Talk:Essential Phone/Archive 1

Archive 1

Moved talk

This talk originally took place at User talk:Emir of Wikipedia/sandbox/Essential Phone. See edit history for attribution.

Discussion If you wish to discuss LocalNet and the edit summary space is too small then please discuss here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC) @LocalNet: Do you think this is all good now, with the exception of the omission of the "delay"? If so then I am going to move into the namespace and we can discuss on the talkpage there about the delay? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC) @Emir of Wikipedia: Yep, I am satisfied with its current status, so let's move it :) LocalNet (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC) Lead Extended content Good idea, because I already need more space. I'm going to revert your edit now, but it is not an objection to the citation style, just to the way the link works. (see my upcoming edit summary) Regarding the citation style: I have no idea how to "recreate" that for future information. I actually only know my way of doing it. Ultimately, I want to make sure references have the first and last names of authors, titles, URLs, website, publisher, date and accessdate fields present. We can use your proposed format, but I have no idea where to place each respective field if I add info in the future. Any tips on that? :) LocalNet (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC) You just fill in what ever parameters the way you do it and I will add it extra information later if you approve, but the timestamp you have given is clearly wrong and so should definitely be changed to the one I added. For the record this is what I put <ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCjjnVNXDLI&feature=youtu.be&t=12m57s |title=Andy Rubin, creator of Android, debuts his new Essential Phone | Code 2017|work=[[Recode]]|format=YouTube Video|others=Hosted by [[Walt Mossberg]] |publisher=[[Vox Media]] |date=May 30, 2017 |accessdate=July 27, 2017}}</ref> It mentions that it is a YouTube video and also gives the time in case the url doesn't actually go to the timestamp. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC) Confusion from the other discussion, sorry. Yep, the 12m57s mark is correct for the name. I'd like to shorten the "title" parameter to just "Andy Rubin, creator of Android, debuts his new Essential Phone", as I don't think the "Code 2017" text adds anything to the understanding. Other than that, I agree to that format as it covers all the information :) And yes, ideally, if I add information with a source, I'd be very pleased if you could change the format to the same citation style as long as all the parameters are retained :) LocalNet (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC) Remove the "Code 2017", I just copied and pasted the title straight from YouTube but I don't see a problem with your version for the title. However I think you should not call the website parameter for but the work Recode, as it is on YouTube and not Recode. This is a minor issue and I can change it after if you agree, the title is the bigger issue. I agree with your proposed cite style above :) It even features information on the host, which I didn't know was possible with the citation template until now XD My only concern is the "Code 2017" in the title, as I'm not sure that's needed. But if we drop that, you can go ahead and edit the sandbox to feature this cite template :) LocalNet (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC) Well we learn something new everyday. If you have time you can read up on the documentation for the citation templates and discover new parameters. I have removed Code 2017 but added in the rest. Are you all happy with the lead now? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC) Yep, I see no immediate issues, so I'm satisfied. Are you? :) LocalNet (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC) I am satisfied. Onto the next section Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC) Infobox I think this is all good. What about you? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC) @Emir of Wikipedia: The only thing I'd request (I'm a perfectionist :P) is to add proper reference formats for The Verge link for the 2017 year and XDA link for Android version. The Verge is using incorrect date format and doesn't have "Vox Media" link, while the XDA link uses low-caps wording without a wikilink. Sorry for being so picky :P LocalNet (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC) Do you want to take care of them, and then we can move onto the the next section? Regarding the XDA lower case that is what they have set in their metadata to appear when you click the autofill in the cite tool. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC) Fixed to the best of my abilities. What's next? LocalNet (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC) History @LocalNet: Do you think that this section is okay, with the exception that it is missing information about the "delay"? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC) @Emir of Wikipedia: Some grammar fixes are needed. "In a quote of the tweet, Alphabet executive chairman, Eric Schmidt confirmed" shouldn't have a comma between "chairman" and "Eric Schmidt", and "few days prior to the official announcement" is missing "A" at the start. We also need to add Vox Media publisher field to this source, change the order of this source and this source to make the live links the preferred ones and the archived links the backups, we can actually remove the Android Police article, as only the comments mention the suspicion of a 360-degree camera, while the article itself doesn't mention it at all. (I apologize, I think I originally added that link). This Business Insider source also needs to be changed from archived link to live link. Another Business Insider reference needs to have Axel Springer SE publisher field added and the actual Business Insider name wikilinked. Same applies to this source, and its reference also needs to use month-date-year format rather than date-month-year for consistency. Date fixes also needed for the next Verge link. I am quite tired now, so I am going to bed soon. If you want to make all these edits, go ahead, but if not, I'll deal with it tomorrow :) LocalNet (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC) @LocalNet: I hope you had a good nights sleep. Regarding the commma I thought it was a embedded clause meaning that as it a supplementary but not essential (no pun intended) piece of information that you include it inside two commas, but if I am incorrect then please remove it. I have added the A. I have also made the live links the preferred ones and removed the Android Police link. In regards to Business Insider I have added publisher=Axel Springer SE. After you deal with the dates, is your only issue regarding this section the omission of the "delay"? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC) @Emir of Wikipedia: Thanks. This particular sentence was not an embedded clause :) I have now fixed dates, added wikilinks and removed unnecessary ref names. So yes, my only remaining concern is information on the delay. LocalNet (talk) 08:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC) We'll deal with that issue later. I might be a bit busy today, so if you want to go and make the changes for the rest of the sections then please do that but do them as separate edits please so I can revert if need be. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC) Specifications What do you think of this section LocalNet. I know I reverted this section where you had added in some information. Do you want to add it back in and I'll take a look? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC) I copied the hardware information from the original edit on Essential Phone. I haven't done the same for software and I haven't removed accessories yet, pending any further comments on hardware that should be discussed first :) Also, I just noticed something. The hardware section I just added specifies the lack of a 3.5 mm headphone jack. The lead doesn't. I would like to feature that information in the lead. LocalNet (talk) 12:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC) The hardware section looks good, thanks for your work. :) Regarding the lack of headphone jack I don't think it is notable enough for the lead based upon current coverage, as it is becoming more common for phones to omit this, and this is not one of the earliest devices to omit it. However if when the reviews come and the majority make note then I would be happy to include it the lead. It was actually exactly because this isn't one of the first devices to omit it that I thought it was notable as something that readers might wish to know. However, your argumentation that it can be added depending on upcoming reviews sounds good. I will add the software specifications section now, then. LocalNet (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC) Any thoughts on the software section I added now? Originally, I removed the "Accessories" section since the only topic covered was the 360-degree camera, which is mentioned in the "Hardware" section. Do you agree with that removal or would you prefer to keep it? LocalNet (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC) The software section is good. :) I agree with the removal, it only needs to be mentioned once. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)  Done LocalNet (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC) See also Can you think of anything else to add here? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC) Why is Moto Z listed? LocalNet (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC) They are both "modular" phones, and many sources have mentioned them together. It was even mentioned by Rubin in his announcement, but I would be okay with it being removed or having an explanation added. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC) Have we mentioned this device being modular? Hold on, I just did a quick search and in this case, it seems "modular" is based on the 360-degree camera accessory that can optionally be attached. I didn't understand the common functionality when I first read Moto Z's name, but an explanation would definitely fulfill the reason for its relevancy. LocalNet (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC) I will make a comment near it to clarify. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)  Done Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC) References Here we need to double check that all that all the parameters all filled. We also need to use month day year, and only need to wikilink once as per MOS:DUPLINK. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC) This needs to be checked at the very end before copying into the main page, so that is still pending. But in regards to wikilink only once, I think that only applies to the article, not the references list? LocalNet (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC) I am not sure if it applies to only the article, but if we are not applying it then everything must be linked for consistency. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC) A little confused by your reply, but here's an example of what I mean. Grand Theft Auto V is a featured article. At the article's first mention of "IGN" ("IGN's Keza MacDonald called Grand Theft Auto V "one of the very best video games ever made"), it is wikilinked. But IGN is wikilinked throughout all its entries in the References list. LocalNet (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC) I thought it applied to references, as I am pretty sure that more experienced editors reverted me the past. It doesn't really matter to me as long as we make sure to wikilink each entry just like in the example you gave. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC) External links Can you think of any other links we could put here? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC) I'm not sure we need to list the official website. The infobox features that link. LocalNet (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC) We are still allowed to include it per WP:ELOFFICIAL, but you can remove it if you wish. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC) In that case, let's keep it :) LocalNet (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)  Done Emir of Wikipedia (talk) Navbox If you can think of any other navboxes to add here? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC) New company, new phone, established OS. I think only Android is needed at this time. LocalNet (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)  Done Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC) Stub This probably won't be a stub after this so we can remove this. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC) Agreed. LocalNet (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)  Done Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC) Categories If you can think of another category then please add it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC) Think that's good. LocalNet (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)  Done Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Massive edit

