Talk:Pixel 2

Removed Further Information Section

I have removed the "Further information" section from iPhone 8, Pixel 2, Essential Phone and Galaxy S7. It seems to have been boldly added by a single user (pinged below) but from what I can tell this goes against the status quo of previous articles (see iPhone 7, Google Pixel, and Galaxy S5) and clearly goes against MOS:FURTHER as these links are used as references and therefore should not be included or given special preference in the articles. I can't see any good reason we should be giving special preference to certain news outlets or YouTube channels by giving them special external links, especially when this appears to be entirely decided by a single user. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 04:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The only reason I have been given for including these extra links was "everyone allows it" which seems like a weak argument... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 04:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

For more context see this discussion with Natureium, Guysayshi and NativeForeigner involving this same issue. Pinging Darius robin since he is mentioned here. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 04:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Keep: They told me not to put raw links, so I removed those and put some from publications. Pinging Emir of Wikipedia. Darius robin (talk) 05:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Anyone there? Can I put it back coz no one's replying? I’m only adding indirect links from other websites, not directly from YouTube. Is it fine? Darius robin (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't see a point in responding to this since it wasn't asking whether or not to keep the links. I agree with EoRdE6 and Galatz that the links don't belong in the Further Information section. The reason it wasn't presented as a question on whether or not to include them is because EoRdE6 presented the resources from Wikipedia stating why they shouldn't be included. If there wasn't policy directing the change, then it could be opened up for a vote to see what people feel. Galatz brings up a valid point that if you want the links in the article, find a way to use them as a source in the article, but adding reviews to the Further Information opens us up to a monster list of possible reviews that could be added. Where do we draw the line? But if we have something in the article that was taken from one of those reviews, then it can be easily added as a reference. --Bassmadrigal (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I have reviewed the removal here [1] and I dont see any reason to have these. They would be much better suited as an RS within the article itself. - Galatz^Talk 19:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Galatz Darius robin see Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Spam_link_and_user_conduct_problems, if there is consensus to remove the links then this AN thread isn't necessary but this is quite a lot of articles we are talking about... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bassmadrigal, Galatz, and EoRdE6: Can you pick out a sentence in MOS:FURTHER or Wikipedia:Further reading which states that I’m not allowed to add it. The only "rule" I see in Wikipedia:Further reading#Conflicts of interest is that you must not add links that you’ve authored, as well as links that are already present in the article as sources, which none of these are. Darius robin (talk) 07:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I think you would be better off reading Wikipedia:Further reading#Relation to reference sections - Galatz^Talk 11:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe there isn't anything that specifically prohibits you from putting reviews in there, but that page does specifically state: "Like the External links appendix, the inclusion of a Further reading section is optional, and many good articles, and more than half of all featured articles, omit it entirely. This section is present in fewer than 3% of Wikipedia's articles." Just in case it needs repeating, less than 3% of articles include it. Why should this be special? And how do we determine what reviews to put there without showing bias towards those sites? As I showed in my comment above, there were 38 reviews cultivated on reddit. Do we list all of them or do we decide which websites get more page views by listing them. If someone wants to read a review of the product, they're going to search for reviews, not come on here and hope someone linked to a good review. Since less than 3% of articles include it, it'd be best to just find some worthwhile information the articles include and then use the site as a reference for that information in the article. --Bassmadrigal (talk) 12:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bassmadrigal: Ok, but please see Essential Phone#Further reading, and tell me if that link is fine. It was reported in many publications. Darius robin (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, no, I don't think it belongs. I don't know if there is any policy backing my opinion (there are far too many policies and I am just a casual editor), but, to me, this shows bias towards Android Central. I could see some other publisher wonder why we haven't included their review and why is Android Central's so important to have a direct link? They may even wonder if it was purposefully placed there after some money changed hands behind the scene. And that article even states it is just a summary of a blog post directly by Essential, which would be a better option. But even though it is better, I still don't think it belongs there. Why don't you take the pertinent information from that post and then add it to the article and use the post as a reference? Why are you opposed to doing that and insisting on using the "Further Reading" sections when it is extremely rare to use that section on WP? --Bassmadrigal (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Pixel 2 XL polarizer issues section

Should the Pixel 2 XL polarizer issues be placed under Specifications as User:Galatz suggests or under Issues as User:Darius robin suggests?

I personally see this as an issue so I have placed it under Issues. If anyone disagrees please say so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.82.141.71 (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Read the source itself, which is here for reference [2]. It clearly is speculating as to what is happening with the phone and screen. It in no way shape or form says that it is an issue or something that needs to be addressed. Your own words say "I personally see this...." which is WP:OR. If you look at a WP:RS which addresses this, such as [3], you will see that Google has addressed the tint and stated it is in fact not an issue, but a standard item that happens with devices. - Galatz^Talk 12:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Galatz: See this. I don’t care where you put it, but it’s definitely not a "specification". If you see the meanings of "specification" and "issue", this thing is closer to the issue's definition. Darius robin (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

It might be an "issue" to you, but it isn't one to Google. And the article you chose to link isn't even the source for the report of the "badly applied polarizer", since they got their info from phonearena, who say the tint was "likely caused by a poorly applied polarizer".

