Template talk:Infobox mobile phone

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

Marketing Slogan?[edit]

Why the marketing slogan is allowed in wikipedia? What is the value of that? Please explain the value or remove just it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.38.126.239 (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As no-one has replied to this comment since 8 May, I shall remove the template section soon as per WP:PROMOTION unless someone more involved with this template does so or gives a stronger argument for its presence. Trev M  ~  11:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The iPhone infobox has the marketing slogan included though, so either change that infobox as well, or add the slogan bit again, for consistency's sake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pawlen-T (talk • contribs) 05:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sample photo by camera[edit]

It needs a section:Sample photo by Primary camera.So that it'll be easy to determine the quality of the camera.

Coercorash (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Type[edit]

I don't understand how to edit templates, can anyone please add a "type" field (which can be Camera phone, Feature phone or Smartphone) Artem-S-Tashkinov (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Type" field added with guidance reading - typeThe type of mobile phone (choose one only): Basic phone, Camera phone, Feature phone, Smartphone or Satellite phone. Basic phones provide telephony only. For the purpose of the Infobox, camera phones are basic phones with a camera. Feature phones may offer applications, cameras and media players but are significantly less sophisticated than smartphones. Ch Th Jo (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add slogan to infobox?[edit]

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia, how to add a slogan using the infobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pawlen-T (talk • contribs) 05:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose to the slogan as it does not add any value as it is used for marketing purposes (wikipedia is not a marketing tool) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.53.35.228 (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturer[edit]

There seem to be an inconsistent use of the manufacturer tag. Is the manufacturer Nokia and Apple or Compal and Foxconn? At the moment we see an emphasis on the contractor (many times in China) as a way to sheer some negative bias on the device. If the latter is true (in contrast with the template instructions), we need a new tag more clearly defining this matter clearer. --Caygill (talk) 10:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you read Manufacturing you will see it should be Compal and Foxconn. Maybe this infobox needs a designer or developer label. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.99.205 (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about we add the country-of-origin label? It's legally required in North America, and interesting to a lot of people... Mrybczynski (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox iPhone[edit]

What is the reason behind the iPhone having its own infobox instead of using "Infobox mobile phone"?

I am going to move all iPhone pages to "Infobox mobile phone" if no one disagrees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.99.205 (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --IncidentFlux [ TalkBack | Contributions ] 19:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Location of SoC field[edit]

System on Chip (SoC) needs to be added above CPU and GPU, now it is constantly mixed up with CPU on various mobile phones on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User931 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 2012 May 6 (UTC)

SIM card?[edit]

Shouldn't there be a mention of whether the device has a SIM card or not? --Jerome Potts (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And also the size of the SIM given that devices on sale currently can have standard, micro, or nano-SIM. --Biker Biker (talk) 00:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thirded. This is at least as pertinent as memory card type. danno_uk 22:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having the SIM card type in infoboxes would be really useful. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Audio DAC[edit]

Since there is a GPU section, it's only fair to have an audio DAC section as well. Since phones with good audio DACs are hard to find. Thanks. --IncidentFlux [ TalkBack | Contributions ] 19:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give any reference on phones with good DACs and phones with bad DACs so we can have more info on what to do about this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.169.206 (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Easiest phones for DAC comparison, that the XDA community uses are Samsung Galaxy S1 Vs Galaxy S2. Galaxy S1 has a Wolfonson DAC, while the Galaxy S2 has a Yamaha DAC. As far as the template is concerned, it will be no different than having a GPU section, people will have to research on their what DAC are better or worse. This would be a good starting point.
References: Galaxy S III Official Sound Quality thread, Captivate Glide General Audio DAC?, Question about Galaxy Player 4.2 's DAC, Best sounding Android phone (DAC etc)? --IncidentFlux [ TalkBack | Contributions ] 09:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Adding an Audio DAC section seems coherent with having the GPU section. Please, go ahead and add it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.136.179.55 (talk) 08:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rootable/Jailbreakable/Homebreable[edit]

I want to add a field to know if the phone can be rooted/jaibreaked/homebrewed.

How should the field be named? Rootable? Jailbreakable? Homebreable? I am asking because wikipedia has not been able yet to merge these three concepts that refer to the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.141.141 (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am going with Root access as iOS jailbreaking mentions it like that and it is the standard naming for Android (operating system) and also used in Windows Phone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.133.15 (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the sort of trivia/cruft that does not belong in an infobox. If it does appear anywhere it should be in the body of the article where it is properly sourced. Don't add it to the article until proper consensus is achieved. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I consider this info very important, to the point that I will not buy a phone without Root access. Many people are looking for this info.

