Talk:Pixel 3

Notch
Criticisms of the notch are fine, and are part of the Pixel 3 coverage. But comments like "that Google wasn't able to justify" are strictly opinion and not worthy of inclusion. Google did, in fact, provide a justification, the only fact is that the The Verge editor isn't happy with that explanation. But, again, that is a personal opinion only. "Massive" is also subjective. Wikipedia should at least attempt to be impartial. Fact (good): The size and inclusion of a notch was criticized. Opinion (bad): The Massive notch was unjustified. -- Anthony S. Castanza (talk) 23:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Binding arbitration clause
This seems important to include somewhere, although not sure where.


 * The new Pixel phone has a bizarre, obscure "opt out" arbitration waiver

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I already included it. But, you could have added it yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.78.21.54 (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * On 2020-04-28, @‎RJaguar3 deleted arbitration section, citing "WP:UNDUE, only sourced to a primary source." WP:UNDUE standard is "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" The text did so. I am not aware of any reliable source which disagrees with what was stated. If so, it can be added. WP:PRIMARY standard is "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." The text was purely factual. If there is any ambiguity, it could be discussed here. Otherwise I'd revert. I agree with @John_Cummings and the anonymous editor that it's significant. Numbersinstitute (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There was an RFC at Talk:Dollar Shave Club that found that similar content in Dollar Shave Club (cited to the primary source terms of use for the site) failed WP:UNDUE. Absent specific secondary coverage in reliable secondary sources (such as General Mills, it's not encyclopedic to mention in every business's article whether it has an arbitration clause. RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 03:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That RFC was 4 years ago and is not a wikipedia policy. The text about Dollar Shave Club was not as specific as the text about Pixel 3; DSC text just said customers could not sue or use class actions, and did not say what they could do. Further, DSC text was not neutral, since it included criticism of arbitration, without statements in support of arbitration, which certainly exist, such as reduced cost and burden on the courts. I agree general controversy over arbitration does not need to be mentioned in each article, but each company's chosen approach to arbitration is important to include, so readers can understand where the company positions itself in the overall continuum. Arbitration clauses are widespread, but not universal, and the contents vary. The text here describes this clause as only applying to American users, and having a 30-day optout, which is not universal even among arbitration clauses. This Pixel 3 article has similar info on several other important aspects of the Pixel 3, which are not covered in secondary sources, so they depend on primary sources in footnotes 6 (USB-C and water resistance), 24 (night sight), 26 (zoom) and 32 (transmission bands). Many phones have these features, with variations. They are not necessarily covered by secondary sources, but, like the arbitration terms, are significant.


 * WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC says about article deletion, and it applies to section deletion too: the terms "unencyclopedic", and its flip-side "encyclopedic", are too general to be useful in deletion discussions... Simply answer the question, What policy (or guideline) does it violate or meet, and how? An example of a well-specified deletion nomination is "The article is nothing more than a dictionary definition, and therefore violates WP:NOT#DICDEF". The quotes italicized in the paragraph above shows why WP:UNDUE and WP:PRIMARY don't seem to argue for deletion. If there is any other WP policy, or another aspect of these policies, which argues for deletion, I hope it can be quoted here?