LocalNet You made a very big edit with multiple issues. In order to avoid an edit war could we please discuss here on a case by case basis the individual changes we wish to make. Darius robin if you would like to help us resolve this issue I would be grateful. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: I went through his edits, they partially seem fine to me (punctuation in infobox), but also maybe some were a bit wrong (like the unnecessary intro of Essential Products in the history section, removal of sources). Darius robin (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Darius robin: Thanks for looking over them. Do you think that the best way to do this would be they did edits piece by piece and you reverted any that we both disagree with? As you have not reverted yet you could restore this version, and we could suggest changes to you. What do you think is the best way to deal with this? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Done with the reversion. Maybe we could discuss some changes to it. Darius robin (talk) 12:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey! Sorry for the big edit, it was too difficult to do in stages with ref names in multiple places. But what do you actually disagree with? Maybe I've missed it, but I can't see your objections anywhere? LocalNet (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia and LocalNet: I've made some changes, you can carry on fixing the rest. Darius robin (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Darius robin: Not trying to sound rude, but why did you make changes? This is exactly what we're all supposed to discuss before making? That said, the edits are fine for me. But let's discuss properly since that's what this conversation is about :) LocalNet (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@LocalNet: I just reverted the edits (as Emir of Wikipedia asked) to the last edit on 21 July, and added some edits which you later made. Darius robin (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@LocalNet: Sorry for naming all the references, but I did that so we could easily reuse the source again as some sources have information citing multiples pieces of information that is not consecutive. I disagreed with a few changes such as only referring to the device as "Essential Phone" despite me having sourced the creator saying it is called just "Phone". Another was removing the citation for the release date, as confusion had occurred about the release date so it should have in my opinion been cited in line. One other thing I disagreed with was the removal of the QHD descriptor in the display paremeter, not everybody knows the number of pixels in the display standards. Another issue was the removal of the word "hyperfocal" to describe the lens. In the history section you went into quite a bit of detail about the company which has a separate page at Essential Products, but I would be grateful if you attempt to help out there too. Regarding the release date he actually said "wouldn't take reservations if it wasn't going to ship in, you know, 30 days or so.", summarised here in Engadget. As you can see I had multiple objections to the monolithic edit, but I hope you can now understand why I could not fit this into a single edit summary. Apologises for any confusion or misunderstanding. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Thank you for the information. Going to take this step by step now:

• "Sorry for naming all the references" - No no, that wasn't my point. You're supposed to use ref names for same sources used several times. It just made it more difficult for me to do my original edits in steps. But never mind that now :)
• Sorry, but where does the creator say just "phone". The source is a video, so I'm gonna need timestamps. Also, as per Wikipedia convention, we would, if correct, actually write: "The Essential Phone (officially Phone)", because Wikipedia bases information on what secondary sources call it, and that's "Essential Phone" :)
• "Another was removing the citation for the release date, as confusion had occurred about the release date so it should have in my opinion been cited in line" - can you reword that? Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean :/
• "QHD descriptor in the display paremeter, not everybody knows the number of pixels in the display standards" - I did a quick search for the specifications, and it actually just misses the mark ("just below QHD resolution", "almost QHD"). But I guess I can compromise and still use the descriptor.
• "the removal of the word "hyperfocal" to describe the lens" - I could not find any source in the article using that word. Remember, verifiability ;) Or maybe I missed it? Either way, source on that please.
• "In the history section you went into quite a bit of detail about the company which has a separate page at Essential Products" - Essential is a brand new company, but has strong ties to Android. This is not common. It's actually exceptionally unique. Without describing anything about other hardware products, the History section (and the lead) quickly describe Andy Rubin's former role at Google and that he started a new company. It's significant. Also, similar to the Galaxy S8 article, the history section normally includes information on rumors prior to official announcement, and the January 2017 Bloomberg report was the first official confirmation.
• "wouldn't take reservations if it wasn't going to ship in, you know, 30 days or so" - interesting. The Verge took that the wrong way. However, the fact is, after those 30 days, there were calls and requests for comment on why they hadn't shipped products yet, prompting Rubin to send an email in July about it. Verge was not the only one who interpreted that incorrectly, so I believe the majority overweigh the minority and it deserves a mention.

Also, in regards to infobox: WP:INFOBOXREF states that "References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere". Some of the information was in the article, and I included a references row at the bottom for the remaining infobox-exclusive specifications. LocalNet (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@LocalNet:

• I will give you a timestamp of 12:59). Walt Mossberg asks about the name and Andy Rubin says it is just "phone" and not "essential phone". I am okay with rewriting it like that but considering the confusion I think we should keep the sources in the lead.
• "Another was removing the citation for the release date, as confusion had occurred about the release date so it should have in my opinion been cited in line" - can you reword that? Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean :/ I meant another issue was the removal of the citation in the infobox directly after the release date. As you yourself said that The Verge took it the wrong way I feel as if it should be referenced straight away so that any reader can easily view the reference, but I understand you may disagree with this.
• Other sources do refer to it as QHD like these,[1][2][3], as well as the phones specifications page. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Sources for the hyperfocal lens again include the phones specifications page linked above as well as [4][5][6]
• I do accept the unique circumstances of Essential, but Wikipedia:Other stuff exists means that we should not just copy another article. Perhaps we could work together on proposing a rewrite of the history section?
• I can't see where in the article it says that the email was prompted by the request for comments or confusion. In fact it doesn't even actually say August, but the ambiguous "few weeks". Considering this I think it might be best to avoid any mention for the time being. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia:

• Yep, you're right. "Phone" is the official name. I apologize for not asking on the talk page when I originally removed it, that was a lapse in judgment. I haven't yet seen any other sources describe it like that, unfortunately, so let's hope the YouTube video stays online a long time. Reference for "Essential Phone" is probably not needed, given the title of the article and every other source present, but a source in the lead for the official name is definitely needed.
• I think I understand your motivations for this, but the August 2017 release information is clearly explained in both the lead and article of my revision. I think a reference in the infobox is unnecessary.
• Right again! Alright, QHD descriptor is kept! Good, I like your argumentation with sources :)
• Regarding "hyperfocal", none of those sources were present in the original version before my edit, hence their removal. But good, you have sources, we can re-add it :)
• "Other stuff exists" - This is exactly the opposite of other stuff. While the Galaxy S8 and iPhone 7 articles do fit as "OSE" argumentations in terms of their history sections featuring rumors, this device's history is entirely unique. "Perhaps we could work together on proposing a rewrite of the history section?" - I already gave my proposal in my original edit, to feature a one-sentence summarization of the creation of the Essential company. No details on other hardware, just Rubin's background and the fact that this is an entirely new company. Do you disagree with the inclusion of information on Essential at all? Can you narrow down the exact issues you object to, and propose a reworded statement? :)
• I think you're looking at the current page revision? Remember to go back to mine. Here is my edit, with the text "This deadline was not met, however, with neither Rubin nor Essential responding to questions as to why.[17] In mid-July, Rubin sent an email to potential customers outlining carrier certification and testing as causes for the delay, with an expectation of devices shipping "in a few weeks", putting the release date potentially in August.[18]" Citation number 17 leads to The Verge, featuring the text "News organizations began pinging the company last week when it was clear Essential missed its 30-day shipping deadline set by Rubin himself at the Code Conference in late May". Citation number 18 leads to another Verge article, with the text "August, with Rubin saying in an email to potential customers that the phones will start shipping “in a few weeks.”" - Note the difference that August is not my speculation, but the source, and my revision stated "putting the release date potentially in August". LocalNet (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Haven't received a reply in a while, so I'm making an edit now and hopefully avoid an edit conflict. I didn't read the Engadget source properly earlier. "When it was announced this morning and reservations opened the company didn't say much about when to expect shipments, but in response to a question from Mossberg, Rubin said that he "wouldn't take reservations if it wasn't going to ship in, you know, 30 days or so". The Verge and other media publications were right. Essential promised 30 days. So that content is correct and true from my revision. LocalNet (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@LocalNet:

• I think that we should split up the information like in my sandbox about the company history.
• I also think that we should add the sources that I presented that were not in the prior version of the article.
• Due to the speculation regarding the release date I think we should leave it out until it is actually released or an exact date is announced. Essential did not promise 30 days, but Rubin was just saying that he would not be taking reservations if the company was not close to shipping, however no exact number of days was promised.

