# Talk:Samsung Galaxy S III

This article does not have any reference, you can improve this article by adding a reference to your statement.

This article is in urgent need of references, to deter or prevent edit warring and other nasty and unpleasant argument. I definitely know that there are numerous references out there that can be relatively easy to obtain with a single google search but unfortunately many of us (including me) aren't bother locate them. All in all, this issue must be addressed, DarkBahamut1 made the right judgement by reverting the article to a redirect; at its current state, this article warrants deletion. YuMaNuMa  Contrib  06:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
== Act of Advertisize: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.96.56.2 (talk) 06:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC) 

I guess advertisement-like claims would differ with opinions, I would consider "This would make for an interesting concept coupled with the rumored" to be an opinion skewed from neutrality and along with no source, it as if that phrase was written by the designers themselves. YuMaNuMa  Contrib  09:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 Done - some big issues sorted, rhumours, speculation, badly worded sections etc. Thanks Jenova20 08:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Please add a picture for this article from Wiki Commons if it exist in May.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.104.200 (talk) 07:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC) 

All android 4.0 devices are moving away for physical buttons for home and search functionality.
1280x1024 is not a sensible resolution. The screen will either be 1280x768 or 1920x1080 which as been rumoured recently. it will be 16:9 or wider as the physical buttons are now part of the screen  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.49.31.107 (talk) 05:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)  

Now there's nothing for this article to be be deleted now. It's all under control. There's no multiple issues above that may cause this article to be deleted. 
To don't let this happen again, we should not put there any unconfirmed sources. Please help this article to expand. Please remove this article from deleting because there's nothing to worry about. Thanks for teaching me user: Funnyfarmofdoom.

Can someone add Verizon's SCH-i535 model to the table?  Here is a comprehensive datasheet.  I'd do it myself but I don't know enough about cell networks to get that part accurately written.  DavidPx (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Can someone please tell me why my edit including the leaked specs was deleted?
"On Feb 27th, 2012 the Galaxy SIII specs were reportedly leaked. It is rumored that the Galaxy SIII will have a 1.5GHz quad-core Samsung Exynos processor, 4.8-inch “full HD” 1080p resolution with 16:9 aspect ratio display, A 2-megapixel front-facing camera and an 8-megapixel rear camera, a Ceramic case instead of the usual plastic and aluminum, and it will ship with Android 4.0 installed. <r>Jonathan S. Geller (Feb 27th, 2012). "Samsung Galaxy S III full specs: 1.5GHz quad-core, 1080p display, ceramic case". BGR. Retrieved February 28, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)</ref><r>Jared Newman, PCWorld (Feb 28th, 2012). "Samsung Galaxy S III Rumored to Have 4.8-Inch Screen". PCWorld. Retrieved February 28, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)</ref>" — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAD DOG86 (talk • contribs) 

Your edit was deleted as it consist of speculated content. Despite citing it with a reliable reference, the reference itself is speculating the specification of the phone. As per WP:CRYSTAL, information of the sort cannot be included in the article. YuMaNuMa  Contrib  14:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Though the official specs haven't been released, there is a difference between "speculated" information and "leaked" information. Though it is possible that even reputable sources can be fooled by false information, but that was why I included multiple sources and also included "leaked" and "rumored" in the text.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MAD DOG86 (talk • contribs) 
Although, I would admit the line between speculated and leaked is very thin, the sources you cited don't really help you prove your point as one claims the specification is 'rumoured' while the other is simply asserting that those are the definite specification. As with in previous cases, leaked data must be extremely substantial in terms of the evidence, a source simply claiming that the specification is leaked is not good enough. YuMaNuMa  Contrib  21:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
So for the leaked information to be considered substantial it means that a company spokesman must comment on the leak? That doesn't seem very likely as almost all companies will simply say that they "can neither confirm nor deny yada yada yada". Anyway, I was just curious about the rules, I guess it doesn't really matter as this isn't urgent information that must be updated immediately, and we can wait until the official announcment to update the page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MAD DOG86 (talk • contribs) 
Well not exactly comment on it but the source of the leak should at least have video of a leak device, paper documents regarding the specification of the phone or other details or a screenshot from the official website of Samsung for it to be considered substantial but of course, common sense comes into play here as well :). YuMaNuMa  Contrib  12:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Samsung lists the SPH-L710 as supporting up to a 64GB microSD card though this page says 32GB [1].  Am I missing something?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altendky (talk • contribs) 01:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC) 

why is there no photo yet? Jainsworth16 (talk) 09:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned that Samsung messed up making the blue models and as of yet only a fraction of the pre-prders for blue 16GB have been shipped and none of the blue 32GB phones have been shipped, as well as an initial delay on the white 32GB?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.82.243 (talk) 10:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC) 