 * Other articles also have material not covered by secondary sources, but which the page editors find significant: bonus rounds, Equifax TOS, and auditions. There is nothing special about dispute resolution which says its implementation by each company is insignificant. Quite the opposite. The wide variation shows that companies take different approaches and change them significantly over time, just as they do with USB ports, transmission bands, and bonus rounds. It is possible to make the text more positive and up to date as follows:
 * When the Pixel 3 was released in 2018, its warranty automatically opted-in USA and Canadian based users to a Google Arbitration Agreement. Any disputes would be handled individually in small claims court, or via arbitration through the American Arbitration Association, or through government agencies, and not as class actions. Intellectual property issues would be handled in court. It was possible to opt-out of this arbitration agreement within 30 days of activating the device for the first time. By 2020 Google's hardware warranty no longer covered arbitration, court, or class actions.  Numbersinstitute (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Should we include info about the posibility of bootloader unlock
Is there any reason to hide it? Please, explain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.78.21.1 (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Its not hiding anything, its useless information to include in an encyclopedia. A warranty is certainly not encyclopediac. Its clearly not worthy of inclusion if you read WP:NOT, like I mentioned to you already. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  18:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you, please, provide what section of that page forbids this content? 84.78.21.239 (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The info about unlocking the bootloader isn't specific to Pixel 3 at all - it will wipe your phone upon initial unlock regardless of the device on Android. There is no evidence that the warranty is void from doing so. This is based on nothing stated on the warranty saying as such, their official help support forums, or even Android Support with any issues. However, the bigger issue is your IP range block evasion with your dynamic IP. – The Grid  ( talk )  19:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide a source that backs your first statement? It seems you are just challenging the warranty void fact. I will only revert the bootloader unlock fact, while I verify the warranty void fact. Sorry, editing wikipedia while I am on the move is not forbidden. 84.78.21.239 (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Right from the Nexus/Pixel Factory Images page on their Android Developers page as a warning: Installing a factory image will erase all data from the device, and unlocking the bootloader will make your device less secure. For the warranty, I'm actually seeing a situation where it depends on the litigation. I don't see anything that makes Pixel 3 a special case except for the Arbitration Clause that is already present in the article. In fact, I'm finding only India-specific warranties for Pixel devices that explicitly state: This Limited Warranty does not apply to damage caused by you unlocking the Phone bootloader, installing an alternative bootloader, or otherwise altering the Phone firmware or operating system. Google Consumer Limited Warranty -- IndiaPixel 2 - for India (Pixel 3 - US and Canada for comparison) – The Grid  ( talk )  22:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Now, that it is confirmed, is anything else blocking restoring this blanking? 90.174.3.55 (talk) 08:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I figured you would ignore my point that it's not Pixel 3 specific even after providing sufficient evidence as such. The IP range block has been applied and I'm closing discussion for this. – The Grid  ( talk )  13:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOPRICES
I removed the pricing added in this October 2018 change, and it was soon reverted by an IP address. The relevant section - What Wikipedia is not- states:"An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices and availability of a single product from different vendors or retailers." Anyone is welcome to comment.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Keeping sales decline in reception section
I think it makes sense to keep the sales decline in the Reception section. Does anyone disagree? Please, suggest a section name if so.
 * Sales has nothing to do with reception. Their sales compared to other phones is WP:TRIVIA and WP:IINFO. If you want to give actual sales info is fine, but in comparison to a different phone is irrelevant. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  12:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It was me who added it to the reception section, so yeah. --uKER (talk) 12:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And how is that reception related? -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  12:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So you're somewhat suggesting that the maker saying the device had disappointing sales is not representative of its reception? I don't get it. --uKER (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What source do you have that directly ties the sales to its reception? You are drawing a conclusion that the sales has anything to do with the reception, especially in comparing it to the Pixel 2. These are WP:SYNTH violations. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  13:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The comparison to the Pixel 2 can be eliminated for all I care. The point is Google saying its sales were disappointing. --uKER (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The entire basis of this statement is Hardware results reflect lower year-on-year sales of Pixel, reflecting in part heavy promotional activity industry-wide given some of the recent pressures in the premium smartphone market. They did not say they were disappointing. Additionally, both the Pixel 2 and Pixel 3 were for sale during this period; the prior year both the Pixel and Pixel 2 were for sale. The other issue with including it in reception is that the Pixel 3 is more expensive than the Pixel 2, so it might just be a price issue, not a reception issue, its impossible to know. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  13:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It clearly seems like Galatz wants to hide this info. What are the options to stop these people?
 * No, Wikipedia is not censored, however it requires everything to be verifiable. Including this information as is, is not. If you have a reliable source supporting Google is disappointed in the sales, then please provide it. Without that, its a policy violation to include. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  16:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I do want to note the statement was added originally in the lede from a known IP hopper on this page - the IP range makes it obvious when checking the contribution history: They have provided undue weight to the criticism section on here as well as continuously revert any change made to what they added on here. – The Grid  ( talk )  20:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you, please, summarize the issues you have including this information in the article? Jmartinsons (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There are not that many posts, just scroll up. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  19:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I can find better references. Jmartinsons (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is insane, . Removed all content to comparing the sales from the previous Pixel and somehow it's still original research to place the sentence in the Reception section? The reason you explained above in here is original research on its own accord. There has been numerous times the Pixel 3 has been on sale versus Pixel 2 - the Black Friday sale, Google One promotion, the $150 discounts that have been done not once but twice - one for the name change with Google Fi - yes, this is original research and we are approaching circular reasoning. So how do we stop this? – The Grid  ( talk )  17:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are getting out. If its original researching it should not be included. What part is confusing? -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  17:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Google stating sales were disappointing isn't the same as reception? Pixel 3a was probably made due to Google not liking the initial launch of the product line. I'm at least looking at other articles to see if the Reception section was used or renamed - could we do something similar to Samsung Galaxy S9 and have a Sales section within Reception? – The Grid  ( talk )  17:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No its not. Lots of factors other than user reception goes into sales. And no, one sentence does not warrant a subheader. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  19:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Pixel 3 and Pixel 3a split
Are they similar enough to be in the same article or should they be split? Are the different enough to be like the iPhone 5c? -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  14:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * They should definitely be split, the Pixel 3a is a completely different phone than the Pixel 3. The visual design of the body is similar, and the camera modules are identical, but other than that everything is different. Ianrbuck (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)