Talk:Xbox One/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

regarding harddrive

the harddrive section needs to be edited as it only lists the 500 gigabyte harddrive and not the 1 terrabyte harddrive. there is models with 1 terrabyte harddrives available.84.213.45.196 (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Its listed under retail configurations. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 22:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done The body text is representative of base models and does not account for special SKUs (which are accounted for in a later section). ViperSnake151  Talk  22:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Updates to Units sold

The last update to the number of Units sold was in 2013. I've seen third-party analysis that shows that number to be much higher as of March 2015. I don't think we want to link to 3rd party statistics, but having it be data that is nearly 2 years old is frustrating (and a bit misleading if one uses Wikipedia to compare the "success" of the current generation of video game consoles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckoerner (talk • contribs) 16:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I would love to add something, but there are few reliable sources on this sort of thing. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there's the same problem with the PlayStation Vita. Console makers seem hesitant to publish figures that are unfavorable to their competitors it seems. Estimates can be mentioned in the paragraphs if a reliable source can be found, and its expressed in the context of being an estimate, but the infoboxes only feature official figures. Sergecross73 msg me 17:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Shipped vs. sold?

Why does the infobox distinguish between sold & shipped units? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Because there is only the data we can prove as provided by companies and saying the sold count alone looks extremely tiny as it hasn't had its number updated in a while. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 06:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the units sold worldwide

Hi, as you can see (on Sunday, 24th May 2015) I had updated the number of units sold, as it did not make sense that the total units shipped was 10 million as of October 2014 and the total units sold was at 3 million as of January 2014. As this console is nearly two years old, would there be an increase on the total units sold given the aggressive marketing strategies, i.e. price cuts, bundling, etc?

Wagnerp16 (talk) 08:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's probably sold more, but the problem is that we can only use official figures from MS, and they don't always release up to date figures. Sergecross73 msg me 13:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Number of viewers of launch press conference

I think this information is just trivia and shouldn't be included, but my reversion to remove it was undone, which means it must be discussed per WP:BRD. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree that it is trivial. However, I believe the appropriate following of WP:BRD is for the original edit content to be removed, and the editor who wants it included to open a discussion. As such, I am removing it for now. -- ferret (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, I am misdefining the definition of "trivia". I know that this is trivia: "Many people wanted to have it out, but Bubba the Blubba (deliberately humorous, so do not interpret it seriously) did not.", although I might have defined it differently with my statement.Is there a way for me to tell how trivial some content is? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, I am mis-seeing it as more due than other statements, but I see it as at least somewhat notable, and I am not sure about why. Also, I mean not to include trivia while I try to define the meaning of it. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Why is it notable or important? It seems IGN was the only reliable source to mention it... almost every other Google hit I found (mostly unreliables) was reporting that "IGN reports that..." Attempting to find more results with the WP:VG/RS custom searches didn't find anything. There's no evidence of lasting importance. -- ferret (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

So, I can try to find more references, and thy question is a good question. I am not sure. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Ye know what? Forget it, for I probably ought to stick to at what I am good and not add content which may or may not be all trivial after all. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

May I delete this section of me, or must it be archived? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 00:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I’ll archive it manually, because why not. If anyone knows a way to get the bot to archive a thread immediately and doing it manually causes problems, please revert my edits and do it right. Thanks! —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

New Xbox One sales figure: 26 million as of January 2017

Seen here: http://www.gamespot.com/articles/xbox-one-sales-reach-26-million-report/1100-6447023/ And I can't edit the article, so... 2600:8803:E600:97:F523:BECD:8A7A:B669 (talk) 08:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

...If you actually read the whole article, you'll see that's an unofficial figure... Sergecross73 msg me 11:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I am personally becoming sick of these discussions that meaninglessly keep having someone trying to update the official sales number with an unofficial figure. Perhaps, we should start closing discussions that keep doing this, as this is not very productive. Personally, I am all right if editors would put that sort of information in the Sales section as long as they appropriately state that it is an unconfirmed data. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 04:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, its fine to put in the prose with proper context, just not in the infobox. Sadly, I don't think there's any avoiding these conversations. It happens all over the website - there's no shortage of drive-by editors quickly (and sloppily) altering a figure, but far fewer actually willing to write a full sentence with proper context. The same issue is infinitely recurring with people fighting over genre. All you can do is constantly maintain... Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

We could slap together a FAQ subpage for Xbox One though, and simply reference new discussions to it. This is what we did for the Dreamcast once a discussion finally nailed down the sales figures to official Sony documents. -- ferret (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that wouldn't hurt though. We could make variants for Vita and any future systems affected too. Sergecross73 msg me 20:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

So, is SuperData not a reputable source then? I get it if it isn't, but otherwise it seems to totally miss the point here. Bottom line, it's data that we don't have otherwise because MS refuses to share their exact numbers, and in fact may never do so. Are we really going to pretend that it's just a mystery? 2600:8803:E600:97:F079:95FC:9933:AD8C (talk) 07:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