Funny about the timing. You wrote just while I was writing. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia:

• If by "split up", you mean have separate lines for information, which is what I currently see on your sandbox, then I agree as a compromise. It sort of ruins the WP:PROSE, but I'm more interested in featuring the content than technicality.
• We should absolutely add sources. We agreed above to add QHD and hyperfocal, so we should have a references row at the bottom of the infobox (like here), which also supports other information such as network connectivity bands.
• Rubin specifically stated "30 days or so". It's an approximate monthly wait, and he specifically stated "30 days", though adding "or so" just in case. Then, multiple news organizations have written about the delay and he personally sent out an email addressing delays. It's all notable as to why it hasn't been shipped, and it's all verifiable by multiple sources.
• Darn it! Edit conflict was exactly what I was hoping to avoid :P LocalNet (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@LocalNet: I will split up the the text then and add the reference. Regarding the "delay" I still fail to see where it says in the email that it was sent out because of these delays and not just as general information. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Alright, make the changes. :) Rubin stated that "You might be getting impatient..." It is WP:SYNTH to make the conclusion that he was referring to the delay, but he sure as heck wasn't bragging about their speed either :P And either way, that email is the primary source, which we should (being Wikipedia) not actually use :P The report from The Verge states "After the phone was announced in May, Rubin said it would ship within 30 days. But that date came and went, without any word from the company. It seems that development must be far enough along now that Rubin is confident enough to give yet another launch window", which is about the delay. LocalNet (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Sorry for posting another message. Not trying to cause lots of edit conflicts for you, but one more thing. Do you also object to the way I had written about international launches? My edit had everything in a "History" section, with a dedicated "Availability" subsection. At this time, we're giving "Availability" its own major section rather than a History subsection, which I think is wrong since they relate to when the device becomes available. Also, what about the Specifications sections? LocalNet (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Going to bed soon. Writing a punctuated and organized list of what remains and my opinions:

• Were there any objections to my information in the "Specifications" sections? If not, please restore my edit there.
• Go through everything in the infobox to make sure the information is either sourced in the article or by at least one reference in the bottom reference row. Since it's a lot more tight space than regular prose, let's try to use sources that describe more than just one infobox entry, such as specifications sources that describe network compatibility and cameras, if possible. Let's try to avoid using more than one source to confirm specific info unless they overlap anyway. This makes it easier to locate specific information in sources by interested people.
• I strongly believe the article needs information on the delay. So far, what I've gathered from argumentation against adding it is that it was approximate and not yet fully known at the time of the original statement. I don't consider that good enough argumentation, as it seems to be based more on personal opinion about the situation rather than what sources describe of the situation. I can make a list of news publications discussing the delay, which is important due to Rubin's actual words of "30 days". It's notable and verifiable. If I was a visitor seeking information on the release of a phone, a delay would definitely be noteworthy.
• Unless there are objections to what I had written, copy information from my edit into the "Availability" section on Sprint exclusivity and international release. It had more precise sources for each piece of info.
• Lead summary. Were there any objections to the one I had written? If not, please restore that too. (though presumably, this one comes when all above matters are solved)

Hope to talk again tomorrow! :) LocalNet (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@LocalNet: I hope you had a good nights sleep.

• No problem with mentioning the international availability, but we can change the header level to put it as a subsection of history.
• I agree with you about the infobox, but you may also want to consider using quotes to support the relevant information.
• Regarding the "delay" I think we are going to keep going in circles and disagreeing, so it would probably best to get a third party opinion on the matter.
• I have added the relevant information from your edits on Sprint exclusivity and international releases, specifically the sources.
• I have also added information from your lead. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Thank you.

• Didn't receive any answers to my first question, so I'll ask again. Were there any objections to what I had written in the "Specifications" section? If not, I'd like to restore what I wrote there, which had more information.
• "using quotes to support relevant information" - Not quite sure what this means, honestly?
• I will add this talk page to Wikipedia:Third opinion. LocalNet (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request :

I'm quite happy to provide an opinion, but I don't feel like wading through dozens of edits to find the actual dispute. @LocalNet:, could you please provide the text you would like to include, and the appropriate references. Thanks Mark Marathon (talk) 05:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC) Mark Marathon (talk) 05:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Mark Marathon: Thank you for the quick action in coming to the dispute! :) Completely understandable. The text I want to write is this: "Andy Rubin announced on May 30 that the Essential Phone would ship "within the next 30 days". This deadline was not met, however, with neither Rubin nor Essential responding to questions as to why. In mid-July, Rubin sent an email to potential customers outlining carrier certification and testing as causes for the delay, with an expectation of devices shipping "in a few weeks", putting the release date potentially in August." I want to include that text in the "Availability" section before the "compatible with..." text.

OK, thanks for that.

I think the material on the delay should be included. If we accept an unreleased device is worthy of an article, then its history seems relevant. Blithely ignoring WP:OSE, if we look at the various versions of Windows we see similar information on development delays and similar. It seems well referenced and not giving undue emphasis to the delay.

