Talk:Android (operating system)/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Most Popular in lead.

I placed information with references in the lead about Android being the most popular. Was reverted thrice. Hopefully that person won't violate the wp:3rr rule. Reasons for the reverts where:

1. Don't place new info in the lead. This seems like the person is making up rules.

2. Needs to have info in the article if it is in the lead. Again seems like the person is making up rules. The information is concise and stands on its own. If someone wants to expand on, then go ahead, but that isn't a reason for revert.

What do you think? Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Daniel.Cardenas: Aggressive today, are we? :) First off, let's avoid the insistence that I am "making up rules". I very clearly linked to WP:LEAD, which states "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". Adding new information only in the lead breaks that guideline. Furthermore, please note that I added information in the article, reworded the information to clarify what terms "most popular" meant, and once I understood that it concerned "total Internet usage", I was unsure if it needed to be in the lead. Let's not draw a conclusion not stated by the source.
For future reference, there is no need to continuously re-add information once reverted by another user. It is so much easier to have a proper discussion rather than edit-war. While not a policy, bold, revert, discuss is an excellent example of good community relations.
And also, you are not even going to give me a chance to respond before you continue the reversions? Really? -.- LocalNet (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
@Emir of Wikipedia: I am discussing on the talk page. I have yet to receive a response from Daniel Cardenas, and why did you revert me without offering a commentary here first? LocalNet (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I was in the middle of an edit, but suffered from an edit conflict in what looks like the possible start of an edit war between you two. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
@Emir of Wikipedia: The page's stable version was before the "most popular operating system" information was introduced. I am trying to maintain that until we reach an agreement here. At this time, the information is WP:SYNTH, and without me adding the info down in the article, would violate WP:LEAD. I question if the information is even worthy of the lead given the "total Internet usage" statement. LocalNet (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I have restored to the previous version. How is it WP:SYNTH if it is making the same claim as the source? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! "most popular operating system" is an ambiguous statement. Popular in what way? Social media posts/critical acclaim/user demographic polls/devices sold etc. The source makes it clear that it is in "total Internet usage", but anyone who reads the information could not have that specific term in mind before reading the source. LocalNet (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Getting to the actual discussion. The source makes it clear that Android is the most popular operating system by "total Internet usage". That's information that's suitable in the section I moved it into and reworded it, but I don't think it's an important aspect of Android that its users spend a lot of time online. Furthermore, the source specifies that Android users had 37.93% market share, against 37.91% for Windows. Not exactly a major leap of difference, and could easily be switched again. LocalNet (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I've cooled down a little bit following the earlier back-and-forth reversions and would just like to apologize for the "Aggressive today, are we?" comment in my initial reply. I get really frustrated in situations where opposing editors seemingly ignore my edit summaries and proceed to revert me and start a talk page discussion, leaving me in the intensely difficult situation of choosing which one to address first (main page is seen by people, talk page is for explaining thoughts). I failed to stay WP:CALM. It's a learning process to handle disputes correctly and it's not easy, but I want everyone who reads this to know I have insights into my own wording and realize that comment might just have sparked more disagreement. I apologize, and would like to focus on the content. I am going to bed soon, though, so I will pick up the conversation again tomorrow. LocalNet (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


Response to @LocalNet:
Aggressive today, are we? :)

Hopefully you can do better than personal attacks in the future. Apology accepted. And you are being reported for violating wp:3rr.

First off, let's avoid the insistence that I am "making up rules".

Don't add stuff the lead? Is that making up rules?

I very clearly linked to WP:LEAD, which states "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article".

You added text in the article? Are you just being argumentative here?

Adding new information only in the lead breaks that guideline.

How about these guidelines from wp:lead?
  1. cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article
  2. explain why the topic is notable

Furthermore, please note that I added information in the article, reworded the information to clarify what terms "most popular" meant, and once I understood that it concerned "total Internet usage", I was unsure if it needed to be in the lead. Let's not draw a conclusion not stated by the source.

Seriously? Is not three sources sufficient?
Here is the title of the first source: Android Beats Windows, Now Officially The World’s Most Popular OS
Here is the text that I typed in: According to StatCounter, Android is the most popular operating system
Where is the syntheses?

For future reference, there is no need to continuously re-add information once reverted by another user. It is so much easier to have a proper discussion rather than edit-war. While not a policy, bold, revert, discuss is an excellent example of good community relations.

Seriously there is no need to be argumentative, think you own the article, invent rules, and revert good edits. You have better things to do.

And also, you are not even going to give me a chance to respond before you continue the reversions? Really?

Talk page discussion and revert were done at about the same time, really.

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 05:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. I was hoping we could have a proper discussion. For several of the points here, it seems you've ignored my explanations earlier in this conversation. To address a few of the aspects raised here:
"Don't add stuff in the lead? Is that making up rules?" - Please note that I wrote "We can write a summary of that info in the lead, but the info needs to be in the article"
"cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article" and "explain why the topic is notable" - is it really that interesting that Android users spend a lot of time online? I really don't think it's very notable for a difference of less than a percentage point from Windows.
"Seriously? Is not three sources sufficient?" - You're specifically stating the titles of sources. Sources are also information in the article. "Officially The World’s Most Popular OS" is almost a click-bait title, if you ask me. StatCounter clearly specified that it concerned "total Internet usage" in the article.
"Seriously there is no need to be argumentative, think you own the article, invent rules, and revert good edits. You have better things to do." - I thought we were done with personal attacks? LocalNet (talk) 06:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


"cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article" and "explain why the topic is notable" - is it really that interesting that Android users spend a lot of time online? I really don't think it's very notable for a difference of less than a percentage point from Windows.
Your opinion is noted. I think others will find it very interesting.
"Seriously? Is not three sources sufficient?" - You're specifically stating the titles of sources. Sources are also information in the article. "Officially The World’s Most Popular OS" is almost a click-bait title, if you ask me. StatCounter clearly specified that it concerned "total Internet usage" in the article.
Are you giving up on wp:synth claim?

