User talk:InfiniteNexus/Archive 19

Pricing on smartphones
Dear InfiniteNexus,

I have seen that you reverted my addition of pricing on the Pixel a series and I have read the rules you linked to. However, after reading them, I don't see that I violated said rules in any respect. I'll cover them how I saw them:

"An article should not include product pricing or availability information (which can vary widely with time and location) unless there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention, which may be indicated by mainstream media sources or books (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention."

This mentions pricing and availability together. The smartphone template has a separate section for availability by region. Because of that, it is used in many smartphone articles. And if availability is relevant enough to get its own section in the template, I don't see why the same would not be true for pricing. I also think that the MSRP of a phone is very relevant because in the competitive phone market, the price has a big impact on whether a phone sells well or not. And as I mentioned in my edit summary, the price is a big selling point of the Pixel a series. It is the most differentiating feature from the standard Pixel and Pixel Pro series.

"Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare prices and availability of competing products or a single product from different vendors."

This also mentions price but is not related to the edit because it does not compare the price with competing phones, nor does it list prices from 3rd party resellers.

Maybe it was too much text to write it in a separate section. I already drew the parallels to the availability. An alternative I'd like to propose is to add the MSRP to the template. It is an aspect, so to say a spec, that every phone has, and a very important one at that, as I have outlined. That's why I think it's a good idea to have a place where this information can be put.

Regards, Punkt64 (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello. Articles on consumer products generally do not and should not mention its MSRP unless, as WP:NOTPRICE puts it, there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention, which may be indicated by mainstream media sources or books (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention (bolding my own). This is why there is no price field in the smartphone infobox, since price info is not noteworthy for most smartphones. While I agree that the low price is one of the main selling points of the Pixel A-series, it has not met the "commentary beyond passing mentions and in product reviews" criterion of NOTPRICE. In fact, you cited the official Google Store in your edits, which is not an independent, third-party source as NOTPRICE stipulates. The low price is noted in the articles through other means, such as in the lead. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello @InfiniteNexus, thank you for your reply. While I'm personally of a different opinion on the relevance of price (for example, while the iPhone 14 is advertised as an upgrade from the iPhone 13, multiple sources have claimed that the iPhone 13 outsold the iPhone 14 since its release by a large margin), I understand that I have to comply with the established rules. I also understand that the Google Store as a source is conflicting with these rules. My following remarks will be about the Pixel 3a series. An independent source for this is the popular phone website GSMArena.com. https://www.gsmarena.com/google_pixel_3a_and_3a_xl_unveiled_with_snapdragon_670-news-36932.php This mentions the price in the title. "Google Pixel 3a and 3a XL unveiled: same cameras, slower chipsets and $399 starting price" This website only puts the in their view most noteworthy facts about a phone announcement in the title. For example, this article https://www.gsmarena.com/the_xiaomi_13_ultra_official_with_four_cameras_and_a_variable_aperture_main_lens-news-58285.php has aspects in the title that are different from the price. Moreover, GSMArena.com provides commentary on the price by saying "They can be considered as spiritual successors to the affordable Nexus series, which were the Google phones before the Pixels came to be.", referencing a difference in pricing structure between the Nexus-line and the Pixel-line up until this point. They also compare and discuss what in their view are the most striking differences to the previous Pixel phones. "With a more affordable price tag and the same rear cameras, the new Pixel 3a and 3a XL aim to reach wider audiences." This includes the price.
 * When handled this way, there is
 * - an independent source: GSMArena.com
 * - and encyclopedic significance: price as one of the main selling points of the phone
 * - which may be indicated by mainstream media sources or books (not just product reviews): the mentioned source is a mainstream media source and is not a product review (because it is the commentary on the announcement, not the review)
 * - provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention: the price is in the title and the text and is referenced and discussed at the start of the source.
 * For those reasons, I'd suggest to add the launch price of the Pixel 3a to the Wikipedia article about the phone with the provided source for reference. Punkt64 (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd be more comfortable if we had a more reliable source than GSMArena, but you're welcome to add it back in and see if anyone else objects. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There's also arstechnica quoting similar things. I'll add that as a second source then. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/05/googles-cheaper-pixel-3a-is-official-starting-at-399/ Then there is The Verge but I personally rate them lower than GSMArena because of things like clickbait, which GSMArena usually does not. https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/7/18527206/google-pixel-3a-xl-phone-announcement-price-release-date-io-2019 Punkt64 (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The Verge and Ars Technica are actually considered high-quality reliable sources on Wikipedia. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay thank you, then I will add the article from The Verge as well. Maybe I also confused their reliability with a different website. Punkt64 (talk) 11:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Kang Dynasty
Do you think this is worth adding? Looks like Marvel got its own Ezra Miller. Kailash29792 (talk)  04:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think we can probably add a sentence or two describing Marvel's reaction to the scandal (not every detail about the scandal itself). InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Details have been added to Draft:Avengers: The Kang Dynasty with info from that source and this new one from today. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Trail! InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Shogun Reavers
Hi! I moved the Shogun Reavers bit of Shogun Warriors (comics) as I couldn't see anything at all to connect it to the Shogun Warriors beyond being Marvel mecha. I instead moved it to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. If it does belong on the Shogun Warriors page it needs a lot more context to explain why. Thanks! =) BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem! My fault for forgetting to leave edit summaries =) BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't sweat it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Made by Google
Hello, InfiniteNexus. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Made by Google, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Made by Google


Hello, InfiniteNexus. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Made by Google".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 00:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Google messaging apps


Hello, InfiniteNexus. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Google messaging apps".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 06:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

"Stylized as"
Please stop adding trivia about how something was stylized. This is lead clutter. Almost all big budget films have images of their film posters, so people don't really need to be told that there's a slightly different capitalization on the poster. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I must say, I'm a little ticked off by your tone here. The phrasing of your comment appears to imply that I have engaged in chronic, disruptive behavior on a large number of pages, when in fact all I did was swing by a handful of pages (about films in the same series) and modify their leads. Firstly, I disagree with your assessment that this information is cruft. MOS:TITLE and MOS:TMSTYLE both make it clear that the inclusion of such notes is permissible, and I don't see any harm in including it either. Secondly, the stylization in this case is not, in fact, apparent from the poster, only on official websites and social media. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As an administrator, you should know better than anyone that communication is required. I wasn't expecting an immediate "fine, have it your way", but a reply would be appreciated. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You can start a discussion on the talk page, start an RFC, etc. I don't think that trivia about capitalization is important enough to belong in the opening sentence of a film.  Now, please stop pinging me.  I've got more important things to deal with.  If you ping me repeatedly, I'll just mute your pings. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow. Okay then. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)