Talk:Galaxy Nexus/Archive 1

Launch Date
Can anyone find a cite for the statement "The phone will be launched on October 19th"? I do not believe the phone will launch then, and the rumor mill is churning out dates for the launch from Oct 27th to Nov 11th. Ajklein5211 (talk) 09:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Launch" is business jargon for "Announcement". Here's an example cite: . causa sui (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved.  So Why  15:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Google Galaxy Nexus → Galaxy Nexus – The official name is Galaxy Nexus, not Nexus Prime. And because Galaxy is a brand of Samsung and Nexus is a brand of Google, Galaxy Nexus is a co-brand of both Google and Samsung. Therefore it is not appropriate to name it Google Galaxy Nexus or Samsung Galaxy Nexus. Pengyanan (talk) 03:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggest speedy move to Google Galaxy Nexus, per Google Nexus One and Google Nexus S and, while discussing further and letting the dust settle. 2.26.128.165 (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Google Nexus One has now moved to Nexus One and Google Nexus S has now moved to Nexus S, this should be moved to Galaxy Nexus to match. 2.26.167.206 (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC) previously 2.26.128.165 (talk)
 * Google Nexus Prime was already moved to Google Galaxy Nexus at 03:41, 19 October 2011‎. Now we should discuss whether it should be further moved to Galaxy Nexus. --Pengyanan (talk) 04:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pengyanan's reasoning and also think this should be moved to "Galaxy Nexus". --SF007 (talk) 08:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All of Google's own material refers to it as the 'Galaxy Nexus', it should be moved. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

✅ Clear-cut case, no sources claiming otherwise. Regards  So Why  15:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"4G"
Looking at http://www.google.com/nexus/ ("Fast and 4G") the actual technologies that are being used appear to be either LTE (not LTE Advanced) or UMTS with HSPA+, neither of which qualify as "4G" (by the same page that 4G links to). As Wikipedia strives to be encyclopedic, and not marketing literature, I've corrected the references in the article. Cnj (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * In the third paragraph in the 4g wiki page it is mentioned that the ITU I'd recognize current versions of LTE and HSPA+ as "4g" if it, and I paraphrase heavily, strives to advance towards the 100Mb/s standard. This angers me to no end, but it does allow current versions of LTE and HSPA+ to be marketed (however incorrectly) as "4G".Ajklein5211 (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Lots of incorrect, badly-sourced data
I had tried adding a refimprove template, because most of the information on this page is likely incorrect, but it wsa removed. Many of the citations are like the Boy Genius Report one, based on speculation from unnamed sources prior to the announcement. This article clearly has multiple issues. Really, really might be a bright idea to clearly indicate this article likely has a lot of incorrect information, considering it may affect decisions people make and this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and all. Thank you. -- 75.67.80.225 (talk) 07:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * outdated or update would have been better tags to use rather than refimprove; from the explanation given within the edit summary you provided, that isn't what the refimprove tag is for. That tag is used for articles that have a few references, but are lacking in inline citations. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 11:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * In that case it would have been better to add outdated instead of just removing refimprove. Removing the template is somewhat bitey. causa sui (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That works much better. Thank you -- 75.67.80.225 (talk) 04:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