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 07:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

At this point, I'm tempted to just let others be the deciding third-parties. And we should probably let the noticeboard incident finish. Honestly, it seems like you're more concerned with invalidating me ("making up rules", "are you giving up on synth claim?" and the last personal attacks), rather than content, where I've repeatedly expressed my thinking based on information in the sources and guidelines. I hope I've made myself clear in my edit summaries and my explanations here. LocalNet (talk) 07:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

You've made yourself clear that you were claiming wp:synth, but know are not willing to back it up. It seems you are more concerned with trying to throw the argument elsewhere. What are you points if any for not having most popular in the lead? My points are:
  1. It is very interesting, and most interesting content goes in the lead.
  2. It cultivates the readers interest on topic.
Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
For full disclosure for anyone reading this who don't check the page history, I want to let everyone know the opposing user edited their comment to remove the statement "You should just admit it, that it was a worthless claim" (regarding WP:SYNTH). That contradicts my explanation I've previously stated on this talk page, seen above as a reply to "Emir of Wikipedia". Repeated here for ease of accessibility: ""most popular operating system" is an ambiguous statement. Popular in what way? Social media posts/critical acclaim/user demographic polls/devices sold etc. The source makes it clear that it is in "total Internet usage", but anyone who reads the information could not have that specific term in mind before reading the source". Thank you. LocalNet (talk) 08:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

OK. I just saw that the edit-warring report has been cancelled. Thank you. I have a suggestion for you. What if we start entirely fresh? End this conversation and start a new talk page discussion, starting anew. Stating all of our points better, avoiding any personal insults, and both be willing to compromise. I have a feeling we went down the wrong path with the edit-warring report on the side, preventing any good-faith compromises or polite exchanges from happening. Thoughts? LocalNet (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Android (operating system). 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

For anyone else watching this page, I will take a look at this. Writing this here to avoid edit conflicts from others doing the same :) LocalNet (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Several of the links marked by the bot concern the "Market share" section, a section that dives deeply into seemingly every single measurement metric to cover Android's expansion into the most-used operating system on the planet. Many of the statements look to link primarily, if not only, to the actual research company's own reports. However, not every report is notable. That's why we have the WP:SECONDARY guideline. Some of the info also looks to represent then-recent events. I don't have time right now, but we should go through that section later, replace the primary sources with secondary sources, and remove just simply unecessarily detailed reports. LocalNet (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I have thought for ages that the market share section is a wreck and needs work so please make any edits you think are necessary to bring it under control. – Steel 18:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Making the page protected due to an edit request