Please people, show your support for Root access in the infobox! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidjonesmartin (talk • contribs) 10:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that's only your personal preference. I suspect the majority of people don't even know what root access is, and besides, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a sales guide. b.t.w. As I said on your talk page Root access is not not the correct link to use. It would make much more sense if there was an article, other than the specific one about iOS, that dealt with the concept of rooting/jailbreaking phones. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe many people do not know what Root access is, but that is the purpose of an encyclopedia, to allow people to learn. Could you suggest a correct link better than Root access?
I'd like to add my opinion to the mix. The subject of root access is fairly popular in the media, and is therefore significant enough to warrant consideration as a template item. Various companies have made statements regarding this (such as Sony, Samsung, and Motorola).
However, the term "jailbreak" applies only to iOS, and the term "root access" is fairly arcane. Possible terms that could be used are "full access", "unlockable", linking to the root access article. If not, just call the field "root access".
To put the significance of the fields in perspective here, note that there is a field dedicated to whether or not a mobile device can use ringtones. I would suggest that as fields such as "ringtones" become obsolete, other properties such as "root access" become relevant.
InternetMeme (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very coherent reasoning. But, we may need more supporters if Biker Biker (talk) is still not convinced.Davidjonesmartin (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to add the Root access field again tomorrow, if no one disagrees.Davidjonesmartin (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it is trivial and I do disagree. Give it time for more people to respond. There is no urgency on Wikipedia --Biker Biker (talk) 12:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How much more time do you want to wait? Is not more than a month more than enough? --Davidjonesmartin (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added Root access back. If anyone has any problems please discuss it here.Davidjonesmartin (talk) 10:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff. I think that over time, it will become more and more apparent that a phone providing root access is important to people.
On the other hand, I'm thinking of going through the template and culling a few obsolete fields, starting with "ringtones". What do you guys think of that idea?
InternetMeme (talk) 11:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but there is consensus that a) it is needed or b) what the link should be. Wait. Gain consensus. Then act. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you prefer a field that describes if changing the OS to a 3rd party OS is allowed. Will you prefer that? Could you state what you do not like about the current proposal? Could you suggest what you would like?Davidjonesmartin (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My chief objection is that the issue is trivial and not relevant to an encyclopaedia. If you want to start getting into this sort of stuff then go over to Wikia where you can write your own wiki (if it hasn't been done already) about jail breakable / rootable phones. The problem with adding a field like this is that it needs to be supported by reliable references, not original research, and many of the sites that deal with this sort of thing are personal blogs and not reliable sources (WP:RS). --Biker Biker (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You make a fair point, but given that you haven't complained about the "ringtones" field, it seems like you don't really believe your own reasoning very strongly. What is your justification for not removing the "ringtones" field (among other fields)?
Here's a list of fields that I think you should also remove, if you want to remove the "root access" field:
  • slogan
  • media_formats
  • ringtone
  • sar (Specific absorption rate)
  • hac (Hearing aid compatibility)
InternetMeme (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in favor of removing fields. Maybe there are basic phones that do not have high quality ringtones and old ones of course do not. But, if Root access is finally not added as Biker Biker (talk) wants, we will have to remove these fields to maintain coherency. --Davidjonesmartin (talk) 07:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like Biker Biker (talk) does not want to continue the discussion to reach a consensus. I am going to include again Root access as I do not want to remove the proposed fields. --Davidjonesmartin (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fair enough. "Root access" is a fundamental property of the phone, and it entirely determines what Operating Systems are compatible—moreove, it even determines whether or not you can install your own operating system.
However, some of the other fields I mentioned are merely properties of the installed operating system. For instance, the "media formats" and "ringtones" that a phone can play are determined by the OS, not the phone itself. I think these should be removed, because provided there is a field for the phone's OS, a user can check the OS infobox to determine "media format" and "ringtone" compatibility. As for the "slogan"—who cares? That's hardly encyclopedic information.
InternetMeme (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ringtones are not totally dependent on the operating system on old phones as they may have some low quality audio hardware that effectively prevents some phones from playing some kind of ringtones. --Davidjonesmartin (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{Info box iPhone}} nominated for deletion[edit]

I have just nominated {{Infobox iPhone}} for deletion as an unnecessary fork of this template. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 September 13. --Biker Biker (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please add Sound field[edit]

Please add a "sound" field to this template, similar to the "sound" field in "Template:Infobox information appliance", such as being used in HP Touchpad article. Why, because there is no obvious field to add "speaker" or "3.5mm headphone" jack. Some people don't think the 3.5mm jack should be in the connectivity field, thus is why it doesn't appear on the iPhone 4S and iPhone 5 articles (and possibly more). I would like to see more cross-compatibility between templates. Thanks! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Retailer" field.[edit]

Hi there,

I've renamed the old "carrier" field to a "retailer" field.