"Galaxy Nexus"
The name will be Nexus Prime not Galaxy Nexus. Please read this citation: causa sui (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Personally even though I prefer the name Google Nexus Prime and think that it is the most plausible name, there still is a chance that it may be called the Galaxy Nexus on some carriers | Droid-Life: Galaxy Nexus pops up in verizon system IcePik (talk) 02:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The Christian Post citation says a Samsung official confirmed the branding. We may find out something else on Oct 19th, but until then, we have to go with that. causa sui (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The official name was revealed to be the "Samsung Galaxy Nexus" in their press release and launch event in Hong Kong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.199.124 (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The official name is "Galaxy Nexus", not "Samsung Galaxy Nexus". This is a cobrand between both Samsung and Google. --Pengyanan (talk) 03:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Even though Samsung is manufacturing the phone, it is a Google branded phone. If you look at the articles for the previous Nexus phones, they all have "Google" at the beginning, and thus, to keep consistency, the article should be titled "Google Galaxy Nexus". -Robber93 (talk) 03:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Until recently they were just at Nexus One and Nexus S. An IP requested they be moved to include Google in the title and for some reason a user did so without question. So just because the other articles have Google in the title doesn't mean that it's correct, or that this article should to. – Steel 12:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * My guess is that the reason was that Nexus Prime is an existing disambiguation page and they didn't want to delete it to make room for a phone. causa sui (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Robber93: As you can see in the image in the article, the phone has both Google AND Samsung logos, making "Samsung Galaxy Nexus" just as valid as "Google Galaxy Nexus". Anyway, the "official name" seems to be just "Galaxy Nexus" --SF007 (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Told you so. -Bayonetblaha —Preceding undated comment added 07:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC).
 * snark Hey, I'm just going with the sources :P causa sui (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"This is my next" review
Hello all, the article currently has a review from the "This is my next" website stating the phone was somewhat laggy, etc. That would usually be perfectly OK to be in the article, but... As they state on that very same page "Our initial performance observations [...] were based on a Galaxy Nexus being used by one of Google’s staff. The demo units during the show were definitely smoother in operation." . That alone might indicate the phone they tested was some sort of pre-release version (it is not uncommon for companies to give away their hardware to employees, as a means of testing and product promotion) or, possibly being a personal phone, it could be loaded with lots of apps or other non-optimal settings, in fact, they even mention that "it was a phone fully loaded with running tasks". In addition to that, we also have the Engadget people reporting "The touch response of the capacitive buttons [..] take a bit of getting used to, and we had to mash 'em just a touch harder than we anticipated to elicit a response", but then they add "Update: turns out our demo phone was a bit of an early build; we touched another model later in the day, and our response gripes were gone. Perfectly responsive. [...]". In light of all this evidence, I think the "This is my next" review I just mentioned should be taken with extreme care, and possibly removed, since it almost certainly was conducted on a pre-release version of the phone, as I detailed above. This hopefully also serves as a warning regarding pre-release reviews: we can include them, but with extreme care and common sense, including only criticism/praise of features that will likely be in the final version. --SF007 (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Makes sense... most reviews I've read report it being quite snappy... --Jerebin (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not think they removed the lag, since they did not do this since last year. --User:Rzęsor (talk) 21:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good points. I've removed it. causa sui (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

"microSD"
There is conflicting information regarding the microSD. GSMarena list the presence of microSD... ( http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_google_galaxy_nexus_i9250-4219.php ). Others say no microSD. Smg3d (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing that reference. I've removed the MicroSD info for now to avoid spreading false information and avoid "edit wars". Indeed there is contradictory information: both engadget and wired report "no MicroSD", but gsmarena reports the contrary... Maybe some models will have that feature and others don't...? (just speculating!) Anyway, in my opinion this should not be in the article until we have more information, especially from Google or Samsung. --SF007 (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Strange... in one gsmarena "review" they say "Memory: 16/32GB storage, microSD slot", but on the very next page they say "Sadly, a microSD slot is missing.". I dare to say this was a gsmarena mistake and there is no MicroSD slot. --SF007 (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is definitely no microSD slot externally on the phone. The internal memory is 16/32 GB on the phone, that is it.  Take a look at the pictures published for the phone if you want a source, not sure how you would cite that.Ajklein5211 (talk) 08:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Availability
Not sure the comment about when the US carriers will be done with their LTE rollouts really belongs here. Also not sure that it is expected to be "unlocked" for the LTE version, and that statement needs to be sourced.Ajklein5211 (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

