Talk:Mobile phone/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

typo on article page

500 million mobile phone subcribers.

'subcribers' should be subscribers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.87.204.225 (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No grep, assuming fixed. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

English in the history section

Since when has "were consisted" been English?Maelli (talk) 11:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Limiting vandalism target-name

okay so i really dont get why the dont let you have cell phones in school 12-Jan-2009: The article "mobile phone" is a major target-name for vandalism (similar to "search engine"). To limit the complexities of embedded vandalism, any target-name articles should be kept to a brief overview of the subject, which can be easily reverted & checked when vandalism is detected. For indepth coverage, spin-off articles should be linked as "see-also" entries, which can contain more detail without hiding frequent vandalism. Much like the total chaos of the search-engine articles, the current article "mobile phone" has become hideously hacked with numerous embedded problems by the stampede of vandalism, buried in a mass of detailed text. Although many people attempt to revert vandalism, it is easy to become overwhelmed trying to merge 3 weeks of changes with large sections of hacked text. Consequently, most broad-scale vandalism in large articles is fought by simply removing the whole sections of hacked text, period.

Instead, the article "mobile phone" should perhaps be converted, from a full detailed article, to become a short overview, just introducing the subject, with links to larger articles as low-profile links found by serious readers. Hacking of the article "mobile phone" could continue, endlessly, but be more easily reverted by containing less text to scan & verify. Meanwhile, other spin-off articles, under less targeted names, could contain the massive details about the various cell-phone topics. With less (daily) vandalism to the large articles, then hackings can be more easily reverted, without the problem of cross-merging for all the other rapid vandalism. Simply put: Wikipedia can have large articles, and Wikipedia can have multi-vandalized articles, but Wikipedia cannot cope with large, multi-vandalized articles. The two must be kept separate: a vandalized target-name should be limited to containing a small article, not redirected into a large article. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Cell-phone article as overview

12-Jan-2009: I have converted the name "cell phone" (from being a February-2008 redirection to "mobile phone") into being an overview article with see-also links to article "mobile phone". The term "cell phone" has been a target-name for vandalism. However, the term "mobile phone" has been accessed by Wikipedia readers 10x more often (read 5,000 times per day) than "cell phone" (read 500 times per day). It might be the case that the name "mobile phone" is actually tied to more vandalism, in which case, the article roles should be reversed. Perhaps, article "mobile phone" should be the small overview article, catching all the daily vandalism, and "cell phone" or some other name should be the large article that contains the many details where vandalism gets buried after the numerous edits. It should only take a few weeks, of watching the edit-histories, to see whether "cell phone" or "mobile phone" gets more of the daily hackings/reverts. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Popular titles get vandalized

12-Jan-2009: There are some "rules of physics" about how people read or edit articles. The popular titles are the ones most likely to get vandalized: many obscure articles have gone 4 years, never hacked, while popular titles often get botched daily. People don't go to see-also links to vandalize, (relatively few people even read the see-also links), instead, they hack the main article. Also, those top tag-boxes (you know, like "This article needs cleanup") just don't work. Over 28,000 people can view an article, which desperately boxes its plea for cleanup, and those 28,000 people won't: instead, they just have to skip past that annoying top box to read what they want. It won't work to tag-box the article as "Cleanup vandalized text" because it won't happen, and the best prevention is to keep a popular title (like "mobile phone") as a short article, and link to specialist sub-articles which have all the numerous details. Constructing a large article, under a popular title, is courting disaster, it's like building an even taller "Tower of Babel" which will fall into a more confusing hacked article, just as "mobile phone" became during December 2008. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Notice at top of article and semi-protection

The notice at the top of the article reads: "Cell phone" redirects here. For the movie, see Cell Phone (film).

Please consider updating the information since the redirect was moved to a review article.

Also, if there is an excessive vandalism problem that is making editing difficult, have the article semi-protected by involving an administrator.

Hope this helps! ~ All Is One ~ (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirect or merge?

