Talk:LG G3

Image Selection
Hi guys I would just like to ask for your opinion on what image looks better for the LG G3 article infobox as both images seem to be eligeble.



Or



In my opinion the second image is better off for the article infobox as it integrates better than the first one in the article plus the first image has a questionable show of UI license. Lastly even if the first image is cropped, the image wil still have an opaque background which barely looks good on the infobox as a result of being a jpeg file.GadgetsGuy (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, it has been established that there is no copyright problem. Additionally, your version misrepresents the design by not sufficiently including the metallic effect. Revise it based off the gold version and I think it would look better. ViperSnake151   Talk  19:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the comments and suggestions given but I could not guarantee a different color for the image yet as different colors are harder to work on given the fact that I would need to replicate the rounded metallic look on the devices with other colors, unlike the white version which based on my research does not have or barely has such, to make it as accurate as possible and other elements which could take a week to 3 in order to get things as close as possible to the original, also I have many other devices on the pipeline. I would update the image if ever I would be able to make one in another color. So in the mean time all I can do is minor corrections on the current image render in white and rest assured that I would adjust it to become as accurate as possible. Thanks! GadgetsGuy (talk) 01:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Unveiling date is trivia?
Personally, I think it's more important to include that in the lead than anything, mainly because that's when the initial publicity and awareness of the device begins, and because actual release dates vary by region.

Plus, your insistence is creating one sentence-long history sections that look awkward. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * According to wp:lead the intro should contain the most interesting information. I doubt people interested in the phone care when it was announced.  It has little to do with the product and much to do about marketing.  Announcement date can be two years before product is available. What do you think? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Nowhere does WP:LEAD use "interesting", it says "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." ViperSnake151   Talk  22:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * O.K. Scratch interesting and replace that with: "summarize the most important points". Do people think that an arbitrary date set by marketing is one of the most important points? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And now multiple editors are attempting to retract criticism of the device from the lead, with one describing it as uncited "garbage", despite already being supported by citations in the body. WP:LEAD also says that a lead must also "include mention of consequential or significant criticism or controversies." ViperSnake151   Talk  19:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

"Bump"?
I'm pretty sure "Bump" is worthy of mention for the G3. I lack the knowledge to write an appropriate section, but the technique generated boot images which the G3 bootloader accepted as signed despite not coming from LG. 74.104.188.4 (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Discontinued date?
Anyone have any idea what date it was discontinued? A quick google was no help. — HTGS (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)