UK Version looks like only being 16GB, not 32gb option for UK. Confirmation required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.240.124.181 (talk) 10:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Performance
See all references links, not only first. --User:Rzęsor (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I seem to be missing the context for those references? Regards  So Why  14:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The first one states "Again, keep in mind that the benchmark was run on buggy non-final version of ICS." - so why are we in a rush to add a performance section to an unreleased still being optimused piece of software/hardware? --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Because this show the current state of Android 4.0 on Galaxy Nexus. When this will change then we add the appropriate update. --User:Rzęsor (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * According to GSMArena, the phone in question was running a "buggy developer version", so I don't see how that shows the state of Android 4.0. AnandTech and Shootspeak do not mention the Galaxy Nexus at all, so using them would violate WP:SYNTHESIS big time. GLBenchmark does not mention that the CPU was "several times weaker than competitive phones", so again, the source cannot be used since it does not support what you wrote (again, violating WP:SYNTHESIS).
 * On a side note, please do not edit-war about this. Per WP:3RR, any further reinstating of the content without discussion may result in a block. Regards  So Why  17:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * since when 20-40 fps is not several times weaker than 60-123 fps??? just look and compare GLBenchmark results

http://www.glbenchmark.com/phonedetails.jsp?D=Google%20Galaxy%20Nexus http://www.glbenchmark.com/phonedetails.jsp?D=Samsung%20GT-i9100%20Galaxy%20S2 http://www.glbenchmark.com/phonedetails.jsp?D=Apple%20iPhone%204S --User:Rzęsor (talk) 23:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * In addition, things such as Javascipt benchmarks do not "prove" anything in regards to how "efficient a processor can be", making your recent edits WP:SYNTH. Benchmarks tend to be skewed, and whilst they are good at giving a general idea, cannot be relied on to make firm conclusions or to prove a hypothesis. One cannot make a statement like "The phone even though dual-core processor is less efficient than single-core competitors such as the iPhone 4 and Nokia N9" as you have, justified merely by things such as Javascript benchmarks, which are always taken with a grain of salt by hardware and software developers. Having a certain benchmark score does not correlate to having an "inefficient processor"; there are software and hardware factors that exist outside of the processor itself, for instance. The sources you have given confirm certain benchmark results performed at that instance; they do not confirm the inferiority of the processors as claimed by your edits, nor do they confirm that the device in general is inferior to another. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 18:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Butt I have not written "inefficient processor" only "The phone even though dual-core processor is less efficient than single-core competitors..." --User:Rzęsor (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you also point out where exactly any of your sources say that this is the case? Please take a minute to really read WP:SYNTHESIS to understand why your arguments are not sufficient to source facts for Wikipedia articles. Regards  So Why  10:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Size of the availability section
Is it particularly encyclopedic for us to chart the availability of the device in such detail? Surely a more high level summary of release by region is all that is needed? --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would oppose to listing or briefly mentioning in a sentence every single carrier that will be selling the phone but for the sake of consistency with other mobile phone articles, I will oppose to changing it as it is not intrusive and isn't diverging attention away from the pertinent information. YuMaNuMa (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What is encyclopedic about "The independent mobile phone retailer Phones4U has temporary exclusivity among other independent retailers in the UK, such as Carphone Warehouse and Amazon.co.uk. They have been taking pre-orders since Friday 4 November 2011 for the launch date of Thursday 17 November 2011." ? It just reads like we are running a catalogue. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree, the only reason I would keep the carrier availability section is if there was to be a variation between handset models in different countries or carriers as with Samsung Galaxy S 1 and 2 or if there was an extreme difference in pricing. I reckon this issue should be discussed with Wikiproject - Telecommunication as the section is included in quite a number of mobile phone articles. YuMaNuMa (talk) 13:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Semi-Protect Lock Request
This is likely to be vandalized by Apple Extremists! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.116.197 (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. DMacks (talk) 21:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Better Images?
Offical Image 88.111.116.197 (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC) TypeHumor
 * That image does not appear to have a free license, therefore it is against wikipedia policy to use it. DMacks (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Nexus Prime
Nexus Prime should redirect here. Incllude informat=ion on the Nexus Prime by Cyagonen Mod 7 team — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.116.197 (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Nexus Prime" has two very different meanings, so Nexus Prime is therefore a disambiguation page so readers can find what they want. DMacks (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