It is suggested that Cell phone should be redirected to Cellphone instead of Mobile phone. (At wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Telecommunications, by user Lord Sesshomaru.) I support. However I think it would be even better if the articles were merged. Okay, I know that mobile phone concept also includes non-automatic radio telephones, which cell phone does not, but that is historical. Today the terms can be considered as synonymous.

I have changed the redirect of Wireless phone to Cordless phone instead of Mobile phone. The first sentence of Mobile phone, stating that a Wireless phone is synonymous to Mobile phone, should be changed or supported by sources. Mange01 (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, all I wanted to know was what would've been a better target for Cellphone (which is currently a redirect). See my comments here concerning a merge.

Changing the redirect of Wireless phone to Cordless phone doesn't seem like a good call. I realize that the bit needs to be sourced, but the name wasn't even mentioned on the Cordless phone page, let alone sourced. So it didn't quite make sense to change that without some discussion. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Move to "Mobile telephony"

The article largely deals with mobile telephony and not a "mobile phone" or a "cell phone" (which is the same today). I suggest article move to "Mobile telephony". The Handset sectioin would be moved to phone article then.--Kozuch (talk) 09:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No objection here. You seem to know what you're talking about. However, what of the redirects? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

merge of cell phone back into this article

Wikid77 above took it on themselves to take the redirect that was at cell phone and turn it into a separate article, apparently because of concerns about vandalism. Quite frankly, this is ridiculous, since this is a much better quality article for what seems to be a synonymous term. The articles should be merged, as they were way back in 2005, and a redirect created at cell phone once more. If there are technical topics (telephony, cellular networks, etc.) that need to be split out or amplified, fine, but there needs to be one great article on the ubiquitous consumer device, for the sake of the readers. regards, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 06:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Vitall (talk) 11:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with both of you, see Talk:Cell phone#Cell-phone article as overview. Inclusively, Vitall, you are NOT supposed to act before a consensus is reached. Some of us have conveyed that mobile phone should be merged to cell phone per WP:COMMONNAMES. Don't pull a stunt like that so soon ... Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No! Mobile phones could not be merged to cell phones cuz cell phones are variety of mobile phones. But cell phones probably could be merged into mobile phones. Anyway, having two article on same subject is confusing for readers and editors. And I do think that there is nothing left useful in cell phones article. And redirecting is in the best interest of Wikpedia. IMHO. Vitall (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like some bull you brits are spewing to get you way again, just so it's called mobile phone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repiceman89 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Mobile Phone/cell phone Laws

There should be a link for the Laws surrounding the use of a cell/mobile phone while driving. Many states are adopting laws that restrict speaking on a phone or texting while driving. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.189.77 (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

In most countries it is already illegal to talk on your mobile phone while driving. There is no need to specifically track Americas progress on this issue.

(00Quick00 (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC))

There is a link in a template to mobile phones and driving safety article. It contain list of countries and list of US states with a ban. There is 200+ countries around -claim that it is illegal to talk on your mobile phone while driving in MOST countries is a lie. Vitall (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Poll!!!

who thinks cell phones are bad for you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.199.15.42 (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

nope but too much use of a cell maybe. Swimmerfreak94 (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Projector Capabilities

More and more phones are being designed with projection capabilities; this looks to be the next function that will become common place in devices after the camera phone boom. Surely this should be mentioned in the article. An example for citation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13UzjyTcSuQ

Peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.110.42 (talk) 12:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Mobile phone technologies by market share

I have been unable to find any Wikipedia information on the penetration of different mobile phone technologies into the major markets. It seems to me this would be especially useful data when it is about new technologies or new feature sets where data on growth rates could help influence purchasing decisions. For example, how much of the overall US mobile phone market does the iPhone have? What about the new Google open Gphone? What about other standard 2nd- or 3rd-generation phone technologies?