Side discussion about the reasons for reverting and page protection. --MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hey @Jd22292, Sro23, Davey2010, Sro23, and Adam9007: I can see there was a lot of back-and-forth edits here. There may be information about the user(s) I don't have, but in regards to the edit. Next time, maybe try to properly read what the user tried to explain in their edit requests here. It was a genuine thing, an issue with the links where one lead to logins/dead pages and the other to correct versions. You turned away not just them from becoming contributors, but potentially anyone else who now cannot write here... They definitely shouldn't have been cursing in edit summaries, but the information in the actual edit request was good. LocalNet (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Also pinging MelanieN into this. You blocked the 74.91.2.234 IP and protected this talk page. If there is any background information I don't know on the talk page user with the edit requests, then please give me some intel. Looking at this from a third-party perspective, it looks like multiple Wikipedia users blatantly ignored a user who was trying to get genuine attention. Why even revert the edit requests at all? A simple reply would be much more civil. I'm writing this to try to get some sense in the situation. Can anyone give me an explanation? LocalNet (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I think this was block/ban evasion. Can't remember off the top of my head who though. Adam9007 (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nate Speed/Archive. Aside from the apparent sockpuppetry, the edit summaries alone are enough for WP:RBI. --MelanieN (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
P.S. The exact same thing was going on at three other talk pages as well. Details can be found at the rolling archive of WP:RFPP (at the bottom of the request page). --MelanieN (talk) 14:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
@Adam9007 and MelanieN: I found this page on the disputes with the user. Some of it appears to be wrong, however. If we take information in the edit request on *this page* specifically, the user stated that the link "https://www.wsj.com/article/SB118602176520985718.html" leads to an error page. It does! "Page unavailable" it tells me. They suggested changing it to "http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118602176520985718.html" (without the "s" in "https"), which works! In the actual Android article right now, if you search for "Google Pushes Tailored Phones To Win Lucrative Ad Market", you'll find the relevant link. This one. It uses an archive-URL with the "http" format (not https), specifically. Click directly on "the original" link and you get a "Page unavailable" text, which is the HTTPS variant I'm assuming was done by the bot discussed in the dispute page above. LocalNet (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Update: I'm a subscriber of The Wall Street Journal and just remembered I am signed in. That's why I get "Page unavailable". I opened one of the links in incognito, and got login page. The user appears to be right. LocalNet (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
@MelanieN: How come not a single person on the dispute page suggested to find someone subscribing to the Journal to check what's behind the login wall!? I also checked this talk page, and again, the user is right. "Page unavailable" after logging in. Seriously! It's alarming for me that this chaos was created apparently without gathering sufficient evidence from both sides? Trying not to get mad here, but I have to say I am. I won't scream in edit summaries like the other user, but it's frightening that it wasn't properly checked and situations like this arise. LocalNet (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
@MelanieN: Checked this and this too. The user is correct in those instances as well. "Page unavailable". Their description, "They're now dead links that redirect to nothing but login pages instead of the articles" is completely correct. I'm scared of asking how far back this has happened. I mean... wow. Verifying the user's information is as simple as finding a person with access/starting a subscription, and yet, now the user is being blocked. Honestly, I can understand why they used multiple accounts or screamed in summaries. They weren't being properly listened to. What do we do now? LocalNet (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
LocalNet, I'm not involved in the article content. You'll have to take this up with other editors at this page. Or (since you are an experienced editor in good standing) if you think the edit request was valid, you can simply implement it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
@MelanieN: Lovely way to not take responsibility! What if the user has been right all along? We're just going to ignore that and let them stay blocked? At the very least, take an interest in the situation (not the article content) and see if the blocks and reversions have been unnecessary by helping me start a new discussion somewhere similar to the one on the original dispute page. You're an admin, I am not. I have no idea where to do such a thing, but I'm trying to make things right. And P.S. "If you think the edit request was valid" - ehm have you read my previous messages here? How can you not also think the edit request was valid if you read my argumentation? "you can simply implement it" - I have already made the corrections. LocalNet (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • If someone's going to use the edit summary "THIS IS JUST AN *EDIT REQUEST*, YOU F*CKING BUTTHURT F*GGOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! D:<" then common sense would tell you that person's going to be reverted regardless of their edits, Anyway as noted above the IP was Mr Speed who has now been community banned from this website so IMHO if we do lose him then that's a good thing and one can only hope one day he takes the hint and gets lost for good (to put it in polite terms!). –Davey2010Talk 15:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Davey2010: "then common sense would tell you that person's going to be reverted regardless of their edits" - No. I believe common sense would dictate that you let them know cursing isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Furthermore, the first few worlds CLEARLY state what the user was trying to do. Being frustrated and probably mad, they used the mistake of cursing. If you've ever been mad, you probably realize cursing comes almost naturally. This person's mistake was writing it down. And WOW: "if we do lose him then that's a good thing and one can only hope one day he takes the hint and gets lost for good" - lovely community we have here! I'd love to show this talk page to everyone in the world visiting Wikipedia. I'm on the contrary path. I hope the person improves their personality and becomes a great part of Wikipedia in the future! See the differences here?
  • (Redacted) ..... He's been WP:COMMUNITYBANNED from this website so regardless of whether his edits are good or bad they'll be reverted - I don't care for the few words he wrote - He wrote that edit summary in a disruptive and an offensive way (How do you know I'm not gay ? ..... Obviously I'm not but you dont know that and neither does he), He was apart of the community until he fucked it all up and might I say he's fucked his chances up here more than once so no I do hope he takes the hint and gets lost!, We don't tolerate any shit here at all, he was given chances and he blew it so he gets what he deserves, might I suggest you drop all of this and move on ? ... He's not a new user so you're basically wasting your time. –Davey2010Talk 16:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • See! Now you made the mistake of using a personal insult against me! You fell in a similar trap yourself. I'm not sure what the "gay" paranthesis information is supposed to be. But I can see that my attempts to actually convey some proper and significant information is being completely ignored, seemingly out of spite. Wonderful... Wikipedia should be so proud. LocalNet (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Davey, I was just in the process of asking you not to insult this user but got edit conflicted. You know better than that. They are here in good faith and just don't know about the back story. I'd like to see you apologize. --MelanieN (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
And you know what, I'm just gonna pile on with even more information here. From the public's perspective, does anyone here who took part in the active reversions, including Jd22292, Sro23, Davey2010, Adam9007, think it's a good outlook for Wikipedia to just revert edit requests, especially without an explanation for why in the edit summary? The public has no knowledge of the background of a dispute. I may be the only one who has actually asked what it's all about. Quick non-explanatory reversions of talk page messages, especially decent-looking ones where the user is begging to be properly heard, looks incredibly hostile. "Oh, you were going to try and help us fix some links? TOO BAD!" Way to improve the reputation of the Wikipedia community... At the very least, follow in the footsteps of the Bill Clinton talk page, in which the relevant content was put in a collapsed box with a reason for the decline. LocalNet (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Some of us have seen this all before. It started with a thread on WT:ER by Eggishorn. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

LocalNet, I can see you are upset about what appears to be an injustice. But there is a LOT of backstory here. After repeated instances of sock puppetry (see User talk:Nate Speed), the user was community banned from Wikipedia for making death threats! See the AN discussion here. The community has decided that this is someone who should never edit at Wikipedia. Not even if a particular edit suggestion is valid. If you find this suggestion to be valid, then make it in the article, but unfortunately there is nothing wrong with the way this user was treated. --MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me information MelanieN. I now understand the situation better. In that case, fine. But I'd still like to point out that quick non-explanatory reversions are seen by me, other editors and the public, who may have no knowledge of this background. It looks hostile by the editors and Wikipedia community, not by the user, when the actual conflict is the other way around. Like you said above, I came here in good faith to figure out what happened, but others may not ask and simply avoid suggesting edits. LocalNet (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad you understand now. And apparently you have made the article corrections so we are good here. I'd like to give User:Davey2010 a chance to respond, and then I'm going to hat this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
LocalNet & MelanieN - I apologise for making that comment, I've got issues IRL and the lack of sleep certainly isn't helping but regardless I apologise. –Davey2010Talk 17:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2017

Android O DP4 came out July 24th 2017 and is the latest preview version of Android. (https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2017/07/developer-preview-4-now-available.html) Ltrii (talk) 04:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
[1] Done. --Claw of Slime (talk) 23:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2017

Change "firmwares" in the second paragraph of the Open-source community subsection to "firmware". Firmware is a mass noun, it has no plural form. 83.32.234.140 (talk) 10:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done thanks for pointing that out. - Arjayay (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Most popular in the lead

Per wp:lead the intro shall contain the most interesting info. Quote:

A good lead tells the reader the basics in a nutshell, and also cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article...