However I have a few concerns with the proposed wording. I might be going a bit beyond the 3O requested, but please consider the following:

The use of quotes around “"within the next 30 days". That gave me the impression that this was a quote from Rubin, the subject of the sentence. However the reference provided does not provide any such quote from Rubin. I suspect this will similarly confuse/mislead other readers. If The Verge is RS, then this needs to be simply stated as fact without the quotes.

It seems we have conflicting versions of what the initial shipping timetable was. Engadget is saying “30 days or so” and The Verge is saying a definite 30 days. I assume that Engadget is considered a RS for this subject? If so then we ought to change the wording of the article to reflect the uncertainty. My preference would be to have the article say “Rubin announced that the Essential Phone would ship in approximately 30 days”, referencing both Engadget and The Verge. If editors think that doesn’t accurately reflect the sources, then the article should reflect what all the sources say, not just The Verge article.

I’m also a little concerned about Recentism in these edits. At the very least we need to include a year in the first date. While we can reasonably expect that this article will be updated regularly over the next few years, the MOS says that all edits should be enduring. IOW if someone in 10 years time reads the article, will it make sense and be relevant as written now? With that in mind, I also think the last date should be converted to past tense: an expectation of devices shipping "in a few weeks", potentially delaying the release until August 2017.”

Other than that I think the material should be included. Mark Marathon (talk) 07:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Mark Marathon: Thank you for the comments. You make good points. I agree with what you're saying here. Revised text: "Rubin announced on May 30, 2017 that the Essential Phone would ship in approximately 30 days. This deadline was not met, however, without Essential responding to media queries. In mid-July, Rubin sent an email to potential customers outlining carrier certification and testing as causes for the delay, with an expectation of devices shipping "in a few weeks", potentially delaying the release until August 2017."

Did I correctly incorporate your suggested changes there? :) I also looked over the source again and reworded the statement in the "this deadline was not met" sentence, to more clearly state that the source only mentioned Essential not responding, and used "media queries" rather than "questions". Thoughts on that? :) I'm going to wait before adding this to the article until Emir of Wikipedia has had a chance to look at it and respond since we're now also changing the wording after solving the dispute. LocalNet (talk) 07:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Update: "in a few weeks" could technically also mean September. How about "potentially delaying the release to August 2017"? LocalNet (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@LocalNet: I restored some of the reference information that you appeared to delete, and in the lead I used Template:Rp to indicate what time in the video the statement is made. I know that the template is refpage, but in its' documentation it states Of course, it can also be used for non-numeric pages, for example: "f. 29", "A7", and "back cover", etc., and can also be used for non-paginated sources, e.g., "0:35:12" for a video source., and there for I think is is appropriate. Please check if you now approve of everything. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Mark Marathon: When asked at around of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCjjnVNXDLI Rubin only says soon. He never said it was literally going to be thirty days nor did he "promise" that as a deadline or release date. Their is no delay as no date had been confirmed, and nowhere in the email does he say anything about a delay. As per WP:NOTSPECULATION says in its lead In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims, and in point 5 it mentions Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content.. To me those are enough proof that even though the reliable sources have said it that is not appropriate to include. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: I am going to have to be honest with you. I am finding it very difficult to have a proper discussion. You don't describe why you do things. "I restored some of the reference information that you appeared to delete" Why? And you're making new changes now that I disagree with, namely the time of a video source. There is no need, the URL I wrote down goes directly to the timestamp. You wanted to discuss things case-by-case. I have explained all my reasoning, but you're not. Why revert the reference information?

I don't care what Rubin said in the video. He's a primary source. Wikipedia relies on secondary sources. It's the same reason this article is titled "Essential Phone" and not "Phone". Furthermore, you're now providing new information to a dispute that has already been solved with a third party.

I am going to revert your last few changes for unexplained reversion and WP:BRD. If you disagree, please, let's have a talk here before further edits. I am fully willing to discuss changes. But we can't both edit the article back-and-forth and at the same time discuss. I have provided you with lots of information and reasons above, and I also asked a question that remains unanswered. Regarding the "delay" and whether to include: WP:STICK. I got a third opinion, and the consensus is to include. LocalNet (talk) 13:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Update: I watched the video from the 40:47 point, and this is the statement in full: "This phone goes on sale when?" "Soon. You can reserve it now and I wouldn't take reservations if it wasn't going to ship in, you know, 30 days or so." LocalNet (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@LocalNet:

• I restored the reference information as there was no reason to delete it, but you didn't explain why you deleted it. When a source is used multiple times in an article you should used refname instead of creating a new reference for each one. The template RP is appropriate to show the time.

• As per WP:PRIMARY Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia we can use a primary source. The article is called Essential Phone and not Phone because of WP:COMMONNAME. The dispute has not been resolved by a third party as you only presented your side of the argument. We need to wait for Mark Marathon to consider my side before we reach a conclusion on that matter. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Emir of Wikipedia: About references: many of the ref names in your edit, including "Andy Rubin's Essential Phone is Confirmed to Run Android 7.1.1 Nougat", "Google’s Eric Schmidt confirms the Essential smartphone runs Android", "Andy Rubin teases next week's launch of Essential phone", and "The creator of Android just teased a weird new accessory for his top-secret phone" are used only once. I think I replaced one or two sources for higher-quality ones, removed unnecessary ref names and removed archive-URLs. What sources did I remove? The source count is 26 in both of our edits.

• Mark stated "Other than that I think the material should be included".

• The video you published confirms information in the secondary sources. "30 days or so". LocalNet (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@LocalNet:

• You can see what was edited here here. If your problem was with the ref names I will restore my version with them removed.