Does anyone know of where in Wikipedia such information might be found? ...or even what category one would look in? N2e (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Worldwide data is there under "In mobile phone handsets, in Q3/2008, Nokia was the world's largest manufacturer of mobile phones, with a global device market share of 39.4%, followed by Samsung (17.3%), Sony Ericsson (8.6%), Motorola (8.5%) and LG Electronics (7.7%). These manufacturers accounted for over 80% of all mobile phones sold at that time.[29]", I imagine that Apple aren't listed because they are smaller than that, similarly with Google. I'm not sure of information on a per country basis, however. Mdwh (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Mobile phone novels!

I'm trying to get more "traffic" on the page I'm currently working on so I have added a brief introduction and a link in order to do so on "Mobile Phone Novels". I'm not sure if this post will stay, but I think that mobile phone users should be aware of such a neat feature on their phone such as novel writing on cell phones. Let me know what you guys think.--Kat081685 (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your uncited edits per Wikipedia policy. You will have to get into the habit of sourcing any inclusion of content from here on. Please read WP:VERIFY and WP:ORIGINAL at this time. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, sorry about that. I see your point. Therefore, I posted my the topic again WITH citation this time. Also, I added factual information. Maybe if you have any ideas for me, you could help me so my stuff doesn't get deleted. I would really appreciate it. Check out the "Mobile Phone Novel" site too if you have time.

Remove Handphone

Handphone isn't standard English. It's bootleg English used in Southeast Asia, mostly Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and also used in Korean (Konglish). In the konglish article it also mentions its from Singapore English. These are countries that don't use standard English or English isn't their first language. The linked source is also from the Bali times, and Indonesia doesn't even use English as a native language. Why cite an article from a country where English isn't the standard language and just because they used tee word 'handphone' in it?

Should we even include non standard English words like "handphone" into this article on the English wikipedia? I suggest it be removed or not be listed first because people who don't know English well will be more encouraged to use it since it's listed first. I am going to list it last since it's not standard English, then you guys can decided whether to just delete it all together, otherwise we would have to list other bootleg English words from other countries as well in the 'also known as' portion. Bluesoju (talk) 09:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Range

Through vandalism and multiple edits, the words "short" and "long" have been swapped many times in the opening sentence, with no real consensus, even for non-vandal contributions.

Cell phones, arguably, are intrinsically short range: that's the entire reason they are supported by a network of cell phone towers. Hairhorn (talk) 03:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There are many brands types and sizes of phones and also many things on this page i dont understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.93.48 (talk • contribs)

Working Current on mobile phones

Can anyone advise what the "working current" is in the UK for mobile phones. I have been asked to provide the answer to this question and am having difficulties finding the response? Thanks Julia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.52.9 (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Remove digressing information

Please remove the text "(several media reports erroneously reported this as the mini-USB)" from the power supply section. It's digerssing and doesn't really add anything to this section but clutter. 89.139.47.52 (talk) 22:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I found a source for the congress bill to have the shutter sound

since i can't change the citation needed thing then can someone else http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Camera-phones-noise-photo-Congress,news-3371.htmlGirtheawesome (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

In the article it was written as a fact that new phones have this feature. I didn't believe that should be included in the article though and I removed it, since said bill has not been passed, I suppose the proposition of the bill could be included but it should be clear that it is not yet law. Iloveyourfaceman (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Usage

I feel like the current blurb for Usage doesn't really give a good idea of how people use cell phones, but rather an obscure niche factoid. Anyone agree? Alex Klotz (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"The cell phone novel is the first literary genre to emerge from the cellular age via text messaging to a website that collects the novels as a whole.[18] In virtual online computer games, readers can put themselves into first person in the story. Cell phone novels create a personal space for each individual reader. Paul Levinson, in Information on the Move (2004), says "...nowadays, a writer can write just about as easily, anywhere, as a reader can read" and they are "not only personal but portable"."

I renamed this section to "Other Uses", as the most common uses of mobile phones is described in the "Applications" section earlier in the article. This section largely describes niche behaviors; other than the "cell phone novel", it seems to be mostly about using phones for crime or deception.evildeathmath 19:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Info on transmission power and frequencies?

