The Apple Wiki:Community portal

This is the place to post tasks that need to be done on the wiki. Also this is the place for proposed changes. I heard about people wanting a favicon and arranging the main page into categories.

More info from Esser
i0n1c's slides for his latest talk are here: http://bit.ly/mOVIAT Tons of great info on his ARM emulator used for finding ROP gadgets. How do we integrate this into the wiki? --beej 06:19, 13 October 2011 (MDT)

2.2b1
Is 2.2b1 5G26 or 5G27, because on Beta Firmware, it says 5G27... --Balloonhead66 19:48, 6 August 2011 (MDT)

From Itaiyz97 talk page
Maybe you havn't noticed, but our standard for baseband version numbers is #.##.## despite it being 0#.##.##. When it does reach 10.##.##, we will change it. But seeing as over 5 years they have only gone up to 7.##.##, it would've a while or possible not even at all... --Balloonhead66 06:48, 4 October 2011 (MDT)
 * Yes, please get informed about what is being used here before moving pages. But on the other hand, why remove the leading zero? Shouldn't we change this "standard" to the real version numbers? I personally would prefer this. -- http 07:33, 4 October 2011 (MDT)
 * Yes, I agree. A lot of times those basebands are referred to as 0#.##.## (ie. 04.26.08 instead of 4.26.08)
 * When have you ever seen that? --Balloonhead66 18:57, 4 October 2011 (MDT)
 * I would like that better because 10.##.## is comming soon (maybe a year), but by then it would be like the moving the VFDecrypt Keys off of the bad pages flooding, not to mention editing the pages (especially the ones with and the baseband) --Balloonhead66 18:57, 4 October 2011 (MDT)

Further discussion
Before anyone moves the baseband pages again, I want to reach a consensus on this. Do we use #.##.## or 0#.##.## like the file name is? --Balloonhead66 08:28, 9 October 2011 (MDT)
 * I think that we should probably go with what iOS reports. (e.g.- 1.0.06 for the CDMA iPhone 4, 03.10.01 for the GSM iPhone 4…) -- Dialexio 12:41, 9 October 2011 (MDT)
 * I fully agree with Dialexio (as mentioned earlier already), but I missed the CDMA part. And I do know that a lot of pages might be affected. -- http 14:52, 9 October 2011 (MDT)
 * I am also confused. Maybe we could do it based on the file name. Cuz what I am getting at from dialexio's post is that only GSM has the 0 in front of it and the CDMA has no zero.  But the file name has a 0 in front (like  ).  I may be wrong.  But maybe we could just go with all are 2x2x2 page names instead of 1x2x2 or the file name... --Balloonhead66 16:08, 9 October 2011 (MDT)
 * I am requesting permission for mass editing. I will go through all the basebands with pages and move them to a prefix of 0 and go through all of the pages with links and fix them.  The protected Main Page may need editing.. --Balloonhead66 19:35, 10 October 2011 (MDT)
 * I will do the key pages some other time as not to over flood... --Balloonhead66 19:46, 10 October 2011 (MDT)
 * I'm going to deny this request because while it's ideal to eliminate redirects, it's not a high priority to immediately move everything to the new naming format. It can be done over time. For the CDMA iPhone, neither the baseband file nor iOS's reported version number has a zero in the front. (I'm not too sure about the CDMA iPad, but I'm pretty sure it's in the same boat.) -- Dialexio 21:24, 10 October 2011 (MDT)
 * How would you do this "over time"? I counted 38 baseband pages (maybe some less), so I would recommend to move all these at once and update just the baseband chip page too. Other references can be fixed over time. What do you think? --http 02:11, 11 October 2011 (MDT)
 * That is what I mean. Move all the BB pages and mod Firmware and Beta Firmware (and the BB Chip pages) and over time, do the other ones (like VFDecrypt Keys) --Balloonhead66 17:42, 11 October 2011 (MDT)
 * All right, go for the move then. The references can be fixed "over time." -- Dialexio 18:26, 11 October 2011 (MDT)
 * Kthx --Balloonhead66 20:45, 11 October 2011 (MDT)

Apple TV 2G versions (Part 34)
The firmware version numbers for the Apple TV 2G still doesn't seem to be standardized on this wiki. Which naming scheme should we use: the IPSW name, what the Apple TV 2G reports, or something else? -- Dialexio 14:24, 18 October 2011 (MDT)
 * I would prefer the internal one as it matches better to the other devices' build (when more devices are listed). See also the discussion here: Talk:VFDecrypt_Keys -- http 16:29, 18 October 2011 (MDT)
 * Personally, I prefer what the Apple TV says. If we do it based on internal versions, then we will have 4 apple tv's underneath 4.3 final. Remember from before you separated by major version? --Balloonhead66 17:03, 18 October 2011 (MDT)
 * How did I neglect to drop my own two cents on the issue? :s Personally, I'd prefer getting the version from the IPSW name, but for the sake of simplicity on the wiki, the Apple TV-reported version would work best. -- Dialexio 20:34, 24 October 2011 (MDT)
 * I like that. Because if we did it based on the IPSW, the 4.2 betas would be under 4.3 (what they are based on) while the 4.4 betas will stay under 4.4 despite the firmware being based on 5.0. --Balloonhead66 20:38, 24 October 2011 (MDT)
 * Where did (Part 34) come from? --Balloonhead66 20:38, 24 October 2011 (MDT)
 * I don't see any benefit in sticking with these arbitrary shown numbers. All 5.x firmwares are in the 4.x section and even the same version firmwares beside it (for other devices) are (functionally) totally different firmware versions. But if you all want to stick with it, I won't change it then. --http 06:06, 25 October 2011 (MDT)
 * But remember the three "4.3" ATV builds (4.2/4.2.1/4.2.2/4.3) (8F191m/8F202/8F305/8F455)? --Balloonhead66 14:10, 26 October 2011 (MDT)

Key pages
I would like to propose a new rule: Do not create a key page (e.g.- Jasper 8C148 (iPad)) unless you can also provide at least one key. Key pages are meant to share decryption keys with others. Copying and pasting from a template page provides us with no information whatsoever, and also wastes time (both the poster's and the administrators'). Thoughts on this? -- Dialexio 21:50, 4 November 2011 (MDT)
 * I'm against that. While I agree we shouldn't create all empty pages to fill out later, I don't see any reason to have a rule for that. Or was that a problem recently and I missed it? I also created pages with very few content (like Siri), that other users picked up or hopefully will pick up and enhanced. Key pages are a little different though. And the page you reference was never empty (but had wrong keys initially). So if you feel a big need to have such a rule, go on. -- http 05:06, 5 November 2011 (MDT)
 * I was simply using that page as an example of a key page, for those that had no clue what I was talking about. I think that posting an article with little content is a bit different from an empty key page; at least a small amount of information is being provided. In addition, it's easier to tell whether a key page needs to be filled out or not if the key page's link is red because the page was never created. I'll wait for additional feedback from anybody else before I decide on whether or not to add this to the rules. -- Dialexio 11:31, 5 November 2011 (MDT)