Talk:Xbox Series X and Series S

Xbox Series X 9th Gen

So there seems to be a disagreement on if the XSX qualifies as a 9th gen console. I personally believe it does, as the official page for it clearly states that the XSX is compatible with four generations of games (being Xbox - 6th, 360 - 7th, One - 8th and Series - 9th). There's even a header saying "Why Gen 9" which shows that Microsoft clearly thinks this is a 9th generation console. I'm not going to start an edit war, so let's discuss things here and come to a conclusion.

2607:FCC8:8D87:2600:6162:C88A:22F2:CD98 (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a good chance that the XSX and PS5 will be 9th gen, no question. But neither console is out yet and we want to wait for widespread use of the term after the consoles are out and clearly being labelled as such - we (Wikipedia that is) have actually contributed improperly to the generation naming issue (in that we appear to be the originating source for how they were numbered, not the concept of generations) and we don't want to be the source for "Ninth Generation". As for that Xbox page saying 9th Gen, things like headlines, headers, and other navigational aids in articles are not considered part of the reliable sources that we use because they are often typically written by marketing or other editors and not the experts. The fact that "9th gen" doesn't appear anywhere else on that page is an issue. Also, we know that Microsoft has talked "generation" in both the generation of video game consoles in general and their own console hardware (with the Xbox Series X part of its fourth generation of Xbox), so when they say "generation" without context, its not clear what they mean.

So, basically, we'll likely still wait until the late part of this year to see what sources are saying. --Masem (t) 17:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

A number of sources refer to this as the next generation of games consoles, nine comes after eight, while few have directly referred to it as the ninth generation, that can certainly be inferred from 'next generation', I fail to see where this disagreement arises from. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 10:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

There are two separate contexts for "Generation". There is the broader industry wide context of a "ninth generation" following the "eighth generation". Then there is the localized concept of literally "The next console generation from Microsoft, following the Xbox One". The latter case is the "fourth generation" of Xbox consoles. The reason long standing editors are cautious about the ninth generation as a topic is because Wikipedia itself, through original research and Wikipedia:CITOGENESIS, had a major impact on shaping the organization of generations in the first place. We don't want to repeat that. We want to follow policy and not lead sources to the idea of a "ninth generation" ourselves, and wait for it to clearly be something that sources are discussing on their own. -- ferret (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Either way, we've got plenty of time to wait for sources, it's not like the new consoles are going to be replaced any time soon. Thanks for clarifying. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

References

X/S or X|S

I note that most links to this article are using "X/S" rather than the "X|S" that Microsoft is using to promote their consoles. Is there a particular reason for this, beyond avoid potential wiki-markup issues? --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 13:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

There's no reason we can't use the pipe symbol, we just have to de-wiki it, like {{pipe}} in wikilinks. --Masem (t) 13:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

That is to link to it via that name: [[Xbox Series X and Series S|Xbox Series X{{pipe}}S]] gives: Xbox Series X|S --Masem (t) 13:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

It's annoying that we can't use the pipe in the article title for a redirect, but I think it's better to have the pipe'd version rather than the forward slash since the latter is, I think, technically incorrect. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 13:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

COMMONNAME should be followed as well as observe TMRULES. Are any sources following Microsoft's stylization? -- ferret (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

A simple Gnews search right now on either "Xbox Series X/S" or "Xbox Series X|S" shows the slash version to be preferred by sources, but the pipe version isn't absent. --Masem (t) 14:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I admit that most news articles I've seen use "X/S" rather than "X|S", probably because it's generally considered easier to type and as a search term. I'm not sure COMMONNAME applies here though, since I'm not proposing we move the article space itself. We have a redirect for Xbox Series X/S, and there's no reason for that to change. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 14:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

COMMONNAME is focused on the actual article title yes, but one of the basis for that is recognizability and common use. We shouldn't start piping links to this article with the less common phrasing that would otherwise violate COMMONNAME. X/S is fine, it has common use in sources. X|S would never be the name of this article (IMO), so we shouldn't be piping links to it. -- ferret (talk) 14:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The only reason X|S would "never be the name of this article" is due to technical limitations– both "|" and "{" are bad characters which Wikipedia doesn't allow into article names–otherwise I would have made the case for using this term during the recent naming discussion. As I said, since COMMONNAME is specific to the article title itself, I don't see how this change is a violation, which in turn means COMMONNAME shouldn't be a concern. Users are still welcome to search "Xbox Series X/S" and will be directed to the correct article. So this basically boils down to whether we want to use the correct term (as per Microsoft) or not. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 14:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

