Talk:Samsung Galaxy Note 5

Brands Start‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Electronics Mid‑importance

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

Telecommunications Mid‑importance

	Telecommunication portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Galaxy S6 Edge+

Please reach to a consensus to decide whether to create a separate article for Galaxy S6 Edge+ or merge it with this article or with the Samsung Galaxy S6. Ayub407 (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: GioRega23 created a separate article. Ayub407 (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

| website = Official Website -> | website = Official Website Yubsdesign (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 10:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move S6 Edge+ to the Samsung Galaxy S6 Article

Hi it has come again to my attention the article has been move to a "Note" article instead of the "S6" article wherein it should be moved. There are arguments that this was done in relation to having "almost" same specs with the Note 5, but i think this argument is very poor for a few obvious reasons. First is the name itself which shows that the device belongs to the "S" particularly the "S6" family which was done by Samsung itself with the intention to include it with the S6 series and not the Note series. Second is the base model number for the S6 Edge+ G928x which follows the Gxxxx series used by the G920x and G925x of the Samsung Galaxy S6 and S6 edge respectively and also the Samsung Galaxy S6 Active with the model number G890x as opposed to the Nxxxx series of the Note series as with the base model number of the Note 5 which is N920x. Third is the specs which still shares most of it with the S6 series too with only minor differences such as the screen size, and ram size from the other S6 phones. Fourth is the argument of release which is also invalid as Samsung often releases more variants of a certain lineup such as the S3, S4, and S5 with mini, neo, LTE-A, etc. variants later on that shares almost similar specs to other phone series launched near or at that time such as the Note series than the original S series it belongs into. And lastly is the emergence of the S7 edge which ended the official sales of all S6 phones such as the main S6, S6 Edge, and S6 Edge+ in favor of the S7 Edge as opposed to the Note 5 which is still being sold officially by Samsung being a "Note" series phone that is expected to be replaced by the Note 6 still later this year. GadgetsGuy (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is all original research. ViperSnake151 Talk 03:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then what proves your argument as the "Samsung official" one? Your presumption that S6 Edge+ is a "variant" of Note 5 also falls on the original research category. GadgetsGuy (talk) 10:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually not OR, because The Next Web citation actually says "[..] for most purposes, they're basically the same phone. The internal specs are exactly identical, and the only differences are outside: one just has a curvy screen, the other has a stylus." ViperSnake151 Talk 18:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Basically the Next Web citation that you are looking at is based on observation and opinion of the writers. If your insisting in web citations which pass through standards of REFERENCES here are some of it "Just like the Galaxy S6 and S6 Edge the 5.7-inch phone is a solid all-rounder and needs to be considering its key competitor, the iPhone 6 Plus" which alludes at how the S6 and S6 Edge competes with the standard iPhone 6 while the S6 Edge+ competes with the iPhone 6 Plus which in turn shares the single article here in wikipedia. Next is this "most of the device’s internals are identical to the vanilla Edge, this phone is likely to live and die on its increased size". And lastly is this article "So the word “Plus” could mean many things, right? Better processor? Camera? Features? In the case of the S6 Edge Plus, though, it’s just size. This phone is almost an exact copy of this year’s S6 Edge except for its whopping 5.7-inch display." GadgetsGuy (talk) 03:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also factor in that unlike previous Note models, the Note 5 has more in common with the S6 than the Note 4 did with the S5. ViperSnake151 Talk 18:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So if that is the logic then, maybe the Note 5 is better off in the S6 article then since like you said "the Note 5 has more in common with the S6" GadgetsGuy (talk) 03:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest leaving the S6 Edge+ in this page as this device shares the same specifications (5.7" Super AMOLED, Exynos 7420, 4GB RAM, 3000 mAh battery), and this phone was announced on the same day as the Note 5, as such, lacking a stylus is something nothing to me to merge this page to the smaller flagships the S6 and S6 Edge page.Xizuki (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately such arguments were already raised by Vipersnake151 and debunked wherein specs and announcement date is not enough for the S6 Edge+ to be here in the Note 5 article simply because of the name and other reasons stated above as well as the official Samsung website explanation which leans it further to the smaller S6 Edge than the Note 5 therefore debunking (again) the "same date, almost same specs" argument. So I suggest we either reinstate the separate article for the S6 Edge+ or merge it with the main S6 article. GadgetsGuy (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]