Talk:Mobile phone

Raw Materials of a Cell Phone

I was wondering if somebody could post the Raw materials of a Cell Phone, that was the one thing that this page lacked, thanks

Article is U.S. centric

From the history of mobile phones one sees that the history of mobile phone in this article is very U.S. centric. The article even seems to claim that the first major networks were built in the U.S.

The first cellular network in the world was built in 1977 in Chicago and turned on in 1978. By the end of 1978 it had over 1300 customers. In 1979 a cellular network (the 1G generation) was launched in Japan by NTT. The initial launch network covered the full metropolitan area of Tokyo's over 20 million inhabitants with a cellular network of 23 base stations. Within five years, the NTT network had been expanded to cover the whole population of Japan and became the first nation-wide 1G network.

Analog Motorola DynaTAC 8000X Advanced Mobile Phone System mobile phone as of 1983

The next 1G network to launch was the Nordic Mobile Telephone (NMT) system in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden in 1981. NMT was the first mobile phone network to feature international roaming. The Swedish electrical engineer Östen Mäkitalo started work on this vision in 1966, and is considered to be the father of the NMT system, and by some the father of the cellular phone itself, since he and two colleagues hold a patent from 1971 on a cellular system with handover and roaming. MOBILES PHONES ARE COMMON COMMUNICATION GADGET DEVICE IN OUR DAILY LIFE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.216.147.157 (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

before cellular networks section

I think there is some good material in the section about life before cellular networks. However, I don't believe it belongs in this article which is specifically about the device not the network.

Environmental, and social effects

There are some sources, that say that you need tantalite to make mobile phones, and the mining of tantalite causes the death of mountain gorillas in Congo, and slavery, war, gang-rape and other "lovely" things. I think it would be important to write about it in this article. Sorry for my weak English. 1 2 3 Hello from Hungary :) Bokorember (talk) 07:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The Tantalite article is the correct place to write about the environmental effects of mining. References to tantalite in this article should be limited to their functional use in the manufacturing process. ChrisUK (talk) 06:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

But how the people would get to know the connection between their objects and their impacts? The advertisements won't tell you about the connection of the extinction of the gorillas and your phone, but there is a connection. I think WP should show this connection, this would be the holistical way, this would be the interdisciplinarity- if I am not wrong. How could anybody make a responsible decision, if he doesn't know the consequences of his chose? Bokorember (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Bokorember added and I removed a section "Environmental effects", which said

The Tantalite metal is important to make mobile phones, and the mining of Tantalite causes the death of a big population of mountain gorillas in Democratic Republic of Congo, and slavery, war amongst the people. The electronic waste export from many European countries to Ghana improves environmental end health-damage risks.

As per ChrisUK's comment above, I believe it is not appropriate for this article. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I disagree.

Paul Virilio: "The riddle of technology...is also the riddle of the accident. I'll explain. In classic Aristotelian philosophy, substance is necessary and the accident is relative and contingent. At the moment, there's an inversion: the accident is becoming necessary and substance relative and contingent. Every technology produces, provokes, programs a specific accident. For example: when they invented the railroad, what did they invent? An object that allowed you to go fast, which allowed you to progress -- a vision a la Jules Verne, positivism, evolutionism. But at the same time they invented the railway catastrophe....I believe that from now on, if we wish to continue with technology (and I don't think there will be a neolithic regression), we must think about both the substance and its accident -- substance being both the object and its accident. The negative side of technology and speed was censored."

The negative side of technology and speed was censored.

If we want a better world, if we want to survive, we must to change our thinking, we must to learn the connection between things. Our thinking has a cultural determination, that is nowadays infected with technophily, I think Wikipedia have to fight against it, because it is a dangerous ideology. Our thinking is too linear, it has to change to a more holistic mode. We like think, that we can buy clean products in clean shops from cute shopassistant, and it is the all story. The dying gorillas are far away, we don't see them, so that is not important. We are not responsible when we chose a product. I think Wikipedia shouldn't stop on this level. I think Wikipedia must to grow our horizont, I think the Wikipedia must show the connection the thing that are faw away from each other. Please write back that one short sentence, and the readers can make a decision its importance. Have you ever thought that your mobile phone has environmental correspondence? It is shocking fact, but Wikipedia can't hide this just for keeping us calm. If I understant you well. The lovely mobile advertisements will never say you that the gorillas are in danger beacause you buy a new mobile. Sorry for bothering but I see it different. But for make a compromise I think there is an article about the mobile recycling it is closer to this article, than the Tantalite. Bokorember (talk) 09:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Bokorember, your concern is laudable, but we can't put every detail into the article - we need to have some structure. I've removed your reference to the Jane Goodall Institute because it simply didn't fit where you put it. (Neither the Jane Goodall article nor the Jane Goodall Institute article appears to mentions the scheme - you might consider adding it to the Institute article.) Also, it is one of many schemes, not necessarily any more notable than others.

