Talk:Pixelbook

Recent back and forth

As an infobox has been added and removed a couple of times, I think it best if there is a discussion whether it is useful to have an IB longer than the article, particularly as it contains information not present in the article and not sourced in the box itself. - SchroCat (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

A more substantial problem with the infobox as it stood is that most of the facts were not backed up in the article or cited to sources. For example, the main body says nothing about the processor, memory and storage options, graphics capabilities, and lists "Google Chrome" as an OS (I thought it was a browser), and includes an unverified weight of 2.4lbs (what's that in metric?) which isn't as useful as, say, relative weight to a Macbook Air. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you guys are making arguments for removing certain unsourced info not the entire info box. They serve a purpose. The correct thing to do is to clean it up rather than deleting the entire thing - Galatz^Talk 14:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The correct thing to do is to discuss whether it is useful or worthwhile having one, not trying to edit war one back in. Perhaps, per BRD and STATUS QUO, you could discuss this fully, rather than reverting? Thank you. - SchroCat (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I did not revert, you did. I addressed all concerns mentions and fixed it, big difference. I notice you have stated ZERO policy for excluding. The only thing you have mentioned is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Now present a policy for excluding sourced info in an infobox or revert yourself. - Galatz^Talk 14:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

No, by putting the box back in, given two others have removed it, you reverted it - and that's whether you pressed the undo button or not; replacing the information under discussion is also classed as edit warring. Now, on to the subjective point: no-one, except you, has mentioned IDONTLIKEIT. Both the editors who removed the box have raised valid concerns aside from the unsupported information. You are right to say there is no policy for excluding an IB, but there is no policy for including one either (please note there are no policies that specifically deal with IBs). What we have is a guideline at WP:INFOBOXUSE which states that "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." So, perhaps you could provide some valid reasons why you think an IB should be included here - in line with the MoS guidelines, which were confirmed and supported by the ArbCom case a couple of years ago. - SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

"I did not revert, you did" - this diff shows you reverting, so coming here to discuss is a good idea. I'm not against infoboxes per se - indeed, I've just been doing work on Belgravia, Moorgate station and Brighton Palace Pier which have all had them present and unchallenged for years - just in this case I don't think it's particularly aethsetically pleasing and practically useful yet. Maybe if the article was about 4-5 times its current size, it would be more appropriate and serve a more valid purpose, I just don't think we're at that stage now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, your arguments are WP:IDONTLIKEIT, you didn't use the words, but your words were it. Comments about its length in comparison to the article are baseless and only something you don't like. Or look at the comments right above I don't think it's particularly aethsetically pleasing is a perfect example of IDONTLIKEIT. The answer to that is to improve the article, not remove important information to make it look pretty.

Secondly, if you read Help:Infobox, you will see it very clearly lays out when its good to use one, and this is a perfect example. For example, it says Infobox templates contain important facts and statistics of a type which are common to related articles, and being that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS similar to this on other pages, it only makes sense to include. The vast majority of people who are coming to WP to look at something like this are looking for the quick hits that they find in the infobox. You have now not only removed sourced information that is useful to the reader, but you have done so without putting it somewhere else. This in no way shape or form is helpful to wikipedia. - Galatz^Talk 15:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

So the lack of infobox is, essentially, that you don't like it... - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

As I said above, all the information I removed was unsourced bar one or two fields, so that is factually incorrect. A much better solution would be to expand and improve the article, say adding in the background, motivation for creating the Pixelbook, any market research done, and maybe a bit more on the reception - then a summary box will be more appropriate. To give another example, consider iPhone 5 - the box spans over two pages, but the article is over 26K of prose and goes into considerable depth (it is also a good article) so a summary list is appropriate in that instance. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Nice try but definitely not what I said. I commented on you removing sourced info that is useful to the reader. That is not IDONTLIKEIT. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a different guideline than IDONTLIKEIT, and just because I reference that it doesn't mean that I dont like not including it. You can try and spin my words whatever way you want, but the arguments I quoted can only be read one way. Ritchie even said he's not against the inclusion, so clearly the way it was presented was what they didn't like. - Galatz^Talk 15:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

