Template talk:Nokia devices

4xxx
Why there aren't any 4xxx phones?81.196.247.155 08:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nokia hasn't produced any. Wibbble 22:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Template title
Now that the N800 (not a phone) is included as part of Nokia's Nseries, the title doesn't seem to work so well. 'Nokia devices'? 'Nokia wireless devices'? 'Nokia phones and other devices'? I can't think of anything better, but it does seem a little wrong currently. Hypnotist uk 23:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried changing it to "Nokia devices", but reverted that change with no comment.  Thoughts?  Note that perhaps the change needs to happen in the template name as well, though that would prove more disruptive. --Josh Triplett 10:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer that, personally. I see has deleted the tablets, but these ARE Nseries devices and so I believe they should be there. I'd be happier with "Nokia devices" unless there's a compelling reason to keep it as phones. Hypnotist uk 13:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

E series, N series
We should add phones from E and N series (E50, E51, E61, N70, N80, N90, N91)..

anybody against it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sedimin (talk • contribs) 08:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Erm, looking at the history, they were already there before the 13th Feb. Are there some missing? Hypnotist uk 13:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

N800
Back and forth it goes. The N800 is part of the Nseries. I believe it should go under Nseries to show Nokia's strategy, rather than with the 770. It seems other people disagree a) whether it should be here at all and b) whether it should be listed as part of the Nseries. Rather than keep reverting to my belief it'd be nice to get some consensus on the talk page... Hypnotist uk 11:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The N800 is on http://www.nseries.com/index.html while the 770 isn't. It's part of the Nseries range, although it's not a cellular terminal. (It is VoIP-capable, so it's technically a 'phone', if you like.) Wibbble 23:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed so, but people keep moving/deleting the N800 (and the 770). If there's no further discussion, we can move the N800 back to the Nseries line in a few days. Hypnotist uk 23:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Those people (probably) have some more clue about past, current and future of Nokia tablet(s), hence they tend to bring more clarity, in form of making both 770 and N800 not-another-phone things (which is true-in-last-instance, actually, do you like it or not). Pity that clarity is lesser priority vs. one's necessity to categorize über alles silpol 15:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe they do have more clue, maybe they don't. IF the 770 and N800 belong on this list, then they should be under the 'line' they're sold under - that is IMHO: Nseries for N800, and other for 770. It's Nokia categorising the N800 as an Nseries device - take up issues of brand clarity with Espoo. I'd be happy with the template saying "N800 internet tablet" under Nseries though.
 * Do I believe the tablets belong on this template? Yes, though I'm uneasy about it being called 'Nokia phones' (as I've already said). I believe it's less clear to the reader if we leave them out. Hypnotist uk 03:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * silpol: I think you should read over WP:CIVIL and keep that in mind when commenting on talk pages in future. Wibbble 12:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

And now someone thinks it should go at the end of the Nseries list rather than in numerical order. I've no opinion about what's right here, but I do think it looked tidier coming after N80. Hypnotist uk 00:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

shouldnt there be articles for ALL the nokia phones?
it doednt look very good with all those links that lead nowhere..... shouldnt someone add articles for the ones with no article allready? - kozmic | sk8r  03:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Series 40/60/80/90
Shouldn't there be entries in this box for Nokia Nokia Series 40, Series 60, Series 80 and Series 90, either on a separate row (e.g 'Platforms') or under 'other'? The Seventh Taylor 15:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering S40/60/80/90 aren't actual products but merely platforms I've created a separate template instead: Template:Nokia platforms The Seventh Taylor 23:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But if we include Symbian, Maemo, and MeeGo, it would be appropriate to add a section for Nokia-supported operating systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.112.108 (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

68xx
6800, 6810, 6820 and 6822 all link to 68xx series. Why have separate links for all of them? ☺   Spiby   ☻ 15:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Update
Please update new series Nokia Supernova. 203.210.153.35 (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