In the days before SIM cards, a phone was more or less directly connected to a particular phone network, and the carrier pretty much applied to the phone. Now, with SIM cards, the carrier is connected to the SIM card, and the SIM card is connected to the phone. So by switching a phone's SIM, you switch carriers.

Clearly, the "carrier" concept no longer applies to the phones themselves. However, the "carrier" field in the modern sense is pretty much analogous to a "retailer" field, hence the rename. The word "retailer" always applies, whereas the term "carrier" only apples to CDMA2000 phones, and other deprecated technologies.

InternetMeme (talk) 07:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've started going through the articles that transclude this template. Most of them didn't feature the "carrier" field, so it should't take too long to update them.

InternetMeme (talk) 07:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I disagree strongly. Retailer makes far less sense than carrier does. If anything "network operator" would be better. I suggest we hold off any changes until consensus can be achieved. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is "network operator" supposed to mean? Would that be a list of all companies that run compatible GSM (in the case of all modern devices) networks? Most modern phones are compatible with nearly every network in the world, so a list of network operators could easily encompass around 500 networks. The same problem applies to carriers.
Plug in the appropriate SIM card, and the phone is connected to the respective network. Are you sure it's a good idea to have a field that will contain, on average, 100-200 items?
Another thing to consider is the fact that there are only three groups of network operators: Those using the GSM family that use UMTS frequencies that include the 850MHz band; those using the GSM family that use UMTS frequencies that include the 900MHz band; and those using the CDMA2000 family. So the "carriers" field will only ever contain one of three large lists of operators. A category that can only be one of three very long lists might not be very informative or helpful.
InternetMeme (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't agree with retailer, but on the logic that you are using it would make sense to do away with the field completely as a long list adds no value to the article. I would certainly support removing it all together. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And here's me thinking this was going to be one of those protracted, fruitless arguments. I agree. Let's just remove the field entirely. I can't see any use for it. The only reason I changed it to "retailer" was because that title seemed to better fit what the information was describing (It was essentially a list of comanies that were selling the phone).
Playing devil's advocate for a second: Given that we list who manufactures a phone, doesn't it make sense to list who retails it as well?
InternetMeme (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "carrier" field. The two interpretations of the meaning of the field are either unencyclopedic or redundant:

  1. If we look at the "carrier" as being the "retailer", then it's unencyclopedic information—listing where you can buy products is not recommended in the Wikipedia manual of stle.
  2. If we think of the "carrier" as being the networks that are compatible, then it's redundant—network compatibility is determined by technology family (nearly always GSM) and frequency support, both of which are existing fields.

InternetMeme (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me! --Biker Biker (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, that stuff should either be in the prose, or just not there. Wikipedia shouldn't be a list of where certain products are sold. Remove it entirely, or make it so that it is only for devices that are exclusive to 1 company only. (i.e. HTC Evo 4G LTE) ViperSnake151  Talk  05:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox mobile operating system[edit]

Hi guys,

I just noticed that there is currently no "infobox mobile operating system". Here are the first two fields that can be added to it, once we decide to create it or not:

| label35 = Compatible media formats | data35 = | label36 = Ringtones & notifications | data36 =

| media_formats = | ringtone =

media_formats
list of the audio and video file formats and codecs that are compatible with the device. Example:
| media_formats = '''Audio''' AAC (unprotected), AAC+ (unprotected), AAC++ (unprotected), AMR, MIDI, MP3, WMA <br /> '''Video''' DivX, Xvid, H.263, H.264, 3G2, 3GP, MP4, WMV
ringtone
Compatible ringtone and notification types - MP3, polyphonic, vibration, etc.

| media_formats = Audio AAC (unprotected), AAC+ (unprotected), AAC++ (unprotected), AMR, MIDI, MP3, WMA
Video DivX, Xvid, H.263, H.264, 3G2, 3GP, MP4, WMV | ringtone = All compatible audio formats
Vibration

Instead of media_formats we should separate video codecs, audio codecs and digital container formats --Davidjonesmartin (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good point. However, those fields should go in the proposed "Infobox mobile phone os". The reason is this: What media formats can a Toshiba Satellite play? None at all, because it's the operating system that does that. InternetMeme (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For practical purposes, it is also dependent on the phone, as many current phones have hardware acceleration H.264 codecs and maybe other ones. See for example: http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13970_7-57387626-78/qualcomm-shows-horsepower-of-next-gen-h.265-video/ Davidjonesmartin (talk) 10:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unrestricted bootloader[edit]