What I think we're looking at here is more MOS:TM which applies everywhere. The pipe is clearly part of the branding, so the question is, is it commonly kept to or do media sources drop it for something easier/more common? --Masem (t) 14:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

From what I can tell, a lot of news article headlines use "X/S", but refer to the consoles by the full name "Xbox Series X and Series S" within the body of their articles. Unfortunately, even searching Xbox Series "X|S" in Google (using a pipe) returns results with the slash, which renders an eyeball count untrustworthy. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 12:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Kinda highlighting the point. Article name is full form, short hand is X/S. We should not be using the marketing stylization of X|S, when sourcing is not doing so commonly over X/S, and especially considering the syntax issues and TMRULES. I've already had to fix 3 infoboxes where 2-3 particular editors are going around changing this and breaking syntax. It's going to be enough of a problem without us actively encouraging it. -- ferret (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree here that we're going to have too many cases of novice users trying to use the pipe form and break things if we standardized on that, even with a template. (They won't see the template). --Masem (t) 13:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll concede. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 08:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Pipes work fine within piped links. [[Xbox Series X and Series S|Xbox Series X|S]] gives Xbox Series X|S. Talk page sections with the character can also be linked to as [[#X/S or X|S]] #X/S or X|S. The note currently used to explain why we don't use "Xbox Series X|S" is misleading. The only thing we cannot do with the name is use it as the article title (we would not anyway, since we are not using "Xbox Series X/S" either), but the note suggests that typing out "Xbox Series X|S" on Wikipedia is impossible. IceWelder [✉] 10:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• Of course there's ways to properly do it. The problem is novice users repeatedly failed to do so. And when they fail to use proper syntax, tables and infoboxes break all over the place. Since it's not the common name and is a marketing stylization anyways, it should simply be avoided. -- ferret (talk) 11:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• We should avoid improper edits from new editors, sure, but saying that Wikipedia does not support the name (which is incorrect/misleading) and then tucking that away into a note does not help. The fewest new editors will check the target page before linking to it, let alone a note within that article, and those users who intend to place "Xbox Series X|S" in articles will do it anyway (since it is, technically, possible).

We should enforce the "X/S" format on the grounds that it is more common in sources and appropriate in the English language, not because of a purported technical issue. The note can just say "Stylized as Xbox Series X|S", which is truthful and still expresses that "X/S" is the non-stylized (proper) format that should be used here. IceWelder [✉] 12:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

• Fair point. Enjoyer of World^💬 12:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

If you're just referring to the notes content, I don't have any opinion, as I didn't write it. My only position is that we enforce avoiding use of X|S entirely for a range of syntax and guideline reasons. -- ferret (talk) 12:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I was told to check this discussion in regards to why the note should state that "X|S" is not technically possible, despite it clearly being possible. Our guidelines are the actual reason for the use of "X/S", but they are never incorporated verbosely into articles. IceWelder [✉] 13:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem is, the pipe style is more common from what I've seen in publishes RSes, since in simple HTML writeup via WYSIWYG editors, there's no issue with the single use of that. It is because we have monkey-see-monkey-do editing problems that using the pipe symbol would cause too many editing problems. It is meant to discourage editing problems in the future. It is the same reason why we generally don't include accented characters in some names as it just makes things more difficult on the Wikiside, but we do make sure it is acknowledged somewhere. --Masem (t) 13:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

If it goes against our style guidelines, it is enough to point to the guidelines to the offending editors. The current note actively suggests that the stylized version cannot be used anywhere (within links or otherwise) only because of a non-existent technical issue. Making up a problem does not fix the mistakes of new editors (who are more likely to not even read the note beforehand) and does not appropriately solve the issue. Instead, it could leave readers with some knowledge of MediaWiki confused. The suggested change removes the incorrect claim but leaves the rest of the note intact. The apparent discouragement (if any) would still stem from the stylized (improper) format being hidden behind a note, with the non-stylized (proper) format in plain sight. IceWelder [✉] 14:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Certainly any suggested wording change on the note can be suggested, but we do want to be clear up front we are purposely avoiding the pipe to prevent bad markup propagating across WP. It sorta falls into WP:NCTR but not quite. --Masem (t) 14:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

An FAQ section on the talk page would be more suitable for that, although it has to be clear whether the suggested format is based on guidelines (as I understood from previous replies) or just the technicality that [[Xbox Series X|S]] does not work as intended. IceWelder [✉] 14:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

