Talk:Nokia 3310

External links: Broken / Moved pages
Firstly, I reinstated the External Links section. What happened was that someone replaced the relevant external links with less useful internal links. Then (I assume) someone else saw the new (and not improved) section, figured that it wasn't much good and removed it altogether.

I appreciate that the Nokia links were broken (although the about.com one wasn't). However, I found an equivalent (moved?) page at nokia.com within 15 seconds using Google.

If a link is broken, and it's likely just moved (or a similar/equivalent page is easily available), then please spend a few seconds with Google and update it, instead of simply deleting it! (Grr...)

Thanks :-)

Fourohfour 18:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Nokia 3315 redirect
I made Nokia 3315 into a redirect when I noticed it had been created; the reason being that the 3315 is very similar to the 3310 (i.e. a variant).

Bharat12 changed it back, saying that "Nokia 3315 deserves its own page", but they didn't explain why.

The article as it was was just a list of information (which is generally frowned upon). But I would not have made it a REDIRECT if I thought a good standalone article was possible.

However, IMHO any 3315 article would either duplicate most of the content in Nokia 3310, or would remain a stub only explaining minor differences. These are clear signs that a standalone article is a bad idea.

I think that the 3315 (and related phones) would be better served by keeping the information together. Please give me your thoughts. Thanks!

Fourohfour 17:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * (Following comment moved from "Nokia 3315 Why it need its own page")


 * Please see http://www.nokia.com.au/nokia/0,,36946,00.html


 * Nokia 3315 is a Nokia phone different from 3310. They may be similar in ways but they are different, thats why they have different model numbers. Each Nokia phone should have its own wikipedia page. Why should Nokia 3315 not be included? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bharat12 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC).


 * There are minor differences, of course. But these differences are IMHO minor and do not warrant separate articles. Fourohfour 13:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Some phones are clearly very different and deserve separate pages. But in cases (here) where there are only very small functional or cosmetic differences, the benefit to separate pages is small, and the drawback of duplicating separating related information is large. Fourohfour 13:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The Nokia 3315 *is* included. Please note that 3330, 3350, 3390 and 3395 also lack separate articles for the same reason.

'''Nokia 3310 is the title of the article simply because that is the "base" model. It covers many phones, including the Nokia 3315.'''

However, if you disagree, I challenge you to create a *proper* article for the Nokia 3315 that


 * Does *not* duplicate large chunks of facts/text/information from the Nokia 3310 article. (Duplication implies overlap, which implies that related information belongs together).
 * Is not a stub. Some stubs exist because there has not been enough time to create a full article. However, other stubs exist because there is not enough to say about that specific subject, and there never will be. Your job is to demonstrate that there are *significant* differences between the 3310 and the 3315.
 * Does not rely on long lists of copied specifications. The old version of the article is just a copy of the specs. It is not a proper article; Wikipedia is not just a repository of information.
 * Does not rely on nitpicking and excessive focus on minor differences.

I look forward to seeing your attempt. Thank you. Fourohfour 13:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

taboo in pakistan??
This is one of the most popular nokia phones in the world. Why on earth is it considered taboo in pakistan? The one liner given in the Misc section isn't nearly enough and doesn't explain anything. It goes back for a couple of versions of this entry, so can someone explain/research it? I couldn't find anything. Squiggle 15:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds like garbage to me. I removed it, as it's sufficiently dubious without explanation *and* citation. Unfortunately, the contributor is anonymous, meaning it's unlikely to be worth the time asking them. If they want it back, they can add a ref, but take it from me; this is 99% probably garbage. Fourohfour 15:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Not taking off in Europe?
Of the 3330, the article states: "Without true GPRS connectivity the the WAP feature proved unpopular and the version was unable to replace the 3310 in the European market." That's not my recollection at all. In the UK, a couple of months after the 3330 launched, it wasn't possible to get the plain 3310 any more, only the 3330 - for the same price. Anyone know where the current version comes from? Tim (Xevious) 12:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Old comment, but I want to go on record to say that I don't remember it that way at all. I bought my 3310 around three months after it launched (IIRC) and had no problems getting one. Ubcule (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Spy Bug Feature?
The feature list contains "Spy Bug Phone" inserted among the other features. It apparently refers to the fact that there are ways to configure / hack it to be used as a bugging device: http://www.spyreview.co.uk/2006/04/22/nokia-3310-spy-bug-phone/

I wonder if this belongs among the ordinary features though? Maybe some criticism or own section instead, if it is notable?

The change that introduced the mention of Spy Bug Phone is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nokia_3310&diff=206647602&oldid=206646513 Added by User:Feysal who already has a remark on his Talk page about adding unsourced material —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.145.249.35 (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

3330
What is this SMS-bases WAP capability? As I know and understand, it doesn't use SMS for the data transfer, but something like GSM data. And "without true GPRS", well what sort of GPRS you mean it has. And personal opinion, I think bigger reason for unpopularity of the wap feature was the prize of GSM data, not the lack of GPRS feature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.251.63.193 (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

From what level and up do we consider SAR radiation to be high, as mentioned in the article? This phone is 0.96, like dozens of other phones —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.59.153.24 (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Radiation
From what level and up do we consider SAR radiation to be high, as mentined in the article? This phone has 0.96, like dozens of phones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.59.153.24 (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

agreed, it is low compared to many sars of modern phones, esp us phones http://www.sarvalues.com/eu-complete.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.149.4 (talk) 04:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"SMS" based data transmission
The article claims the 3330 variant has "SMS based" data transmission. Nokia themselves claim that it uses [|CSD] here ("WAP 1.1 browser (via CSD)").

