhone 6S which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

sabrina garza 'Bold new f 2601:2C5:8781:22C0:2C88:C367:F1B8:3F65 (talk) 02:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IPhone_5c&oldid=1213051231"