I am going to add Unrestricted bootloader if no one disagrees. Some phones like the iPhone have an extremely restricted bootloader that only allows to install Apple system software and only the versions Apple allows, while other phones like the Samsung Galaxy series have unrestricted bootloaders that allow users to install the system software they want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidjonesmartin (talk • contribs) 10:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Again, there is no consensus. Consensus does not mean "there's consensus if I put it in and no one removes it". You don't decide consensus. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please, open a new discussion if you want to remove it and wait until everybody expresses their opinions. And please explain why it should no be added to this infobox, instead of just opposing.--Davidjonesmartin (talk) 07:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're just asserting ownership of this template. You have rarely made edits outside of this template, and you're always making spotty assumptions that there was support for it in previous discussions. In the previous discussion, the only real show of support was by you, and that was just you saying "I am going to add unrestricted_bootloader" to this template." That is not how Wikipedia works. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is essentially fancruft. The only places I really see these traits of a phone discussed are on forums. Forums violate WP:RS, so I can not support the inclusion of template fields that can only be cited by them. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not just on forums see for example: See for example: http://www.androidcentral.com/htc-one-developer-edition-announced-unlocked-bootloader-and-sim-slot --Davidjonesmartin (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: the information is of interest only to a very closed circle, and thus not encyclopedic. --uKER (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have references for what you say? Why do you want to hide this? Many people want to know if their phones allow changing the operating system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidjonesmartin (talk • contribs) 11:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, do you have sources for what you just said? Wikipedia is not XDA Developers. It is not an indiscriminate collection of information. And again, I see no real consensus for the inclusion of those fields outside of yourself. You just plopped them in and expect us to like it, so help us God. ViperSnake151  Talk  14:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Manufacturers want to only sell phones with restricted bootloaders, but people prefer phones with unrestricted bootloaders so they can make modifications to the operating system or install a new operating system. http://pocketnow.com/2012/08/21/android-unlocking-rooting Carriers also only want to sell phones with restricted bootloaders to prevent costumers from accessing all the functionality on the phone: http://www.extremetech.com/computing/120771-what-is-a-bootloader-and-why-does-verizon-want-them-locked --Davidjonesmartin (talk) 11:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Content should no be removed from Wikipedia because someone does not like it. A clear argumentaion why this information should not be in Wikipedia should be provided. Someone else could argue that the processor model is also too technical to be in Wikipedia, but we value Wikipedia and do not want to remove useful data from Wikipedia. Most people that do not know what a CPU is, will probably not read these Wikipedia articles. If there is consensus that this information is too technical for the average person, then it can be removed from the http://simple.wikipedia.org/ article. --Davidjonesmartin (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is still very undue and hard to reliably source. Specifications are a more crucial part of the phone than your right to tinker with it. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not undue and there are reliable sources. Please, wait for consensus if you want to remove fields.--Davidjonesmartin (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Valuable information for those of us that re-flash our phones. I would argue that it is encyclopedic in that it is information on the phone itself, just as the rest of the specs are.