Being the most popular is very interesting. Also the wp:lead states that the most interesting info should be first in the intro. I put it at the end but feel it belongs further up. What do you think? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Daniel Cardenas. The trouble with the word popular is that popularity can be measured in any number of different ways. If it's measured in terms of installed base, then Android wins. If it's measured in terms of fanbase loyalty or how well engaged fans are with the brand, then Android might not win. So we should be clear exactly what we mean - if Android is the most 'popular' by largest installed base or highest sales figures then we state it has the largest installed base or highest sales figures and avoid unnecessary ambiguity. As it happens, the article already does exactly that in the lead:

Android has been the best-selling OS on tablets since 2013, and runs on the vast majority of smartphones. As of May 2017, Android has two billion monthly active users, and it has the largest installed base of any operating system.

I note that User:LocalNet made the same point about ambiguity when your proposed addition was the subject of an edit war barely two months ago, and hope per WP:BRD that you would not reinsert this text again without a clear consensus. – Steel 10:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
http://gs.statcounter.com/press/android-overtakes-windows-for-first-time When speaking of a product, no one uses popular to refer to fanbase enthusiasm. It means sales. If you need it spelled out, try the link above. --Nigelj (talk) 10:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
@Steel, Oops thanks for pointing that out, about largest installed base. I missed that. My bad. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation naming scheme issues

While it's obvious that significantly more people search for Android the OS than android the robot, it strikes me as wrong that the concept of an android robot wouldn't be able to occupy the Android title without being disambiguated. After all, the very reason that Android OS is named as such is because it uses an android robot as its mascot. It strikes me as an example of popularity overriding encyclopedic common sense, in the way that you wouldn't make Bird (animal) and have Bird be a disambiguation page just because Twitter is popular. In my opinion, Android (disambiguation) should be the disambig page.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2017

Boogle, not Google. 203.59.184.133 (talk) 10:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: No it's "Google" –72 (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2017

"In August 2013, Google announced Android Device Manager (renamed Find My Device in May 2017),[230][231] a service that allows users to remotely track, locate, and wipe their Android device,[232][233] with an Android app for the service released in December."

Not true, the App was released in March 2017, not December. NeoXen (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@NeoXen: Not done Please provide sources when making such requests. In my (brief) Google search, I turned up multiple sources stating that "Android Device Manager" was indeed released in August of 2013. If you are referring to the rename in May of 2017, I also found sources for that. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Android OS

How do I get Android 8.0 on my Sony Xperia Z Ultra and HTC One M9 Gold ? Thank you--Tommyboynr1 (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Tommyboynr1, Google (or your preferred search engine) is your best friend for that. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, but rather an encyclopedia. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Android (operating system). 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Linux kernel requirements

Hi @Comp.arch: I just checked Wikipedia today and saw the reversion of my edit. To be honest, I am not really sure what you meant in your edit summary. Would you be willing to discuss it with me? I have multiple issues with the current text ("As of latest version", an unnecessary quote I believe can be adequately rewritten to avoid being a quote, and hidden text). Is there anything specific in my edit that you disagree with that you could explain differently? :) LocalNet (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

[https://source.android.com/devices/architecture/kernel/modular-kernels#core-kernel
  • All SoCs productized in 2017 must launch with kernel 4.4 or newer.
  • All other SoCs launching new Android devices running Android 8.0 must use kernel 3.18 or newer.] I.e. version 4.4 a requirement contradicted. I'm ok with not having all the gory requirement details, just not simplify too much. "new devices" with new SoCs yes, 4.4. I read "other SoCs" as a loophole for new devices with old chips ("SoC"), am I wrong? Maybe others/news sources [mis]read this, as only for updated devices, that they can keep old kernel. I was in a hurry so a just reverted for now. comp.arch (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you for the reply! I do, however, think you misunderstand. I believe it states that new processor chips in 2017 must use kernel 4.4 or newer, but new devices still using older processor chips don't have the same requirement. My edit did not properly explain that, however. I propose this: "With the release of Android Oreo in 2017, Google began to require that devices shipped with new processor chips had Linux kernel version 4.4 or newer, for security reasons. Existing devices upgraded to Oreo, and new products launched with older processor chips, were exempt from this rule.[1][2]" The whole "SoC" thing is pretty much tech-speak, and I think it can be clearly communicated with a simplified "processor chips" statement. Thoughts? :)

  1. ^ Lynch, Doug (September 2, 2017). "Google is Mandating Linux Kernel Versions in Android Oreo". XDA Developers. Retrieved November 9, 2017.
  2. ^ Wycislik-Wilson, Mark (September 3, 2017). "With Android Oreo, Google is introducing Linux kernel requirements". BetaNews. eFront. Retrieved November 9, 2017.
After the edit conflict, I noticed that you had edited your message to state that you also thought of new devices with old chips as the, in your word, "loophole", so I apologize for making the assumption that you misunderstood. It appears we are on the same page, though, doesn't it? Is there anything you'd like to change about my proposed statement in my comment above this one? :) LocalNet (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Going to assume silence means consensus and make a change based on my proposed revised statement above. LocalNet (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