They are not a reputable source for actual sales figures, no. We're not "pretending" anything. We don't know the actual sales figures. Period. We can say "This third party gives this estimate" but we cannot say "The sales are this figure." It is an unknown. Sergecross73 msg me 11:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Expecting exact numbers from Microsoft is now impossible per Microsoft's announcement that they will not release numbers. Wikipedia's policy for citation does include 'The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint' (here) for News Sources. No-where does it say 'official sources only'. If such sources can be found, they should be included in my opinion. Dbsseven (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The current stance taken has been that estimates are fine in prose, but shouldn't be used in the infobox. -- ferret (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please see past discussions. If you want to put something in the prose about estimates, go for it, because you can add actual context to the numbers. But you cannot add an "estimate" as an official sales figure, plain and simple. There is no place for context. WP:V and the English language are what prohibit you with that. It is not a confirmed sales figure, and should not be shown as such. Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I think I understand a bit better. However, the infobox does not require a numerical value for this entry. Isnt 'Aproximately 26-30 million' a better valie than a clearly outdated exact value? In particular as Microsoft has explicitly stated no new information will be coming. WP:V is satified as I included a citation. WP:V requires a reputable souce, which I cited, not an official one. Dbsseven (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I had a more detailed answer to this written out in the past, but I don't recall where I wrote it (this has come up at a number of different venues now.) But the short version of it is, it's going to get messy if we start doing stuff like "27 million (estimate)" or whatever, because there are a number of different analysts giving different estimates at different times.

In regards to WP:V, you're not quite getting what I'm saying. I'm saying, the field you edited is for actual sales figures. You added a reference that only provided a sales estimate. Your source did not verify a sales figure. That's the failure of WP:V. (As you said, such a sales figure does not exist, so you can't source it.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I believe you reading if WP:V is different than mine. As I understand your reading, requiring sources which verify exactly MSFT's (internal and unreleased) would contradict WP's independent sources policy. Otherwise, how could a source be independent and also have access to MSFT's numbers? (And if they did have internal numbers, they would necessarily be labeled leaked and therefore no-longer meet this standard either.) I believe this is an impossible standard.
And I believe addressing messy language to find a consensus compromise is exactly what the talk page is for. Dbsseven (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

If Microsoft never released any numbers for the Xbox family, it would make reasonable sense that we'd have to stick to using the third-party estimates for sales numbers. However, MS does release exact numbers though far less frequently than we'd prefer. For purposes of the infobox, where we don't have a lot of time to explain details, and to be consistent with the previous two Xbox family units, we should stick only to what MS has reported. In the body, those estimates are perfectly fine in prose - there's space to explain the source for them. --MASEM (t) 14:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Microsoft has stated they are not going to release Xbox One sales figures. (Further supported by the fact they have not published any data since announcing this policy.) I fail to see how adding a qualifier of the date a primary sourced (but outdated) value is released is better than adding the qualifier "estimated" to reputably cited current data. Dbsseven (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm still very against putting it in the infobox. There's no room for context, and its going to get very messy once we've got 5 conflicting estimates from 5 different sources and methodolgies. Its fine to cover that sort of thing, but it needs to be in the prose, where it can be properly explained. This is why we have dedicated sales sections in the prose. Sergecross73 msg me 15:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I understand your perspective. I however also believe it is very misleading to have significantly outdated figures in the infobox. I believe the standard of 'only official' is both in contradiction to WP policy and (in this case) an impossible one to meet. As it stands it seems very appropriate to have a or tag in the infobox. Dbsseven (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, it has a note that says (as of November 2, 2014), so its not really "misleading". I'm also not really sure I see the "contradiction" here either, and tagging it as "needing updating" wouldn't particularly make sense because the figures aren't currently known. (And if, for whatever reason, MS changed their mind and released actual figures, it'd be added pretty much instantly - that's how it works with every console article around here - so its not like we need a tag to have people on the lookout for it or something - many already are.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The infobox is in the lead, and this portion of the infobox does not accurately summarize the prose later in the article. It is contradictory as the data contradicts the prose later in the text (the comment about only official numbers is hidden in the rendered page). And because more current data (which meet the 'official only' standard) are unavailable does not make the current data any less stale. The value are 4 years old. And expert and reputable sources all give values ~10 times greater than the listed value.Dbsseven (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The infobox lists the last known official sales figure, explicitly labeled with the date it was referring to. The prose lists more recent sales estimates by third party analysts, also with dates. There is no contradiction present here. You need to understand that "third party estimates" and "first party actual figures" are NOT the same thing. Your arguments seem to be based around that misunderstanding. Sergecross73 msg me 16:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Please no personal attacks. I have no confusion around the two figures. My point is that it is not wikipedia's policy that only "first party actual figures" be the standard for inclusion. And I disagree with it's application here. I have yet to hear an argument within WP's policy that the infobox cannot be edited to 'X million (estimated as of June Y, 2017)' with the X value taken from a reputable source and reached by consensus here.Dbsseven (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