I was going to leave the article "as is", but actually I'll change it, since I have a clear reference- from the horse's mouth!- that states it uses CSD. Is it correct in any sense to say that its system was "SMS based"? Ubcule (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Which image is better?
I notice that someone replaced the old image of a 3310 (seen here) with a new one (see here).

I'm not sure if this is an improvement or not. The old one had some minor problems when viewed close up, but those didn't really apply at the scale used in the article.

What does everyone else think?

Ubcule (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Popular culture importance
The phone has become centre of the popular believe that old Nokia phones are indestructible. Although that remains open to debate, it's possibly worth noting as the phone has had a strong cultural influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.30.42.111 (talk) 07:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, if it can be reliably sourced. At the moment it's only personal opinion, and has been removed a couple of times from the article pending sources.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we go on the source that when you google "nokia brick" it gives you this article? This is the Google Trends data on "nokia brick" searches http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=nokia%20brick. In those search results you get a Know Your Meme article on the subject http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/indestructible-nokia-3310 along with two other websites http://mashable.com/2013/09/12/nokia-phone-nostalgia/ http://www.buzzfeed.com/tabathaleggett/reasons-the-nokia-3310-was-mans-greatest-invention that take note of the phone's apparent indestructibility. Astrel (talk) 08:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

About the 500kt bomb part
I'm pretty sure it's bullshit given that no bomb was tested since 1992.

Anyone care to edit it out? Bots auto-undo anything i ever try to do. Just to add here, the whole description is trolled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.95.34.136 (talk) 12:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 3 March 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Andrewa (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Nokia 3310 → Nokia 3310 (2000) – The 2017 version of the phone name has rebranded and become popular as cheaper units to buy. Announced in Mobile World Congress. ApprenticeFan work 05:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * weak Oppose for now, unless an article for the new product already exists. Until then, this title is not ambiguous. Steel1943  (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * An article for the new product does exist. The current article should surely be the main one, though. The new phone is a tribute. &mdash;ajf (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What article? You're saying that there's an article, but didn't name/state what it is. Steel1943  (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see now: Nokia 3310 (2017). Either way, I'm still "weak" opposing since I think the two articles should be merged together due to lack of notability separate from each other. Steel1943  (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The (original) Nokia 3310 is definitely notable on its own, it's somewhat iconic. The new phone rides on its coat-tails, at least for now, so I would agree with a merger. &mdash;ajf (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose and merge, until the notability of the 2017 model is independent of the 2000 model (Nokia 3310 (2017) is just a long stub), and the 2017 model has equal long-term significance as the 2000 model. ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 07:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose and merge, per Tbhotch just above. Rwendland (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, the 2017 model will be merged into Nokia 3310 section just as what did in high end smartphone models. ApprenticeFan  work 07:38, 6 March 2017 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Links to archived Nokia support resources
Linked here for reference as they don't necessarily belong in the article itself, but may be useful jumping-off points for updating this and other articles:-



Multicherry (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Nokia 3310 5G?
I watched on YouTube that New Nokia 3310 5G is expected launch at end of 2021

4.4 inches touch screen display Gorilla glass 3 YunOS is based on Android OS 4/6 GB RAM 64/128 GB ROM 16 MP selfie camera w/ flashlight 32 + 8 + 8 MP back camera Li-po 4100 mAh removable battery JustinLRT (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 3310 mono.png
 * 3350 mono.png
 * 3360 mono.png

UI menu icon inclusion
(This isn't really a disagreement, so much as something I'm simply unsure about and would like some more opinion on).

While I've put the discussion on this talk page, it actually covers all Nokia phone articles that have had one or more "UI icons" added to them by.

Firstly, the images have been uploaded to Commons, where they likely don't belong as they probably aren't "free", so they'll probably be deleted from there.

However, I'm wondering whether they both could *and* should be usable and retained in the articles as non-free "fair use"?

This is particularly the case for an article such as Nokia 3310 that includes multiple UI icons for the different variants;
 * Can inclusion of all versions be justified as "fair use", and
 * Do we *want* all versions in the article anyway, or is this just the sort of thing that would lead to excess clutter if we did it with other minor aspects of the phone(s)?

It'd be useful to get some feedback from others before they (and the edits) are lost completely if the icons are deleted from Commons. Thanks,

Ubcule (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi there, sorry about uploading those icons without permission, there were reasons behind those phone icons and why they were uploaded in the first place. See, due to my interest behind the Nokia phone icons and one of my professions being to recreate monochrome graphics into higher quality images, I wanted to have these phone icons represented for a potential Series 20 page that I've dreamed of having someone make the page with me contributing to it. I had an entire project dedicated to Nokia graphics such as games and UI aspects as examples. You might've probably seen a Snake II screenshot before in this wiki, which also belongs to Nokia. Nash Izumrud (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

About the Third Opinion request: The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC) (Not watching this page)