Please don't keep adding rumours about storage sizes without a reliable source as i can otherwise challenge and remove it under WP:CRYSTAL.
Thanks Jenova20 10:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Why was the information regarding the US version of the phone removed from the info bar on the right side of the phone?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.218.88 (talk) 08:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC) 

The galaxy 3 with 1 gigabyte ram only has 780 true ram available.  Do not buy it.  I have a galaxy 3 and applications like browser,  agenda,  calculator are pushed out of memory every time.  Wish I hadn't believed Samsung lies.  Push home button until task manager button appears than push ram.  Look how sad the truth is,  a miserable 780 megabytes ram only.  Do not buy it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.91.38.100 (talk) 03:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC) 

This is not a forum for discussing your experience with the phone. You are best complaining to Samsung. Thanks Jenova20 08:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Or rather, to Google, as a certain percentage of RAM (~200 MB in this case) is always reserved for usage by Android. --illythr (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Can the editor who added the advert tag provide a more specific rationale and examples for his action? It is difficult to rectify flaws if the problem is not identified. If no rationale is provide, the tag will be removed. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 08:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to request a photo of the phone, similar to File:IPhone 4S No shadow.png. It would be preferable if the the home screen is untouched like File:Galaxy Nexus smartphone.jpg. It would be great if such a photo is uploaded. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's one. A bit on the crappy side, though (dark). --illythr (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
No worries, that's exactly what I wanted! I've tweaked it a little. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 01:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
It might look nice but it's also showing a modified/black Samsung Galaxy S3 rather than a white or blue one and is therefore not entirely appropriate for the article or current usage. It is a nice image though but is so dark it obscures the view of the app names and the shape and design of the phone.
Sorry but we need a replacement Jenova20 18:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
That's the standard blue version, actually. Apparently the color's been changed slightly after the screwup with the blue cases. But the photo's indeed too dark - couldn't compensate for display brightness. A HDR image would be nice here. --illythr (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I stand corrected. That link you provided - that metallic blue looks worse than the original blue one... I'd offer to take a photo but unfortunately the only camera i have is on my phone... Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 22:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 Can somebody also take photos of the back and side of the phone as well? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 00:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Here's some more: Darkened screen, overexposed, back smooth, back with texture, take your pick. --illythr (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 01:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the 1st and 3rd images would go well together. Opinions? Thanks for taking more photos by the way ツ Jenova20 (email) 11:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
The white ones ain't mine. :-) Now that the article's grown, though, I see no problem in adding those as well. --illythr (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
So, uh, now that the dandelion screen's turned out to be copyrighted, does anybody have an idea what element of the TouchWiz UX interface is "Samsungy" enough to identify the GS III, yet also generic enough to pass under the copyright chopper? --illythr (talk) 22:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
How about a photo with the screen turned off, like that of iPhone 4S? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, at the moment I'm trying to build a table that has all the S3 release dates of major countries; if somebody could help me find high-quality sources that has the dates for the following that would be very helpful. (please place the URLs next to the countries)
Austria (29 May), Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland (29 Mai), Finland, Germany (29 May), Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Thailand, Turkey, Armenia, Bulgaria, Greece, Hong Kong, Poland, Portugal, Romania (29 May), Russia (5 June), South Korea (25 June), Brazil, Chile, Israel, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Philippines (9 June 2012). --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 01:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me adding Germany, Russia and South Korea to the list. :-) It seems the date is 29 May for all of EU, might want to list them as a single entry...  --illythr (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your effort. Nah, I wouldn't list it as a single entry, because the EU has 27 member states, the S3 was released in 28 countries including Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, meaning there are several EU countries that missed out. Anyway, thanks for your help! --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