What part of that did you interpret to be a personal attack...? And the problem here is less about policy, and more about correctly filling out fields in an infobox. The field says "units sold". The field does not say "estimated sales". It's just as wrong as putting the word "potato" in the field - the issue isn't about whether or not there is a WP:NOPOTATO policy or guideline that allows or prevents on from putting "potato" in the field, the issue is that the word "potato" does not represent "units sold". Nor do guesses from third parties. I know that example is extreme, but that's the sort of "apples and oranges type concept I'm getting at here. Sergecross73 msg me 17:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

"You need to understand..." and "Your arguments ... misunderstanding." WP:AVOIDYOU I am not misunderstanding anything. I understand just fine and disagree. My disagreement is not ignorance. The infobox states Units sold, the source states "...Xbox One sales... 25 million to 30 million". This is not potato, it is a numerical value from a reputable source which directly addresses the value stated by the infobox. And the new source is significantly more current than the previous. Put another way: nowhere on the rendered infobox does it state Official sales Dbsseven (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

That 25 to 30 figure is based off of someone eyeballing a bar graph from an analyst. That's extremely imprecise and open to interpretation. All sorts of issues are going to arise with an approach like this. Not to mention, many others, moving forward: Which estimates do we use? When do we consider an estimate outdated? How big of a range do we allow? How many do we allow? It would be a continuous issue. Sergecross73 msg me 18:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Those are worthy things to discuss, I'd like to discuss them. I believe many years difference and tens of millions units from current are discrepancies worth addressing. (These are the differences between the infobox and recent reputable sources in the prose.) I would like to try to find a consensus that is not impossible. I believe it is contrary to WP policy to place too great an emphasis on manufacturer sources while excluding independent sources and expert opinions. A non-primary source is not inherently a bad source, or a wrong source. WP:V expects a reliable source which is cited, not an absolute one (see: WP:VNT). I believe "continuous" does not justify throwing up our hands and implementing a poor standard. Dbsseven (talk) 20:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Xbox One X redesign

can we get an image for this? --Omanyd (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

When it is released, it will get done. For now, we got nothing usable under the license restrictions. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 11:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Original Xbox One

Is it necessary to show the original Xbox One at the front of the wiki page as it’s now discontinued.. Arjan (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. This is an encyclopedia. The original Xbox One is very central to the topic. We are not a product catalog. -- ferret (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not really misleading, it's not like its stating its the only model in existence or something. Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I’m not saying to remove everything about the original Xbox one from this wiki page. I’m just suggesting the picture in the side could be removed.Arjan (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Why though? Is it not an Xbox One? There's no reason to not show the image of discontinued models. Just because they're no longer produced doesn't mean they no longer exist. Not to mention, it's not like we make a habit of erasing images of older variants from other console articles either... Sergecross73 msg me 23:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC about the inclusion of third party values in infobox

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus reached on whether estimated sales are legitimate to display in infobox. A rough consensus was reached that the December 2013 official figures were so outdated as to be removed from the infobox as misleading, however, regardless of whether estimated sales figures should be included or not. It's been replaced by a link to the "Sales" section for prose for now, pending more timely official figures. SnowFire (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

---

Should third party values be used in the infobox? There is a disagreement over if non-primary source values are acceptable in the infobox. (talk page discussion) 17:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

This should be clarified, as "should third party estimates" be used in the infobox. The issue is not the use of non-primary sources, but that those sources only claim estimates, not hard figures. For example, if a third party was reporting that a Microsoft executive reveals new sales figures at a conference or talk, which is exactly the case for the 10 million units shipped figure. -- ferret (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, ferret more accurately describes the current dispute. Sergecross73 msg me 18:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I believe this is a misleading argument/impossible standard as Microsoft's stated policy is to not release these values. Any values published would be 'leaked' and therefore under suspicion automatically.Dbsseven (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Would this be a more fair and complete description of the dispute Ferret and Sergecross73?: Should third party estimates be used in the infobox when the primary source has stated they will not be released? I believe the second portion is critical to conveying the the complete and current situation. (And I apologize if I poorly worded the RfC, no malice was intended. I want this to be a constructive dialog.)Dbsseven (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that more accurately sums it up. The key debate is first party official figures vs third party estimates. I feel whether or not the first party has plans for future figures to be irrelevant, but if you find it important, so be it. Sergecross73 msg me 22:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• No - Only official sales figures should be used in the "units sold" field. Third party estimates are not "units sold", they are "sales estimates". Estimates are usable, but should be used in the prose, not the infobox, so that proper context can be given. (Company X estimates sales figures Y on date Z.) There isn't ample space to do this in the infobox, especially considering there are many conflicting/different estimates out there, and there will only be more over time, unnecessarily cluttering the infobox. Keep it in the prose. Sergecross73 msg me 18:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, putting estimates in the "unit sales" field of the infobox raises all sorts of other complications. Which one do we use? How do we handle conflicting estimates? Do we use ranges? How many do we use? At what point do we drop off a low-point of a range in favor of new data? For example, if we've got a range that estimates that says 10 to 15, and then a new one says 17, what do we use now? 17? 10-17? 15-17? What if the next month, a new estimate of 12 is released? How does that factor in? It's very easy to say "Hey, lets use an estimate", but gets very complicated as time moves on. These issues don't occur with official sales figures, because there's only one right answer - the official number. Not the case with estimates. Sergecross73 msg me 20:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