I would like to see information on transmission power and frequencies. This type of technical information is routinely listed for electronic devices. JosephCampisi (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Market shares by value or unit volumes

The market share pie chart seems to be based on the number of units sold, which could be misleading giving the wide range of unit prices. e.g. Apple is 6th by volume but 3rd by sales value according to the reference. This does not give sales values for all the manufacturers though. The article could be improved by showing market shares by sales value. Recent Runes (talk) 10:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Grammar Fix

In the controversies section, "A conflict-free source of tantalum are mines at..." should read, "Conflict-free sources of tantalum are mines at..."

Further reading integration

I would like to add the following link to the Further reading section: http://www.losquaderno.net/Issues.html Thematic issue on 'Connected & People'

Health Risks

There is a growing body of evidence of an increased risk of brain tumors on the same side of the head for long-term users of cell phones, and especially those who start using cell phones as children. An international conference in Washington, DC in Sept 2009 had researchers from around the world presenting their findings. While long-term studies are needed, at least a few more sentences about potential risks are needed to keep this article balanced. DoctorDM (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to do this, so long as you cite acceptable supporting references. There has always been a hysterical 'mobile phones give you cancer' lobby which shouldn't be pandered to in Wikipedia unless genuine evidence is provided. --Ef80 (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Handy in a plug

Don't forget the power supply

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.40.0 (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Mobile phone

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mobile phone's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "gsmworld":

• From High-Speed Downlink Packet Access: HSPA mobile broadband today
• From Text messaging: GSM World press release

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Text Dump from Talk:Secret cell phone

This is clearly not a hoax, just a stub I am working on expanding. You can find it a lot in reality. Pink cloudy sky (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

I agree that the use of a secret cell phone is a real phenomenon, but why not simply detail this in the mobile phone article? Is this really important enough to merit its own article? Stile4aly (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I likewise agree that it is a notable phenomenon, and there are sources on the topic. But the main mobile phone article is too broad to cover something this detailed. This article should either be modified to sound more encyclopedic, or the topic should be merged into something pertaining to secrecy in communication. Hellno2 (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I've done a selective merge over to the Mobile Phone article. Do you think this would satisfy the contents of this article and if so could we move to a redirect? Stile4aly (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge Proposal Round 2

In August, I performed a selective merge to the mobile phone article as stated above. Since that time there has only been a single substantial edit to the article, and no further discussion. I believe the information contained in this article is sufficiently covered in the mobile phone article. If there are no objections, I will create the redirect within the next few days. Stile4aly (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: This is substantially different enough from the concept of what a mobile phone is that it won't sensibly fit into the mobile phone article, and it is sourced well-enough to be worthy of a standalone article. Hellno2 (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you've reviewed the "Uses" section of the Mobile Phone article, but it covers all of the information contained in this article and 3 of the 4 citations. The fact that secret cell phones exist isn't in dispute, but whether the phenomenon is notable in and of itself is a separate issue. Let me give you a counter example. Handguns are often used in robberies, and there could surely be many citations to back up this fact and discuss the phenomenon, but there is no 'Handguns and Robberies' article. Instead, the topic is discussed in the Gun Violence article. Likewise, using a cell phone for secret purposes can be sufficiently discussed in a parent article. Stile4aly (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Still, as you mentioned here, gun violence is a separate article from gun.

