Talk:Pixel 9

Known issues section and neutrality

Should this page be neutral and also have a known issues section like other articles? 84.78.243.61 (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this discussion, but as I have explained, such a section is problematic for many reasons. First and foremost, it reeks of WP:NOTCHANGELOG as an indiscriminate list of non-notable software bugs that lack context and significance, which most readers will not find relevant. Wikipedia is not a help center or issue tracking system for "known issues". Secondly, per WP:CSECTION and WP:TRIVIA, we should avoid sections dedicated entirely to controversies or trivia. If a controversy is particularly noteworthy and has received substantial coverage from reliable sources, we will integrate it elsewhere in the article, as is the case of the #TeamPixel incident. Not having such a section is not "non-neutral"; it is non-neutral to have such a section. Verifiability alone also does not guarantee inclusion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

If you read Wikipedia:Notability you will find these issues are notable. Also, issues are not WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Would you be OK if we change the section name to Criticism like in the iPhone 15 article? 85.48.187.105 (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Notability guidelines on that page only pertain to the creation of articles, not content within articles themselves. You have not explained why you believe this list does not contravene WP:NOTCHANGELOG and WP:CSECTION, the latter of which specifically says to avoid dedicated "Criticism" sections like the one found on the iPhone 15 article. Two wrongs don't make a right. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

If you keep the Criticism section on iPhone 15, then you just seem like a Google employee to me. Could you at least be consistent? 84.78.242.108 (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

The fact that a Criticism section exists in the iPhone 15 article does not imply that it would be appropriate here. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS—Anita5192 (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Could you explain why it is appropriate in iPhone 15 but not here? 80.103.136.39 (talk) 04:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not. WP:SOFIXIT. This kind of section is generally not appropriate anywhere on Wikipedia, per the policies listed (in particular, WP:NOTCHANGELOG and WP:CSECTION). I am not sure why you didn't simply remove the section on that article instead of complain about it here (and cite it as a textbook example of a "two wrongs make a right" fallacy), but I have removed the section from iPhone 15. Furthermore, you have no grounds to restore the disputed material on this article per WP:STATUSQUO, WP:BRD, the aforementioned policies that the material contravenes, and rough consensus in this discussion (which is not determined by the number of raw votes but by the strength of arguments presented). Please stop. If you continue to edit-war, you will be blocked for disruptive behavior. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Please, let's reach a consensus first to make sure that wikipedia articles do not need a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. There are more articles with these kind of sections 80.103.136.105 (talk) 06:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself and not presenting any new rationale. Your arguments have been debunked by correct applications of several policies. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to reach a consensus if Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is not required anymore. 90.167.219.62 (talk) 10:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

No one said NPOV is no longer required on Wikipedia. It is your proposed addition that violates NPOV, in addition to our policy on what Wikipedia is not. Again, we are not a help center or issue tracking system. If you are simply going to waste editors' time by going in circles, I will close this discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

This article has a "reception" section, which is the neutral way of presenting how a subject is received. Changing it to a "criticism" or "issues" section would violate WP:NPOV. The section should include the full range of commentary (positive, negative, and in between) to stay neutral. Those comments don't need to be equal, but they do need to be reliable. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been meaning to add more reviews (positive or negative) to the Reception section, but haven't had the time to do so as it's been a busy few weeks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I realize this article has been the subject of an edit war. I want to re-offer a third opinion in the interest of being helpful. First, WP:NPOV advises that criticism should be included under the neutral reception section. Second, criticism should be in WP:proportion to reliable independent sources. These relate to policies on WP:NOR and WP:V, where blogs and primary sources are discouraged. These also relate to the policy on WP:NOT, where Wikipedia isn't meant to be a directory of all things that have been said about a subject. Shorter version: the "issues" section as written is against WP:NPOV and broad Wikipedia consensus, and I support removing it until it can be rewritten with better sources, as part of the reception section. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)