Jump to content

Talk:IPhone 11/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Merger proposal

The following is a closed discussion of a proposed merger. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the proposed merger was: Not done. no consensus to merge. BLAIXX 16:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposed of iPhone 11 Pro into iPhone 11. I'm not the nom. {{u|waddie96}} {talk} 14:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Taewangkorea, Ghostofakina, Kitcatx, Nigos, Anthony Appleyard, JJMC89, and HitroMilanese: {{u|waddie96}} {talk} 14:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a proposed merger. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

RfC about including pricing information in article

(non-admin closure) Consensus is against including a chart that includes pricing information of the iPhone 11 in various countries. - MrX 🖋 20:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

I will be short. Should a chart that includes pricing information of the iPhone 11 in various countries (in USD) be included in the article? Taewangkorea (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Price

This source appears independent?[1] So do not see justification for removing this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn't remove the prices, but I believe the justification was WP:NOPRICE. --Yamla (talk) 17:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, and that requires "independent sources" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid this is incredibly difficult to see as good faith, and have brought up the concern with Doc James: User_talk:Doc_James#Prices_for_medications
The source is a simple listing, demonstrating no encyclopedic value. This is exactly why NOT includes NOPRICES. --Ronz (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose including the list of prices. I take this position solely based on my belief that it clutters up the article; I do not make this argument on WP:NOPRICES grounds. I don't believe that information is particularly useful. The vast majority of visitors will only care how much the iPhone is in their local currency. I know that's all I care about. The fact that I can get it cheaper in Australia isn't meaningful to me at all. --Yamla (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support including the list of prices using an independent source. It is helpful to know the different prices. Readers can find out about their local price when reading about the list of prices. QuackGuru (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Wikipedia:Prices which says "Wikipedia has no specific policy on presenting prices of products". But I would move it lower in the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
The source provides absolutely none of the policy-required required justification: WP:NOT: An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. --Ronz (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Comment As the creatoe creator of the rfc, I feel I should not !vote. Taewangkorea (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NOPRICE: "An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention." "Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention." Also, prices will change, especially when newer iPhones come out, so will the price table be updated every time? And including the price table without any justified reason/commentary seems to give the article a bit of a promotional-ish tone. Someone963852 (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
    • It might make more sense to not update it, and present the list prices at the time of release. People who want to know how much it will cost them personally, right now, need to be looking at a sales website. The encyclopedic information is in the "Huh, why does this cost 20% more in Greece than in France? They're both in the EU..." moment, not in the "I gotta save up another hundred bucks before I can buy that" moment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Let's not forget that US market pricing for all devices is already included in the iPhone article, making this section redundant. If viewers outside of the United States wish to know the price in their market, they can simply go to their respective Apple website. As a further note, the Pixel 3 had a similar debate over pricing, and its section was ultimately removed. I suggest we do the same with this article. Ghostofakina (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for pretty much all these reasons.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Wikipedia:Prices --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not crazy about including a table of prices, but I feel like price should at least be mentioned given the amount of coverage it received. Calidum 14:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I oppose a bare chart. I support prose based on reliable sourcing commenting on price, e.g. any notable variations in price between countries. Bondegezou (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Fails NOPRICE. No attempt by editors to demonstrate it meets NOPRICE, or the source demonstrates the need for an exception. RECENTISM, SOAP, UNDUE, and generally of questionable encyclopedic value as sourced. --Ronz (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. In most cases, pricing is a useless information in an encyclopaedia (unless linked with a controversy, high publicity etc). Whoever needs to know the current product price in their own country, is free to check Amazon, Google Shopping, eBay, or whatever online shop they have in their area. Encyclopaedia needs to list the essential qualities of an item and not make an effort to track prices across models, years, countries, sellers, etc. It's not what an encyclopaedia is for. — kashmīrī TALK 22:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:PRICES, which is an essay to which I contributed. We need a balance. Wikipedia does not need to be so price sensitive for iphones, but for phones in general, knowing whether the retail price is ~US$100 versus $500 versus $1000 is essential general reference information for understanding the product. For drugs knowing whether a dose is $1 versus $10 versus $100 versus $1000 is essential. I know that prices are messy to report globally but somehow Wikipedia articles need to communicate when a product exists to benefit and be accessible for the poverty, lower, middle, or upper economic class of consumers. I do not care about exact prices, but prices are one way to distinguish products for the lower class versus the upper class. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
WP:PRICES is an essay, not a Wikipedia policy. Shouldn't we be following the policy and guidelines (such as WP:NOPRICE) that Wikipedia has set? Someone963852 (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
@Someone963852: The way things work is that noncontroversial rules become policy because there is consensus to give those rules respect, and only fringe views say otherwise. When we identify some rule which is controversial, then it should not be policy, and we pull it to find consensus. I acknowledge that our default expectation is to respect policy for the consensus it has, but this issue of pricing does not now and never did have consensus in the context of this discourse. Policy should match consensus; we should not expect that consensus matches policy, and there are enough differences of opinion on this pricing issue to justify saying that this matter needs discussion and should not be policy as it stands. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
It's a simple application of POV. Absolutely nothing controversial about it, as all the RfCs to date show. This is just one more. --Ronz (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

