Talk:Pixel 6

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: ^[1]

USB-C® 18W adapter with USB-PD 2.0

18W fast charging

vs Pixel6/6 Pro page: ^[2]

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) ^[3] "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)

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

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: The definition of a phablet has changed over the years, starting with 5-inch phones at first. But a 5-inch device is on the small size these days, with 6-inch phones all very common thanks to tall aspect ratios. Nowadays, we consider a phablet to have a 6.3-inch screen or larger. 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)

@Svnpenn: 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)

@Svnpenn: 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)

Putting such a strong effort into ramming the change through (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; but, 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 all 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 does 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)