═══  KoshVorlon  ═══ 18:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - A general category is warranted, as that is a specification that someone might actually come to Wikipedia to learn about. Because that information is public but scattered throughout a variety of sources, they would expect it to be found here in an encyclopedia, properly sourced. This has received enough media attention and articles on the subject to demonstrate its utility. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a good reason to include this information in prose, but you don't mention any reason making it a good candidate for infobox field. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • support, seems to be useful information, if properly sourced. Frietjes (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Encyclopedic and objective. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: Specialized information, only relevant to certain audiences. Cannot be easily sourced by reliable sources. If it can, I would rather have a List of smartphones with unlockable bootloaders. Davidjonesmartin (talk · contribs) makes numerous claims supporting an apparent "interest" but does not source his own arguments. On another talk page, he also claimed to be speaking on behalf of the entire community with use of the words "we". His only edits have been to try and push the inclusion of these fields in a template on an implied consensus. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've stricken and indented your !vote, since you've already !voted above. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are plenty of information in Wikipedia that is only relevant to specialized audiences. But, that it is not relevant to you, does not mean that is not relevant. There are plenty of reliable sources. You can see many Wikipedia editors are interested and there are plenty of references on the Internet.--Davidjonesmartin (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Hi. We do know that both a "yes" and a "no" requires sources; but in most cases, they don't exist. In addition, information in Wikipedia need to be put into context; IMHO, this bit of info is highly context-dependent as it can easily become a mean of contentious labeling through which neutral point of view is compromised and systematic bias is established against a device. In reality, the reason for the restriction could be security, obscurity, technical features, regional availability, field of use or predating the era in which tabloids started pointing fingers towards closed platforms and shouting "enemies of freedom!" Articles that need to provide this information can do it in the prose where they have the liberty to establish all these requirements.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because some mobile devices do not have a valid reference for the bootloader does not mean that the field should be removed. Or do you think that we should remove every other field that does not have valid references in some mobile devices? Here is for example a clear reference for a product stating if the bootloader is restricted: http://www.droid-life.com/2012/08/17/motorola-launches-unlock-my-device-site-bootloader-freedom-has-come-at-last/
You are basing your point for removal of these fields in that you can not find references for them. Do not worry. If there are no references for them these fields will not appear. Wikipedia contributors like me will find the references.
For me, someone that wants to hide information seems very suspicious and it seems like you may have hidden interests for an organization you work for.--Davidjonesmartin (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, David. You seem to have ignored my IINFO point and changed my assessment from "most" to "some"; but, you accuse me of COI in your last sentence too? If you have an actual discussion, I'll be at your service; otherwise, I am afraid my stance remains the same and I will have nothing more to say. Sorry. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidjonesmartin, assume good faith. Accusing editor of COI with no slightest indication of such possibility (as in this case) may be considered wikibullying. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was not accusing anyone in particular. That is just what it seems to me. I am sorry if that is what it looked.
I read IINFO but these fields do not apply. If the problem is that they are too complex for this infobox then many fields of the infobox would also have to be removed. There is the Simple English Wikipedia for simple articles.--Davidjonesmartin (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Other stuff exists" is the discussion that I hate most and you are putting up an arbitrary one. But, yes, I did notice some questionable fields like "Root access" there. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Root access? Either this template is called "Infobox Unix-like" or this field should be dropped ASAP. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you participate in the Rootable/Jailbreakable/Homebreable discussion and provide a better name?--Davidjonesmartin (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is more like Linux/Android point of view as opposed to neutral point of view. Instead of all these non-neutral micromanagement fields, we'd better have a vendor policy field. Example: Nokia N97 has neither root access nor unrestricted bootloader but you can enable installing out of store software on it. Not compatible with current Android POV. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can sideload software on vanilla Android too, it is a matter of a tick set in settings. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 06:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The mention of the unlock software for that Motorola opens a new can of worms: what will be the evaluation for devices that are factory locked, but unlockable by some procedure, which may vary in obscurity from running a program, to a multiple-step, hacker-level procedure? I insist that this constitutes a very debatable piece of tech cruft. Think about it: does anyone think anything over 2% of the average Joes who will read this article even know what a bootloader is? Or know phones have one? Or that it may be locked? Or why one would want to unlock it? --uKER (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose to remove information from Wikipedia because a high percentage of the Wikipedia readers will not read it. Do you think highly technical articles should be removed because very few people read them?--Davidjonesmartin (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about the target audience of the article, not Wikipedia's. Going by your rationale, phone articles could well include disassembly info, and specifications for all internal components, and we don't see that happening, right? --uKER (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You do not see disassembly info because Wikipedis is not a manual. There are already detailed specifications for the internal components. See for example Apple A7--Davidjonesmartin (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: even if we assume that this detail is indeed important enough to be mentioned in infobox (which is something I would argue against), the proposed field together with proposed usage fails miserably to cover the topic it is intended to cover. It does not really say anything about one's ability to load something else via phone's bootloader, or the important characteristics of bootloader itself. Eg. the HTC's devices don't fit in this binary scheme. This information is better expressed in plain text within the article's body. I would also argue that this field can't make into infobox per WP:WEIGHT, as, according to my observations, most sources don't mention bootloader in context of phones at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild oppose: The majority of phones with unlocked boot loaders in fact has unlockable boot loaders (and not shipped as unlocked), so this parameter might introduce additional confusion. On the other hand, only a small percentage of phones has unlockable boot loaders (apart from exploiting various bugs to achieve that), so it's questionable how usable such an infobox parameter would be. So, if we want to add such a parameter, it should be named "unlockable boot loader" instead, however that also opens a path for confusion as readers might think "is it officially unlockable, or do I need to use various exploits?" etc. So, it might be better to leave such parameters out, and have boot loader information provided in prose as part of such articles. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like the other fields, this is not a "yes/no" field. There is no confusion when you say: "unlocked","requires manufacturer to unlock","unlockable","unlockable via exploit","restricted". The required reference will not allow any confusion.--Davidjonesmartin (talk) 10:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It seems several fields have been discussed, but only one got into the survey. I would like to participate in the survey though, but could someone explain in lay terms what is 'Unrestricted bootloader'? At this point in time though, I would support it's inclusion as it seems there are reliable sources regarding it for some of the phones at least. Dmatteng (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. Judging from the subject line of the RFC, it appears this field is meant to facilitate telling whether a phone is a walled garden or not. Unfortunately, this meaning is not at associated with "unrestricted bootloader". Essentially, a bootloader is a computer program that loads the operating system. The word "unrestricted" here means that bootloader can be customized to load another operating system. (The thing that I myself don't understand is: Would a jailbroken phone be counted as having unrestricted bootloader?) The problem is, a mobile device with such a bootloader can still be a walled garden, restricted by the operating system and firmware. Meanwhile, a phone with restricted bootloader can be very flexible and open. So, this field is a very bad mean of judging a device.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 03:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
iOS jailbreaking is a way to provide root access. iOS devices still have a locked bootloader.--Davidjonesmartin (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a binary entry as Dmitrij D. Czarkoff have mentioned? If so, perhaps it should be changed to a text entry that would allow some few more words of specification?
What about 'rooting the phone'? If an android phone can be rooted, can the properties of the bootloader be changed?
If I understood it right, a phone with unrestricted bootloader can be made to run Android or Windows 8 for example? Dmatteng (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See http://www.addictivetips.com/mobile/what-is-bootloader-and-how-to-unlock-bootloader-on-android-phones-complete-guide/ for an explanation of an unrestricted bootloader is.--Davidjonesmartin (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think what is important to us is: "With a locked bootloader on Android devices, it is virtually impossible to flash a Custom ROM and forced attempts void warranty as well as usually end up in bricks." If this is true, this field is important for anyone who would like to modify firmware on his phone, ie: installing custom ROM. And, as the article suggest, this is the next step one would desire after obtaining root. However, the article didn't explain why this is being desired after obtaining root. Dmatteng (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some phones, like the iPhone can have root (called iOS jailbreaking on them) on some models and operating system versions, but still cannot have their bootloader unlocked to be able to install a custom operating system.--Davidjonesmartin (talk) 10:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New field: Codename[edit]