This is contradictory to Microsoft's own stated policy on the current source states 'XBOX.COM web site may include inaccuracies' and their financial reports state 'Preparing financial statements requires management to make estimates and assumptions'. Presuming a primary source to be more precise/accurate may be erroneous. Dbsseven (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not. Every company in existence has something like that in the fine print, to keep them out of legal trouble should mistakes arise. I personally find the notion that a third party estimate to be more accurate than a company's internal figures to be highly unlikely. Sergecross73 msg me 22:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

My point is that MSFT is stating that they estimate sales (no surprise), and that was okay. In the absence of their estimate, another reputable source's estimate should be just as acceptable. And in this respect we should judge inclusion on the reputability of the source alone. Dbsseven (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

To expand on my stance in regards to further ideas that have been discussed since my last comments: I'm also against an "estimated sales" field in the infobox unless someone can outline how such a field would work in regards to the complications I mentioned above. (Specifically here.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I would believe it can be discussed here. (Isn't that what talk pages are for?) Consensus is not a single rigid target, but is iterative/evolving. Personally, I would say the most recent reputable source. If there is any disagreement over the value/citation, it can be discussed here. Dbsseven (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course, we're all free to discuss continually about anything and everything on the talk pages, I didn't suggest otherwise. I'm just saying, I don't support opening up that can of worms if there's no conceptual plan of attack to begin with. Sergecross73 msg me 19:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

And this is why I'm saying we should discuss this now. It seems to me a new standard is needed as the only acceptable source for the current standard has said it will not release new information. Consensus may be hard and finding it repeatedly may be annoying. But simply setting an impossible (if unimpeachable) standard doesn't seem like the solution IMO. (Especially when it results in confusing/outdated info relative to the prose of the article.) Dbsseven (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, when I first read that last response, I thought it was a "we'll discuss when we get there" response, I missed the part where you said "lets use the most recent". That being said, I still don't think its as simple as using the most recent when there's commonly multiple valid estimates from equally acceptable third party analysts. That's why prose works better for something like this; it can show the context, and variety of figures from different sources, all in one paragraph. Its better that way, when showing something without "one correct value". Sergecross73 msg me 19:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that prose offers more details. But the question of this RfC is "Should third party estimates be used in the infobox when the primary source has stated they will not be released?" This is a simple yes/no. If the issue is how to decide which estimated/non-primary value to use, that should be discussed on the talk page. My understanding of the current policy is that finding consensus is hard, so a solution is to exclude non-primary sources for the simplicity of editing. I believe this has resulted in an infobox that is confusing relative to the prose. The policy by which the infobox values were selected (official only) is not apparent in the rendered infobox, only in the unrendered comment. Dbsseven (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

My answer is "a simple no" all around, and I'm just explaining that I'm still not crazy about it even in a correctly labelled field like "sales estimate" because I feel like its going to get messy in its execution. Its going to be a constant source of edit warring, each editor adding their own analyst and figure of choice. I've observed enough of these recurring issues to know how it plays out - it's going to be a constant contentious point, right up there with defining the console generations, assigning genre to music, or the great should we title it "Sega Genesis" or "Sega Mega Drive" debate. I'd rather not introduce that sort of thing if we don't have to. Sergecross73 msg me 20:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I respect your concern, and don't think you're crazy, but I disagree with your position. Because consensus might be difficult in the future is a poor reason for blanket exclusion, and I believe the standard has lead to a confusing infobox listing IMO. (Speaking as one who edited the infobox because I was confused.) Dbsseven (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• Yes -Third party estimates of "units sold" can be included. The infobox in the lead does not accurately summarize the prose of the article. Requiring data only from a source which has stated it will not release it is an unreasonable standard and not in keeping with WP:VNT (while not absolute policy a good idea). I believe 'X million (estimated as of June Y, 2017)' with the X value taken from a reputable source citation is something that can accommodated in the infobox and satisfy WP:V. Dbsseven (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

As for disagreements of particular sources, I believe this is exactly what a talk page is for. I don't believe difficult is a justification for a poor blanket policy that results in outdated and contradictory (relative to the prose) content. Dbsseven (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• No - third party estimates are not sales figures. They are unreliable, and unsuitable for information in an infobox. This would be heavily misleading to list in the infobox. In the article, it has its place, where it can clearly be shown to be a sales estimate. The question remains to be asked though - should the infobox be modified to include sales estimates? I am inclined to say no - purely as they are estimates, but there is a significant number of people who would use Wikipedia to find sales figures, but would not read further than the lead. I believe, thusly, that the demand for said information means it should be displayed in its own section of the infobox. Keira1996 08:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I think an explicit "Estimated sales" section of the infobox could be a good compromise to allow it to more accurately represent the content of the article.Dbsseven (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

