Talk:Pixel 5

Known issues section blanking
User Ed6767 (talk) is blanking the Known issues without providing an argument. Let me know if there is any problem with any of the referenced content or I will reinstate this section blanking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.48.185.255 (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * IP, I have provided multiple reasons in the edit summaries (visible in the page history) and messages on your talk page.
 * See:
 * "Rollback edit(s) by 85.48.185.165 (talk): Please see your talk page, I have given a reason and am linking relevant policies for the removal. It being referenced has nothing to do with my removal - I am now at the limit of WP:3RR and hope you work with me to resolve this dispute :) (RW 16)"
 * "rm irrelevent section, none of these faults have received widespread coverage to the point of notability and if they have they should be under a formally formatted section, alike to IPhone 6 - if you dispute this ping me in the talk page and we can work together to rewrite this section :)"
 * "rm entire section, poorly sourced, not actually notable, teething issues more than anything"
 * Please see these policy pages:
 * Notability
 * Manual of Style
 * Edit warring
 * I am warning you now for Edit warring. Do not revert further until we reach consensus here. I am at the limit of 3RR, so cannot revert following my most recent one. If you do not communicate and discuss with me first I will have no choice but to go to the appropriate dispute resolution noticeboards. 🎄🎄 Ed  talk!  🎄🎄 22:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The section should stay, it is sourced, and all other articles in the Pixel series contain the same section, formatted identically. I suggest you gain consensus from Google Pixel editors before removing sourced content and entire sections. JackFromReedsburg (talk &#124; contribs) 22:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Restored per other Pixel articles I hadn't noted. I still think the section needs a rewrite. 🎄🎄 Ed  talk!  🎄🎄 22:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Additional Information for "Known issues", specifically the display/body Gap
Hi,

Yesterday I added some more information to the section about "Known issues" (see Special:Diff/1039367489/1039569498). The information there is incomplete and most of that comes from the early days of the Pixel. Most bullet points are citing resources from articles in newstickers ("The Verge",...). Unfortunately this edit was reverted by User:Sdrqaz due to linking to "own blogpost". I'd like to discuss this here.

About the first point with the Gap: The information given there is not fully correct. Google replaces Pixel phones after 15 days if the Gap between body and display causes other issues. I wrote a blog post on my private blog about this (see https://blog.thetaphi.de/2021/08/pixel-5-gap-gate-its-not-only-gap.html): The gap causes to most (maybe all?) phones an additional issue, which is not obvious at beginning. Yes phone is still waterproof, but du to the gap between display and phone, the proximity sensor permanently detects something in close proximity to the sensor (obviously it detects the display glass as object in proximity). This causes malfunction of the phone when doing calls (screen wents dark as soon as you start or answer a talk; background: on Android/iPhone screen goes dark when you move the phone to your ear). I'd like to change the article to mention this. My phone was replaced after 3 months of usage and in the meantime Google also confirmed this issue to me (of course only in private mails with their support).

Would it be possible to add this information, because the information about the 15 days is not fully correct. Either remove the whole section or clarify it! If citing my own blog post is not possible, maybe somebody else can do this after cross-checking.

Thanks, Uwe Schindler — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetaphi (talk • contribs) 07:31, 20 August, 2021 (UTC)


 * See WP:BLOG. Unfortunately, citing self-published sources (including blogs), is not allowed on Wikipedia. If there are indeed reliable sources which cover the same matters, as you claim, feel free to add back your information cited as references. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks. This just repeats what I already said; I know that there as re not many sources, exactly the reason why I collected the information on the blog post. Most references are forums and reddit, also Google's product forum. In general, if we can't add this, we should remove incorrect information or at least correct it.


 * I'd suggest to only correct last sentence of the "gap issue" and add a statement to let readers understand that devices with gap can be returned and replaced by Google during warranty, if they are affected by related issues like malfunction of the proximity sensor due to the display gap. I'd like to add this to help people to find the relationship between the gap issue and prox sensor issue on their own.


 * The source mentioning the 15 day return limit is far from reliable. Thetaphi (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)