I just added this field. It's become common practice, especially among Android devices, that each device is assigned a codename, which is very commonly referenced in developer texts and ROM modding discussions. The codenames are really easy to find out, but there's a readily available list right here in Wikipedia in this article. Hope everyone is OK with the addition. Cheers. --uKER (talk) 02:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request to move "battery" / "weight" / "size" fields to above "website" field[edit]

After looking at various articles, some fields seems out of place to me, when compared to the order of how manufacturers list their hardware features. This is a request to move 3 fields from their current locations to immediately above "website" field, in this order. For example, look at these fields in the infobox for iPhone 6, doesn't it seem like they should be pushed further down? Please discuss and throw rocks at me <grin>. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 14:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Battery (move here)
  • Weight (move here)
  • Size (move here)
  • Website

Remove root/unlockable bootloader fields[edit]

The editor User:Davidjonesmartin, without a full consensus, added fields to this infobox for whether a phone has an unlockable bootloader and can have root access. Any attempt to remove them were met with a reversion (WP:OWN violation), and his only edits have been surrounding this template and his advocation of root access and unlockable bootloaders on smartphones ("Many[weasel words] people want to know if their phones allow changing the operating system", "I consider this info very important, to the point that I will not buy a phone without Root access."; WP:NOTADVOCACY).

In previous discussions, which, however did not reach a conclusion (but did show a lean towards opposition), it was argued that this fields are hard to reliably source (given that activities related to these take place on forums, which are never reliable sources) and are ultimately cruft that only serve specific, niche audiences. Wikipedia is not XDA-developers, among other things. Plus, it was argued that the fields contribute to an Android-centric POV that are not applicable to other devices.

Per the edit war, the template had been protected, and Davidjonesmartin has not returned since the last discussion. These fields have ultimately been rarely used, if not at all, so I would like to propose their removal. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. I think we can try dropping this to semi-protection again seeing as Davidjonesmartin is no longer active, so the chances of another edit war are reduced. If there is any more trouble I recommend requesting protection again at WP:RFPP. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Color[edit]

Please add color field for this infobox. It will be helpful. Ayub407 (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2017[edit]

Since slogan field has been removed from infobox company on October 2016, I propose remove this field from the infobox, with the same reason. 219.218.130.12 (talk) 04:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How widely is it used? Ruslik_Zero 19:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 02:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I ran it through AWB and came back with 40 uses (non-empty) within the first couple hundred of pages. It's probably on about 8-10% of the pages using the template. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "Memory" and "storage" parameter.[edit]