A FAQ here works and we can go into more tech/behind the scenes detail, but I feel we should still link to that from the "front" page so that readers who may become editors see why we don't use it. Maybe the footnote "Also stylized as X|S but this formatting is discouraged for technical reasons", with the latter to link to the talk page FAQ? --Masem (t) 15:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Sounds plausible. IceWelder [✉] 15:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2020

Under Section ===System software and features=== It says "Both consoles uses a similar" In proper English this should be Both consoles use a similar

use not useS Skittlebiz (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Masem (t) 14:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Usable storage

With some gamers getting the Xbox Series X and Series S early, we're starting to see confirmations of the actual usable storage capacity. This isn't something we traditionally include in articles, but I was wondering if we should, going forward. The whole point of the article is to provide information to the reader, after all (with reliable references, of course). --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 10:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2020

Change the main image for one of the two consoles

 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. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done We need free images of these since the consoles are effectively released. I have been searching once or more a day for them, and have not yet seen any. --Masem (t) 16:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Renaming 2.3.1 from Storage architecture to Xbox Velocity Architecture.

Hi. I'd like to propose to all editors watching this page that 2.3.1 should be renamed to Xbox Velocity Architecture, as it is the branded name for the technology. I'd reckon if someone wants to finds out about this, they can easily find it. SuddenlyMangoes (talk) 05:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Velocity is more than just the storage features, and there's more to the Xbox storage than just the Velocity platform as well (the external SSD and USB stuff, for example). We can anchor that name in the section as we do discuss at length. --Masem (t) 14:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Title

Hi there. Does anyone consider that we should change the title of this page from current one to Xbox Series X/S or Xbox fourth generation? It is a very long title now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazer Phoenix (talk • contribs) 13:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The current title length is fine, considering we have redirects in place for it. The current title was agreed here. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 14:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the current title does the best job of indicating that there’s two separate things here, unlike X/S. And I strongly oppose “fourth gen”, there’s just no way it’s the WP:COMMONNAME. Sergecross73 msg me 14:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand but what if another console is released? Are we gonna add that to the title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazer Phoenix (talk • contribs) 14:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

We will cross that bridge when that happens. Hopefully then MS will have a better name for the family than just "Xbox" as they've claimed. --Masem (t) 14:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

It’s impossible to know that until a third variant is announced. It was just released, so that decision is likely years away... Sergecross73 msg me 14:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I can also suggest Xbox 2020 console but you probably won't like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blazer Phoenix (talk • contribs) 14:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

If and when a new Xbox Series console gets added (the linked-to discussion makes mention of a possible "Xbox Series V"), we'll reopen the discussion. Personally, I quite like having just "Xbox Series" as the title. Also, @Blazer Phoenix: please sign your comments with "--~~~~". --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 15:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the way MS has presented it, "Series" is not the name like is was for Xbox 360 or Xbox One. That is, MS has presented this as (implied phrasing) "Xbox, Series X" where as it was more "Xbox One, X" how they presented the model family last generation. Further, no RS uses "Xbox Series" (limited to that) as the name, so that would be OR as well. I do expect that if a third model is introduced, we will have a way to determine a good title from RSes then. --Masem (t) 15:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Naming of the consoles continued

Currently (as of November 19, 08:42 US CT) the beginning of the title says "The Xbox Series X and Series S", but I would suggest that this portion of the article say "The Xbox Series X and Xbox Series S", and also change the name in the infobar to say "Xbox Series X [enter] Xbox Series S" as while Microsoft can call them Series X|S, the name for the individual consoles both contain the Xbox brand; I suggest that it be changed to what I describe to make it more 'consistent' with other articles talking about correlated titles (e.g., Pokémon Red and Blue which says "Pokémon Red Version and Pokémon Blue Version"). I was Alejandro Herrera Barboza (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I suppose I don’t oppose that, as long as we’re talking about the opening sentence and not the article title itself (which would also be consistent with Pokemon articles). Sergecross73 msg me 15:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

This is generally fair, I've gone ahead and made those changes. --Masem (t) 15:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

My 2p: I don't believe the change is, strictly speaking, necessary, but I don't have any particular objections. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 16:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

RPG focus

War, can you please explain how my edit doesn't meet basic standards? thank you Grandia01 (talk) 07:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Here, in this talk page, you should phrase the question so that other editors know what you are refereeing to. To do otherwise puts the onus on me to explain your point of view, and I may not get it right, which would be unfair to you. All you need to do is explain the edit you are trying to make and then I'll comment on that, as may others.War (talk) 07:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

both phil spencer and videogame analysts say that the new Xbox will focus on RPG's. you said my edit doesn't meet basic standards and the references don't support these claims. can you explain why please?