If no one can make a case that NOPRICE is met, or somehow we have an encyclopedic exception to NOPRICE, then we're wasting our time here trying to create local consensus against content policy. --Ronz (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Since some editors believe that the essay Wikipedia:Prices somehow applies here, I think it important to point out the RfC on it's talk page, Wikipedia_talk:Prices#RfC:_why_no_prices_at_all?, which I believe undermines any such arguements. --Ronz (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm surprised people are using WP:PRICES to support adding a bare table of prices to the article considering WP:PRICES is an essay (advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors... not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines... not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some ... represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints), not a Wikipedia policy. WP:NOPRICE is a policy.
And like you stated, the RfC outcome on WP:PRICES states: "Consensus is clearly that detailed price information should not be included in most cases... Most commenters agree there can be exceptions, such as if reliable sources state a specific price was specifically important...." similar to WP:NOPRICE: "An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention." "Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention." Someone963852 (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
@Ronz and Someone963852: Why are you both putting so much weight on WP:NOPRICE? This is just a redirect to Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory, and there is not much guidance on prices there. I am unclear how much talk page discussion backs what is on that section of the policy page. I get that there are lots of reasons to not include prices, but yes, I do think there is controversy in the application of NOPRICE, and I do not see the price issue settled as a matter of orthodoxy and consensus. I do not even want prices myself, but I do wish that Wikipedia could communicate which products are for everyone and which ones are luxury products. This iPhone is a luxury product which costs 1 month's United States minimum wage salary, and in most of the world it is even less accessible. Comparable products cost 10% of this price. Is it not the case that most of our audience would want some price information, and in particular, to learn if various products are for the majority of normal people or for the minority of wealthy people? Why not include that, and how is it POV? I get that this is primary data and that we rarely will have secondary sources, but for articles about products, is price not desirable as basic data? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Because it's policy.
It's POV (maybe a bit OR too) to select certain information over other information, to give it prominence in an article, and to present it in a certain context. Independent, reliable sources are needed to determine how these pov issues are addressed. Without independent sources, it's a POV (and in this case a NOT) violation. To present the information out of the context that determines it's weight is also a POV/NOT violation. To present the information for reasons of our own is a POV/NOT violation. --Ronz (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Just my thought, but maybe we should hold a broader RfC to determine the inclusion of prices in articles surrounding commercial products in general, not just the iPhone 11. Taewangkorea (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
And update/change the policy if necessary (if there is consensus in favor) or keep the policy as is. Taewangkorea (talk) 00:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
There are a tangle of issues here and we do not have a list of them. An answer to the POV claim is that we do have sources, and reporting some prices is normal. Consumer Reports and similar consumer buying guides have always published prices and said they are fundamental to understanding. For iPhone we have sources for prices, but a bigger problem is that Wiki editors dislike having prices in some cases but not for everything, and also having varying quality. If we cite a reliable source for price then that settles POV, but that reliable source is still difficult because price changes with time and geography.
The NOPRICE line is a minor part of that other policy and it is not so thoughtful. I have respect for the arguments people make against putting prices in but I do not find that rule in the policy useful for explaining much. It fails to comply with the broader norm that many publications about products include prices for local audiences at a certain time. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Why does this phone cost so much more than comparable phones? There may be sources explaining the high cost and those should be included. QuackGuru (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure it does. For example, it's cheaper than the pixel 4. I think the price of high end phones is just so much higher than in the past. --Yamla (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
One of the key points: "The iPhone 11 starts at $699. The phone it’s replacing, the iPhone XR, cost at least $749."[2]
See "Apple has introduced the iPhone 11, unexpectedly slashing the starting price of its new flagship to $699 (£729, AU$1,199) -- the lowest entry-level price for a new iPhone since the iPhone 8 debuted in 2017."[3]
See "Apple today announced that the all-new iPhone 11 starts at $699, down from the $749 starting price of its iPhone XR predecessor."[4]
See "The successor to the iPhone XR, the iPhone 11, will retail starting at $699, while the two new flagships iPhone 11 Pro and Pro Max will start at $999 and $1,099, respectively. "[5]
There are numerous sources discussing the price.[6][7][8][9][10][11] It seems the media is very interested in the retail price. QuackGuru (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:NOPRICE: "An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention." There is independent sources and the justified reason is the overwhelming press coverage and interest about the pricing. It is a notable aspect of it according to the sources presented. QuackGuru (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