As information, I have posted a short message to Template talk:Infobox information appliance pointing to this discussion, since the idea of a new field has been brought up. -- ferret (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The parameter |unitssold isn't described as an official sales figure anywhere within the infobox template. While this may be unspoken knowledge, the lack of clarification is the problem if the intention is to exclude third-party estimates. WP:FILM, for example, is no stranger to allowing estimates into sales and marketing figures that are specified in the infobox. The larger concern is that editors aren't relying solely on the infobox to begin with; they should be glancing there but reading the relevant section for more detail. When 3rd-party estimates overtake the section (which will eventually happen here), then the infobox should naturally reflect the detail that has the heaviest emphasis in the article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. When there is no firm data and never will be, an estimate should be given, and shown as such. That's an entirely normal thing to do, see e.g. the date of death in the infobox at Şehzade Korkut. Maproom (talk) 08:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, your example of precedent here is an article with multiple tags stating it needs better sourcing, with a talk page that never discussed the infobox in the entire time of the article's existence? That's a terrible example. Sergecross73 msg me 12:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Şehzade Korkut doesn't really represent an estimate either. Ignoring the fact that it's unsourced, both a birth year and a death year are in the article, with the prose casting doubt on neither date and presenting them as official known facts. If the article were to say something like "Official records list his date of death as 1514, but scholars believe he may have died as early as 1512.", it would be a similar situation as we have here, but it doesn't. -- ferret (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

An example of how an infobox can include estimated values: DDR5 SDRAM. Dbsseven (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

That's still just another WP:OSE example. There was no discussion or agreement on it. Some editor just slapped it in there at some point, without discussion or even an edit summary. The article probably shouldn't even exist, as the last AFD was redirect, an the article is generally pretty terribly sourced. (Like using a forum post as a source.) Seriously, if you want to present a valid example, find a WP:GA/WP:FA, or an article where an actual consensus supporting an estimation in a infobox occurred. Junk like this doesn't prove anything. Sergecross73 msg me 12:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The lack of discussion is not evidence that consensus wasn't reached. The policy is be bold, and only if there is disagreement then WP:BRD. Recent examples of Good/Featured articles with estimates in the infobox from non-primary sources: William McKinley presidential campaign, 1896 (receipts), Mughal-e-Azam (box office), Star Trek: First Contact (box office), Wrestle Kingdom 9 (attendance), Eta Carinae (almost all numerical values), 88th Academy Awards (ratings), Chagas disease (frequency), Schizophrenia (all numerical values), Han dynasty (population), Bill Gates (net worth), Battle of Thermopylae (almost all numerical values), 1966 New York City smog (casualties). Clearly this can be done. A variety of methods are used to indicate the estimates, and discrepancies between sources. To presume there will be controversy here is a personal opinion WP:OR and attempts to predict the future WP:CRYSTALBALL. (Dbsseven (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

• No - Opposed to the inclusive of estimates in the infobox as if they are official figures, per same reasons as Sergecross73 and Keira1996. Open to the idea of a new field for "Estimated sales" in Template:Infobox information appliance as suggested by Keira. -- ferret (talk) 12:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
• No - I have to side with what others have to say: to not treat estimates as if they were official sales figures. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 03:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
• Weak support – I get what some are saying about controversial numbers in the infobox leading to edit-warring and/or confusing ranges. Those are definitely valid concerns, but they shouldn't prevent a common sense move. When I look at the appliance infobox template, there is nothing about the field units sold that claims it must include only official numbers. Yes, officially-released numbers tend to trump third-party claims in most cases, but in the absence of having official numbers, updated claims by third parties should be permitted. It's natural to want to keep this field updated with a reliably-sourced claim without the thought of official crossing the mind. Only those who have been corrected in the past by a veteran WP:VG editor would have any knowledge that only official numbers are allowed. From the surface, this seems to go against what is a natural tendency. I could be wrong, but it's probably worth trying in one-off situations when official numbers are extremely difficult (or impossible) to come by.
  Do we need an RfC to approve this project-wide or community-wide? Probably not. It seems like WP:CREEP to explicitly permit this activity within a policy or guideline, or to expect that the result of this RfC somehow covers a broad scope of articles using this infobox. My support is for small, one-off situations where it is necessary, discussed as needed on the talk page of the article in question. Also, I'm opposed to the idea of adding a separate estimated parameter to an already-crowded infobox (particularly when the existing parameter isn't even described as official). --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
• Allowed. For the most part, infobox content follows the same standards as other article content. Official figures are best here, but you can use Reliable Source standards to evaluate best available estimates. Estimates should probably have "estimate" or "est." attached. If the estimates are wildly conflicting, or the situation is otherwise intractable, it could be necessary to move it exclusively to an article-text explanation. But uncontroversial figures, or normal-process-resolvable outcomes, generally shouldn't be removed without some better rationale for removal.
  Side note: Opposed to creating a separate infobox parameter. There's no need to create parameter clutter. I doubt we would ever want include both 'official' and 'estimate' values in the same box. Labeling the value as "estimate" is fine. And most of all, maintaining the infobox would be messy when old figures of one type were replaced with new figures of the opposite type. Best case, you need to move the info to a different parameter. Worst case, people will show up and edit the info without moving it. It would be an utter waste of time re-editing the article to "fix" that each time it happened. Alsee (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, if no official data available. Good for quick comparison. Format: "<range> (est.)" Estimate details are to be in prose, from solid sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• No to including it without marking it as a third-party estimate. I'm fine with an alternative parameter/field for estimated sales, only to be used when there are no current official numbers.--IDV^talk 21:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
• Yes if circumstances fit. The official sales numbers are wildly outdated. If there were official numbers that were more recent, then maybe stick with just the official stats, but as is, both official sales and a range of unofficial estimates that are more recent are appropriate for reasons of timeliness. SnowFire (talk) 07:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• Additional comment. I would be in favor of omitting this entirely rather than keep the official sales numbers in the infobox. The current "units sold" figure is from one month after release. That is ludicrously useless, like listing the sales of Boeing 747s based on how many sold in its first year, ignoring the 47 years afterward. It would literally be better to write "Unknown" there than include this wildly incomplete figure. (I agree that "Estimated sales" bloats the infobox, incidentally, so this might be the only article it's justified in - in which case, just stick it in Units Sold with a huge asterisk.) SnowFire (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• I can agree with this. Perhaps link to a sales section instead of listing a figure. -- ferret (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• I would be fine with omitting the outdated official sales figure or just providing a link to the sales section in place or the outdated official figure. Sergecross73 msg me 17:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• I agree, omitting this or adding a link seems like a reasonable compromise. It might also help with the perpetual edit/revert cycles. Dbsseven (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• I have WP:BOLDly changed the infobox entry to a link to the Sales section. We don't have a simple correct figure to put here, so a link to prose is as best we can do IMO. SnowFire (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, this debate has been going on for weeks now, and appears to be the only real consensus emerging... Sergecross73 msg me 19:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• No to any kind of estimate in the Units sold field, but open to persuasion for a new Estimated sales parameter. — TPX 12:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
• compromise- summoned by bot, and also an Xbox user. Put any reported conflicting estimated sales numbers with their citations in bullet format in the sales infobox field, followed by "(estimate - see sales section for clarification) This eliminates the need for an estimated sales field, and points people to the more specific info where caveats can be spelled out . TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