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/xbox-is-primed-to-reclaim-its-identity-as-a-console-for-rpgs/1100-6482439/

https://xboxera.com/2020/10/15/xbox-an-rpg-powerhouse/

https://wccftech.com/phil-spencer-focus-rpg/

thanks Grandia01 (talk) 07:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

In the first article that writer states, "I think Xbox can establish itself as a platform for different types of role-playing games." This doesn't mean the platform will focus on them. This is an opinion of the writer. The second article states, "Bethesda will be a prominent developer for many years to come and ensure Xbox is seen as a prominent home for anyone who loves a good Role Playing Game." This, again, opinion of the writer, concerns that goals of Bethesda, not Microsoft or the XBox platform itself. The third reference states, "Spencer continued that while shooters have been going strong, the team intends to focus more on delivering role-playing-games in the future." He is clearly referring to the games that will be released to the platform, which your edit does not make clear.

Therefore that change you want to make does not accurately reflect the references that you site.War (talk) 07:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

"The third reference states, 'Spencer continued that while shooters have been going strong, the team intends to focus more on delivering role-playing-games in the future.' He is clearly referring to the games that will be released to the platform, which your edit does not make clear." so if i write "Microsoft intendeds to focus more on delivering role-playing-games" would that be clearer? Grandia01 (talk) 07:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes and I would not use the other references and I don't think they support that assertion. The last reference seems to though.War (talk) 08:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

understood. thanks much for your time and help Grandia01 (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

is it suitable to be entered in the "reception" section? sorry if that was wrong Grandia01 (talk) 08:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Respectfully, I have removed the text and reference from the article for the following reason: the Xbox console manufacturer, Microsoft, does not produce games for its own console. That is the task of Xbox Games Studios, a subsidiary. XGS may well be focusing on RPG releases going forward, but the console itself, is not. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 10:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I too support removal. It was also being placed in the reception section, which makes zero sense. It’s fundamentally not a reception statement. Sergecross73 msg me 12:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

There may be something for Spencer's comments re bringing more RPGs over at Xbox Game Studios, particularly after considering the Zenimax buyout. That is, the third source is a starting point, but you can' use the first GameSpot source for this, but if you can find something from Spencer that says that with Zenimax (and namely the Bethesda RPG games) they will have more RPGs, that would be something we can add over there. But it doesn't make any sense to add here on the console page since that's really about their game publishing, not their hardware side. --Masem (t) 15:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Excuse Me?

I think the page should state the Technical Problems that have happened for the Xbox Series X such as Microsoft stating that to not blow Vaping Smoke into Series X and the Series X constantly overheating according to many users and critics. So I should say that should be included cause It happened a few weeks (about 2-3 weeks) ago. --StaleGuy22 (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

No, given how quickly that came and went, that has zero long-term relevance. We would want to focus on something like the Red Ring of Doom from Xbox 360 days. --Masem (t) 01:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Hero image

Whilst I appreciate the effort put in by the current image provider, is there any reason we cannot use one of these images from the Microsoft Media Asset Library? The fact that these images are freely available to download suggests a fair use licence, at the very least, is granted. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 16:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

"Free to download" is not the same as "free license". The former is "Free as in beer", but we need "free as in speech" licenses and those are definitely not free licenses. --Masem (t) 01:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

1-2 TB expansion card in specs

Shouldn't it be mentioned or have a footnote that the 2TB expansion card is planned but not yet official or available? It specifies it higher up in the listing but not on the specs table --Unrecoverable (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

It already is. See Storage architecture. Sorry, I should have read your comment more carefully - the specs section is only for already available specifications. Since the 2 TB card is only planned, at this stage, there is no 2 TB specification available to be included in the specs table. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 10:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Too much hatnotes

Should we trim down the hatnotes by merging or putting the links in the "See also" section? I think 4 hatnotes in a single page is pretty cluttery. Any thoughts on how to solve this? PyroFloe (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think we can. Its due to how MS unfortunately named this family that we're dealing with handling the family name and two separate console names (and no, it doesn't make sense to split the pages for individual consoles, MS treats them as very closely tied). Hatnotes are their for people searching on terms and need to be at the top so as long as these are likely terms for landing at this page, all four hatnote lines are required. --Masem (t) 18:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think it's necessary to have upfront in this situation, when such confusing naming conventions have been chosen. Sergecross73 msg me 18:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)