Talk:LG Voyager

Pictures

You might ask, where are pictures of Voyager? Lots of other web sites have them. The problem is, most of those other web sites are violating Verizon's copyright on the pictures.

Wikipedia needs permission from Verizon before we can use their pictures. I've contacted Verizon's media rep. She replied back, but as with any large corporation it might take a while for a definitive answer. If it takes too long, we can buy the phone in November and take pictures of it ourselves. Egumtow 18:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and taken pictures of the phone myself. They are Image:LG Voyager VX10000 External .jpg, Image:LG Voyager VX10000 External 2.jpg, Image:LG Voyager VX10000 Internal.jpg. I've added 2 of the images to the article. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 06:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Is that the LG Voyager in the second picture? It (the Voyager) has a clamshell design, where as the second picture looks more like a slider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.120.72 (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Advertisement

I think it's clear how much this article sounds like an advertisement. I'm adding the tag, if anyone disagrees they can discuss it here. Fatla00 (talk) 05:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's in ad-speak: e.g. 'features'. An encyclopedia says a bird has wings, a marketing department says birds feature wings - with advanced bio-flight technology!(TM) I'm not sure what tag your talking about but it should have it put back. ElectronicsEnthusiast (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sections needed

Now that it is released, there should be a reception section added, and a section to deal with the iphone since it has been labeled as competition for the iphone.--ZeWrestler ^Talk 18:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The Price

dsgadsgdsgwith a new Two Year Agreement or $469 without. I'm not familiar with how Wikipedia articles on cell phones are usually written, so I'm not sure how to go about changing this (if it's even needed). TheUncleBob (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the only way to work it in appropriately would be in a comparison to competing products or to other phones in te LG/VZ lines. BTW, the $299 is correct, but it is officially $349 with a $50 mail-in rebate. Mdeaton (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Now its $99.99 with a 2-year contract and a $50 mail-in rebate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.181.131 (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-notable cellular phone?

I work at a store that sells Alltel and Verizon and I can assure you, a lot of people know about this phone. Is it any less notable than the EnV or most of the other phones listed on Template:LG phones? How does one determine if a phone is "notable" or not? I'm probably not the one to make this decision, as I'd cut off my big toe for this phone... TheUncleBob 21:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it customary on Wikipedia to have the person that proposed deletion come argue their point. Without any counter argument I say keep, so I guess it's already 2 to 0 for keep.Penman 1323 22:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I posted the question to the user who put the template up on the article here. My vote is to have this phone stay. But granted, this article is going to need an overhaul. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 22:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Also, don't forget to voice your opinion at the delete keep vote. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LG Voyager (VX10000)--ZeWrestler ^Talk 00:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, this is not the forum to discuss the deletion nomination. will381796 03:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Survived AFD, now what?

Well, we've gotten the article through the AFD, now what direction should this article go? --ZeWrestler ^Talk 15:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that setup of Motorola RAZR V3, BlackBerry, and iPhone could be long term goals for any cell phone article. нмŵוτнτ 22:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

References are obviously lacking; the article is almost completely original research, and the two references that do exist are unsubstantial. The section on features reads like an advertisement -- if this phone is truly notable, it's for design and implementation, not for its features. That section is also completely redundant to the infobox. Why have both?

The two references that are in the article don't substantiate the claims the article makes. Either references that do substantiate those claims need to be added, or the material failing WP:V needs to be removed.

While it might be a good idea to aim at the style and layout of notable products, this article will never be at that content level simply because it isn't notable enough to have as much coverage as products that truly are notable. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Comparrison with iphone

http://comparati.com/890-LG-Voyager-vs-iPhone might be a useful reference for this article. Also there is http://www.homotron.net/2007/12/voyager_becomes_most_shopped_p.html --ZeWrestler ^Talk 22:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Price?

Where are you getting that it costs $150-$250? I'm pretty sure that it costs $300. I'll look it up in a sec and if it isn't true, i'll change it... 67.86.126.40 (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

enV Confusion

The Voyager is not the sucessor or replacing the enV. The enV is going to have a small upgrade to it, which will be the VX9950. I changed the wording to fix this problem.--71.232.229.186 (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

NOT a Smartphone

Is the VX10000 really a smartphone? I mean, it runs the same (crippled) OS as all the other Verizon phones, it doesn't allow installation of new apps in the same way most other smartphones do, and I don't believe it supports any kind of synchronization at all. Like the iPhone, I think it's questionable whether or not this can be called a smartphone. It's hardly on the level of Windows Mobile, BlackBerry OS, Symbian S60/UIQ, or even Palm OS. A phone with a keyboard and touch screen, yes, it is. Smartphone, no it isn't. Zirka (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The Voyager may resemble a smartphone in terms of hardware and features, but it runs the standard Verizon featurephone OS, not a smartphone OS, which is why I have removed this article from the "smartphone" category.Kodmkl (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

[1]== July 17th information for unspecified August date - In Store Firmware Upgrade "Refresh" ==

An anonymous user placed this statement in the article: "It is now apparent that the "Voyager Refresh" is not in fact a new phone, but simply a firmware update.[citation needed]In order for a phone to be upgraded, it must be taken to a Verizon Wireless store and left for approximately one hour." Where is this coming from? I have looked on many Voyager-related boards, and there is no verifiable information to support either of these claims, escpecially the latter, which was not even mentioned at all. So I've removed that statement.Kodmkl (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, go to a Verizon store and see your yourself. 24.218.147.30 (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

yup... agree with them that you can go to a verizon store and leave your phone for an hour and come back to everything missing! including caller id, games and applications of any sort! i did this last summer all for an update. and the phone still powers its self off! ≈ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.77.97.3 (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems pretty obviously a smartphone - full set of smartphone features, include full keyboard. And it's referred to a smartphone in the media (e.g., [2] [3] [4]). On what basis are you declaring the OS to mean it can't be a smartphone? Note that the definition of smartphone is pretty vague anyway, but there seems enough evidence to place it as being a smartphone, and this is consistent with both Wikipedia's smartphone definition, as well as our labelling of phones with similar capabilities.

As for "it doesn't allow installation of new apps", these days even feature phones can run applications, via Java. I'm not sure why not allowing native code is a requirement for being a smartphone - that logic would discount Android phones! We might as well claim that the Iphone isn't a smartphone, because it can't run any application (only those approved by Apple). As for synchronization, again that's something commonplace in feature phones. Does the fact that the Iphone lacks some feature phone level features (e.g., Java) mean it's not a smartphone? (Admittedly I might agree more with your point if the Iphone wasn't considered a smartphone, but we do...) Really all we can do is go by sources of what it's referred to, otherwise we're getting stuck in original research. Mdwh (talk) 03:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Has anybody noticed the many grammatical errors?

I went through and fixed a few, most notably the Voyager Titanium section, where it talks about the Voyager Refresh in both present and past tense. Also, the latest firmware release is V11 (it's currently being released on the Titaniums). I can't make it show up in that sidebar thing >:O —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.21.182.30 (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

FAIL

this phone fails in every way possible END OF STORY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.157.78.173 (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LG Voyager. 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://archive.is/20080821133127/http://comparati.com/890-LG-Voyager-vs-iPhone to http://comparati.com/890-LG-Voyager-vs-iPhone

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) 12:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)