Talk:macOS Sierra

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the MacOS Sierra article.
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

Apple Inc. High‑importance

	This article 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Software: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software 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.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

cancel move

The page was recently moved. Why? The official site calls it "macOS Sierra" : https://www.apple.com/macos/sierra-preview/. #!/bin/DokReggar -talk 15:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The move has been undone. Guy Harris (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cool; thanks! #!/bin/DokReggar -talk 06:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't thank me, thank User:PaleAqua, who was the editor who undid the move. Guy Harris (talk) 07:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was more of a general "thanks", but you are right :-). @PaleAqua: thanks! #!/bin/DokReggar -talk 08:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple version numbers in the infobox?

There is currently a discussion of whether Template:Infobox OS should be used with multiple version numbers - for example, to list both a "software update" and "next major release" beta, or to list betas from more than one release stream. If you believe that multiple {stable, preview} releases should never appear in that infobox, or if you believe that they should appear under some or all circumstances where there's more than one beta of the OS in question available, you might want to comment there. (I have no strong belief either way; I'm OK with the main OS page listing only the "next major release" beta, but listing betas from multiple streams if they exist, but I'd also be OK with other choices.) Guy Harris (talk) 08:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How are articles classified as ads?

Jerryzhu2004 (talk) 08:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An article that does what WP:PROMOTION says not to do may be marked as reading like an advertisement. That section says that

Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery.

so if the article isn't written in a neutral style, or has puffery, it's likely to be classified as an ad.

This edit removed some puffery from the article, so that's the sort of thing that should be avoided. Guy Harris (talk) 08:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Releases?

Section is severely lacking. Why are not all releases released up to now listed? Poor & bad article. Someone, please add these. Naki (talk) 09:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Why are not all releases released up to now listed?" Well, the comment for this edit says "Per WP:NOTCHANGELOG, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection. Other articles list stable releases with links to release notes." Not everyone believes that every beta release needs to be listed. Guy Harris (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TWO suggestions --> 1) Add them all, when Final release comes, remove this list. 2) OR if not, at least have 2 - Initial release info (and version/build number), and Current release. Naki (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not see the point of listing all beta versions. We have not done that in the past. Beta releases come and go and are not of much interest from one release to the next. They are also rarely discussed in reliable sources, unlike stable releases. My take from WP:NOTCHANGELOG is that there should be some notability when listing such information, more than just 'they exist, therefore'. Apple's beta releases are also subject to a non-disclosure agreement and I am not sure that we should be including information that is not retrieved from secondary sources.–Totie (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. For the record, I am now sufficiently happy with the current state (as of 09.24.16). I.e. listed are the Release version date/build, and same of latest Beta that came after it. Naki (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16A319 build is wrong

It is not that. It is 320 instead. Someone correct it, please. Naki (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done (although you probably could have done it yourself). Guy Harris (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep 320 Spamalama (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Issues of Bootcamp drivers might be mentioned

The Windows 10 drivers provided by Bootcamp with MacOS Sierra might damage the speakers of latest MacBook Pro permanently. It is quite serious, I think it worth mentioned in the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.53.111.222 (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Naming etymology of Sierra

The Sierra Nevada mountain range borders California AND Nevada. Both States claim the range. Therefore, the statement, “Sierra was named after California’s Sierra Nevada mountain range,” is incorrect by the omission of Nevada in the original citation. Oovickioo (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - it now speaks of "the Sierra Nevada mountain range in California and Nevada". Guy Harris (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support status

The page indicates that "Extended support ends in September 2019." No citation is included for this. Can we get a cite for this, or if none exists, should it be removed? Hrbuchanan (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with removing all support-level claims, from all software infoboxes, if they don't have citations. That might also eliminate arguments about what constitutes "support"; there's been, for example, debate about whether the availability of printer driver updates for a macOS version constitutes "support", as I remember. Guy Harris (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking strictly about security patches, we only know that a version of macOS is in "support" if it was covered in Apple's most recent security patch release. The question here is: Should we change the support info in the infobox to simply say "Supported" and reflect the macOS Mojave page, potentially with a citation for the Apple security updates page (https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201222), or should we remove the Support section altogether until we can definitively say it's NOT supported anymore? (In regards to printer drivers, we could debate as to whether that's a valid indicator of "support" from an OEM, but if security vulnerabilities aren't patched, we can all agree the OS is no longer supported. The opposite isn't necessarily true, I suppose.) Hrbuchanan (talk) 16:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

new patches for unsupported macs

there are new types of patches for macs that don't officially support sierra but can allow them to run sierra without a modified install volume (look up opencore legacy patcher), should the article be changed