References

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.

Xbox One X RAM clock

It says the RAM is clocked at 6.8 GHz, that doesn't follow with GDDR5, as that would mean the "real" clock is 3.4 GHz, that would need some serious cooling. I can't find those numbers on the official site but [1] says it's clocked at 1.7 GHz which means it would need to be quad data rate RAM to get to the effective clock of 6.8 GHz. So how does this work and where is the source for that? -- Lightkey (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

For GDDR5 memory, you always multiply the memory clock rate by 4 to get the data rate. So for the Xbox One X, the memory clock is actually running at 1.7 GHz to achieve the effective data rate of 6.8 GHz (sometimes reported as 6.8 Gbps). Essentially both descriptions refer to the same thing, as both are effective not actual speeds. This old article on the first GDDR5 video card to the market back in 2008 might help explain it in some detail if you're interested. Also, here's two sources I found that make a reference to the 6.8 GHz spec (not sure if either are sourced in the article, but they can be added if needed):

Xbox One X coming November 7 for $499: Everything we know – CNET

Xbox One X tech specs – Windows Central

Hope that helps! --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Problem at sales

The sales section needs to be updated. It says the Xbox One has only sold 19-20 Million units. But, it has actually sold 26 Million Units January 2017. Because of this, I believe the Xbox One's sales content should be updated. edit: 12/3/17 Here are the articles: http://www.vgchartz.com/article/269183/xbox-one-sales-top-an-estimated-30-million-units-worldwide/ and https://www.gamespot.com/articles/xbox-one-sales-reach-26-million-report/1100-6447023/

104.228.96.157 (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Xbox One X

Are we now allowed to add a picture of the One X to the info panel? Arjan (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the images are fine the way they are. The Xbox One X is only a variant of the primary model of the system. BruzerFox 02:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

XBox One X power cable issues

Please cite and discuss the issue with the XBox One X power cable ... I'll post some notes here and somebody else can do a proper job adding it to the article.

Did your Xbox One X suddenly stop working? Maybe it’s a bad power cable https://www.onmsft.com/news/did-your-xbox-one-x-suddenly-stop-working-maybe-its-a-bad-power-cable

"Xbox One is designed to be plugged directly into a wall outlet" https://twitter.com/XboxSupport/status/931583041285210112

"The default cable included with the console is rated at 7 amps and 125 volts, while the replacement cable is rated 10 amps and 125 volts. In other words, any cable rated 7 amps or more and at least 125 volts should fix the problem" ... "Keep in mind that by using a third-party power cable, you risk voiding your warranty, so proceed at your own risk"

Fix your Xbox One X shutting down and not turning back on issues http://windowsreport.com/fix-xbox-one-x-wont-turn-on/

Unplugging the XBox One X from a surge protector and then plugging directly into a wall outlet is *NOT* a permanent solution - it is merely a temporary fix until a new XBox One X cable rated at 10 amps and 125 volts Certified and approved by Microsoft is available as a replacement. The XBox One X power supply should've included under-power protection and a longer cord. 71.94.249.243 (talk) 03:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally doesn't cover tech support issues unless it gets a particular amount of coverage to establish notability, like the Red Ring of Death. BruzerFox 05:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Criticism - Lack of exclusives

I believe that there should be a sub-section (or an entirely new section) addressing the criticism regarding the lack of the Xbox One's exclusives. In 2017, the Xbox One brand received a lot of disappointment from the press and fans alike when the amount of first-party titles they promised were either cancelled or pushed to 2018. There's also the topic of the Xbox Play Anywhere move that Microsoft made where one would no longer need an Xbox One console to play Xbox One exclusives as they can play them on Windows 10 capable gaming PCs.