There's going to be a few different colours apparently, including a "Garnet Red" one in America.
May be worth mentioning. [2] Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 15:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It's been included under "Hardware and design". --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 00:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph says that uSwitch.com Mobile Tracker ranked the S3 as the most popular phone in February. I don't see how I can't use the same webpage to give the reader an idea of how popular--based on "live searches and sales"--the S3 is as of July. As far as I know, the editor who removed the paragraph has done some original research by claiming uSwitch "has ranked the S III as the most-searched phone on its website in March 2012" when in fact sources like The Times of India, The Daily Telegraph, Mail Online and Zee News say that it was according to live searches and sales. Can I be given an explanation for this non-corroboration? I may have missed something --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions

Properly qualified I have no problem with the uswitch info being included in the body of the article. The fact that a fairly minor company says it is the most popular searched for and sold phone (via their referral mechanism to vendors who pay commission to uswitch) does not make it the most popular phone in the country. It is therefore wrong to put such a claim into the lead of the article. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll restore the body sentences that you've removed. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I've got great hopes for this article, but before I could take it anywhere, a thorough copy edit is needed so I can take up a refreshed perspective of the article afterwards. I will follow up with an award. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Samsung Galaxy S III/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Obtund (talk · contribs) 00:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


### Status
This section is supposed to be edited only by reviewer(s). Any questions and comments concerning this table should be posed in Discussion subsection below.


### Discussion
Please refer to issue by numbers. Eg., the second issue with 1a criterion is 1a2. For referring to issues in the Reprise review, please use "R" in front of the criterion number, ie: R1a2.
1a12

"The S III was released by approximately 300 296 carriers in nearly 150 145 countries at the end of July 2012." Doesn't that imply the S III was not released before the end of July 2012? What's wrong with the current sentence? Point No. 5 has been addressed. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The current sentence apply that it will be release at the end of July 2012 and it is the end of July 2012, so tense must be changed. ObtundTalk  15:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
1a14

"Samsung's intelligent personal assistant as response to Apple's Siri that can recognise eight." That makes no sense. What I'm saying is, the S Voice is Sammy's intelligent personal assistant capable of recognising eight languages, and it also serves as the company's response to the iPhone 4S's Siri. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I did not included the full quote which was "To complement the TouchWiz interface, the phone introduces S Voice, Samsung's intelligent personal assistant and response to Apple's Siri that can recognise eight languages including English, Korean and French." I have updated the note. GA reviewer - ObtundTalk  15:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
1a21

Samsung has ..., and instead have incorporateed - why use "have" here? Also note the typo. --illythr (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Fixed the typo, because using have states the "the group" Samsung did the action. GA Reviewer - ObtundTalk  22:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
As Samsung is referred to as a singular entity throughout the article, I think it should be "has" here as well, for consistency's sake. Sp33dyphil has already fixed the has/have inconsistency there. --illythr (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 Agreed - but everything else needs to be changed in #21 - GA reviewer ObtundTalk  00:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
The sentence now reads: "Samsung has abandoned the rectangular design that can be found on the Galaxy S and Galaxy S II, and instead has incorporated round corners and curved edges, reminiscent of the Galaxy Nexus." The only remaining difference to what is suggested at #21 is the "has/have" point, which, as we seem to agree, have been addressed. --illythr (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
1a22

20 percent less power than its latter. - is that valid usage of "latter"? I'd suggest rewording to "According to Samsung, the Exynos 4 Quad doubles the performance of the S II's Exynos 4 Dual, while using 20 percent less power." --illythr (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe so, latter means the end to beginning. I also believe it should state "S II" and then "the previous version." GA Reviewer - ObtundTalk  22:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
You mean like this: "According to Samsung, the Exynos 4 Quad doubles the performance of the Exynos 4 Dual used in the SII, while consuming 20 percent less power than the previous version." The problem here is that there's one more version of the Exynos 4 Dual between SII and SIII. --illythr (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Well what do you mean by there was more than one version of the Exynos four dual? - GA Reviewer ObtundTalk  03:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
There's the "Exynos 4 Dual (Galaxy S II) and there's the "Exynos 4 Quad" (Galaxy S III). --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 04:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
As listed here, after the Exynos 4 Dual 45nm which was used in the SII, there's an Exynos 4 Dual 32nm that was built in the Meizu MX. Thus, the Exynos 4 Quad is not the previous version of the SII's Dual. --illythr (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
1a23