There is an important reason to have sub-articles and not clog up parent articles. Wikipedia is supposed to be reader-friendly for the information-seeker. When you have extremely long articles, the information becomes too overwhelming for someone looking for a simple answer to read. Here, with more smaller articles that focus on an individual aspect of something, it helps to reduce this confusion. Hellno2 (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that the concept of a secret cell phone is a high demand article that someone would conceivably search for, particularly by that title, nor does adding the information contained in this article (which was already done months ago) make the Mobile Phone article unacceptably long. It seems you and I are the only ones discussing this. Perhaps an RfC is in order. Stile4aly (talk) 07:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You can't judge an article based on "demand" (see WP:NOBODYREADSIT). This article was viewed over 1000 times in November 2009, but even if it were viewed just 100 times, that would still not be enough to make such a decision. Hellno2 (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, again, it's already incorporated elsewhere, and I still doubt that the notability guidelines are being met. Of the four references in the article, only one actually discusses the phenomenon of people owning multiple phones and even that only dedicates 4 sentences to the concept with most of the article being dedicated to cell phones as an example of our changing modern lives. Given that the content exists elsewhere and that this is of questionable notability for needing its own page, it seems to me that a redirect would be the best solution. Stile4aly (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• support - This article is about a neologism. I find no sources which use this term even in the regular web... let alone RS sources. It's a combination of words, not an encyclopedic concept. There are no articles about secret credit card, secret car, secret hotel room, secret job, or secret political position because these are all just the same thing combined with the word secret... pretty self explanatory. Also, the sources are not about "secret cell phones". The BBC article uses the terms "spare" and "second" in the article... not "secret". The PE article is about "donated" and "back-up" cell phones as much as "secret" cell phones, and the DOVES program discussed in the article does not mention "secret cell phones" on their web site.[1] The CNN and ABC sources are not even related to the topic of a phone that other people don't know about. T34CH (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request ( Two editors disagree on whether the article should be redirected to the Mobile Phone article "Uses" section, to where a selective merge of the content was performed in August. 00:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Secret cell phone and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

The article mobile phone is presently 56K in size. Per WP:SIZERULE, there is not a drastic need to spinout the present article, therefore additional reasoning as to why a merge may have been suggested. Presently only two of the references used in the article have secret cell phones as the primary subject of the article, therefore the notability of the article's subject maybe called into question.—RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that renaming should be considered based on WP:NEO guidelines. Hellno2 (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

recharge of mobile phone batteries using the network connections available

sir please explain me the working of mobile phones using radio waves. coz i have an innovative idea about recharging of mobile phone batteries using the radio wave connections available to the mobile.and please also explain me that whether the radio waves can be converted into D.c electrical energy if possible please explain me with the concepts and accessories reqd for converting it. hope to hear from u soon please send all the vital information to my mail id prabumitu@gmail.com please assist me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.226.191.107 (talk) 09:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

banned in Missouri

People under the age of 17 (or maybe it is 18 or 21, I forgot) are not allowed to drive and use a cell phone in the St. Louis Metropolitan Area. They passed this law a few months ago, I heard about it at school in government class, the day it was passed.--24.171.1.195 (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

A ban against texting while driving was introduced in August, and currently applies to drivers under the age of 21 only. Illinois just introduced a similar texting ban, for all drivers.

Hong Kong have an overall ban in using hand-held phones during driving, but it is legal to use hand free units(head-phones) —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 06:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Great contributions to China's mobile phone market

According to DisplaySearch, mobile phones and mobile phone panel shipments last quarter and forecast report that mobile phone panel shipments going through the bottom of the first quarter of 2009, after the next shipments have grown up in the second quarter and six 10 million to reach 300 million, compared 30% growth the previous quarter, and to grow 3% from a year earlier. While Western Europe and North America, the number of mobile phone subscribers in communication systems has been saturated in 2009, and less than 10% of the annual rate;, but emerging markets such as China or India has taken over driving the market growth, but these areas are mainly in mobile communication systems or as GSM-based, rather than 3G. http://www.elifekey.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.87.163.7 (talk) 02:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Cell Phone