However, as Galatz mentioned above, information from Google came out later that they say the screen is normal and it isn't a defect. In fact, in the article that Galatz linked to, it's stated that it was even a design choice by Google: "Similar to our choice with a cooler white point, we went with what users tend to prefer and chose a design that shifts blue." How is something Google chose and intended a defect? --Bassmadrigal (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, it clearly was a choice. However, it could be included in the article under different circumstances than the original submission. Firstly, no reason to compare to iPhone 8, it adds nothing to the article. Second, it could go under the reception category, however in order to have WP:NPOV I think it needs to be what user complaints were and what Google's comments were. - Galatz^Talk 17:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I am going to change the article as Galatz has stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.80.164.245 (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

History Section

I went into detail on the history of the Pixel device due to the incorrect/partial information that was in there originally. I could find no references that stated Google originally intended to use HTC for both devices, since HTC wasn't confirmed the maker of Muskie until recently. There is also nothing stating that Google wasn't intending on using the LG product from the beginning. Implying Google originally intended HTC as the manufacturer without references seems like WP:OR, which is why I was trying to give more context to the situation. I tried to stick with stories that had confidential sources and not just random reports or rumors. All references were from sites breaking the news, not ones who were summarizing other sites who broke the news. What are your thoughts on this?

In relation to that last sentence, I believe the second source (Android Authority) for the HTC U11 reference should be removed, because in the article, they link The Verge as the source for their article. --Bassmadrigal (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

It's been almost a week without a response from anyone on this matter. We still have information listed in the history section that isn't properly backed by references that aren't "guessing" themselves (which is loosely why my additions to the history section were mostly removed). We can only speculate that HTC was the original producer of both phones based on the same type of sources I used in my detailed history. LG coming in part way through the development cycle is solely based on "information from three separate sources", which is the same type of reference I used for most of my citations. My initial version did have conjecture, but all the references had "sources" that turned out to be accurate. We need to ensure the history section is factual, even if we don't restore all my text. There's no way to know what Google's intentions were with the manufacturers without an actual response from Google. The best we can do is either remove the conjecture of HTC being the original builder of both devices or include all the conjecture that led to one HTC device and one LG device. I'd love to hear anyone's thoughts on this. --Bassmadrigal (talk) 06:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

References

undue tag

Please, add any reasoning to add this tag here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.80.158.171 (talk) 07:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I feel that this article may focus too much on specifications and issues. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is edited on rules, not on individual editor feelings. If there is a good reason to split some sections in multiple pages please present any facts that support that. I do not see any problem in the current article, so I will remove that tag unless you can provide any reason that supports it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.10.148.0 (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Due weight is a policy as described at WP:DUE. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The issues is absolutely WP:UNDUE. Very clearly someone who doesn't like the phone finding every tiny comment they can to add. - Galatz^Talk 03:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

You may want to read what WP:UNDUE means. These are OK as there are multiple sources and even Google is among them. Removing them will be against having a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.82.222.113 (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

How is the removal against NPOV? Don't like to things if you don't know what they mean.

Please, read WP:UNDUE and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.82.244.64 (talk) 05:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

There has been significant coverage in the media over Pixel 2 issues, it is quite DUE to mention them. It would be whitewashing to omit them. As far as specifications, what could possibly be more relevant in an article on a smartphone? —DIYeditor (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Is that over a specific issue or every issue listed? And even if it is due to mention some are all of them is the way it is currently presented in the right WP:PROPORTIONs? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, compared to iPhone X there is a lot more focus on "issues" but my impression is that is because there are more issues that have received media attention. The question is of all significant coverage of the Pixel 2, what have the proportions been. My rough estimate from when I have personally seen news about the 2 and 2 XL is that much of the ongoing coverage has been about the issues. Versus the iPhone X where it has mostly been about neutral or positive aspects of the phone (other than the "notch" and modem variation which seem adequately covered in our article). It's not our place to artificially balance the article because there has been unbalanced coverage of the product. I think the article would benefit from the other sections being expanded but we can't manufacture or squelch what is actually in the media. Also I think Apple products generate more media "hype" so it is natural that the balance be somewhat different. This is just my impression though, I have not conducted any survey of actual news stories. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Is there still someone that thinks that some of the content of the article should be hidden? If so, please, explain your plans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.82.176.210 (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Whoever is against this, please sign your posts! Not only that, but you're not following proper talk page formatting, which is also a bit irritating. I agree strongly with User:Galatz in that it seems like someone is nitpicking every little issue. For example, in this review, the reviewer mentions that all the screen issues are completely overblown and it's just because Google decided to use the entire sRGB colour gamut, resulting in people thinking the tint is incorrect. The extent of the issues is described in detail with usually one small comment stating it was fixed, instead of balancing it out by showing that many reviewers and users found no issues at all. True, lots of phone review websites picked up and cycled these headlines around, but articles that seem to be created for the sole purpose of generating clicks don't seem as reliable as well-written, well-thought out reviews. Just my two cents. Reading this article would make me conclude that the consensus is that the Pixel 2 XL is an awful phone not worth buying, though I don't think that's true. Sales of phones isn't our concern whatsoever -- but neutrality and balance are. I think this article needs a serious rewrite. Air♠Combat_Talk! 17:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

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:

• Pixel 2 and Pixel 2 XL.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Picture

The picture should be changed to one similar to Pixel 3 and Pixel 4 to better highlight where the bezels are. Technology Matters (talk) 07:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)