There doesn't need to be a link between the two. The second sentence about the front-facing camera, of which there aren't a lot of info, is there to conclude the paragraph. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't flow well and needs to be reworked. GA reviewer - ObtundTalk  15:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps do an explicit subject switch: "The front-facing camera has a resolution of 1.9-megapixels and can record 720p videos." --illythr (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 Agreed GA Reviewer - ObtundTalk  08:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
1a26

Replace "has helped improve or maintained Samsung's market share" with "has helped Samsung consolidate its market share"? --illythr (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 Agreed - GA reviewer ObtundTalk  22:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
1a28

"…Samsung's market share is also climbing due to an "unprecedented" demand…" The word an would not normally be included if I was not elaborate on what the customers be demanding. "Across other Western European countries and Australia, Samsung's market share is also climbing due to "unprecedented" demand;" vs "Across other Western European countries and Australia, Samsung's market share is also climbing due to an "unprecedented" demand for the S III;" Ask yourself this "an unprecedented demand" for what? I think you didn't quite hit the bull eye's on this sentence. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Maybe explain what that demand was? GA Reviewer - ObtundTalk  22:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
What I'm saying is, by adding an, I'd need to elaborate on what the demand actually was, which I have done by add "for the S III". --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 04:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Perfect. GA Reviewer - ObtundTalk  04:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
1a31

"a numerous amount of critics" Not only is it unnecessary and awkward, but amount should also be number. The current sentence conveys the same message without the superfluous words. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 Agreed - I have updated it above - GA reviewer ObtundTalk  22:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
1a32

"Though only a limited number of the white Galaxy S III 16 GB model were available" I think you'd be right if I had specified the number of Galaxy S III 16 GB, but I used the phrase "a limited number", making the subject singular. Thoughts? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Well the number specified is "limited." GA Reviewer - ObtundTalk  22:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
My point is, "a limited number" is singular, so were would be wrong in this context. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 22:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but by specifying "a limited number" you are saying more than one. GA Reviewer - ObtundTalk  03:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
In other words, "a limited number" acts as a collective noun, so I believe a singular verb applies, instead of a plural verb. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 04:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, when collective nouns, are preceded by "a", it is treated as a plural word. And it was already completed. GA Reviewer - ObtundTalk  04:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

1b1

I don't think there are any restrictions regarding the number of wikilinks in references, since a reader wouldn't normally read the refs in order from first to last. I've also been wikilinking everything in the refs in other articles and the point hasn't been raised before. I'm not sure how this article is different from iPhone 4S regarding wikilinks. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 02:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
To me it seemed over linked. There should only be one source maybe two in somecases, none of them should be side by side, unless it is needed. Giving three different sources to the same information is meaningless if you know what I mean. The iPhone 4S page has 2 sources a few times and three once or twice, but S III's page has many more than that. In total the iPhone 4S page has 65 sources, while S III's page has 221 sources. Each of the pages are about equal in length (plus or minus), and a majority of the sources on S III's page are uneeded. GA reviewer ObtundTalk  03:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Could you guys be talking past each other here? Obtund means the overuse of references, whereas Sp33dyphil seems to discuss wikilinks in the refs. I agree with Obtund here - simple uncontroversial facts like company statements or past release dates don't need more than one ref to back them up. --illythr (talk) 23:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I just believe that 217 references is a little bit too much. GA Reviewer - ObtundTalk  04:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
1b2, 4, 6-9, 12-13