However the environmental impact of mobile phones is a valid concern, and relevant to this article, so I've added as specific section (Mobile phone#Environmental impact) to the article, although it still needs more work. Remember that this section should focus on phones (including what goes into their manufacture), rather than specific effects on specific animals (eg mountain gorillas) of the mining of specific materials (that are used in all electronics, not just phones). Mitch Ames (talk) 13:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mitch Ames! Your solution is good enough for me. Thank You! I will try to expand the new section. Bokorember (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Bokoremember - I think the best link for you to read on wikipedia policy is WP:NOTSOAPBOX. However strongly you believe in the topic, you have to be careful when making edits because wikipedia is not the place for furthering personal views. This also extends to talk pages. So you should be using the discussion page to talk about article issues only. It is not a place to push your own views onto others. ChrisUK (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC) Dear ChrisUK! Thank you for your suggestions. My English isn't so well, but in the future I'll try to argue without furthering my personal views so bad. Bokorember (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I have removed a couple of references that were primarily about Columbite-tantalite and gorillas, and did not mention the fact which their placement implied the supported ("40-50% of the environmental impact of a mobile phone occurs during the manufacturing"). Bokoremember, please remember that Wikipedia - in particular this article - is not the place to publicise the plight of the gorillas. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

What about environmental impact of production?

The "Environmental impact" section refers the reader to "Main article: Mobile phone recycling", but (as Bokorember originally pointed out) much of the environmental impact occurs during manufacturing (per my recently added sentence). That manufacturing impact is common to all electronics, not just mobile phones, so we should refer the reader to a suitable article - but I can't find one? Do we have an article on environmental impact of electronics manufacture? Perhaps we should, but I don't have the background knowledge to create one. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to have an article entitled Environmental impact of mobile phones but have a redirect back to this section while it's being developed. If it becomes overly long then we can split out later.ChrisUK (talk) 07:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I've found a documentary film and homepage about the connection between war in Congo and mobile phone manufacturing. Mineral Conflict Unwatchable but I don't know how to fit - if ever- to this article. I think this is connecting to the Environmental_justice as well. Someone may could help to find the best form, and place to it. Thanks, Bokorember (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, there is an article about War & Cellphones, if somebody want to, and has better English, that mine, should write in somewhere: Our cell Phones, their war Bokorember (talk) 09:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Grammar mistakes!??

Oh my god I can't believe I actually see grammar mistakes on Wikipedia! Will anyone just bother to review the article(I'm too lazy).

If you could at least point out the mistake and/or quote the offending text here, I'm sure someone will fix it. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Should we mention "Freebie marketing"?

Should there be a section mentioning the common use of Freebie marketing with mobile phones? Ie phones are sold very cheaply, but locked into a specific carrier and/or plan, so the buyer pays for the phone via the call costs. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

NiMH

There are a number of advantages of lithium ion batteries of NiMH. However I question the relevance of us mentioning "Lithium ion batteries are also used, as they are lighter and do not have the Voltage depression due to long-term over-charging that nickel metal-hydride batteries do". It's not like it's a good idea to overcharge lithium ions cells. In fact, it's a far worse idea then with NiMH batteries! Charging lithium ion batteries is arguably simpler then NiMH batteries since the standard CC/CV can be fairly easily implemented in silicon and works well; whereas trying to work out when to cut off charging for NiMH batteries is rather complicated depending on the charge rate and other factors (delta V is a good method except it's easy to miss termination particularly at low charge rates). And then you have to work out how long and how much to trickle charge. So it's likely true that most overcharging problems come from poorly implemented chargers. I'm lazy to look in to the history, but my feeling is this came about because someone inserted the idea that lithium ion batteries don't suffer a memory effect, unlike NiMH batteries. Except despite some common myths the true memory effect is very limited with NiMH batteries, so someone probably changed it. Nil Einne (talk) 10:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Auto-focus or fixed-focus?