Once again Wikipedia is attacked by british bias. In America no one calls the mobile phone, So over 300 million people know them as Cell Phones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repiceman89 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an old discussion. Check the the archives. Actually, the term "mobile phone" is used in many countries apart from Britain. As far as I can tell, both terms are widely used around the world and there is no definite answer yet as to which is more common. Both terms are more or less equally valid. However, some 4G technologies described in this article don't use the cellular principle so technically they are not cellular phones but they still fall under the broader category "mobile phone". Hence I would give the term "mobile phone" a weak preference. --Halbmacht (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Then of course there's the large number of people in Asia (including I think quite a number of Indians) who know them as hand phones or hps... Nil Einne (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that people in Asia still understands the term mobile phone and it is used in formal situations. (and it is phs, hot hps in Japan) On the other hand, the term cell phone is largely limited to America related topics and a lot of people do not understand the term. Also, either way, wikipedia is normally attacked saying it is American bias, since it is built by and maintained by a lot of people from the US(which still leads the internet population). Another bias came to play in that it is using a lot of American English and not the more common common wealth English. the fun thing is, Americans do not know a lot of the words are American and is different.(I have met University Professors who do not know they spell the word Aluminum differently than common wealth English and criticised the UK people pronouncing it to be Aluminium incorrectly because there is no i. Speaking of which, the firefox spell check is also American English and highlighted criticised[criticized in US] and Aluminium[takes Aluminum to be the correct spelling].) —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 06:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Commonwealth English is not more common than American English. In fact, over two-thirds of native English speakers use American English. --Tocino 23:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Caller-Pays Cellular Redirects to Top of Page

Caller-Pays Cellular needs to redirect to a specific section in the article that actually discusses that topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.125.165 (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.168.104.24 (talk) 07:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Alternative Batteries

Is it necessary to note that Coca Cola is an alternative power source for mobile phones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renault555 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Brand New Unlocked Apple IPhone 3gs 32gb Gold

We have in stock, the availability of the New / Latest phones ranging from … All various models of BlackBerry handphones,Nokia N96 Smartphone 16GB,SonyEricsson X1 Xperia,Apple iPhones 3G phone,Samsung i900 OMNIA 16GB.

They are all brand new with the complete accessories in original factory sealed box 100% original and comes with 12 months international warranty. .

( Store Promotional Sales Offer - Buy 3 Units And Get 1 Unit FREE )

Apple Iphone 3G 8GB $260USD Apple Iphone 8GB $240USD Apple Iphone 4GB $200USD Apple iphone 3G 16GB $280 Apple IPhone 3GS 32GB $450

Nokia E90 Commnuicator at $270USD Nokia N95 Black 8GB at $290USD Nokia N82 - black at $220USD Nokia N81 8GB at $200USD Nokia N78 at $200USD Nokia N96 16GB at $330USD Nokia N97 32GB at $360USD Nokia 8800 Sirocco at $260USD Nokia 5800 XpressMusic at $280USD

Samsung i900 Omnia 8GB.$260USD Samsung i900 Omnia 16GB.$280USD

Sony Ericsson C905 $280 Sony Ericsson XPERIA™ X1 Solid Black $300usd

Blackberry Bold 9000 at $270USD BlackBerry 8830 $230USD Blackberry Curve 8350i at $230USD Blackberry Storm 9500 Touch Screen at $290USD Blackberry Storm 9530 at $300USD BlackBerry Javelin 8900 at $280USD Blackberry Thunder 9500 at $300USD

Package Contents Blackberry Storm 9500 Battery Mains Charger Software CD Data Cable Carry Case

BONANZA: Buy 2 units and get 1 unit FREE. Buy 5 units and get 2 unit FREE including shipping.

NOTE: These phones is 100% UNLOCKED and can be used with any SIM card. No activation required (check carrier frequency requirements) Insert Your SIM CARD and start using the phone.

Shipping Method: FedEx / DHL

Delivery time:Next Day(Early Am)

Please contact us for more information and purchase inquiries:

MR Steve Berg electronmarketplace@ymail.com +447011198166 +447024067814 mobile_electronics@rocketmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.155.4.68 (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Confuses Mobile and Cellular

The article starts by implying that all mobile phones are cellular. They're not. Later, the article discusses non-cellular mobile phones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.92.117 (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

hi just wanna know whether long distance calls consumes more amount of battery.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.22.103.82 (talk) 09:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 207.161.252.243, 19 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please fix grammar in "One of the newest 3G technologies to implemented is High-Speed Downlink Packet Access (HSDPA)."