Another point, I'm not sure how adding "2012" after dates would help, since the reader should be able to figure out that the phone was launched in May 2012, and thus every significant event would've taken this year. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 02:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
By following WP:MOS, the reader may have lost track of the year, and so forth. It also has to be this way so it isn't confused with other years. GA reviewer ObtundTalk  03:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
"the public that the 21 June release would proceed as planned." I've already included the year for the previous mention of "21 June" -- I totally cannot see how that can be remotely confused with other years.
If you can find something in WP:MOS that allows that then go ahead, but I can't find it. An example would be the iPad 3, every date/month has a year next to it. GA Reviewer - ObtundTalk  16:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
By putting the in front of 21 June, I am referring to the US release date that was mentioned previously. This is unlike the iPad article in that the authors didn't make any references to earlier dates -- all the dates on the article are different. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:MOS, you need to state the year. GA reviewer - ObtundTalk  15:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
It seems we're at an impasse --  I'm proposing that we invite a third-party to resolve this issue. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I really don't believe that bring this to a dispute noticeboard is necessary. GA Reviewer - ObtundTalk  16:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 The year is already clearly implied -- please show me where WP:MOS calls for the inclusion of year in every date? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:MOSNUM, "Yearless dates (5 March, March 5) are inappropriate unless the year is obvious from the context." It requires it. Maybe not if the date is in the same sentence but it still applies. GA Reviewer - ObtundTalk  15:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
1b6 and 1b8 use the definite article to link to a specific date with a year, thus providing the necessary obvious context. 1b12 does need the year, though. It should be also split off into a separate paragraph, because it changes topic from market share analysis to the launch event. --illythr (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
1b6 needs it and 1b8 does not. I never disagreed to 1b12. GA Reviewer - ObtundTalk  21:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
1b6 clearly refers to the date stated just a sentence ago. As it is also the only date in that range, I think that the Viewers Are Goldfish trope should be defied here, for the good of all. As for 1b12, I was actually agreeing with you there. --illythr (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Well by Viewers are goldfish, we should have it every time if you know what I mean. But all that needs it is 1b6, 1b8 I can see being obvious. GA Reviewer - ObtundTalk  02:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
2a1

Strange, I'm reading Reference 18 at the moment. You're sure there's nothing out of line with your browser? According to [3], there aren't any dead links. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 05:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, that's odd, it works now. ObtundTalk  13:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
2b2

I can't any sources that say 296 carriers have released the S III in in 145 countries, simply because a company wouldn't announce such a development. Therefore, I'm going to say that the phone has been released by approximately 300 carriers in nearly 150 countries by the end of July 2012, because I can be fairly sure that it is true, although I don't know the exact number of carriers and countries. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 02:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 Agreed - GA reviewer ObtundTalk  03:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
2bX→3

In regards to the battery life of the S3 and HTC One X variants - I can say with confidence that the statement "it has twice the battery life compared to the HTC handset", referring to the S3 and HTC One X, is misleading and controversial. Of the three sources they cite, only one found a 100% difference and their test was limited to quad-core phones playing continuous video. Their other source, Tech Radar, report a 37% difference, not 100%. I did not check their 3rd source, but would suggest making a more neutral battery life statement and perhaps pointing to a site such as gsmarena. They also have a S3 specific page, but it does not mention the HTC. I cannot find any battery test results for the dual-core S3. Molecbiolograd07 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for that information. I have not gotten to that part of the article yet, but I appreciate the heads up! GA reviewer - ObtundTalk  18:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I have noted it above that it should describe the testing situations. GA Reviewer - ObtundTalk  00:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
3b1

I didn't remove everything, as the event was specially geared towards the launch of the S III, whereas the One X and other phones were revealed at the World Mobile Congress or CES. In addition, an explanation is provided after the sentence in question, so some context must be provided. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 Agreed - GA reviewer ObtundTalk  15:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
6a2

The previous image was removed because I uploaded it without knowing that such an image (which consisted prominent copyrighted works) was not in the public domain. This photo, however, doesn't feature copyrighted works. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Is the cube in the background copyrighted? GA Reviewer - ObtundTalk  13:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but it's not the focal point of the photo, so no infringements there. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Does it really matter if it is the focal point or not? GA Review - ObtundTalk  21:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes. That's why the previous photo was removed -- because its focal point is a copyrighted work. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
1a33

Are you implying that, even though the word latter exists, it cannot be used? This is not Simple English Wikipedia. I have altered one instance of the word, but I'm not changing the other. If you insist, provide an alternative to "The South Korean version is a hybrid of the 4G-capable and international versions by incorporating the latter's hardware and the former's LTE support." that is not awkward. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 08:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Nobody knows what the latter is for the last time. Above I thought it was the S II but it was a processor. You need to specify! I am also seeing some WP:OWN with this article by the way. GA Reviewer - ObtundTalk  15:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
How? I said I wouldn't alter the sentence myself, because I have no improved alternative for it -- I'm happy to see others change the sentence for the better, if they know a way of getting rid of "the latter" without making it worse. I didn't, and don't, have any problems with other users editing the article, and was happy to address most of your, and others', issues. I just happen to disagree with several of your points. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 21:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Just change latter to a what the latter is. GA reviewer - ObtundTalk  21:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
"Latter" here is the "international version [of the SIII]". How about this: The South Korean version is a hybrid model, incorporating LTE support of the the 4G-capable version and the hardware of the international S III variant. The international version should also probably be mentioned before the LTE one in that para, because it was released first. --illythr (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
It really doesn't matter just get rid or the word "latter." GA Reviewer ObtundTalk  16:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
*shrug* Looks like the L-word's completely absent from the article now. --illythr (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Poor quality references

