Talk:Samsung Galaxy

Why this article is occasionally being griefed
http://www.reddit.com/r/androidcirclejerk/comments/1es2f4/wikipedia_knows_which_galaxy_phone_is_the_best/

This was linked on a satirical subreddit on the site reddit. Just thought you should know.

Nicereddy (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * FYI, link no longer works.
 * Also, in light of later posts and my experience of using and contributing to Wikipedia, there is no place for this article.
 * It is not historical because it is incomplete. It is not informative because the main text has little information or references (although the lengthy table contains a lot of links, they are still out of date). Cosmo Lives (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

oh wow! thanks for sharing

is this article an ad?
this article hardly contains any other information than what is in the official marketing, so it is pretty close to being an advertisment.

concerning the reddit satirical thread (is that satirism?) reddit seems to me pretty much like any other chat. in other words not necessarily relevant at all.

concerning the phone itself: on gsmarena i found at least this review that seems to be more informative than this whole article - "Bloatware included with the phone will take all of its 1GB space within a month, so no updates can be downloaded anymore, and no apps installed. Phone is slow as hell. Battery life is about 10h of light usage with 3G/WIFI on, so rather standard. The device is marketed as a 'tough phone'. It is resistant to falling, surviving falls which would break any other phone. That's about it. The charging socket and audio jack covers had fallen off after 4 month of usage, mind you not ripped off. Just fallen off due to regular use. With those covers gone, the phone is no longer waterproof. Charging socket had to be replaced once, and it needs another replacement now" at least something of this kind of user experience should be mentioned to round out the picture. lack of information on what apps are included (and unremovable) on the phone. of course that information is not available from samsung, but wikipedia suppose isnt to be based solely on the official marketing campaign, there is much more to an objective point of view.

while im at it why not go on ranting about another issue withf this article - and seemingly all articles related to models of mobile phones (it might be a generic problem of all kinds of articles about recently marketed technological products): the naming conventions (are there any?) seem to be rather confusing for various product lines and models - a chaos of same name applied to mobile phones and tablets and whatelsenot, then long uninformative letter-and-number codenames for individual products - no intuitive connection detectable between naming of models following each other. i get it, this comes from many different manufacturers, (its not just the hardware, also the operational systems - which in the case of mobiles are part of the finished product, not encouraged (if allowed at all) to be changed by the consumer) and the marketing policy seems to hide the weaknesses and describe as vaguely as possible the products - it is really difficult to find a particular model's description and these descriptions lack many details - like uploaded software - that are affecting the overall performance/value of the product. it is fine for the advertisments to exclude valid information and try to confuse the customers (no it is not, but that matter is beyond wikipedia's horizont to deal with), but as an encyclopedia wiki needs to cut the crap and organize(1) the models in the article, include relevant features/lack of features, bloatware, memory available for the user (much less than what is mentioned in the advertsiments due to the OS and bloatware taking most of the place making it unavailable) and not just go with the ready found marketing stuff.

(1): like there is no mention of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy_Xcover_2 in this article even though the title implies that everything about galaxy models could be found here (a link would be sufficient). 94.21.190.67 (talk) 09:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It needs a lot of links fixed. I don't think it's a big ad, because then it would be better.DLCasper (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Kindly include articles for Galaxy series such as Samsung Galaxy core and Grand prime
Its requested senior members kindly include articles for Galaxy series such as Samsung Galaxy core 2 and  Samsung Galaxy Grand prime.--Jogi don (talk) 06:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Take out Z line from Galaxy article
I would suggest that you guys take off the Z line (Samsung Z, Z1, Z3) off this article and put it in a separate article, as they are not powered by Android but rather by Tizen, thus they are not part of the Galaxy line. --190.79.206.220 (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

GALAXY A3, A5, A7 (2016 Edition)
Can someone add these devices to this page? Cheers! Dylanjo98 (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Galaxy Avant (2014-ish)
The Galaxy Avant is not listed. I got mine around Aug 2014 in Colorado. Model: SM-G386T. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.3.241.78 (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2016
add the new Samsung Galaxy J1 mini Prime 160.160.196.24 (talk) 12:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * - Samsung Galaxy J1 Mini Prime was already added in the "Smartphones" subsection under "Samsung Galaxy J" section. regards,  DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  16:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC).

Samsung Galaxy
I do not like the list that they published on Samsung Galaxy Bone I liked the previous list of models Valenlevaggi322 (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Numbers Sold
Does anyone have any reliable source for how may of these have been sold since the first samsung galaxy was released. As I feel it could be useful information to add to this article. Many thanks.--Markensoft (talk) 11:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Over The Horizon
I'm a little confused by the above-named section. First it says Samsung commissioned various editions of the tune from x, y, z individuals (including Yiruma), but this is then followed by "The sound has been covered by various popular artists who have released their own arrangements and remixes of the song, such as Quincy Jones, Icona Pop, Yiruma, Suga of BTS, and various K-Pop artists." Is this sentence stating that these artists released separate cover versions or remixes on their own? In Yiruma's case, outside of the version he was comissioned by Samsung to make? Because that's the way it reads. Suga of BTS was asked by Samsung to do a rearrangement. He didn't release any cover/remix on his own (and his involvement can easily be sourced). After reading the only source in that pgraph of the section, I'm assuming the sentence was based on the Samsung Newsroom ref (which isn't even linked next to it, but to the prev sentence), which states: "If people search Over the Horizon on the web, they can find various audio tracks and videos of remixed versions of the song. From K-Pop artists to international artists including Quincy Jones and Icona Pop, among other popular musicians, many have created their own versions of the track." Imo, a secondary source(s) wouldn't hurt, and perhaps the name(s) of the "various Kpop artists" who also "covered" it? I do think this choice of wording is a tad misleading, as QJ, IP, and CN Blue and Infinite (I googled to find the Kpop artists in question) were brought on as part of a special SG music project in 2013 to create songs using the piece, that also became ringtones. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

XCover 5 not listed in table for 2021
The XCover 5 ("Models SM-G525F, SM-G525F/DS, SM-G525N") is not listed in the table for March of 2021. ref: https://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_xcover_5-10718.php 2600:1700:E78:9220:99C0:4650:4B69:862D (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Remove Samsung from phone pages (not this one)
Galaxy is a recognized Samsung brand. Many other phone description pages, including those for iPhones and Pixels, do not include the company name. This page should still be Samsung Galaxy, but all the phone description pages should have Samsung removed from the title. 172.59.187.246 (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)