• If you would like to add more sources that is fine, but don't remove other sources that are reliable

• That comment was made by Mark Marathon, but I just wanted him to have the full context before making a judgment.

• The video does confirm the secondary sources or vice versa in regards to the fact that "30 days or so" was said, but they don't include the "This phone goes on sale when?" "Soon. You can reserve it now and I wouldn't take reservations if it wasn't going to ship in, you know," which has no mention of a specific release date or deadline. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow. Honestly. You keep making changes to the article without agreement/consensus first. What happened to your whole "case-by-case" basis? "If your problem was with the ref names I will restore my version with them removed" and then you just do it without letting me respond? Uncivil. So I'll have to return the favor, because yours has problems. No wikilinks for media publications, which mine had. Can we please get back to what this discussion was originally supposed to be about? Case-by-case decisions. I still have not received a comment on whether there were any objections to my version of the Specifications section, which had more information than the current one does. LocalNet (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@LocalNet: If you have a problem with the lack of wikilinks then just add them in my version instead of reverting the whole thing. Just please restore to a consensus version of the article first, and then lets work from there. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: I am honestly not even sure what the consensus version is. But scrolling a bit back in the edit history shows this one, which made edits based on the talk page consensus. Your next edit, here, added time in the lead, which I didn't agree to, so it's not a consensus version. LocalNet (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@LocalNet: This is probably the best consensus version as it happened before the edit that we disagreed on i.e. from this version onwards. I would be grateful if you restored it to that and then we discussed from there based on the problems we both identify.

• Perhaps we could take on one issue instead of you reverting multiple edits. Regarding the time why do you disagree with that? Remember to keep in mind WP:CITEVAR -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Emir of Wikipedia: I'm not going to revert that far since we have made progress since then and starting over is unnecessary. We have agreed on the current lead version. We have also agreed on the infobox. Despite strong disagreement, a consensus with a third-party opinion was established, meaning we should include information on delays, though reworded from original style. I will add that soon. We agreed on "Availability". I don't think there is anything to restore? I'm not sure exactly what has happened afterwards, as there's been a lot of back-and-forth, but I read this talk page to see what edits were made based on consensus, and this seems to be it. I disagree on the time due to the confusion of a random number after a reference and the fact that the URL actually links directly to the statement. There's no need to know the time, readers are taken directly to it. LocalNet (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@LocalNet: That version is the consensus version. Any progress we have made can be quickly add in, but do it as a separate edit so it can be easily reverted, wheras we can keep what we agree on. The third party has yet to reply after I gave them full context so their decision is not yet final. The number is not random, but a timestamp, and you can't change the citation style with consensus as per WP:CITEVAR. If you don't want to revert all the way back then at least revert to a version which I explicitly agreed with by editing such as this version, or if you don't agree with the vast majority of that version then please revert to an earlier version but don't just stick your own version in without consensus. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@LocalNet: If you don't like that idea then please revert to the consensus version and work from the version in my sandbox instead of making this articlespace page unstable. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: This is such a lovely discussion hahahahahaha. I can keep going probably as long as you can ;) As we gradually agree to make changes, new consensus versions are established. For example, you agreed on both my lead and infobox. Restoring to the original deletes both of those. We have obviously screwed up along the way by making additional changes when we were supposed to do things case-by-case. We could literally have fixed all of this by now by moving forward. For example, what is your main objection? The citation style? Because you have agreed to my style. When we agreed to "Availability" ("I have added the relevant information from your edits on Sprint exclusivity and international releases, specifically the sources"), that should have meant using my version, which included wikilinks for appropriate information. You actually went against consensus. I stated "Unless there are objections to what I had written, copy information from my edit into the "Availability" section on Sprint exclusivity and international release. It had more precise sources for each piece of info." You then did so, but kept your format, which wasn't what we agreed to.

Your "full context" is a misinterpretation. He stated "30 days or so" for shipping devices, which is an approximate deadline. Then, secondary sources have written about it more. The third-party opinion has agreed. Just... drop... the... WP:STICK.

P.S. Instead of arguing about this, how about we move forward? If I don't get a reply about the specifications section, I'm going to assume silence means consensus. LocalNet (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@LocalNet: I do not consider any version of the article from when you edit on 25 July 2017 to now a consensus version but rather your own version. I agreed to aspects about your edits to the lead and the infobox, and they are present in the version of the article currently at my sandbox. I have not agreed to your citation style, and so you have violated WP:CITEVAR. If the problem is solely with wikilinks then just add the wikilinks, but in the same edit.

The third party has only agreed based upon what you said, and has yet to consider my argument.

Don't assume that my silence means consensus on regards to your specifications as I am still working through the other issues I have. If you consider any version of the article where I was the last editor from 25 July then please revert to that version, otherwise I will revert to the version by Darius on 21 July. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

How on Earth is the current version "my version" when you have agreed to the changes here on the talk page? I just quoted you confirming your agreement to use my writing in the "Availability" section. LocalNet (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@LocalNet: I agreed with specific aspects but not the whole edit. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: "I have added the relevant information from your edits on Sprint exclusivity and international releases, specifically the sources" LocalNet (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @LocalNet: If you believe the edit where I did that was the last consensus version then I am happy for you to restore that. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Safe to say, I am tired now. I apologize if I am coming off arrogant or annoyed or something. It just doesn't seem like we're progressing... LocalNet (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@LocalNet: That is understandable, and is why I wish to revert to a stable consensus version that neither of will revert while we work on an editable version in my sandbox. Progress can be slow and tiring, but it is worth it, and I hope that with your help we could make this a GA or even a FA. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

