Talk:Pixel 6

Redirect from [Google Tensor]
I figure the Tensor chip will be expanded into a full series. Furthermore, the existing chip might find its way into various other Google hardware products like the Google Home. Hence, I suggest not having [Google Tensor] redirect to [Pixel 6]. Will (Talk - contribs) 07:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't see anywhere better for this to redirect to. Ideally we should have an article on the Tensor chip (or range of chips). This could initially be a stub article, but there appear to be sufficient sources to create some useful content. A quick search identified these: I don't know whether these are 'reliable sources'. Verbcatcher (talk) 08:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Until an article for that is created, this is the best target of the redirect. I will say though that I don't think Tensor warrants a standalone article at this point, but that may change in the future. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Storage options table
Is the information within the "Storage options" table currently original research? I understand it's hard to get a confirmation of which versions are limited to each region but I want to imagine information will be published after the phone ships out this week. – The Grid  ( talk )  18:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't had a chance to look into this, but you might be right. I'll see if I can find a source later. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * After some digging, I couldn't find a source backing up the info. since you were the one who added the table, do you have a reliable source (other than the Google Store itself) that can support the information found in the table? InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We can hide the original research and see what comes up in the news later this week. – The Grid  ( talk )  15:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As it's been more than 36 hours and Samsam21amb still has not responded, I have restored the old table. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

On the store page in Germany many of the variants are out of stock but they still show them. But the storage options differ from what is stated in the table here. In Germany we have the Pixel 6 Pro for Stormy Black with 128GB and 256GB and for the other two colors with 128GB only. So there so no 512GB option at all and even the 256GB is limited to black. Is that a German thing only? --Jobu0101 (talk) 08:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That would be WP:OR. The storage table was removed two weeks ago, so I'm not sure what you mean by . If you're referring to the WP:INFOBOX, that is based on the official specs sheet. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, with "table" I meant the infobox. I opened up the official specs sheet (which is linked as source [7]) and found for the Pixel 6 Pro 128GB and 256GB only. No 512GB variant. The spec sheet doesn't tell if the different options are for all colors or just the black one. --Jobu0101 (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess that's for Germany only. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

30w charging
As far as I'm aware, especially given the androidauthority article, google never actually states that the phone charges at 30W.Note the difference in language:

Pixel 5a (5g) page: USB-C® 18W adapter with USB-PD 2.0 18W fast charging vs Pixel6/6 Pro page: Fast charging6 – up to 50% charge in about 30 minutes6 – with Google 30 W USB-C® Charger with USB-PD 3.0 (PPS) sold separately Qi-certified Fast wireless charging

Also note, the name of the charger that is offered by google (sold seperately) "Google 30 W USB-C charger" (called "power charger" in some places)

That's just what the charger is called, "Google 30 W USB-C Charger", all they're saying is that the "50% charge in about 30 minutes" is done with the charger that is called "30 W USB-C Chager", the 30w is just part of the name of the charger (which indicates is maximum potential). Especially given the previous times where google has explicitly said "18W fast charging". \ This fact (that google doesn't technically claim 30w, the language just makes it confusing) is also implied in the androidauthority article. Given that, we may need to remove the "30w" claim in the info box on the side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.98.125.45 (talk) 08:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have adjusted the wording in both the infobox and the "Hardware" section. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Ivory Aquino
I stumbled upon this article the other day, can someone figure out where the cover image is from? That info could go in the section. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Isn't the regular Pixel 6 a phablet
It is slightly bigger than the iPhone XS Max (157.5 mm) while the Pixel 6 is 158.6 mm. Android Authority refers to it as "a very big smartphone" 45.115.56.247 (talk) 09:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This source says: Since the smaller Pixel 6 is only 6.2 inches wide diagonally, I think we're safe to call it a smartphone and not a phablet. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The source says that phablets have screen sizes 6.3 inches or larger.
 * However the regular Pixel 6 has a daigonal screen size of 6.4 inches according to GSMArena (not 6.2) which is larger than 6.3 inches. Hexadecimal16 (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The official specs sheet carries more weight than GSMArena, which is not a reliable source. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Even the official hardware specs sheet at support.google.com states that the screen size of the regular pixel 6 is 6.4 inches diagonal Hexadecimal16 (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hold up, I think I was looking at the wrong number. The infobox does state the screen size to be 6.4 inches. I'll change "smartphone" to "phablet". InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot Hexadecimal16 (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Discontinued
Why are you edit-warring? Your BOLD edit was reverted; please follow the recommendations outlined at WP:BRD and discuss your proposed change. As I have explained to you, although the fact that the phone has been discontinued is a trivial detail that doesn't warrant a mention in the body of the article, this information is correct and can easily be verified online. You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, and WP:V (verifiability) doesn't necessarily mean an inline source. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * as has been repeatedly mentioned, if its easy enough to verify, its easy enough to add a source. the status of the pixel is not equivalent to the sky being blue, as you can verify the latter by merely going outside, you dont even need an internet connection. add a single notable source and this discussion goes away. its a reasonable request, your refusal is not reasonable. Svnpenn (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You're going in circles. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, and in this case, it is a trivial matter that does not warrant a mention. Categories are only required to be verifiable, i.e. someone can easily verify that this is true via a quick glance online. It does not require an inline citation in the article. This is not how Wikipedia works; please review all relevant policies and guidelines. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * > it is a trivial matter that does not warrant a mention
 * its obviously not trivial, otherwise you wouldn't be putting such a strong effort into ramming the change through. again, if its simple enough to find a reference, then its simple enough to include it. you're just intentionally being difficult at this point. I have a reasonable request, I am not even disagreeing with the change, I am just saying ADD A REFERENCE.
 * if you cant do that, we can expand the argument and see who sides with who. Svnpenn (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * (in your words) does not mean something is not trivial, and I'm not sure why you think the two are related. The rest of your reply repeats what you stated earlier, so this is becoming WP:IDHT. I've already demonstrated that the category is verifiable;, it shouldn't be added to the article because it's not noteworthy outside of categorization. To reiterate, categories only need to be verifiable, which does not mean an inline citation is required; I invite you to look at other articles and see if of them directly correspond to an inline citation in the body of the article. In the meantime, since this is your BOLD edit that has been challenged, per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO I will be restoring the status quo of the article. If you wish to continue arguing for an unneeded inline citation, you can make a post at WP:3O. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know why it didn't come to me earlier, but yeah, WP:NOTPRICE explicitly says not to mention product availability. Us stating that the product has been discontinued and no longer available would violate NOTPRICE. I hope that settles it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * sure, then we can remove the fact from the article altogether Svnpenn (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What? Now you're just being disruptive. NOTPRICE clearly does not pertain to categories unless you willfully misread the policy, as categories are not part of the article proper. This article has never mentioned pricing or availability information, so there is nothing to "remove". NOTPRICE mean, however, that this fact should not be added to the body of the article, which is what I have been telling you since the beginning. If you believe the category shouldn't exist (if it "violates" NOTPRICE here, it violates NOTPRICE everywhere), take it to WP:TFD, though I doubt such a request would be taken seriously. You are starting to get WP:POINTy here and edit-warring; the WP:STATUSQUO prior to a dispute is always retained by default if consensus is not reached. Again, you are free to pursue other avenues of dispute resolution, but you are simply repeating yourself, contradicting relevant policies, and being disruptive. Please stop. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)