Currently in the template documentation, the two parameters have been explained as such:

| memory = <!-- Internal memory reserved for the device's operating system -->
| storage = <!-- Internal memory available for user use (applications, photos, ring tones, etc.)-->

But then, nowadays, when phone manufacturers release their phone, they rarely report the two numbers separately, and, on some phone, the number can even be dynamically adjustable by the system. In many wikipedia mobile phone articles, the two parameter are also used in other ways that are different from this description, as in for example some article used the "memory" parameter to denote the total amount of volatile memory in the device, while the "storage" parameter is used to denote the total of flash memory available on the phone regardless of purpose. Should this part of infobox be repurposed or modified? That might also need someone to go through all the mobile phone articles in wikipedia. C933103 (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greenhouse gas emissions[edit]

Greenhouse gas emissions are produced through production, transport, and use of products. Including this in infoboxes will provide valuable statistics for environmentally-conscious readers. This information is publicly-published by Apple Inc. for their specific products, and is already included in List of iOS devices as a trait based on this data. I hereby request that this be included as a parameter in mobile device infoboxes. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this information would be generally hard to gather and might vary widely over the production cycle of a given phone FAISSALOO(talk) 20:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

country of origin label?[edit]

This is something that is missing - and is surprisingly hard to find online. I'm sure other people look at COO labels... They are required by law in north america for a reason... Mrybczynski (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baseband processors?[edit]

I'm working on the page for the Nokia C2-01 and I've realised that what's listed as a CPU is in fact a Baseband processor, is it worth having an additional parameter for this? Alot of older devices use them FAISSALOO(talk) 20:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

supported by LineageOS field[edit]

For me and probably for a few others (https://stats.lineageos.org/) this is relevant (eventually with version).
A little less surveillance and some likelyhood that the device does not get obsolete when the vendor stops providing updates. --HeWhoMowedTheLawn (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. LineageOS is special among custom ROMs for supporting so many devices, often getting news coverage (from, e.g., 9to5Google) when it adds support for a new device, supporting 6+ year old devices with the latest version of Android that barely deviates from AOSP, and for having extremely high quality standards and professionalism. It's, by far, the most popular non-stock Android distribution, and I think the size of the project and its attention in Android media circles (making it citable as well) make it deserving of inclusion on device pages. It's already present in the normal OS field on the Samsung Galaxy S II and Nexus 7 (2013) pages, and possibly more, so either a separate field or officially recognizing it as a valid entry in the OS field would be great. TheQuietTortoise (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Display size[edit]

The display size usually given as the screen diagonal, which is misleading due to different aspect ratios (not to mention that the area doesn't increase proportionally to the diagonal). I think the comment guidance and the parameters section on this template's page should specify that the display size may or should be given as the screen area.

sound -> after ext_display, input -> after connectivity[edit]

I suggest moving sound just after ext_display since sound and display seem rather linked, and moving input after connectivity (same). The RedBurn (ϕ) 17:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The RedBurn (ϕ) 18:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for improvement[edit]

Hey, I came across this infobox while GA reviewing Pixel 6 and wanted to leave some suggestions for improvement and recommend that someone consider what is truly needed in {{Infobox mobile phone}}, with these specific comments:

I speak from experience with the 2020 redesign of Infobox radio station, Infobox television station, and Infobox television channel. If you have questions, let me know. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking category?[edit]

Any specific reason to not add to Category:Pages using Infobox mobile phone with unknown parameters? — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 21:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Green tickY Added the cat to the template and ref in the doc. It found 843 needing fixing — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 15:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"{{{price}}}" as seen in Template:Infobox computing device?[edit]