So basically, Ritchie what you are saying is you chose to just delete easily sourced information rather than following the steps laid out at WP:USI? - Galatz^Talk 15:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I've dropped a bit of background stats from this TechCrunch source - feel free to help spice the content up a bit. Now this conversation is starting to resemble Prime Minister's Questions so I'm going to duck out now and wish you the best. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello. [Thank you if you improve this formatting] I own a PixelBook, and would like to know who are the people at google, that manage it, so that on twitter, i can share complaints about support.google.com directions that point to non-exist menus, and miss menus that exist next to them. Currently trying to unlock #PixelBook with my Pixel3XL phone. (Thank you for improving my fortmatting. I try not to avoid wikipedia, because its editors insist all #mediterranean history is harry potter, and never happened, and refuse any article contributions that merge history, insisting only write from fictional readings for comparison and cite books 10 years old or newer.) Ui Neil Mahmuod Elmontaser Cidi Almasri Sandage (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The cut and paste directions below here from "support.Google.com" do not mention, clicking Connected Device, SmartLock Slider, Smart lock Arrow, Smart lock Device or Device and Account.

https://support.google.com/chromebook/answer/6070209?visit_id=636824015147693661-2932376267&p=smart_lock&rd=1

Set up phone unlock If you have more than one phone nearby, turn off the ones you won't be using. Sign in to your Chromebook. Make sure your phone and Chromebook: Are close together (within 100 feet) Are connected to the Internet Have Bluetooth turned on Are signed in to the same Google Account At the bottom right, select the time. Select Settings Settings. In the "People" section, select Screen lock. Type your password, then select Confirm.

[This next line after [*these*] about #chromebook never existed as an option. Does not Exist. Above the "People" section in "Connected devices", identify your PixelFone. Select it. Next Menu see "Smart Lock" see slider to turn smart lock. Guess what, to the left is an arrow that goes to a deeper menu. The arrow below, to the right of "Tethering" kicks you out and up a menu, so use this Smart Lock arrow instead. Smart lock offers Device & Account, one or both. Choose Both. This is the menu above "people". No clue if this works to unlock #PixelBook yet. Just that the directions provided after this sentence do not exist in the menus.]

Next to "Smart Lock for Chromebook," select Set up. Follow the onscreen instructions. When your phone is fully connected to your Chromebook and phone unlock is turned on, you'll see a notification on your phone.

Requesting article improvement, that recognizes the teams authoring the support.google.com articles. I want a #pixelbook that works, not the intrigue of errors. Boring Company is Better. Why pay $1100 for a "chromium os" using Chrome web browser? I want boring. I always wanted Stainless Steel, nickle allow is not chrome.

Battery capacity

hi guys, I know this isn't the best location for this but someone with more rights/knowledge how to edit the wiki page properly could add this info. I had a little odyseey regarding the Pixelbooks battery. on Googles support pages the battery's capacity is only listed as 41Whr, not in mAh. Which is IMHO useless w/o a voltage value. Not even Google's customer support live chat didn't had the info. I kept digging and found a 'Chrome linux shell' (CROSH) command: "battery_firmware info" which shows details. the designed mAh capacity is 5407 mAh with designed output voltage of 7700 miliVolts. Battery model is an "A50" by LG (LiPo). I thought this would be helpful if someone wants to buy a proper powerbank for his/her/their Pixelbook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DD:172D:7801:8506:26E6:C4EC:C448 (talk) 11:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 5 June 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 19:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

---

Google Pixelbook → Pixelbook – In line with other Pixel-related articles including the Pixel 5, Pixel Slate, Pixel Buds, Pixel C, Chromebook Pixel, and more. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support. For consistency as per nom, and also see discussion. Andrewa (talk) 07:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

I note a previous bold move

 13:24, 2 August 2019‎ Galatz talk contribs block‎  47 bytes +47‎  Galatz moved page Pixelbook to Google Pixelbook over redirect: Undoing move. We go by what WP:RS refer to it as 

which is completely illogical... every source that refers to it as Google Pixelbook implicitly also refers to it as Pixelbook. Andrewa (talk) 07:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

​ Agree If there is no opposition to this we can go ahead and move this page. Same thing for Google Pixelbook Go, which should be moved to Pixelbook Go. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.