I am surprised that the article got through relatively unscathed w.r.t. the references used. Having looked there are a large number of very poor references used - websites that are little more than blogs or reposters. A good example would be the recently-added reference on motoringcrunch.com. I don't see how that site could pass WP:RS. To me this article is nowhere near GA quality. It has lots of references, but a good percentage of them are simply worthless. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I haven't gone through the references yet, I was going to do that after we figured out all the issues listed above. As I noted the article is way overlinked, and I don't think reviewing all 217 refs would be productive when many of them will be deleted. Thanks for the heads up! GA Reviewer - ObtundTalk  07:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
FYI, I have been through and tagged a number of the references (approximately 10% of the total), along with reasons, that I feel are dubious. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
R6a2

Really? I thought [4] says that if a logo or trademarked work is not the focus of an image, or does not take up much of the photo, the presense of said work is fine. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 05:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Conclusion

When's the GAN gonna be closed? Everything has been addressed. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 05:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but so much has been changed, it needs to be reassessed. It will only take a day or two. ObtundTalk  03:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Further to my comments on the GA Review, I have tagged a number of references that I believe are poor quality and should be replaced or removed (together with any content that depends on the reference if no suitable replacement can be found). --Biker Biker (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I also see that there are 16 references from The Christian Post. Really? It smacks of desperation when the only references that can be found are from a publication like that. All the articles are by the same author and reading some of the articles, all that all he is doing in most of the articles is reposting Samsung's press releases & news items. There is no journalist value in any of the articles. I would assert that all of these references are worthless and should be removed. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Y Removed ObtundTalk  02:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's a fine example of how this article is overlinked. "Thus the design and name of the Galaxy S III for North America is retained from the international version, marking a deviation from the previous customization of design and name for different carriers of the previous Galaxy S models."[101][102][103][104][105] You really have to be joking here: Five sources for that one sentence like really. This article needs to comply with standards or it will not be promoted. Stop saying that the number of sources that there are is completely fine, because it is not. Biker Biker and I will being removing sources accordingly because "you" (the people that want this to be a GA article) care otherwise. ObtundTalk  05:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify - the number of references is by itself irrelevant - if each of those references supports a specific fact, then the number is fine. The problem is multiple references supporting a single fact, like in the sentence above. This is unnecessary in non-controversial statements and it is those superfluous refs that should be removed. --illythr (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
That is what I specified above... GA Reviewer - ObtundTalk  16:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes. However, you've set an absolute number of references as a "pass threshold" for the GAR. I hope this won't cause editors to just move in and start deleting sources at random in order to comply. Anyhow, I'm doing a pass at pruning the excesses right now. --illythr (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I set that number as a number to get below, because some people weren't understanding that it had too many references. ObtundTalk  21:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The zeugma in the first sentence really needs to go - it does a rather confusing jump at "by and the". I suggest unraveling "The Samsung Galaxy S III is a smartphone designed by and the 2012 flagship phone of Samsung Electronics." as follows: "The Samsung Galaxy S III is a smartphone designed by Samsung Electronics. It is the firm's 2012 flagship phone." --illythr (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

 Not done -  Fine just the way it is. ObtundTalk  00:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Already done by Sp33dyphil yesterday. --illythr (talk) 00:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Y OK ObtundTalk  15:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I cannot understand why user Obtund is steadfastly removing references regarding the specs from the infobox. He/she is refusing to respond to my rationale, instead blatantly removing such references without providing a reasonable edit summary ([5]). Obtund is requesting that I "note the ref next to the fact", but this would require myself to add numerous more references next to each figure in the infobox, thus contradicting his/her wish of minimizing the overall number of references in the article. Obtund's reverts ignore WP's policy of citation and the guideline regarding reference placement at Template:Infobox mobile phone. As such, I will once again restore the refs. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 02:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

