Talk:Nokia E61

Pointless section?

Is there any value in a section of things that aren't included? It's never going to be complete, since it's an infinite list, any anything selected is just going to represent a POV approach to what this kind of handset 'should' have.

Further, is it worth having things like lists of GSM codes and 'tips'? Wikipedia isn't a manual and this information is available elsewhere.

Failing any good reasons to keep, I plan to remove these.

Wibbble 20:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I've now removed these sections. I'll try and get a picture of the handset at some point this week and add it to the article.

Wibbble 20:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

i was looking here for the code to show the mac address, because i was here once before and knew its here. so i was shocked when i realized that it had disapeared. i found it usefull! please revert this! these codes are not GSM codes, they are nokia specific. i think removing them is not a good idea, unless you make a link to a page where these codes are described. important is that this information is somewhere in the wiki. rather here than nowhere! -- 84.72.80.79 02:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

These codes are not specific to the E61, and a list of codes isn't appropriate encyclopaedic content. I'm sure there's other sources for this information which are more suitable for lists of technical information, and it's possible to start a Nokia-specific wiki. Wibbble 18:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

These codes are knowledge and who are you to say what's appropriate for an encyclopaedic and what not? So could you tell me the reason why these codes should not be part of Wikipedia? I admit, that these codes are not special codes only for the Nokia E61, but as long as there is no entry in Wikipedia for all of nokias special codes and a structure that says which code belongs to which cellphone model, it should be content of the entry for the Nokia E61. By the way, what criteria should a topic fullfill, so that it is allowed to be part of an encyclopedia? Maybe these codes would match such criterias. At least they are useful knowledge.
Path1981 11:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

See: WP:NOT, in particular:

Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Note that this does not apply to the Wikipedia: namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia. If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at Wikihow or our sister project Wikibooks.

Wibbble 14:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Who knows the site's you mentioned?!? NOBODY?? I mean, these codes are not included in the manual that came with the cellphone.The codes are not a howto. What is the fucking problem with putting the codes into this article? I mean, i dont want to offend you, i just dont understand. If think Wikipedia and all the topics it contains are information-gathering-points. And because wikipedia has many hyperlinks to other articles it becomes a nice information-network. So where would one look to find the information he needs? Propably he would start with a nokia-article in wikipedia (maybe google showed him the wikipedia-entry) if he searches cellphonecodes. And there he should find the codes or at least a hyperlink to the codes. Dont you think so? Or do you just want to write down the useless knowledge wich nobody needs? I mean wikipedia is for everyone and should be helpful. And i dont think these codes would make the article a bad article. I have to admit, that you are right, when you say that these codes are not only for the Nokia E61, but when you say there is no place in Wikipedia for these codes, then i think you are wrong. I mean, these codes are really basic informations and not a howto or tutorial. Wikipedia is a modern encyclopdia and because many people have access to it you cannot compare it to traditional ones. And about your BLOCKQUOTE :) The codes are not included in the instruction manual and it is a description of functional abilities of the cellphone. its not an advise nor a suggestion nor a howto. the codes are not a tutorial and not a wlakthrough and stuff like that, so YOU HAVE NO REASON TO REMOVE IT, dont you think? (maybe the way it is implemented in wikipedia should be changed if you want, but i think its important information and not advises or howto.) It doesnt contain instructions to a human mind :) Path1981 18:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think what you've said here really supports your position: a lot of this information is in the userguide, or is otherwise available on more appropriate websites. There's other forums for distributing this stuff - not least Nokia's own discussion boards, which could be linked to. I don't think you've really quite understood the purpose of wikipedia - it's not just a collection of 'all knowledge' (in the way that something like [e2] is), it's supposed to keep to an 'encyclopaedic' standard. This means that lists of codes or other technical/useguide type information isn't appropriate unless it's as an example or something like that. I don't think you've provided anything to support keeping userguide-type information in this article. Wibbble 21:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Path1981 is totally correct on this matter. Useful information should not be excluded from wikipedia and this would not constitute a how-to, but instead is simply useful. Wikipedia is and, aims to be the first point of call for information on a wide variety of things. Traditional encyclopaedias where invented long (ages) before mobile phones or computers. As an E61 user I would find such information very useful and may not have realised how I could use my phone differently if not for the codes (lack of) inclusion (and ensuing argument) in this article. Wiki is a place to share knowledge not shut it out. There is no reason based on logic nor wick's guidelines to have removed this content, furthermore if you want to hark back to old style encyclopaedias go burn some pages from them instead of vandalising wiki. --- Stefan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.2.159 (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2006

Again, I refer to WP:NOT and also note that an article with this information created by Path1981 was deleted. User guide type material is not suitable encyclopaedic material. I think you misunderstand the goals of wikipedia and might want to read up a little on those. My edits have most certainly NOT been vandalism - vandalism is deliberately adding nonsense or removing useful content for the purpose of disrupting wikipedia, not a simple disagreement on what is appropriate. Your accusation of vandalism is inappropriate. Wibbble 12:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Image

I've added a picture of the E61 that I took with the Nokia N73 this evening. It's not a brilliant picture, but it's better than nothing. I'd be happy to see it replaced with something better! (Sadly, the battery died on the Nokia N93 before I could take a picture with that - it would've come out much better.)

External Links

There's a really large number of external links, many of which are just to E61-releated blogs. I'm going to edit this section in line with WP:EL and remove the blogs and most of the other non-suitable material. any suggestions for sites to retain (other than Nokia's) are welcome! Wibbble 18:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Button Count

I think the number of buttons is supposed to be 45, not 46. The calculation performed for the current result was most likely (4*10)+6, however the space button on the bottom row takes the place of two keys. Phobius 23:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Nokia E61i

There is a campaign going on to delete mobile phone articles. I have tried top resist, but we need to do some cleanup. I have been merging articles on European / North American version. I cannot see why we need a separate article for the i model. I see no diffrence but the new keyboard. -- Petri Krohn 02:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)