Under Features the article says "Other features ... include ... autofocus ...", however I have my doubts as to whether any mobile phone has autofocus. I suspect that only have a fixed-focus lens. Can anyone produce a citation for a phone with autofocus? Mitch Ames (talk) 09:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I've moved this to Talk:Mobile phone features#Auto-focus or fixed-focus?, now that the text in question has moved to that article. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Major Trimming

I have moved a lot of the detailed content in the Phone Features section into the main article Mobile phone features. I did this because the section was quite disproportionate in size to the other sections. The detailed material should be able to be developed better in it's own artice and the reader of this one can now work through the key points of all sections more easily. ChrisUK (talk) 10:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 January 2012

 Done

"technique known multilateration" under "Tracking and Privacy" should read:

technique known as multilateration

Starchygrant (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

i want but some mobile phone cases on website. any people have good suggestions?

hello everyone:

i want but some mobile phone cases on website. any people have good suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enyatang (talk • contribs) 02:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The article should include this new study on cellphones

It shows to make people more selfish and anti-social

http://healthland.time.com/2012/02/20/is-your-cell-phone-making-you-a-jerk/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.194.214 (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Addition of further reading, and one external link

I wanted to suggest some additions to "Further Reading", and also the addition of a link to a paper which my colleagues and I have written on mobile usage under "External Links".

The suggestions for "Further Reading" are: 1. Brodsky, I. (2008), The History of Wireless: How Creative Minds Produced Technology for the Masses, St. Louis, Missouri (USA): Telescope Books.

2. The Economist (2009), Mobile marvels: A special report on telecoms in emerging markets, September 26.

3. Harper, R. , Palen, L. and Taylor, A. (Eds.), Inside Text: Social, Cultural and Design Perspectives on SMS, Dodrecht, The Netherlands: Springer

4. Castells, M., Fernandez- Ardevol, M., Qiu, J.L. and Sey, A. (2007), Mobile Communication and Society: a Global Perspective, Cambridge (USA): MIT Press.

5. Caron, A.H. and Letizia C. (2007), Moving Cultures: Mobile Communication in Everyday Life, Montreal: Mcgill-Queen’s University Press.

The suggestion for external links is: 1. http://www.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/sites/default/files/document/what_s_the_use.pdf

Ashishkulshreshtha (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

**** Addition to Health effects section of this article *****

This article should include the fact that mobile phones cause the maximum level of radiation during the low charge periods and when battery life diminishes to the maximum limit. People reading this article should know when to and not to use their mobile phones. I would appreciate it if this information was added to the health effects section of the article. I currently do not have any links supporting the fact but as soon as I get any I will post it here.

Aniruddha 3 9 27 (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Great. But this is an encyclopedia. We need a reference by a trustworthy source supporting your claim. When you have, pls you can be as bold and immediately put your explanation in the article.--SvenAERTS (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The first hand-held mobile phone were made before Martin Cooper.

A couple of the first hand-held mobile phones were not included in this article.

1957. Russia (USSR), Leonid Kupriyanovich experimental radio phone LK-1, 3 kg weight, 20-30 km range of communication with base station. ("Radiotelefon" (Radio phone), Nauka i Zhizn, 8, 1957, p. 49; "Avtomatichekaya telefonnaya radiostanciya YuT" (Automatic phone radio station YuT) Yuny Technik, 7, 1957, p.43) 1958. Russia (USSR), experimental pocket radio phone, made by Leonid Kupriyanovich, 0,5 kg weight ("Karmanny radiotelefon" (Pocket radio phone), Nauka i Zhizn, 10, 1958, p.66, "Radiofon" (Radiophone) Technika-Molodezhi, 2, 1959, p. 18-19) 1967. Bulgaria, Pocket phone set (Pocket phones RAT-0,5 and ATRT-0,5 with base station RATZ-10). First basa stations were made for 6 subscriptions per station, later for 69 and 699 subscriptions per station. Manufactured for business purpose, used by power plant Sofiya-Vostok and other industrial objects till 80th. (Radio, 2, 1967, p. 57) 1972, Great Britain. Pye Telecommunications presented the experimental pocket phone on Communications Today, Tomorrow and the Future excibition in London, hotel Royal Lancaster.