AOSP

I think this article is missing a section describing AOSP; what it is, who maintains it, what it comprises, who uses it as a base for their work, etc. --uKER (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi @UKER: Is there actually significant enough coverage of it by reliable, secondary sources? A simple Google search by me turned up only an Android Central article, and that's not enough to warrant its own section. At this time, it is included in "Open-source community". LocalNet (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
What do you mean? AOSP is the codebase for the whole Android OS. You're not questioning its notability, are you? See this. I didn't get the thing about your Google search. Come to think about it, however, AOSP should be mentioned in the article. A separate section probably doesn't make much sense. I'll see to do it. --uKER (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I had to revert the recent edits and I want to explain why. "AOSP is the codebase for the whole Android OS". Sure, that may be true. But the fact is, most sources discuss Android, not the project behind it. My point is, AOSP may be the base of Android's open nature, but the project itself may not have gotten much media attention from the press. It exists, as is noted in "Open-source community", but that doesn't mean it is majorly significant to the average reader. My Google search for AOSP prompted only a single secondary source about it. Wikipedia bases content on secondary sources, and on primary sources as little as possible. Did that make sense? :) LocalNet (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Simply put, I don't really get the urge to deliberatly omit the mention of the project. Minute tech details about electronics devices are often only covered in primary sources and I don't see them being omitted because of it. I'd understand it if it was a disputable claim as if android.com claimed Android is the greatest OS in the universe, but I don't think that's the case. --uKER (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
We aren't "deliberately omitting the mention". It is stated in "Open-source projects". Furthermore, it is actually also explained in the lead as "released by Google under an open source license". And if something is "often only covered in primary sources", then promoting it becomes undue weight, as regardless of its importance, we still rely on the prominence of information by secondary sources for inclusion or explanation in the lead. LocalNet (talk) 05:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
The way AOSP is portrayed there makes it seem as if AOSP is some bunch of nerds that got together and came up with an open source version of Android. AOSP IS OFFICIALLY THE FOUNDATION of Android. --uKER (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Hey, just two tips. That first sentence is entirely subjective. It may appear that way to you, but it never occurred that way to me. It states the facts, though, which is what we are supposed to do. The second sentence: ALL CAPS definitely doesn't help your case. What would help your case is if you could provide significant coverage by secondary sources to establish that it is as notable as you say. LocalNet (talk) 13:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Kinda sensitive about five words in caps, are we? Also, I disagree about the thing requiring a secondary source as an indicator of notability to be mentioned, but let's hear what other people think. --uKER (talk) 20:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I just reviewed the "Open Source Community" section and it's worse than I thought. The section doesn't talk about AOSP itself. It only talks about (as I said before) random nerds that come together and base their own ROMs off what's on AOSP. What's funny enough is that the sentence refers to AOSP without the article ever explainin what AOSP is. Just great. --uKER (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Android is an aporaiting system for mobiles and it is very good and cool! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.247.99.82 (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 21 February 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: WP:SNOW not moved. Clearly there is and will be no consensus for such a move, not the least of which because "consistency" with another OS is not a valid reason to rename an article if the other OS's common name does not include the part. Regards SoWhy 17:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC) SoWhy 17:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


Android (operating system) → Android OS – The title is consistent with Chrome OS. 187.130.75.2 (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - purely minor but the new article name leads to more possibilities instead of being precise. Current title indicates an operating system called Android. At the new title, it would indicate a possibility, in addition to the current title, of the operating system of an android (robot). Easy confusion. Thus, no.
Artix Kreiger (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - Google or anyone involved with Android at no point uses the name Android OS. Whereas Chrome OS is the official name; to differentiate between Google Chrome. Therefore, the name isn't Android OS and for that point I would question why you would want the article Title to be changed away from what it represents.
Ned (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - Chrome carries "OS" in its name to differentiate it from Chrome the browser. Android is just called Android. --uKER (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per above and close immediately per WP:SNOW. --В²C ☎ 23:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@Born2cycle:, i'll perhaps close it tomorrow or in 2 days time. Artix Kreiger (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2018

91.83.191.202 (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done No identifiable request. Iffy★Chat -- 14:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Wine 3.0

Wine 3.0 is available for users interested, surprised there is no mention of it on here! It was a great application for GNU-Linux for many years! Twillisjr (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2018

Android P, another operating system is going to completely launch in August 2018, a year after Android Oreo landed. Android P has begun its developer preview, meaning that it's now available for developers, or those curious enough to check out some unfinished software. Manish 0876 (talk) 08:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Not done. since it doesn't really give a clear place to put it. Please request a place to put it. Artix Kreiger (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

SELinux

I'm surprised there is no mention of SELinux at all in the "security features" section. 85.64.33.163 (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

messed up references

It looks like someone messed up reference no. 357. All following references are not shown at the bottom of the page, and this one isn't "parsed" correctly. I can't correct it due to too few edits in the english wikipedia ... --Anonymus1994.1 (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2018

202.47.154.60 (talk) 09:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add following to reception

Please change(add to) Reception section of this article:

Compare to iOS, and Android iPhones

Especially in China, many people who like Apple smartphones often don't like they system. They want to use Android instead. As a result there is a lot of smartphones that visually look more or less similar to Apple iPhone but have Android system on board. Calling these smartphones iPhone is legal at least in China, according to court rule the brand iPhone belongs to Xintong Tiandi Technology. [1]

References

  1. ^ https://android.com.pl/news/84521-goophone-polska-afera-youtube/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.146.0.215 (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2018‎ (UTC)

 Not done Not closely related. Also, the reliability of the source is questionable. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 15:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Hardware

MIPS support is deprecated and is not supported any more.[1] Someone with access to edit protected article please add MIPS support removal. Hardware section on page is a mess in general and needs additions/cleanup.

References

  1. ^ https://developer.android.com/ndk/guides/abis.html#mips64

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2019

After this "The name Andrew and the noun Android share the Greek root andros, which means man." please add the following explanation.

The name Android, comes from the Romanian name "Andronescu". Andronescu Vasile was the name of the primary classes teacher of Valentin Bogatu. He was the best teacher in the town of Targosviste (Romania) known and respected by every person in the town. Valentin Bogatu is a Romanian physicist engineer, that had helped with their physics homework on the internet, more than 5000 students from every world country starting with 2009. When he was a little child, his father bought him a little Robot toy (as the one that is the symbol of Android), and he crushed it in after 30 minutes. In 1997, Valentin Bogatu worked at the Technical Institute of Denmark (IT- DTU) with his wife and with Lehmann Torsten, under the supervision of professor Erik Bruun. Lehnmann Torsten was the first designer of the phone chips for Nokia. ValentinBogatu (talk) 12:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Roadguy2 (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The picture should be captioned "Current logomark (top) and logotype (bottom)" instead of "Current logotype (top) and typeface (bottom)" which is nonsensical and incorrect.