If the refs refer to the specifications then put them in the table later in the article, where they can be placed alongside the items they refer to. --Biker Biker (talk) 05:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Not all the specs, such as "Ringtones & notifications", "Connectivity", "SAR", "Display", "Front camera", "Rear camera", "Data inputs" and "Compatible media formats", are in the comparisons table. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 05:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Y Completed Thanks Biker Biker, Speedy you did what I wanted you to do. ObtundTalk  04:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I could upload an image with the standard TouchWiz UX home screen for the infobox to Wikipedia (one of those that got deleted on Commons) as Fair Use (the reason would be that the SIII pioneers this interface, as well as it being a critical design illustration). Thoughts for or against? --illythr (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

No, please go ahead and upload the photo. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 21:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Done. Let's see how well this one fares... --illythr (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
N Hold on that image has a free image replacement, you can't change an image when a free image is there. ObtundTalk  01:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
There is no free image with the phone's characteristic Nature UX interface available. This is a key design feature that sets it apart from other Android smartphones, and that is not visible on the Wikipedia page image. I suppose the crappy image can be moved back into the infobox and the current one - into the "Hardware and design" section if you so insist, though. --illythr (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I know what you are saying but if you want to say that the touch wiz interface is the key to the image staying there, then talk about it in the caption. ObtundTalk  02:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
There isn't much place in the caption for that, but done. --illythr (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't thinking when I was writing that, the image needs to be removed and changed back per NCFF #1. There is a separate TouchWiz article and all you want to show on this article is the phone's shape, so the free image should be used over the non-free image. Backed up by MASEM. ObtundTalk  03:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

There is another South Korean version called "SHW-M440S". It's the 3G-only variant exclusively available on SK Telecom. What should I do?
And what about the T-DMB tuner? "SHW-M440S" (3G) doesn't have it (has FM radio tuner instead), while "SHV-E210K", "L" and "S" (LTE) have it. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 16:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Found something. Now what should I do with those mainland Chinese variants for China Telecom, China Mobile and China Unicom? JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 11:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk about how apple got 1.05 B USD because samsung violated 7 patents and is requesting to pull it off the market. ObtundTalk  04:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The Galaxy S III is not part of that lawsuit. And clearly, it seems like they deliberately changed the design to dodge that and make it look more unique to begin with. ViperSnake151  Talk   15:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Apple is suing Samsung for violations of patents because of this phone. ObtundTalk 
Not in this trial. --illythr (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
This one, on the other hand... --illythr (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I strongly suggest this article to be disabled/deleted for a while, at least until iphone 5 sales start to decrease. Otherwise it may distract people from the iphone 5 and reduce it sales. After all, it is proven in court that samsung infringed apple patents.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.125.113.243 (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC) 

HAHAHAHAHH no editorializingAtrix20 (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

According to the Samsung page about the specs of this phone, it has both GPS and Glonass, so why isn't it mentioned in the data input?2.37.37.81 (talk) 09:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

it should be reflected that the former has the 8260A MSM, while the latter have the 8960 MSM. It factors into the modems, as the T-Mobile etc. don't have LTE capability even theoretically, while the ATT etc. one does. I don't know how to edit the table but someone who does could.Atrix20 (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Should the slogan be changed to "The next big thing is already here" Jedieaston (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed the last sentence of the Critical reception section because the statement isn't supported by the reference. 
"Since the release of Apple's iPhone 5, the Galaxy S III has widely been panned by critics for being substantially inferior in quality."
The reference title is: "iPhone 5 Benchmark: Significant Lead Over Competitors" whereas the actual page's title is 
"iPhone 5 benchmark: narrowly beats Galaxy S3". 
[note: I don't know how to find out when and by whom a specific part of the article was written; looking through the history can be tedious for articles like this one with many edits]
Fabricebaro (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I know this is a bit late, but you can search for who added text by using this tool. Looks like in this case it was Genzeleam. (revision) Vacation9 (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

User InternetMeme deleted the media_formats and ringtone attributes from {{Infobox mobile phone}}, causing their contents (including the SpecsGSMA reference root) to disappear. Here's the stuff, in case anyone wants to incorporate it elsewhere in the article:
media_formats=