change it to "One of the newest 3G technologies to be implemented is High-Speed Downlink Packet Access (HSDPA).", or to "One of the newest 3G technologies that has been implemented is High-Speed Downlink Packet Access (HSDPA)." 207.161.252.243 (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

History section

I think the history section has grown too long on this page especially as there is a perfectly good main article. This page should really have a brief summary of the history (maybe two or three paras) and put all the other content into the main history article. This will then help focus the reader on other aspects of the mobile phone. I'll start to have a go in bits. Shout if you think it's the wrong thing to do.ChrisUK (talk) 07:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Chenxinghan, 26 April 2010

Please add to Further Reading:

Chenxinghan (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Done Spitfire19 (Talk) 21:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Mobile phones in schools

I would like to see some changes in the 6.2 schools section of this article. As noted in the Florida Educational Leadership article supporting cellphones in the schools, there are strong arguements FOR the inclusion of cellphones in the classroom, and an increasing number of Web 2.0 tools to support this use. In many schools, the discussion has been settled in favor of cell phone use, and the schools have moved on to structured cellphone inservices.

Changes to the article need to be added in directly - that's what a wiki is all about.ChrisUK (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Handset Features Correction

Within handset features section there is a list of things all cellphones have in common. The first one states the following:

"A SIM card which allows the phone user access to the particular mobile phone operator that they have a subscription with."

This is however misleading as TDMA and CDMA phones do not use SIM cards but instead use ESN/MEID in order to identify the phone and help it access the mobile phone operator. By stating all phones have SIM cards it then implies that only GSM technology is being used with all mobile phones. This line should be clarified to state the following:

"A SIM card, ESN or MEID that allows the phone user to access the particular mobile phone operator that they have a subscription with."

--Spanishyoshi (talk) 06:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Please make updates to articles directly. There seems to be a trend on this article where people write their updates on the talk page. Improvements to the article should be made directly, not posted here for someone else to do

SIM Card Section

There needs to be additional information within this section in order to distinguish different technologies being used. The way this section is written seems to talk only about GSM technology and makes this entire article sound as if it's written only for European users as GSM is the only technology used across Europe. There is one small paragraph that talks about phones that do not use a SIM card but since it is included within this section, and is embedded within the article, so it does not explain other technologies used throughout the world. This article seems biased towards Europe and does not sufficiently (or at all) cover technologies used in Asia and North America.

I would suggest have two sections in order to explain SIM cards for GSM based phones and ESN/MEID used with CDMA based phones. This will then clearly identify the actual components of all cellphones throughout the world and help clarify what parts of the world use each technology. In this entire article, CDMA is only mentioned twice but no reference to the phones components is made. Please link the CDMA articles to this page in order to properly explain cellphone components.

--Spanishyoshi (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Please make updates to articles directly. There seems to be a trend on this article where people write their updates on the talk page. Improvements to the article should be made directly, not posted here for someone else to do ChrisUK (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Pay-as-you-go

The following line should be removed and/or updated.

"In the US, this type of service competition does not exist because some of the major Service Providers do not offer Pay-As-You-Go services. [Needs Pay-As-You-Go references, rumored T-Mobile, Verizon provide one, AT&T does not as of 12/2008]"

All major service providers in the US have pay-as-you-go services. However only T-Mobile and AT&T have SIM only services available while Verizon and Sprint only sell SIM cards to subscribers with global quad-band phones since all of their pay-as-you-go phones are only CDMA as they do not operate GSM technology domestically.

I am unable to provide citation since I recently worked for a major US cellphone provider for several years and would not want to bias this information, but this information was readily discussed internally and can be verified by visiting each of the major providers websites typically titled as Prepaid Service (as it is referred to here in the US). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spanishyoshi (talk • contribs) 07:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Please make updates to articles directly. There seems to be a trend on this article where people write their updates on the talk page. Improvements to the article should be made directly, not posted here for someone else to doChrisUK (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)