LTE Verizon
Get LTE details — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.116.197 (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Variants
Please a section for variants --88.111.125.135 (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Such as the LTE version or the super LCD variant


 * We'd be happy to but do you have any sources for them? Regards  So Why  12:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Early Selling
LINK It was sold by Verizon early. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aheadiroa (talk • contribs) 19:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Google Wallet
We should definitely make some mention of the hullabaloo with Verizon keeping Google Wallet off the phone. causa sui (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Indented line

agreed, i'll try now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.108.123 (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

dead link in cite_note-30
ref. no. 31's link (BBC) is dead :-( --91.97.194.51 (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for reporting it, I have now fixed the issue. --SF007 (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

"Stuff review"
I have removed the "Stuff review" link for a variety of reasons, and please do not re-add without discussion:
 * Unclear if it is a reliable source or not (WP:RS)
 * The lack of "ruggedization" is not mentioned by other reliable sources as a negative aspect, in fact most mobile phones don't really have much "ruggedization", therefore it is undue weight to mention it
 * Bluetooth 4, same as above
 * The lack of GLONASS support is again not mentioned by other reliable sources, most cellphones also don't have GLONASS support and arguably this is not that much relevant to the worldwide market in general, again, undue weight
 * "unimpressive camera", opinion in contradiction with reliable sources, like The Verge, ZDNet or even the arguably less "reliable" androidauthority.com --Jerebin (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Screen image
Not sure how valuable this is, but I've taken a photograph showing the detail of the GRGB screen on the Galaxy Nexus. Currently just up on Flickr, but licensed appropriately: Tr00st (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, is a less colourful alternative. Tr00st (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

3 pin connector
What's the deal with the three-pin connector on the side of the phone. I think that some car docks use it with pogo pin connector to charge, but I'm not sure if it is also for data transfer or what. 25may12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.68.145 (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Reception
Reception section has just one source and seems rediculously gushing, virtually advertorial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.232.64 (talk) 03:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of hype about this phone. Most of the reception is likely to be like this, but we will cover all the significant viewpoints. causa sui (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, once it is released we will hopefully have more reviews. --SF007 (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Still seems overtly biased to me. Any objections to marking it with { {Advert|section} } ?--86.4.54.160 (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this section should be deleted in my opinion, it looks like an advertisementMarian Dan (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This phone is REALLY outstanding from other on the market today, but yes, the text seems like cheap advert. It should be divided between good reviews/comments and bad reviews/comments (good points/strenghts versus bad points/weknesses). Compared to other smartphones on the market the Nexus' display is great, but the sound is not so good. This kind of information is very useful and can be found in any good review about this phone! Check it out on this link the sections "what we like" and "what we dont like": http://www.technolog.msnbc.msn.com/technology/technolog/samsung-galaxy-nexus-review-one-beat-118858 ... regards, anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.27.232.113 (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Just removed the blue quote box, as that seems even more excessive than the rest of the section. Tr00st (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with commenters above that this section reads like an advert for the device rather than an impartial review. I have specifically removed the claim of the unit being a commercial success, selling an estimated 1.7m as this is not supported by the quoted reference. I am unable to find any source that quotes a sales figure for this device. My own information, which I cannot cite, is that it was, like the preceding Nexus devices, not a commercial successGusty42 (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Nexus 7 predecessor?
While the Nexus 7 might be the successor in name, I don't know if I would indicate it as such in the infobox since a phone and tablet are two different things. Up until now, the Nexus line has been exclusively phones, no? Thoughts? --bithaze (T.C) 03:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Pending ban
The section was kind of broad. It is not a sales ban. It is a pending ban on Samsung for sale or import. Doesn't stop others from selling the device. I toned it down a bit. If the ban holds then it makes sense to tone it up. Hearing scheduled for Monday. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the Galaxy Nexus was praised for its battery life?!?!
Pfft, battery life claims maybe... In the "real world", people said they experienced the worst battery life ever, as in shockingly bad - from what I read, it is not unusual to plug the phone in to charge TWICE in a single day. --86.221.66.101 (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, praise for battery life on a GNex is laughable. These phones are in the bottom 5 no question. —ASPENSTI— TALK — CONTRIBUTIONS 14:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a forum. Talk pages are not for general discussion of the topic, and are supposed to be used for improving the article. Take it to the Macrumors forums. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 17:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Volume bug
Someone want to take a stab at writing a section about the volume bug (hardware related) that has been reported by Multiple RS? --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've done it, it made most sense as a sub-section of Hardware. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Makes no sense putting it under hardware since it hasn't been confirmed as a software or hardware issue. Moved into a new Technical issues section. 62.133.9.210 (talk) 12:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Where is that section? Didn't find any reference on this wiki page to the volume issues of this device. Googling for this issue, it's easy to find plenty of pages referencing it and maybe even providing a couple of apps from Google Play as a workaround. This fact should count as an objective evidence -many different, independent online sources referencing the issue-, for it to be echoed in this wiki entry at least as possible issues. Polnasam (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Shrinking article
This article is being shrunken, hasn't anyone noticed this?