You know what, I don't think neither of us are in an optimal situation for argumentation at this point. I regret how arrogant/aggressive my last replies have been, especially the "hahahah" one earlier. I'm not normally like that, but I get tired when things aren't moving forward. Tell you what, clean slate. I'm going to revert to the edit before my original one, and we can discuss on your sandbox. We can't make progress this way, so let's do it your way and start over :) We both obviously want the best for the article. LocalNet (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Public service announcement: This is an embarrasing dispute to look back at. It's sooooo long and frequently repetitive. I failed to stay WP:CALM too, making some unnecessarily aggressive or arrogant comments in the heat of the moment. Live and learn. This conversation is not my proudest moment on Wikipedia, but I want everyone who sees this, including Emir of Wikipedia, to know I'm aware of my personal flaws that are on full display here. Often, it's best to wait a while to cool down before making comments, as several of my messages here are very hurried reactions, showing signs of tiredness or frustration, as if the page needs to be "done" within minutes when it already existed for almost a full month before I arrived. :P For what its worth, I want to write this to admit to my mistakes here, and to properly apologize to Emir of Wikipedia for the aggressive comments I've made towards them. Will be using this experience to improve my communication in future disputes. At the time of writing, a much nicer and more civil form of discussion is happening on Emir's sandbox talk page. LocalNet (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

at archive

"Delay"

@LocalNet, Mark Marathon, and Darius robin: What are your views regarding the "delay"? I think if we are to mention it we must word it very carefully, as to not imply that it was a literal and specific 30 day deadline. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

We already know my thoughts, but I have a reworded text to suggest. Specifically, this is the text I would like to add: "Rubin announced on May 30, 2017 that the Essential Phone would ship in approximately 30 days. This estimated timetable was not met, however, without Essential responding to media queries. In mid-July, Rubin sent an email to potential customers outlining carrier certification and testing as current progression point, with an expectation of devices shipping "in a few weeks", potentially delaying the release to August 2017." LocalNet (talk) 16:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: I agree with LocalNet, his version sounds good, just make a change, "carrier certification and testing as 'the' current progression point". Darius robin (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@LocalNet: Could we please actually quote Rubin by writing something like "wouldn't take reservations if it wasn't going to ship in, you know, 30 days or so", and actually linking to the [video] as the given references don't link to it? Regarding the August 2017, as we have both noted it actually says a few weeks so could we use that a quote too, instead of just assuming August 2017? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Unfortunately, I disagree with this. I don't think there is a need to do so. Engadget clearly says "During an interview with Walt Mossberg tonight at the Code Conference, Android creator and now Essential Products CEO Andy Rubin showed off his latest creation, the Essential Phone. When it was announced this morning and reservations opened the company didn't say much about when to expect shipments, but in response to a question from Mossberg, Rubin said that he "wouldn't take reservations if it wasn't going to ship in, you know, 30 days or so". This long quote is summarized in the above text "Rubin announced on May 30, 2017 that the Essential Phone would ship in approximately 30 days", which is preferred original Wikipedia wording. Regarding August 2017, I just realized that could technically count as WP:SPECULATION ("Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content"), so we could actually shorten the above text to just "In mid-July, Rubin sent an email to potential customers outlining carrier certification and testing as the current progression point, with an expectation of devices shipping "in a few weeks"". LocalNet (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@LocalNet: Could we include what you have highlighted from the source in the quote parameter then? I think your suggestion for the edit about the few weeks is good and that is probably the best way to write it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Sorry, I am a little confused by that comment, but let me see if I can figure it out. "Could we include what you have highlighted from the source" refers to the Engadget quote above about "During an interview with Walt Mossberg", right? Because again, I don't think there is a need to. First off, the article at its current state says "...hours ahead of Rubin's onstage announcement at a technology conference", which is about Code Conference. But copying the text from Engadget is an unnecessary copyright violation since the text can be easily reworded to use original language, which is what I tried to do above with the "Rubin announced on May 30, 2017 that the Essential Phone would ship in approximately 30 days" statement. But out of curiousity, is there any part of my reworded sentence that you disagree with? We should use original wording, but my statement above is just one example of how to reword it. LocalNet (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@LocalNet: I would prefer something like this "Rubin said that he "wouldn't take reservations if it wasn't going to ship in, you know, 30 days or so." in response to a question about the release date. The company didn't release this phone by this date with Essential not responding to media queries. In mid-July, Rubin sent an email to potential customers outlining carrier certification and testing as current progression point, with an expectation of devices shipping "in a few weeks", potentially delaying the release to August 2017."

I reworded the earlier sentences. The extra sources I have added are because I believe that we need to show that they didn't just not respond to one member of the press but multiple. Do you agree with my changes and additions? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

References

@Emir of Wikipedia: A few problems with that, unfortunately. "wouldn't take reservations" is the first instance of the word "reserve" and first mentions of such a program in the article; its sudden appearance causes more questions and confusion. Rubin's statement in full was that "You can reserve it today, and we wouldn't be taking reservations if it wasn't going to ship in, you know, 30 days or so". That, in essence, is him announcing an approximate 30-day shipping. It's also a little weird to write "in response to a question about the release date", when the whole interview was that... an interview. Also, "The company didn't release this phone by this date with Essential not responding to media queries" is a little clunky; double usage of "this", a "this date" without mentioning a specific date, a reference to the "company" not releasing it when carriers are the holdout, and "with" rather than "without", implying when you read it that Essential had done something, when the sentence goes the other way around and ends with them not having done it. Sorry, but I still maintain that we stick with the earlier version above, copied here with your additional sources for easy accessibility:

"Rubin announced on May 30, 2017 that the Essential Phone would ship in approximately 30 days. This estimated timetable was not met, however, without Essential responding to media queries. In mid-July, Rubin sent an email to potential customers outlining carrier certification and testing as the current progression point, with an expectation of devices shipping "in a few weeks"."