Done Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 00:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://app.beebom.com/android-runs-2-5bn-devices-worldwide-pie-passes-10-marketshare/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2019

ioptgophyikju8970nhju9uyjku|answered=no}} 

Bb243 (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2019

2001:1670:8:72EB:419A:D7CC:574B:BB30 (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Platform usage

Latest version for Android is Q which is in preview version. So, in Platform usage section we need to add

Version 10 Code Name : Q Release Date : API Level : 29 Runtime : ART Distribution : NA First Devices to run version : NA

[1]

EpariNigam (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Nigam PatroEpariNigam (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Media server battery bug - technical reasons?

There is an infamous bug in Android that causes the mediaserver to quickly drain the battery.

I don't know the exact technical reasons behind it, so I encourage users and developers to explain it. --Handroid7 (talk) 07:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2019

first sentence change "is based off of a modified" -> "is based on a modified" (hideous grammar) GrammarPete (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, and fixed. Thank you for pointing it out. HiLo48 (talk) 05:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

New logo inclusion in Article

Hi all, as you may have seen, android has a new logo! However, they said they'll officially start using it in a few weeks. Should we wait until then to include it in the article or go for it? I have not yet uploaded an image but may try to do that soon. Thanks! BRES2773 (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Their website doesn't even use the new branding yet (it only features the branding announcement), so I think that it might be better to wait. Nywillb (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Developed by Google? I think it's wrong

I think it is wrong to say simply "Android is a mobile operating system developed by Google". At its core Android is open source software and development was originally done by Open Handset Alliance. The Google "edition" of Android is obviously the dominant one, but it does not mean Android/AOSP is simply developed by just Google. Look at for example Fire OS, or several Chinese operating systems - they are all commercial Android but without anything Google in it. Google is simply like an "add-on" to what Android actually is.

Check out this article from Ars Technica [2] that has clear explanations of how Android is an open platform but where Google simply holds an "iron grip" on, mostly because of Google Play and its services. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Данасул (talk • contribs) 16:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

So what can we do as users to undo this injustice 

Fortune97 (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Well I've just changed it to "Android is developed by a consortium of developers known as the Open Handset Alliance, with the main contributor and commercial marketer being Google" with a source to back it. I hope this will do justice. --Данасул (talk) 15:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2019

Please change "Software distribution is generally offered through proprietary application stores like Google Play Store or Samsung Galaxy Store, or open source platforms like F-Droid, which utilize software packages in the APK format."

to "Software distribution is generally offered through proprietary application stores like Google Play Store or Samsung Galaxy Store, or open source platforms like Aptoide or F-Droid, which utilize software packages in the APK format. " ,to reference an additional app market place. Aptoide is much wider used in the EU and also referenced in the EU vs Google Wikipedia page. Hmayer1980 (talk) 08:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

pre-installed software on Android devices and its privacy risks for users

"the permission model on the Android operating system and its apps allow a large number of actors to track and obtain personal user information. At the same time, it reveals that the end user is not aware of these actors in the Android terminals or of the implications that this practice could have on their privacy. Furthermore, the presence of this privileged software in the system makes it difficult to eliminate it if one is not an expert user." -- https://www.networks.imdea.org/whats-new/news/2019/study-analyzes-pre-installed-software-android-devices-and-its-privacy-risks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BA:984A:F200:0:0:0:8EA (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Screen shot is not stock android

It appears to be he version for Google Pixel rather then the stock version — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.180.90 (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Fix

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#Technical_security_features

Quote: In September 2014, Jason Nova of Android Authority reported on a study by the German security company Fraunhofer AISEC in antivirus software and malware threats on Android. Nova wrote that "The Android operating system deals with software packages by sandboxing them; this does not allow applications to list the directory contents of other apps to keep the system safe. By not allowing the antivirus to list the directories of other apps after installation, applications that show no inherent suspicious behavior when downloaded are cleared as safe. If then later on parts of the app are activated that turn out to be malicious, the antivirus will have no way to know since it is inside the app and out of the antivirus’ jurisdiction". The study by Fraunhofer AISEC, examining antivirus software from Avast, AVG, Bitdefender, ESET, F-Secure, Kaspersky, Lookout, McAfee (formerly Intel Security), Norton, Sophos, and Trend Micro, revealed that "the tested antivirus apps do not provide protection against customized malware or targeted attacks", and that "the tested antivirus apps were also not able to detect malware which is completely unknown to date but does not make any efforts to hide its malignity".

Lookout page is Lookout (IT security).

Curtisk404 (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

bad element 3.0 VivoGlobal (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Section on rooting

On the IOS wiki they include a section on jailbreaking. Since rooting is basically Android's jailbreaking, wouldn't it make sense to include a section on it? It could discuss security issues, how phone manufacturers try to prevent rooting, etc. Just my thoughts, hopefully it is considered. Rblaq (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Android 7

This is version is no longer supported, I believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.11.233.82 (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2020

Android 11s code name is r it is show in android studio for developers. 206.123.177.71 (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Needs to have been mentioned in reliable sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Moving Version Data Outside of the Article

Hello All,

Although WP:BOLD and WP:BRD, given the prominence of this article (and that the talk page lists that it is important to no fewer than 11 (!!) projects ...) - I thought it would be good to just make sure there were no major objections:

I was working on updating Comparison of operating systems to use versioning data from Template:LSR which is integrated into Template:Infobox OS and will automatically integrate per Template:Infobox_OS#Moving_release_data_outside_the_article -- Android does not currently have its version data moved outside of the article thus precluding its reuse and preventing a Single source of truth.

If moved outside of the article to Template:LSR -- (specifically perhaps Template:Latest stable software release/Android or Template:Latest stable software release/Google Android - or both with a redirect?) -- the only functional difference would be that to update the version information the template is edited instead of the actual page (if you haven't used the software version template, it has a convenient "[±]" link that goes directly to the edit page for the version number data.)