10 sources

In just 4 minutes 10 sources was deleted. Can anyone read all those sources in just 4 minutes? QuackGuru (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I can read the content the sources supported, and I can read the policy. WP:NOPRICE is clear: Unless the price is significant, we omit it. If it's significant, there will be a lot more to say about it than just "The price is $X.XX". It's not enough for sources to just mention the price, they would also need to go into detail as to why that's significant or important. Otherwise, it's just a factoid, and general practice is to omit it. I did read the sources you cited above, and they just mention the price, and in a couple cases say it's similar to its predecessors. They don't say much else about it, or that it's anything of note. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Pulling the information out of the context for which it might be noteworthy is a POV violation. --Ronz (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
It may be a case of adding too much references when one is enough. I agree with Ronz that it may be a POV violation, and I think that most people would agree that putting the price there in USD is OK (while there are disputes regarding putting a table of prices in different countries). Taewangkorea (talk) 05:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


"Lower priced?

No other iPhone with a higher-end model's page describes it as a "lower-priced" model. Why does this one? It seems confusing; I genuinely spent time trying to research whether or not this was a budget phone, like the iPhone 5C or the Pixel 3a is. By calling it "lower priced" in the first sentence, you're immediately assuming that 1. the 11 Pro is the default, and 2. that this article somehow comes second sequentially to the article about the 11 max. That doesn't really make sense to me. Can we remove "lower priced" from the description? 150.176.9.254 (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

This is the lower priced of the iPhone 11 range. The more expensive phone is the higher end iPhone 11 Pro. This is (in my opinion) clear in context. The two sentences are part of the opening paragraph. This is the lower priced phone. The higher-end (and by implication, higher priced) phone is discussed in the next sentence. Removing "lower priced" would make it harder to determine whether this is the lower priced or the higher priced of the iPhone 11 range. --Yamla (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Also see the reply I left on my talk page, similar to Yamla's. Taewangkorea (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2019 (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.

Location privacy

Hi guys, I want to add the following text into the privacy section could you please state if you have any concerns? iPhone 11 is the first iPhone where location tracking cannot be disabled.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.174.3.166 (talk) 07:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it's totally inappropriate. You are claiming the iPhone 11 is the first iPhone where location tracking cannot be disabled. But this is refuted by the article update itself. See the update which includes, "Apple added that this compliance check is done on the device itself and the company is not tracking users’ locations when they have Location Services disabled." (emphasis mine) --Yamla (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Third-Generation Neural Engine?

In the Hardware section of the article it says the iPhone 11 has a processor that “contains a third-generation neural engine.”

What does this mean? It sounds like marketing jargon (along the lines of “retina display” or “fifth-generation” fighter jet). If it is not jargon, a short explanation, or a link to one, describing what this component actually does would be very useful.

(It’s a sad reflection of our society’s capture by corporate interests that few editors seem bothered by jargon that is explicitly designed to help companies sell products increasingly making its way into articles that are supposed to provide readers with an objective overview of those products’ functionality.) User2346 (talk) 06:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

"IPhone (13th generation)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect IPhone (13th generation). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 25#IPhone (13th generation) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

"As of February 2021, the iPhone 11 has sold 102.1 million units worldwide, making it the third best-selling smartphone of all time"

But according to the wiki page that's linked, it's not even in the top 10? BlueRaja (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  1. ^ Apple Seems to Be Tracking iPhone 11 When Location Services Are Disabled, Report Finds
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IPhone_11/Archive_1&oldid=1218952663"