How come this infobox doesn't even mention "introductory pricing" by allowing "{{{price}}}" to inform its readers, whereas Template:Infobox computing device is ok to mention price? Isn't a smart phone a computing device too? Even WP:NOTPRICE says, "An article should not include product pricing or availability information (which can vary widely with time and location) unless there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention, which may be indicated by mainstream media sources or books (not just product reviews) providing commentary on these details instead of just passing mention..." Are we really taking away readers' right to know when the pricing comes from independent reliable sources? Wonderful Thanksgiving gift from InfiniteNexus. Supermann (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that merely report the price of an item or the details of a promotion/sale/discount does not qualify as commentary regarding its encyclopedic significance. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't bother to even cite a guideline? So why infobox computing device has the price info, but not here? It's not logical and consistent. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soliciting input from active editors @GhostInTheMachine @HTGS @Sammi Brie. Many thanks. Supermann (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would remove price from the infoboxes. The price is very variable and time-dependant and rarely itself a notable attribute of a device. If the model is released as a low price variant of some other device, perhaps as a marketing policy, then say that, assuming that it is itself suitably sourced — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 18:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with GhostInTheMachine on this one. Introductory price may be noteworthy, but that can be brought up in the article body if necessary. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Just because some other infobox does this doesn't mean this infobox should. Two wrongs don't make a right. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Smart phones are not just phones in the bygone era of Nokia phones. They are computing devices too. Artificial intelligence is coming strong this year if not last. We need consistency for both infoboxes. I thank the existing participation to date, but I am soliciting input from active editors from that other infobox @Thumperward, @Msgj, @Janhrach, @Guy Harris, @DigitalIceAge, @Maury Markowitz, @PhotographyEdits. Sorry for bothering. But have to pick your brains. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 10:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This shouldn't be up for debate, it's a clear violation of WP:NOTPRICE, which is sitewide policy. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good arguments have been presented by others, I have nothing else to say. Janhrach (talk) 09:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, Supermann. Without checking the context over at computing device, I would suggest that both infoboxes should have the price parameter removed.
First, I detest the idea of listing a product’s prices in its various many markets. These infoboxes are way too long as it is, without adding another expanding list of 20, 50, 100+(?) countries. Without a global perspective, we would just list USD, which would be fine, but products are not always just priced with a direct exchange value to the USD amount, so we really would only be giving context for one market, against general Wikipedia internationalised practice. Further failing our ability to compare products, as Ghost pointed out, it is hard to compare across time without adjusting for inflation, which itself is just another… eugh.
I get where you’re coming from if you’re thinking of something simple like the iPhone, which is often talked about and released in USD, but even if you list an iPhone’s release price, there will be people who think the price-drops should also be listed. We already have that problem with OS versions listed at release and current/last. And that’s not to mention the more difficult cases, like the Chinese phones that don’t sell in the US. Should we list their CNY price, or maybe Euros to attempt at internationalisation?
And this is all without getting at NOTPRICE’s point: that we really just don’t want to open the door to price-listing for everything (in every market, up to date for price changes… blech). I don’t see a good reason to make an exception for this product class at this point.
I could maybe (maybe) see myself supporting this if there were a really strong policy to only list products that basically never changed in price, but that’s pretty much just the iPhone, right? And at that point, is that really going to satisfy people? I can see it now, 15 messages a year: Why is only the iPhone’s price listed? This is unfair to [my favourite phone] — HTGS (talk) 06:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Synced[edit]

Based on the actual parameters used by the template code, I have updated the parameter check list in the template, updated the bare example and the example with comments, updated the template data and added to the set of parameter descriptions. Please check through the descriptions and fill in any that are blank — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 15:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SAR (specific absorption rate)[edit]

Is SAR (specific absorption rate) a necessary field? I am unfamiliar with the term in smart phone products, but maybe it’s more common to reference in older generations? I would like to deprecate it, but I don’t want to miss anything if there’s some product class (sub-class) where it’s important. — HTGS (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now deprecated. — HTGS (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecate slogan parameter[edit]

I propose we deprecate the |slogan= parameter, as a (soft) step towards deletion. The conversation has gone back and forth many times over the years, with the parameter being removed and added at various points over the years, as well as these discussions, which are generally in favor of removal:

The following discussions resolved to remove the equivalent parameters from other infoboxes in 2018 and 2019:

Info: Deprecation here would mean removing the parameter from recommended use in the documentation, and deprecating explicitly in the TemplateData, which would warn against its use in the visual editor (details here: MW:Help:TemplateData#Deprecated). Deprecation does not remove the parameter or affect appearance for readers. Infoboxes can then be individually edited to remove the parameter, before deleting it from the template. — HTGS (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a rough consensus to deprecate it, but not enough people watch this page for us to have a clear consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I foresee is that we depreciate it, as described above, and then start removing it (very slowly) from infoboxes, referring in edit summaries to this page. If anyone has an issue with the removal, they can raise it here, and we can consider walking it back, or coming up with some sort of a compromise (maybe a strict guideline for when to include it), or we end up doing an RfC or something more formal like that. Honestly, I don’t think it’ll come to that, but if it does, we can easily walk back the depreciation if it comes to it.
I just think it’s too trivial an issue to be raising a formal discussion without any objection in the last month and a half. Depreciation is still a soft step, after all. I certainly wouldn’t object if you wanted to notify relevant forums or wikiprojects though. — HTGS (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_mobile_phone&oldid=1215131165"