All these phones made (and some even manufactured as mass production and purchased) before "the first hand-held mobile phone", "demonstrated by Dr Martin Cooper of Motorola in 1973". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izmerov (talk • contribs) 13:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Aren't these Mobile radio telephones instead of mobile phones? The difference between the two is that a mobile phone uses a cellular infrastructure based of many small cells that it passes between seamlessly, a mobile radio telephone is generally tide to a single transceiver without seamless transfer and back-end connection to the local PSTN. Shritwod (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Define "Mobile phone". In our Wikiefforts to blur the English language to include all dialects, we've lost precision. There were lots of "mobile phones" before the first "cellular phone" at least as early as 1946 in St.Louis - the "cellular" nature is more important than the "mobile" nature. Everyone from Marconi onward knew how important it was to communicate with a mobile radio station. "Mobile radio telephone" is a somewhat stuffy and bureaucratic term for something that transmits voice over radio; but not necessarily something that lets you interact with the local public switched telephone network. Cooper's gadget was cellular and worked with the PSTN. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

But a Mobile radio telephone is not the same as a Mobile radio - a radio telephone does let you interact with the PSTN at the back end, because that's what makes it a telephone. It is confusing (although I believe accurate) that a Mobile phone is actually a cellular mobile phone in our definition. US English also makes use of the world "cellphone" which is a lot clearer although not widely used in International English. Shritwod (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Although 'mobile radio telephone' strictly should refer to a any radio telephone system that is mobile (as opposed to tethered by cables), the English speaking world now recognises the term 'mobile phone' as one of those gadgets that nearly everone carries around that takes photographs; records video; serves as an electronic diary; plays computer games; checks your stocks and shares; accesses the internet; stores music files etc. etc. Oh yes, and apparently, you can make and receive phone calls as well. Non English speakers have decided to use the term 'cell phone' in lieu of the proper English and this is explained in the first sentence of the article. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for speaking on behalf of the entire English speaking world. The problem is that "mobile phones" not including the cellular concept were doomed to congestion, high cost and poor service. You could hold a walkie-talkie to your ear as early as 1937 or so, you could have called a manual mobile telephone operator for a phone patch and called that a hand-held mobile telephone, but it would never have become a popular interface to the public switched telephone network without the "cellular" part of the system. That's what allows frequency reuse multiple times in the same urban area, and makes enough channels available to support many times more subscribers than would have been possible with the "one tower per town" strategy of earlier systems. An encyclopedia should explain exactly *why* Cooper's system caught on and all the Soviet and Bell MTS things fell by the wayside. There's mobile phones and mobile *celular* phones...the difference is a factor of about 100,000 in popularity. This is why we have different names for things, and why every 4-legged animal with fur isn't called "doggie". --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps one of the reasons why "cellphone" caught on was because in the US, there were functioning mobile phone systems well before the advent of cellular systems. By this logic, soon we'll just be calling them "phones" as some day most English speakers will have no idea that once phones were attached to the wall by a wire. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

There were functioning mobile phone systems elsewhere as well. Nevertheless, by modern usage, mobile phone refers to the systems that operate with radio cells as everything else (walkie talkie type sets excepted) are obsolete. Despite your continued, sarcasm, there are countries in the world already where phones that operate over copper wire have all but nearly disappeared and nearly all phone calls are via mobile phones . Finland springs instantly to mind and Russia is not too far behind - Phone reception is available in even the most remote spots, at least in the West of Russia. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you might care to comprehend what what written before reverting to your characteristic sarcastic tone (you are still under notice and administrative action against you is but a request away). The article is written in British English and is clearly about what British English speakers know as a 'mobile phone' (and that's the title of the article). British English speaker do not use the term 'cellular phone'. I have however reworded the section to convey the meaning that was obvious to everyone else without refering to 'cellular phone', thus preserving the British English in the article. As already noted, the alternative term, cellular phone is explained at the head of the article for non British English speakers. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggest merge

Mobile radio telephone hs been recreated. It only discusses voice radio communciation systems that connect to the public switched telephone network and so is a duplicate in part of this article and History of mobile phones. It ought to be turned into a redirect to this article, and anythign non-redundant in the way of history included into the history article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Try doing it properly as you are under notice for excessive mergitis. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a personal attack at all but an entirely valid warning. There is an established procedure in place for the merging of articles (WP:M) which you have consistently ignored. As I know that you are only too well aware, this ended up as one of the main planks of the RfC against you ([1] for anyone who is interested). The outcome of this RfC is still valid and if you return to your old ways, administrative intervention will be requested.