N900
The discussion was already started with the N800, but the N900 definitely is more than just an internet tablet. I suggest to keep the template as 'Nokia phones', change the name of the section 'internet tablets' into 'other' and transfer the N800 and N900 to the N-Series section. Other solutions are also wanted.--azior (talk) 08:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Split
Can't we just split this template into current (Lumia, Asha) lineup and older series? It's unnecessarily long. --Lprd2007 (talk) 05:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * APerson (talk!) 18:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Include Vertu phones?
Virtu was a nokia division until late last year. Shouldn't their fones be included in this table? 46.115.66.30 (talk) 08:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Redlinks
For much of the history of this template, models with no articles yet are still linked despite redlinks. The point is that without redlinks it's impossible to tell automatically if an article on a product exists or not. This reduces the amount of time one would have to check manually if an article on a model exists, and removes the burden of having to update the template, given that navigation templates are not updated that often anyway. The other point is that redlinks in this template are in a minority. -Mardus (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Non-Nokian devices
The Nokia Lumia 530, and Nokia Lumia 930 were made by Microsoft Mobile Oy and not by Nokia, the Microsoft Lumia 353 doesn't even contain Nokian branding, this template doesn't reflect the present climate anymore, I first changed the name to Nokia and Microsoft Mobile devices, but as this is not considered possible I'd advise to remove the Nokia Lumia 530 and Nokia Lumia 930 devices, and all other Nokia-branded devices by Microsoft as they were never made by Nokia. --86.81.201.94 (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Microsoft Mobile Oy Vs. Nokia
Earlier I wrote a section on why this template should be named Nokia and Microsoft devices as some devices were never made by Nokia though branded as such (thus still being "Nokia phones" but not directly Nokian devices), later someone renamed the template back to Nokia again, which is incorrect as some of these devices aren't made, produced, nor marketed by Nokia, but by Microsoft Mobile which owns the old division(s), much like how the Sony Mobile Devices template only uses the "Sony" brand for even historically Ericsson devices this template incorrectly represents another company, though I'd say that this issue is the polar opposite as what the Sony template faces due to the fact that after Sony acquired 100% of Sony-Ericsson the template was renamed to reflect the fact that it's now Sony owned, here on the other hand Microsoft bought Nokia's mobile devices + SERvices subsidiaries and this template only reflects the fact that they were historically developed and manufactured by Nokia, if I'd rename it another editor will rename it back and won't explain it either in the edit nor on the talk page, so there probably isn't much use to renaming it as why Wikipedia does one thing on the Sony template (which includes Ericsson-only devices and describes them as Sony devices) and does the opposite thing on the Nokia template (describing Microsoft Mobile Oy-only devices as Nokia devices), these is either unintended mistakes or deliberate chaos. If no-one explains to me why there shouldn't be Microsoft next to the Nokia brand I'll add it back. --86.81.201.94 (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Template not displaying on some pages
I noticed that on e.g. Nokia 1100, while the template initially shows up in collapsed form, clicking "Show" doesn't do anything except change the link to "Hide". When viewing the template directly, Show/Hide work as they should. Anyone know how to fix this? Emurphy42 (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * This seems to be a general issue with some collapsible navboxes. I haven't found the logic in which one works and which one doesn't. Insane.kismanO (talk) 07:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The reason why it's not working anymore is because User:Maksdroider added  functions to the template in last March. According to the template's doc page, in order to show all the links, you need to use the template like this:
 * In other words, the plain  won't work anymore. The problem is that no one has made the changes to the articles yet, so now we have at least 343 articles with an empty navbox. --JAAqqO (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In other words, the plain  won't work anymore. The problem is that no one has made the changes to the articles yet, so now we have at least 343 articles with an empty navbox. --JAAqqO (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I haven't thought of that. It seems like for some one reason or another User:Maksdroider messed with several other mobile device related templates as well. Do you have any idea what could be the positive side of these controversial changes? Parsing maybe? It makes editing a PitA really, without real advantages as I see. Insane.kismanO (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

storage card
On this page 3 different micro sd storage maximums are mentioned, 8bg, 16gb, and 32gb. Which one is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.173.102.61 (talk) 01:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)