Here are some articles (many of which I do not believe are from credible sources but are accepted by Wikipedia's standards) which address the exclusive problem.

• The Verge: The Xbox One is struggling because video game exclusives still matter Some quotes of interest:

1. "Perhaps the most revealing example of the power of exclusives is Microsoft’s Xbox One, the console that’s struggled to find its niche with first-party games. While Sony has recently offered a variety of games in a short window of time, and Nintendo has, well, Zelda, Microsoft hasn’t quite found its footing."
2. "...Microsoft has dealt with underperforming new entries in popular franchises, false starts to new properties, and a number of high-profile cancellations. And this isn’t a case of critical darlings failing to find an audience."
3. "The Xbox One’s exclusive lineup has also suffered delays, setbacks, and closures."

• Polygon: The Xbox One has a serious exclusive games problem

1. "We spoke to four analysts who all agreed that Microsoft needs to act soon, and that major acquisitions are by far the most likely route. “Microsoft recognizes this as an important issue,” said Piers Harding-Rolls, director of research and analysis at IHS. “Hence, Phil Spencer’s comments about investing more in delivering first-party content.”"

• Engadget: Xbox's lack of compelling games won't be fixed next year

• [www.businessinsider.com/xbox-one-games-holiday-problems-2017-8 The Xbox One is facing a major issue during its most important sales quarter of the year]

• The Exclusive Gap Between PS4 And Xbox One Has Become A Canyon

1. "On top of all of this, Microsoft no longer really gives people a reason to own an Xbox One. Even if its exclusive line-up is less expansive than Sony’s, thanks to its new “Play Anywhere” policy, all you need to play any Microsoft exclusive is a PC. The company itself has created a situation where if you own a PS4, a PC and maybe some Nintendo hardware, that’s everything you need."

2601:642:4201:D231:1CD4:9762:9BCB:935D (talk) 03:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Outside of the Forbes Contributor source, you've got some good sources and quotes going for you. Not sure we'd need a whole section on it, but there is something to be covered here probably. But...they're just pull quotes so far, its inclusion would hinge on what prose would be written around this sourcing. Feel free to propose that here as well. Sergecross73 msg me 04:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The most that could be said is a footnote in reception, if you ask me. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 04:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Exclusive Games

I believe the section about Microsoft's exclusive line-up should deserve a sub-section within the 'Games' section. The topic of exclusive games on the Xbox One, particularly the criticism of it by critics who state that the platform is in serious lack of exclusive and blockbuster first party titles, can not be ignored any longer. Here are more sources:

• The Xbox One is the best console if you don’t care about exclusive new games

1. "[The] slate of new releases for the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One serves as an illuminating indicator of the state each console is in. The PS4 has two new exclusive titles in major series that date back to the PlayStation 2 days: God of War, by all accounts a masterpiece, and Yakuza 6, a satisfying final chapter for a much-loved character. The Xbox One, on the other hand? Well, now you can play a bunch more old Xbox 1 — as in the original Xbox — games."

There was also an incident where IGN mocked the Xbox One for its lack of exclusives, however, the post was deleted and staff member, Ryan McCaffrey, offered an apology on Twitter. This incident doesn't have any reliable sources reporting on it, although it serves as food for thought.

The sub-section needs to start off discussing how the matter came into play, when Microsoft in 2016 announced that all of their exclusive Xbox One games would be coming to the Windows Store on Windows 10. I believe this initially started with Microsoft's announcement of "cross buy" and then Quantum Break being announced for PC. There's also this article on Fable Legends, "'just the first' Microsoft game to com[e] to PC." Yet another article about Xbox One losing exclusives.

I have a lot of other things to discuss, such as the cancellation of Scalebound, but right now we should focus on getting the lack of exclusive titles issue being at least acknowledged. 2601:642:4201:D231:9418:E467:D9D1:D8E5 (talk) 08:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Wrong HDD size

The table lists a '3.5-inch hard drive' for the entry 'Storage type'. This Video shows a 2.5-inch HDD, at least for the original model. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg7Ai63BaGI I assume the One S and One X also have a 2.5-inch version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.76.49.39 (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Mouse and keyboard support

Microsoft recently announced that mouse and keyboard support is coming to the Xbox One.[2] Where should this information be added in the article? 344917661X (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

How can "Fission" be an emulator?

Can somebody explain to me how an x64 system running at 1.75 GHz is supposed to "emulate" a PowerPC system running at 3.2 GHz in software at full speed? (No, more cores don't help with that.)