Thoughts? :)

Hope everyone is staying healthy and safe...

Jewell D D (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Android 11

Where would be an appropriate section to add details about the upcoming Android 11 release on the Wiki? Autobotsrepair (talk) 03:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Android version history already has some information about Android 11, and there is Android 11 with specific coverage about that version. Mindmatrix 13:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
@Mindmatrix: Perfect, thank you for sharing this with me! In that case, I'll keep an eye out for when the release drops and help update the current version in the Wiki if none of the contributors get a chance too. Autobotsrepair (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2020

Fix typo. Replace "In January 2014, Google unveiled an framework based..." with "In January 2014, Google unveiled a framework based..." VaValenciaCa (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2020

4.1 Update schedule The latest major release is Android 10. to The latest major release is Android 11. Antony Leons (talk) 09:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

 Already done with this edit. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2020

The Stack Architecture is wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#/media/File:Android-System-Architecture.svg the right one is another one https://developer.android.com/guide/platform , Dalvik VM does not exist anymore TheLillo (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please provide a license compatible image with the improvement you specify, and I will add it. Melmann 22:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

RISC-V

Add RISC-V to the list of architectures in the infobox. [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.56.58.135 (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The infobox does not have any architectures listed. Please clarify what you are suggesting. RudolfRed (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 14:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
It does, see Platforms: 64- and 32-bit (32-bit only apps being dropped in 2021) ARM, x86 and x86-64.
Please add RISC-V there.

Education

Learning centre Horragang (talk) 05:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Android 12 beta 2.1

The current version needs to be updated Calgrainger (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The current information listed in the article is correct. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2021

Change the name of author cited at 212 from Wycislik-Wilson, Mark to Wyciślik-Wilson, Sofia -- this reflects a real-world name change for the author and corrects a typo in the surname. SofiaWycislikWilson (talk) 07:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done Living Concrete (talk) 07:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2021

I'm trying to add a reference about reports that the Pegasus spyware can infect Android devices unnoticed. Kovaxa (talk) 10:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion to update latest release

Android 12 beta 5 has been released. Arcaege (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

How to read security bulletins currently still supported Android version version lifecycle

Yes, I've noticed when it comes to whether or not an Android version is still supported I noticed the editors use the monthly Android Security Bulletin as a source, but I am having trouble finding where the security bulletin page specifically state which previous Android versions were still supported as of that monthly security bulletin. Where is it? I'm sorry to post this question here, but I don't know where else to put it. Thanks! For example Android 11's article uses this URL https://source.android.com/security/bulletin/2021-08-01 as the reference, but where can I find it? Thanks!

Hgh1985 (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2022

Suggest a section 4.7 be added to include:

1. Custom Android Distributions Custom Android Distributions are developed and updated by the community to support various devices. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_custom_Android_distributions

2. Generic System Images GSIs are made available for a larger number of compatible devices which are updated by the community. https://github.com/phhusson/treble_experimentations/wiki/Generic-System-Image-%28GSI%29-list Ajaydcruz (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The list is already there in the section 'Open-source community'. For the purposes of this article, GSI is too niche or jargon-y. hemantha (brief) 08:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2022

Use picture of Android 13 instead of Android 12 2.26.180.110 (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: If you have a picture that meets WP:image use policy, link to it here and reopen the reqiest Cannolis (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of Trinity College Dublin study report, RSN discussion

FYI, Reliability of the following sources in this article are being discussed at RSN.[4] More opinions are welcome. Also suggest seeing the update/correction at The Register.[5]

  • "Study reveals scale of data-sharing from Android mobile phones". Trinity College Dublin. Retrieved November 16, 2021.
  • Liu, Haoyu; Patras, Paul; Leith, Douglas J. (October 6, 2021). "Android Mobile OS Snooping By Samsung, Xiaomi, Huawei and Realme Handsets" (PDF). Retrieved November 16, 2021.

-- Yae4 (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Valid source for this claim?

The line "As of May 2021, it has over three billion monthly active users, the largest installed base of any operating system" currently does not have a citation. I seem to remember a source available here on the official Android website, however it is nowhere to be found currently. Does anyone have a source for this claim? I don't know a good name. (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I_don't_know_a_good_name.: How about this one.[6] -- Yae4 (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I've added that as a source - thanks! I don't know a good name. (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2022

change Bionic is licensed under the terms of the BSD licence to Bionic is licensed under the terms of the BSD license Eufel (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

 Already done at the same time, Bionic is licensed under the terms of the BSD licence, ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Android is open source, right?

This article is about Android. It is not about the various proprietary forks like OneUI or FireOS or Google's fork of Android. Separate articles already exist on these proprietary components, we should make this article solely focused on the main vanilla Android OS. I don't know if this is pov pushing or if there is consensus here that android is indeed closed source but I find it unacceptable to boldly change something that has remained on the article for years without problem. I even remember Microsoft and Samsung actually contributing to Android's core OS. This is nothing like Windows where the operating system is mostly closed source with manufacturers writing drivers which may or may not be open source. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Android is open-source, and the article should reflect that. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2022

I want to add a new top list of android apps Baqir hunzai (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Whoops, I am a month slow... 🐌
I don't think such a list would be encyclopedic either, see Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 18:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Other uses

Android has also been installed on more objects that you should include in the section: Urinals: https://www.theregister.com/2021/09/29/bork/ Ovens: https://www.pcworld.com/article/456288/android-moves-into-the-kitchen-with-dacor-s-discovery-smart-oven.html Microwaves: https://www.engadget.com/2010-01-09-touch-revolution-puts-android-in-a-microwave-and-makes-an-update.html 204.100.235.132 (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Wahser and dryer: https://www.gadgetsnow.com/slideshows/android-gadgets/android-washing-machine/photolist/29815625.cms 204.100.235.132 (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't think this merits inclusion in the encyclopedia. Android powers a lot of things, yeah, but we are not an indiscriminate dumping ground for information. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 15:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree, the section should list examples, but should not be an exhaustive list. If anything, the two sentences in the second paragraph of "Other uses" could use trimming, rather than additions. - Aoidh (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Possible copyright infringement

