Talk:iPadOS 26

I am a non-experienced Wikipedia user.

Personally, I feel that you should add logos and images/screenshots to see what ipados 26 is like. Cuz' I dunno how! Riskofspam (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

We’re unable to do that due to the image use policy on Wikipedia. Images of software like iPadOS are copyrighted and have limited use due to copyright law, and therefore more than one image wouldn’t be classified as ‘fair use’. TwoGamer1000 (Edits) 07:38, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you experienced users!

Thank you for uploading the logo of iPadOS 26 for me. However, I think you should also add a 'home screen' or 'lock screen' image of what iPadOS 26 looks like. Alright? Riskofspam (talk) 01:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done These are now on the article. TwoGamer1000 (Edits) 07:39, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Isn't iPadOS 26 beta 2 out?

As the beta number 2 has been released, add a home screen Riskofspam (talk) 05:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

We don't need a new home screen for each new beta. GSK (talk • edits) 13:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

'Release history' section

Please be aware that Wikipedia is not for complete logs of software updates, and this section is probably too exhaustive as it is. Per WP:NOTCHANGELOG: “Consider a summary of development instead.” — HTGS (talk) 05:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

macOS 26 or macOS Tahoe?

Should macOS 26 be displayed as macOS Tahoe or be kept as it is?

Thanks, TwoGamer1000 07:07, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Section title ‘UI’

The section titled ‘UI’ in the article is about the windowing system, so shouldn’t the title be ‘Windowing system’ or something similar? TwoGamer1000 (Edits) 07:33, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Reception section not having sources and not including public reception

The reception section provides zero sources and it does not include user reception, which is critical for an operating system. Other Wikipedia articles handle this by inserting user-provided statistics of a self-selecting groups of engaged users, see the Windows 11 article using Valve's hardware survey as an example.

Wikipedia employs the following policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves - it allows editors to add sources such as communities as sources as long as they do not make claims about something directly, but rather are used as claims about themselves. This means that users stating preferences as well as communities reporting about themselves would be considered valid sources under this policy, as long as the article explicitly mentions that this is a response from a subset of users that is clearly defined (aka users submitting to the Valve Hardware Survey or viewership of a publisher's demo video).

Therefore, I suggest the following two paragraphs be added under the premise that community reception is relevant to the reception section in the article and that WP:ABOUTSELF applies as described in Wikipedia's policies:

After iPadOS 26's launch, Apple uploaded a new video to its Apple Support YouTube channel whose comment section includes a number of requests to bring back the previous system.

In response to an influx of negative posts on the r/iPadOS subreddit, a community poll was held and megathreads for Liquid Glass and Fullscreen Multitasking were created.

Either claim is factually relevant and does not draw independent conclusions, fully complies with the required rules for WP:ABOUTSELF (especially as no claims about third parties are analysed, since we aren't using these sources to make claims about iPadOS 26 itself), yet remains relevant to the premise of providing information relating to the reception.

Not to mention, since the section currently sits on zero sources and information about public reception, we should commit to fixing both of these problems, irrespective of whether or not this is the agreed-upon way. Please do feel free to provide further suggestions to align this section with Wikipedia's vision and policies.

I estimate the most likely objection to be that analysing YouTube video comment sections, even if obvious, indeed qualifies as performing own research and implementing such a claim in either direction is not trivial as iPadOS 26 in the hands of users is not widely reported-upon. However, the subreddit moderation team noting an influx of criticism should unambiguously be a valid source as long as it's treated as one about itself in accordance with these guidelines. NicolasHelbig (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Reddit is unusable as a source here, it's unreliable, not established as due, doesn't meet WP:ABOUTSELF (if it was reddit the company talking about reddit itself sure, but no, this is users talking about a third party product), and performing sentiment analysis on internet commenters is original research.

The same broadly applies to the comment section of a video, specifically that inclusion isn't due.

As an encyclopedia and not a source of original reporting or analysis, Wikipedia reflects what secondary sources find to be important, if there is no secondary coverage indicating some information is important, then it's not due.

Pinging other involved editors: @GSK @45dogs. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Finding secondary reviews isn't too difficult. A quick search found articles on apple insider, mashable, zdnet (though this should probably be ignored per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#ZDNet (October 2020–present)), tomsguide, and macobserver. I don't think all of these sources should be used, since most have reliability concerns, but there should be more if you search. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 00:36, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

No objection to any of those being used as a source (zdnet aside), but as none of them point out the reception by reddit users or video commenters, the text proposed here isn't suitable. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Please take a look at the linked Reddit post, which is not a user-contribution. "this is users talking about a third party product" is not true as this is moderation talking about the subreddit, not users talking about the product. NicolasHelbig (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

In response to an influx of negative posts ... does not exist in a vacuum, it concerns a third party. If it truly was just reddit users talking about other reddit users then it would have zero relevance here to begin with.

Regardless, unless there is secondary coverage of any reddit happenings then the information is undue, and if there is secondary coverage then that should be cited instead. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, however, making claims about post volumes is not a claim about third parties because the claim does not contain any qualitative or quantitative statements. It really is just a source about itself (this source would entirely be used to support a claim about user response, not the OS itself), which Wikipedia allows. NicolasHelbig (talk) 10:32, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

In response to an influx of negative posts ... Negative posts by whom? Reddit users. About? IPadOS 26. You are trying to insert text stating that some reddit users made negative posts concerning IPadOS 26, sourced to reddit. That is in no way WP:ABOUTSELF compliant.

Also, undue. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Could you elaborate how it is not? A Reddit statement about users' behaviour on Reddit by a governing body of a community is a source about itself, whereas someone saying "it's bad" as a cited source would not be. I am interested in including information about user behaviour, not statements about iPadOS 26, which is why it provides an observation about user behaviour, not user behaviour itself. The source is *not* the negative posts, the negative posts are the fact backed up by the source, which is moderation staff. NicolasHelbig (talk) 10:59, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Could you elaborate how it is not? I have, twice, there is nothing more I can explain I'm afraid. Other editors are welcome to weigh in if they wish. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 11:04, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

References