Removal of other people's contributions to article talk pages is grounds for an immediate block (WP:BLANKING). I am sure that as someone who tries to stay just inside the rules (if not the spirit), you know this already. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose there's a couple of decades of history where there were VHF radio telephones that could connect to the PSTN (but pre-dating their use of UHF cellular radio). These are historically significant and worth their own article.

As to your recurrent mergeitis, then please at least follow the letter of policy for the relevant announcement tags, or you'll only end up at WP:ANI again. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose given the proposer's history of inappropriate merges where merge takes place despite clear opposition. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose because there's a clear break between the two technologies. The Mobile radio telephone is a distinct device from a mobile phone, although obviously they are related. Shritwod (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Finally a non-ad-hominem point, though I don't think the break is adequately explained as the articles are now. We have some unfortunately bad nomenclature here. A typical mobile phone in 2012 is a pocket size gadget that works on a cellular network, and everyone on the bus could be talking on tehm at the same time. A typical mobile phone in 1975 was a big box in the trunk of your Cadillac that connected to a handset in the cab; and if everyone at the country club needed to make a mobile call at the same time, only the first few would get out. The present state of the Wikipedia articles is taht tehy overlap heavily and don't clearly show the difference between cellular and no-cellular mobile telephones. There's even some vaugeness around "things that let you talk to PSTN subscribers" and "things that transmit voice over radio". --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• • • So if you agree that they're different, and "a big box in the trunk of your Cadillac" is just the sort of device we're talking about here, then why are you advocating a merger that will make this confusion worse? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
      • There's nothing in Mobile radio telephone that describes a curently operating system. How about any non-redundant contents of Mobile radio telephone get moved to History of mobile phones, and Mobile radio telephone becomes a redirect to Mobile phone? Two articles instead of three, and a demarcation based on historical vs. current systems. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• "There's nothing in Mobile radio telephone that describes a curently operating system."

A complete non-sequitur. No doubt we also have an article on buggy whip - where are you planning on merging that away to, as they're famously "not currently" manufactured?

Your edit summary here, "More of a refactoring and redirecting than a pure merge" is also deliberately deceitful (as is your regular editing practice). The vast majority of your edits are to delete articles, to merge articles where you can't manage to delete them, and to delete sections where you've failed to merge altogether. This is just what you're doing here. You've already (twice) blanked two sections. Your palliative "more of a refactoring than a merge" comment is a simple lie to confuse those admins clustering around your sticky mess at ANI and Special:Contributions/Wtshymanski and who don't have the time to read your real intention, as you spell it out on this page, that you intend to proceed with the merge anyway, despite the clear opposition of other editors here.

Editors are tired of your behaviour: your deceit, your mendacity, your utter disregard for any sense of community; both in your ignoring of consensus choices, and in your perpetual sniping at others.

WP would be better off without you. This was the clear outcome of your RFC, an opportunity for possible remedy that you managed to subvert by hiding away from it until the dust settled. However I would welcome such an RFC again, and serious discussion about a community ban of you. I don't want you here, and I believe that the RFC and similar forums indicate that we don't want you here either. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

In response to your comment, I suggested an alternative to merging with this article. Trying to stick to the point, and using an analog is always dangerous here, but if we had Buggy whip (with a "History" section, perhaps) and History of the buggy whip and Whip (buggy), what would be the optimum number of articles to retain? Mergeophobia can be cured. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem with definition of term "mobile phone"

The definition of term "mobile phone" in this article: A mobile phone (also known as a cellular phone, cell phone and a hand phone) is a device that can make and receive telephone calls over a radio link whilst moving around a wide geographic area. It does so by connecting to a cellular network provided by a mobile phone operator, allowing access to the public telephone network. By contrast, a cordless telephone is used only within the short range of a single, private base station.

So, this definition united two terms: the "mobile phone" as portable or pocket phone, and the "mobile phone" as the colloquial expression of the cellular phone (for example, cellular phone in Russia called as "mobil'nik", "mobila", "truba", etc). Is that right?