One of the cited sources actually says: "The hardware of the Xbox 360 is very different from the hardware of the Xbox One, and pure emulation of the kind used in console emulators such as MESS and arcade emulators like MAME is technically improbable; Xbox 360 is simply too fast and too new. The limited compatibility and need to download even those games that are owned on disc suggests to us that some mix of recompilation and emulation is in use."[3]

I would even go as far as to say that the "emulator" is probably not doing any emulation at all, and is just downloading new binaries compiled from source code.

188.192.207.28 (talk) 11:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Spelling Error

I do not know how to use talk pages, so I am not sure if I did this correctly, but I want to point out that the word exclusive is spelled incorrectly in the section about the Xbox One S All-Digital Edition.

Handled. Thank you. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 19:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Section about lack of exclusives

"Lack of exclusive titles - The Xbox One platform has faced criticism for lacking in exclusive releases over competitors such as PlayStation 4 and Nintendo Switch." - from the article

I find it weird to mention it, especially without sources specified, or mentioning if it was wide or narrow criticism. To call it good or bad, is extremely subjective too. So calling it "criticism" is also subjective. I have no idea if these criticism was just few people, or more wide thing. There are different benefits to customers, game developers, studios, publishers, console makers, investors, "analysts", etc. And even them are all subjective and depending on many factors (including console life time, if it has established market, is compatible with titles for previous or other consoles, how it compares to competition on other merits, etc). I think there should be more care taken about the entire section. 2A02:168:F609:0:6EB4:8A5F:9FC4:E8FB (talk) 06:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn’t write the section personally, but it looks like there are sources thoughout the section that answer a lot of these questions... Sergecross73 msg me 03:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2019

I want to edit. 2601:586:8400:B50:808B:CC94:F551:9323 (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Then you need to create an account and edit for a while. Alternatively, you can suggest changes on the talk page. But just asking to be able to edit like this isn’t going to work. Sergecross73 msg me 00:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. TurboSonic (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Release dates

How come that no-one has pinned downed the release dates after all these years? It's not an obscure product. The article states that it was released pretty much worldwide 22 November 2013, but that's wrong. I know that IGN has an article saying that, that is a top hit in search engines, but that's wrong. I know for sure that it was just released in a handful of European countries in tandem with North America. The Nordic countries didn't get it until September 2014, and I suspect many others in Europe too. https://www.aftonbladet.se/spela/a/G1OWKx/avslojat-da-slapps-xbox-one-i-sverige The South America date makes me really sceptical too, as I vividly remember it was a messy release with a trickle down to the different markets. Must be just a few countries there to begin with as well. Unfortunately all those articles seem to be buried and extremely hard to find, especially as there in Nordic languages is no real word or phrase for the English term "release (date)", so searches are painstaking. --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I haven’t looked into this, but based off of your comment alone...it sounds like your last sentence pretty much answers your own question... Sergecross73 msg me 02:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2020

In the first line of text the Xbox 360 is mentioned but it does not link to the Xbox 360 wiki. Loporlp (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Huh? Yes it does. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Split Xbox One X from main Xbox Article, along with all other forms of xbox.

Hello wikipedians,

reading this article about xbox is mind boggling, as it contains pieces of every xbox console in history. Splitting all these pieces into their own articles and using this current article as a summary page for Xbox in general would be beneficial for those trying to get information quickly. Take iPhones for example, each iPhone is separated into their own articles, and not just one huge article about every iPhone. Let me know what ya’ll think, i need to go write an essay. 😂 SilentRevisions (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I dont think that’s a good comparison. I’d compare it more to PS4 Pro or Nintendo Switch Lite. Minor revisions don’t always need a second article. Sergecross73 msg me 23:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

One could argue that the differences between the various iPhone models only amount to "minor revisions", but that's a separate topic entirely. Regardless, I'm inclined to keep various base-model upgrades covered on this article. They don't have enough unique features to warrant separating the article. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 13:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

If you want to know to know about each different Xbox console then there's Xbox One, Xbox 360, and Xbox (console). The Xbox One X doesn't need a separate article since it doesn't change really that much. With the Nintendo Switch Lite that's different because it changed many things about the console like the controllers, battery life, smaller screen, and the removal of many power hungry components. With the Xbox One X all they changedreally was the internals which you could barely notice unless you play games that actually utilized the hardware. It's fine where the Xbox One X is right now in the Xbox One article. TurboSonic (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I also oppose this, the Xbox One X is a hardware revision rather than a new console, unlike the Xbox Series X. I think that is enough consensus to call this closed._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

"Xbox 8" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Xbox 8. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Xbox One X and One Elite storage specifications

X: 1 TB SSHD This is incorrect. The Xbox One X has a 1 TB Hard Drive not a Solid State Hybrid Drive: Source: https://news.xbox.com/en-us/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/Xbox_One_Spec_Sheet.pdf Archive URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20200325103624/https://news.xbox.com/en-us/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/Xbox_One_Spec_Sheet.pdf Archive Date: 2020-03-25 Change line to: PennyTraps (talk) 11:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:24, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

"Xbox Fusion" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Xbox Fusion and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 31#Xbox Fusion until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 13:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)