Jump to content

Talk:IPhone 8

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lfereneg (talk | contribs) at 16:27, 15 October 2017 (→‎Battery problems). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Battery problems

There are multiple official reports of battery swelling issues and Apple is officially investigating it. Is there any reason to hide this problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.143.172.154 (talk) 07:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By multiple, you mean 7-8? Consider making an account for yourself, as your IP is dynamic, and you are unable to reply to my messages on your talk page. Darius robin (talk) 08:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These are only the number of official reports, there are much more cases. I have created an account. I have added a reference from the BBC that is a trusted source. Lfereneg (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Darius robin:we should add the information. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Darius robin: Please stop removing this information. You do not have the consensus. Lfereneg (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Lfereneg: And you do not have enough reports of the issue. 8 devices having problems does not mean that every device suffers from the issue (not even 0.5% of the millions of devices sold!). Darius robin (talk) 09:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It has to be a problem that applies to broad number of devices. On any of the automobile articles, for example, we don't include every defect even if it's a known problem.MartinezMD (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know about that Wikipedia policy. Could you reference that policy? Please, do not hide this issue until that policy is referenced. Lfereneg (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASPS MartinezMD (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is not undue weight, maybe the section is a bit large, I propose just adding the information into another section, that will negate any concerns of undue weight. Beyond that, it is widely covered news and therefore should be included. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’’Comment’’’ Any number of technology will have issues. It’s not relevant to add to the article until the issue becomes widespread. A few instances do not constitute a widespread problem. JOJ Hutton 19:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The number of issues with the phone or the number of occurrences is irrelevant. Remember Wikipedia operates on what is notable or not notable. If it has been covered by multiple large media outlets it is notable and deserves inclusion. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like theres no support for inclusion just yet on the talk page as multiple users have disagreed with it's inclusion. Insisting to include this without support or consensus is edit warring. --JOJ Hutton 01:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think 8 cases out of how many sold? A million, a few million (16-18 million is the projected quarter's production)? is clearly undue weight. Notability is not the only principle WP works on. If 8 units had a scratch on them would we be including it in the article as well? What about the crackling sound they've reported? If the problem becomes more prevalent, I would alter my view on this, but at the moment I think it does not belong in the article. If we can't agree we put it to a vote and use consensus. MartinezMD (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is exactly what Wikipedia works on, we don't decide what is newsworthy or important, we just write about what the news has covered. At this point there are enough articles about the iPhome 8 battery problem to literally have its own article (beyond is falling foul on notability for one event etc)... Also you don't put it to a vote to get consensus, you seem to misunderstand the fundamentals of consensus... And if 8 units had a scratch and there were 50+ news stories including the BBC covering it, hell yes we would include it. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 06:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I said notability is not the only principle. I didn't say it wasn't a part of WP. I also did not say vote to get consensus. I said vote and use consensus. That is two things.MartinezMD (talk) 06:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed addition

A very small number of iPhone 8 and iPhone 8 Plus buyers have suggested there could be an issue with the battery inside some of the devices swelling.[1] Apple confirmed it is was looking into the issue, although a spokeswoman declined to comment further when asked how many devices are affected.[2][3] As of October 7th 2017 there were only 8 reports of this defect.[4]
References
  1. ^ "Some iPhone 8 Plus owners report swelling battery problem". USA TODAY.
  2. ^ "Apple is 'looking into' why some iPhone 8 batteries are swelling". The Verge.
  3. ^ "Apple checks iPhone 8 Plus battery issue". BBC News. 9 October 2017.
  4. ^ Lomas, Natasha. "Apple is looking into reports of iPhone 8 batteries swelling". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2017-10-07.

This is what I propose we add to the standard Reception section, not under any special heading that would lend undue weight. I am proposing this addition because this issue has been widely covered in the media including BBC, NBC and basically every single "tech" outlet, therefore warranting it at least a small mention in the article. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 06:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put in my formal disagreement with this addition. The problem first has not been verified/confirmed to be an actual problem and second, even if confirmed, currently involves only 8 units out of a potential several million units made. This makes it a premature addition and gives the problem undue weight even if confirmed IMHO. I would support a much shorter addition saying something like "early problems reported with the phone included battery problemsref, sound cracklingref, and scratchingref " as an example. I think that would reduce the bias.MartinezMD (talk) 07:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@EoRdE6: So? Keep in mind, we only mention WIDESPREAD problems, doesn’t matter who or how many tech channels report it. Darius robin (talk) 09:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That just isn't true, we mention any problem that garners significant media attention. THink if you were a reader trying to research the iPhone 8 history, this has been a significant news happening in its history regardless of how widespread it is. Find me a Wikipedia guideline that says a problem has to be widespread to be covered. That's not how Wikipedia works, one again Wikipedia works on media coverage and notability. Same reason we have an entire article on the Apple iCar even though that has never been confirmed to even exist... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 17:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." from WP:BALASP, I don't know how much clearer the policy can be. And again, this isn't even a verified problem yet.MartinezMD (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, what number of cases is high enough so that you allow adding this fact? Lfereneg (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would take it being confirmed it is an actual problem before I would even debate a figure.MartinezMD (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@EoRdE6 and Lfereneg: See WP:WIDESPREAD. Although it’s about creating articles, it means exactly the same. Darius robin (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tis an essay which is opinion and I'm not suggesting we create an entire article about the issue, I'm suggesting we add a sentence to a current article... They are two different things. If I was creating an entire article about the issue that would definitely be wrong and an NPOV vio but... I'm not... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@EoRdE6: The concept of the rule is the same, now if you see, that media excitement has considerably died down, you can no longer find any more reports of the issue. Darius robin (talk) 08:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are more documented reports. Please, see: http://bgr.com/2017/10/12/iphone-8-battery-swelling-problem-in-us/ Lfereneg (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IPhone_8&oldid=805469580"