Mr. Martin Cooper in 1973 not demonstrated the cellular infrastrucure, there was only one base station. The first cellular system presented in Chicago in 1978. That is why the phrase of the article: "The first mobile telephone call made from a car occurred in St. Louis, Missouri, USA on June 17, 1946, using the Bell System's Mobile Telephone Service.[7]" is also not correct.

I propose to include in article the section, named as "Prehistory of the mobile phone (cellular)", and describe there all the automatic pocket radio phones before 1978 (Kupriyanovich phone, Bachvarov phone, RAT-0,5, Pye Telecommunications' phone, and, of course, Martin Cooper phone). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izmerov (talk • contribs) 08:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I also have problem/issue with the definition/term of "Mobile phone" here for years ago, so this is my idea to fix this 'generic' mobile phone definition issue:

1. "Mobile phone (system)" term is intuitively a general meaning of "portable telephone" which you can carry around anywhere unattached to a fixed point/node/terminal ('intuitively' means we don't have to search Wiki for the term's meaning, we can auto-define it in general by ourself simply by using our basic language logic). Any (tele-)phones fit in this definition will be in this section, this includes SatPhone/satellite phone (which is strangely uncovered/missing in this telephony index article) which today has appearance almost resembles the cellphone handset, only the protruding mini antenna (can be telescopic/retractable on some models) like the old day AMPS ones differs it ("Sat-Phone" can covers 'blank' area uncovered by cellular network as its main advantage, this is the true "Anywhere/Mobile-Phone").

2. "CellPhone" is a handset/terminal to connect to cellular (radio) network. This terminal can be mobile/fixed since of the radio wave/band is used as medium for 'data' (note: 'voice' is audio data) transmission. "CellPhone/CP" term should be used when referring to this cellular-network handsets/terminals in order to differ it SPECIFICALLY from other mobile phone systems. So by technical definition it is correct, see telco-tech books for more details (e.g: W.Stallings, etc).

3. For general suggestion to others, when you define a thing please be more SPECIFIC, use SPECIFIC terms please. This will greatly reduce the unnecessary issues generated by the GENERIC/GENERAL terms such as the 'mobile phone' here. "CellPhone" need no further explanation since intuitively it 'connects' to cellular network system, amazingly auto-explained by itself. Try to use "mobile phone" in area unfamiliar with the term and "SatPhone" or even "CordlessPhone" might also come in mind, especially in those techie minds. Marketing mind is generic, more catchy/general is better; Technical mind is specific. more specific is better. "HandPhone" (some local stupids even try to abbreviate it into "HP" which making it worse in computer-telco industry brand-terminology that already has Hewlett-Packard in it and in the same industry which is prone to misleadings [e,g; An ads says: "Free HP for every 1000 points you got!", Sorry? Is it referring to the cellphone or the printer/computer giant brand? LOL!]) is popular marketing term for cellphone in some under-developed countries such as Indonesia, the techies there are 'compliant' to marketers/traders without sound complaints, only small smart idealist techies rejected the stupid term and use "cellphone" (Indonesian: "PonSel" or "telePon Selular") term instead, and those braves are still fighting today. "HandPhone" term intuitively refers to a (tele-)phone that held by a hand (for some monkeys, their feet are also hands. BTW, already designed a "FootPhone" anybody? or Eye-Phone [i-phone?] for the eye-held one? ;)), so this will include any phone that held by hand, such as those PSTN/Home fixed-point/node phones, cordless phones, cellphones, satphones (satellite), WT/HT (Walkie/Handy-Talkie), etc.

Conclusion: Such the "mobile phone" (or even the stupid marketing mindless defines-no-specific-system "handphone") term should be avoided when discussing cellphone or its cellular network system. "CellPhone" (which runs on cellular radio network system) is under/part of mobile phone domain, "SatPhone" (which runs on satellite radio network) is also under/part of mobile phone domain, even those no-dial-needed personal 'phones' such as WT/HT/field radio comm may come under this "mobile phone" domain if no specific network system is required in definition. You decide it, either jumping into wrong assumptions easily by those generic (stupid marketing) terms or be more technically specific for identifying the right one.

"Making things right, faster, and much simpler by be more specific. Simple as that!" - WCh1974.