Audio MP3, AMR-NB/WB, AAC/AAC＋/eAAC＋, WMA, OGG Vorbis, FLAC, AC-3, apt-X ("SpecsGSMA")
Video MPEG-4, H.264, H.263, DivX, DivX3.11, VC-1, VP8, WMV7/8, Sorenson Spark ("SpecsGSMA")
ringtone = Vibration, MP3, and WAV ("SpecsGSMA")
--illythr (talk) 04:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey there, tech enthusiasts! If there's one device that has stolen the hearts of millions, it's none other than the fabulous iPhone. From its chic design to mind-blowing features, this Apple wonder has become a must-have for many. In this article, let's dive into the 10 reasons that make the iPhone your friendly sidekick, bringing joy and convenience to your daily life.

https://dawnworldhub.blogspot.com/2024/02/iphone-mobile-and-its-benefits.html

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Limmer21 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC) 

Samsung has released Galaxy S III Progre (SCH-J021, SCL21) for KDDI and Galaxy S III Alpha (SGH-N035, SC-03E. A quadcore model) for Docomo. Can somebody add them? JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 11:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a version called GT-I9305N that is identical to the GT-I9305 except it has 900 MHz LTE instead of 800 MHz.  It's sold by the operator Tele2 in Sweden and is suitable for the LTE network that they share with Telenor. Specifications are available here. Could someone add it to the table, please? 83.233.37.200 (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

This is listed in the specs box, but is not mentioned in the source cited. Can anyone confirm this is true and/or find a better source?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.74.82.54 (talk) 06:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC) 

The table lists the operating system of the Samsung Galaxy S3 SCH-I535 as Android 4.04
The unit I looked at in the official Verizon store had 4.1.x
The unit I just purchased from Costco in the United States has version 4.1.1.
The operating system in the table needs to be updated.
Perhaps there is a more flexible way to show the version as it may depend on when and where the unit is purchased and if it has received an OTA update.

Phersh (talk) 02:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to make changes to the article as you see fit. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 05:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
The most up to date OS version is 4.1.2 (intl), the original release version is 4.0.4. These two should probably be in the infobox as "range delimiters". As the "current" version varies by region an carrier, we could either mention this in a footnote or someone diligent could create a subsection under "Software and services". --illythr (talk) 13:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we should add the "Successor" section as soon as it's needed or maybe now. I thought it was there last time. And if someone is to add that, it's not me, i don't think I'm good at English to maintain this article as "Good Article". ToBeAnonymous (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Considering that public opinion is gaining importance after adoption of social, I feel that apart from facts, the product pages should also contain a summary of public opinion about the product. Something like the information here - http://www.senseforth.com/#!smartphones/Samsung_Galaxy_S_III . Do you feel this information will add value to the article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritz7286 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC) 

Has this device any active noise control? The only hint in the article is the presence of a second microphone, with a dead link ref at the end of the sentence. No mention in the infobox. --Jerome Potts (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe worth mentioning for those who like a phone with completely free software: Replicant_(operating_system) is available for the GT-I9300 GSM '(not the LTE one or any other country-specific variant)' 89.12.20.109 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 07:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC) 

There is a grid within the article which shows the details of each model of phone and carriers they are available with. The SPH-L710 which is supported by Virgin Mobile, Boost, and Sprint support SD cards up to 64gb.
http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/cell-phones/SPH-L710RWBVMU-specs
174.140.81.45 (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)b


### THIS Table Just Would Not Work For Me (On The Front Page)
I was NOT able to view this table due to it not scrolling. I figured someone might want to know it did not seem to work properly on the front page so here it is if someone wants to look into this matter. The table is at: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy_S_III#Model_variants
Thank-You!!!  Lesbrown99 (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC) edited Lesbrown99 (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Samsung Galaxy S III. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.galaxymhl.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Samsung Galaxy S III. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120505225026/http://www.samsungmobilepress.com/2012/05/04/Samsung-Introduces-the-GALAXY-S-III,-the-Smartphone--Designed-for-Humans-and-Inspired-by-Nature to http://www.samsungmobilepress.com/2012/05/04/Samsung-Introduces-the-GALAXY-S-III,-the-Smartphone--Designed-for-Humans-and-Inspired-by-Nature
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120629152336/http://www.android.com/about/ice-cream-sandwich/ to http://www.android.com/about/ice-cream-sandwich/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Camera360. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Pandakekok9 (talk) 11:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I still own my Samsung Galaxy S III and wanted to know if I need to get rid of it and upgrade to a new phone  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:1083:5A00:6936:8D:90B8:A784 (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)