@LocalNet: That seems decent enough to go in the article, but I am still going to think of possible wordings that might make it clearer and suggest them to you. For the time being though you have made a good version, and so you should include it in the article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:27, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: The sandbox link provided is dead, so I can't see what you are discussing.

However I don't think there's any need to deviate from the wording" in approximately 30 days". That's an accurate summary of all the sources. If you do want to start quoting one article, then you are going to need to quote them all. According to Engadget, at some point Rubin said 30 days or so. According to Verge and Android Police he said it would definitely ship within 30 days. You might beleive that the two events are the same and that Verge and AP are misrepresenting what he said, but that is OR and not allowable. If we put in the quote from Rubin, we will also need to note that Rubin specifically said the phone will ship within 30 days at some other point. Once again, I want to reiterate that it doesn't matter if we beleive that one of the sources is more correct, and it doesn't matter if we beleive that all are referring to the same information provided by Rubin. That is OR. What we actually have is three reliable sources, one reporting that Rubin said a different thing to the other two. Unless Verge and AP have retracted their material or otherwise admitted error, we have to assume that they are referring to different events. Since all are reliable, al need to be included.

So if we include anything like "Rubin said that he "wouldn't take reservations if it wasn't going to ship in, you know, 30 days or so." we will also need to include a sentence like "Rubin also announced that the phone would ship to consumers within the next 30 days". Failure to do so will violate WP:DUE. It's not up to us as editors to decide which reliable sources to credit. We just report them all and let the reader decide what Rubin said and when.

That will then be clunky and overly wordy for such a trivial point. That's why I prefer "approximately 30 days". It's a reasonable summary of all the reliable sources without getting bogged down in detail. Approximately 30 days is an accurate paraphrasing of "within the next. 30 days" and of "30 days or so". I can't think of any other way to word this that won't require us to note that different sources variously state that Rubin said both about 30 days and within 30 days.

I also do not agree with " the estimated timetable was not met", for the same reasons. Nothing in any of the sources says that the timetable was an estimate. It was quite firm. The timetable was not met is fine, but I strongly prefer to use the wording of the sources, and they call it a deadline or a shipping delay. None of the sources refers to it as an estimated timetable, and we should not either. Once again, it seems we are engaging in OR. Because we believe that the multiple sources attributing a firm deadline to Rubin are inaccurate, we are ignoring them in favour of the minority reporting of 30 days or so. Personally I think Rubin has been misrepresented, but that's not relevant to what we should include in Wikipedia. Most sources say he gave a firm timetable of within 30 days, so we have to go with that.

My opinion, FWIW. YMMV etc. Mark Marathon (talk) 05:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mark Marathon: The sandbox link is dead as Emir of Wikipedia moved it to the main article. Darius robin (talk) 09:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mark Marathon: The above user is correct about the sandbox link. We literally have what was said by Rubin here in the interview. It definitely sounds like to me he said "30 days or so", and according to WP:PRIMARY A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.. Would you prefer if we used this primary source as the reference for approximately 30 days? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

What wording do you suggest we use instead of "the estimated timetable was not met"? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: I may be dense, but I can't find any of this material in the article. A search for the words "approximately", "estimated", "timetable" "delay" and "media" finds no use of them in the article. Those are the key words we are discussing.

I have no reason to doubt that Rubin at some point said " 30 days or so". We have Engadget attributing that quote to him, so there is no need to go to a primary source. But, as I said above, if we do use that quote, the next sentence will need to read "On the same date, Rubin announced that the phone would ship within 30 days". We need to do that because we have two reliable sources which state that clearly. We can't ignore two reliable sources in favour of one. That clearly violates WP: DUE. So we have two options.

One is A single 16 word sentence: "Rubin announced on May 30, 2017 that the Essential Phone would ship in approximately 30 days"

The other is: " On May 30, 2017, Rubin said that he "wouldn't take reservations if it wasn't going to ship in, you know, 30 days or so." in response to a question about the release date. On the same date, Rubin also announced that the phone would ship within 30 days."

I would be content with either, but for reasons of style and readability I strongly prefer the former option. Why use two complex sentences, with quotes, totalling 50 words when a simple 15 word sentence conveyss the same relevant information to readers?

What we can't do is just use the first sentence of the second option. That violates WP:DUE by ignoring what two sources say.

My preferred option for the timetable issue is to use the wording of the sources. Something like "shipping was delayed beyond that date" or "the deadline was not met". I would be content with "The timetable was not met". But I can see no evidence in the references provided that the timetable was an estimate, so we shouldn't be using that word.Mark Marathon (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Wow... I'm sorry, everyone, but I'm going to drop out of this discussion. I never imagined there'd be this much discussion around such a seemingly small topic, and I've quite frankly lost interest. I wish you all good luck! :) LocalNet (talk) 10:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mark Marathon: An edit was made by Darius robin. How do you feel with this version? Are you content with either the wording, the sourcing, or neither? If you are content with one then we can keep it on and discuss, but if you are not okay with either aspect then we'll start from scratch here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@LocalNet: Thanks for wishing us good luck. It is unfortunate that this discussion has made you lose interest but I am grateful for the work you

@Emir of Wikipedia: I added LocalNet's version as things were not moving, and we both seemed to agree on it. Darius robin (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that Darius, and I am also grateful for the other edits you made. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 09:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)