The choice is yours smartguys, not those marketers! -- [WCh1974 @ 2013-05-09] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.79.2.166 (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Wtshymanski recently rewrote a section of the article (here [2]), claiming the new edit to be "less wordy". Wtshymanski is all too good at rewording other peoples contributions to match his requirements of how Wikipedia should read (and this is the subject of a recent RfC (here [[3]]). In spite of the administarative censure and a subsequent block for ignoring the censure, he continues unabated. In this case he changed the meaning of the wording to replaced to include an explicit and dubious claim for which no reference was provided. AFAICT there is no positive evidence that Dr Martin Cooper was positively involved with the first mobile phone hence the article's original claim that he is "... believed to be ...".

Would some kind soul revert the article to read correctly (unless, of course, a citation can be found supporting the new claim). 86.150.65.44 (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

See Martin Cooper (inventor). He wasn't a one-man-band, Edison-style inventor; a cell phone is the product of a team of researchers, not a "Eureka!" moment. "Portable mobile phone" is wordy; and in an article where we are obsessing about English usage, we should be careful not to be prolix. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Even you should know that you cannot use Wikipedia itself as a reference. I thought about your change and had to say I was not over happy, but let it go. Now there is a second editor querying the change, I feel happier reverting your change. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

If this project has any utility at all, surely I can point at the biography of Cooper to illustrate a point on an *article talk page* (not as a reference in an article). I'm tryign to be very direct here as we've had miscommunications in the past. Never mind the ad-hominem attacks, look at that prose instead. If you need a citation for Cooper's existence and relevance to the cell phone, there's more than one in the Cooper article which could be pasted into this article if anyone was seriously interested in documenting this fact. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Photo has wrong tag line

The sign on the kiosk says Mumbai not Bangalore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.140.115.220 (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - price of the cheapest new phone

Generally inserting in first -invite- section price of the new mobile phone, would be great. For e.g. The cheapest new mobile phone cost now(as of 2012) about 17.70 $(example of source, I am not owner of any shop:).

If You known the initial price of the mobile phones would be great to add. Why it is so important - 1) to show the penetrations of the bottom pyramid by clear example, 2) to show the price compare with the lowest paid in other articles, like North Korea ~10$ per month, when the political decisions blocks the expanding market, 3) the technology increase not only in the adding the more "fireworks", but also lowering the cost of production, like in Ford Model T article.

 Not done. Wikipedia isn't really the place to do comparision shopping; at least in North America, many cellular plans offer so-called "free" phones, where the cost of providing the handset is distributed into the monthly fees paid by the consumer. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Please also note that an edit request must be in the format of "Please replace <this> with <whatever>". If you are requesting something be included that is not in the article, then this is not an edit request (though the request can be raised on this talk page as a separate subject). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Redirect from Home screen

Why does Home screen redirect here? I can think of many uses of the phrase—software, video games, ATMs, etc. When I think of a home screen for phones I specifically think of smartphones, so shouldn't Smartphone be the redirect target then? – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 07:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Usage in Schools - Need for Improvement

I believe the section "In Schools" should be revised and improved. First of all, it does not specify to which country those rules apply. Second, built-in cameras are not the only reason cellphones are banned from schools. According to the article below from The Daily Mail, "apart from the distracting effect of a mobile going off in a lesson, handsets can be used for cyber-bullying and accessing online pornography at school", in the UK. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2142085/Ofsted-chief-gets-tough-classroom-discipline-schools-penalised-failing-tackle-disruption.html#ixzz1uScLBe3C Perhaps making a session for each country? In the UK for example, 3/4 of the respondents of the poll linked below believe mobile phones should be banned in schools. Maybe including that information will make the article more complete. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/poll/2012/may/10/mobile-phones-banned-schools Best regards, Zalunardo8 (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Mobile phone criticism

There must be a comparison section where impact of mobile phone on as good or bad should be discussed in detail.or following link can be added in the external link section. Mobile phone boon or ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwantvarun (talk • contribs) 13:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The truth about mobile phones: e waste, radiation hazards, road accidents, addiction to games and social networking, BOREDOM (people keep changing models so fast!). Unecessary distraction. One day mobile phones will be remembered (maybe in 2025 or 2030) as the most important miserable piece of technology in the world. BEWARE OF MOBILE PHONES! -Polytope4d (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Mobile phones--one day, will be known as "The most miserable piece of technology ever"

Where is the criticism section???? They are useful, but potentially dangerous -Polytope4d (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 May 2013

The illsutration shows an iPhone 4 and not an iPhone 5 194.98.34.59 (talk) 09:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)