Relevant information has either removed or omitted from this article such as Apple lawsuit against Samsung which brought a temporary ban on this device sales, the technological introductions are not well exploited such as Google market which went through an overhaul after the release of this device, the introduction of the new major version of Android Operational System, the Ice Cream Sandwich itself, which ended the OS fork on Tablets and Smartphones. Information about the design of the phone, its unveiling, its release, its hardware and its software (Google Now, Currents and TouchWiz latest version were all introduced along Nexus) are omitted, there are also regional variances, like the 32Gb model. Its release and commercial reception are not discussed as well. Eduemoni↑talk↓  17:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Ubuntu support
This article fails to inform us about alternative operating system support like Ubuntu Touch. .Erniecom (talk) 09:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Ubuntu Touch no longer supports the Galaxy Nexus.

Archive
I'm not sure how to propose this exactly, but most of the discussion in this "talk" is pre and shortly post release, and not really relevant. I will review the archiving process, but in the time being if someone else knows the proper procedure, I move for archiving these discussions. Autumn Wind (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

edit: with the exception of the Ubuntu note above, which is recent. Autumn Wind (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Totally makes sense. Done, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGalaxy_Nexus&diff=592118555&oldid=592117894 configured] the automated archiving, which should take place in the next few hours. &mdash; Dsimic (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Galaxy Nexus. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140102192917/https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=319592&fcc_id='A3LGTI9250' to https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=319592&fcc_id='A3LGTI9250'
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140102200022/https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=837864&fcc_id='A3LGTI9250M' to https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=837864&fcc_id='A3LGTI9250M'
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140102192123/https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=868416&fcc_id='A3LGTI9250T' to https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=868416&fcc_id='A3LGTI9250T'
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120107123505/http://source.android.com:80/source/building-devices.html to http://source.android.com/source/building-devices.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120121153554/http://www.samsung.com:80/id/galaxynexuslaunch/ to http://www.samsung.com/id/galaxynexuslaunch/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Galaxy Nexus. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120419223830/http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/300378/20120217/samsung-32gb-galaxy-nexus-release-date.htm to http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/300378/20120217/samsung-32gb-galaxy-nexus-release-date.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://source.android.com/source/building-devices.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120629152336/http://www.android.com/about/ice-cream-sandwich/ to http://www.android.com/about/ice-cream-sandwich/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.samsung.com/id/galaxynexuslaunch/%20Launch%20in%20Indonesia

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Galaxy Nexus. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131102070511/https://community.sprint.com/baw/community/buzzaboutwireless/phones-and-devices/samsung/galaxy_nexus/blog/2013/01/30/galaxy-nexus-software-updates to https://community.sprint.com/baw/community/buzzaboutwireless/phones-and-devices/samsung/galaxy_nexus/blog/2013/01/30/galaxy-nexus-software-updates

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)