When I was reading this article, I found a sentence which might violate copyright. In the first line of the "Development -> Update schedule" section, there is a sentence which refers to a PhoneArena's article. There is a sentence in the footer of the article which said "Reproduction in whole or in part or in any form or medium without written permission is prohibited!". When i looked at the PhoneArena term of service , i found a sentence which said "We grant you a limited license and permission to access and make personal use of PhoneArena but not to download or copy any portion of its content for any commercial purpose or to modify any portion of it, except with our written or e-mailed consent". Does the person who copied the text from the article has the permission to copy the text to Wikipedia?. Wikipedia allows everyone to use and copy its article, even for commercial purpose. I'm sorry if there are grammar mistakes as english is not my primary language. Thank you, Sipaw3310 (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself.--Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
A statement prohibiting copying is meaningless, since prohibition is the default for acts covered by copyright and other IP laws, and otherwise only enforcible by contract - which they don't have. So all that's necessary is to determine whether copying those eleven words constitutes an act that copyright law reserves to the copyright holder. There is variation between jurisdictions, but in many places such a short excerpt would likely be covered by the "fair use doctrine", and in some places may also fail the "creativity test" (due to there being so few concise ways of expressing that information). That said, saying "major incremental" is a contradiction in terms, so I've re-worded the sentence anyway. Martin Kealey (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi
I think you say the contradiction. I know not is the best place for speak about this and sorry.But is a litle bit stupid stay watching this copyrights things and question or ask about this things. I dont want to say not is important wich copyright, copyleft or free filosofy have android (google). But in the text says clearly "except with our written or e-mailed consent". This last thing is very dificult, because who know wich part make one person and who make other... the topic is complicated my friend. But only know you write too much for nothing. Sorry, You must be more observer in the words (except). The cuestion hier is what is Android. Is free or is limited? It's new thing with old thing that are new (free software)...? I want to say: what is the Android philosophy? Wich rules of work and and change, manipulated, improve...whatever of source things have? The cuestion not is some words, are the all of thing.
In spanish we say “Es mejor estar callado y parecer estúpido que abrir la boca y disipar las dudas”. 88.10.30.255 (talk) 03:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Android isn't free and open source

Android isn't free and open source, as it contains proprietary components like Google Play, Google Play Services and Google Chrome and other proprietary components as standard and limits to its source code distribution. זור987 (talk) 07:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Also: If Android would be FOSS, than smart devices like smartphones, could get infinite updates of the OS, but this isn't the case. זור987 (talk) 07:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

That might be true for Motorola, Pixel, Amazon and Samsung devices, but the stock version of Android still contains code that is open-source. megamanfan3 (talk) 08:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
If a software that contains open source components, also contains proprietary components, it isn't open source and especially not FOSS anymore. Google Chrome is an example: It contains components of Chromium, which is FOSS, yet it is also contains proprietary components, so the software is rendered proprietary. זור987 (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
The article doesn't say Android is FOSS; it says its based on FOSS components and also contains proprietary components. The AOSP content is FOSS. The definition you gave in your edit summary would render most Linux distributions that contain non-free blobs as proprietary, which obviously they are not according to the definition provided by reliable sources. - Aoidh (talk) 09:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Android contains lots of other proprietary components and things beside Google Play and Google Chrome. Also, Google Chrome itself is proprietary software despite it is essentially Chromium with additional proprietary components. זור987 (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Your complaint is that Android isn't FOSS; the article doesn't say it is. - Aoidh (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Play and Chrome are add-ons, they aren't necessary to run the OS (there are devices that omit these). This is a bit like arguing that Linux isn't open-source because there are distributions out there that include proprietary device drivers. MrOllie (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
@MrOllie Good argument, the article specifically is about the Android operating system itself, not Google Play Services or OneUI or any proprietary components that may come bundled with Android. And to address the other argument about updates, you can flash stock Android with no Google Play Services on virtually any device and get updates indefinitely, it is just device drivers are hit or miss. If I am not mistaken, Google's proprietary components won't even run if the device is not running the version of Android that shipped with it, but I could be wrong. I have never tried rooting and prob won't in the future because it would mean a lot of features of my Android like Google Pay would fail to work anymore. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 22:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Also @זור987 we go by what reliable and/or official sources say (including the operating system), not by what you believe or do not believe. If what you are writing is not verifiable, including by the developers [7] and [8], then it does not belong on Wikipedia. WP:V says "Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." And to be clear, as I just said in the talk section above, This article is about Android. It is not about the various proprietary forks like OneUI or FireOS or Google's fork of Android. We have separate articles that cover Google Play Services and OneUI which are proprietary components that run on Android, but Android does not need them to function. I want you to take care before you add something contentious like this. The edit you made, despite being in good faith, is falling into WP:RECKLESS territory. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 23:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
This is Android's code posted on github by Android, so I would say that qualifies as FOSS. 93.56.221.236 (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
that's not even the source page. In fact if you navigate to "overview" from n that github page, you'll find the following written below AOSP mirror: [quote]These aren't the droids you're looking for [/quote]
here's a better link [9] . feel free to comb through each directory and look for owners file. In each you'll find there isn't one but usually many.. that reference is vetted by official Certificate authority.
i agree with @Awesome Aasim. All the rest of grasping at straws. Polypsychosis (talk) 10:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
It's a litle bit strange no? because ok not is open, but some software it's free...Or not? example Crome. And is more support free software like a KDE. Is early for my to say and think that is the new thing, because i cant , we cant clasificate exactly. It's like a new political party who dont want to be in the left part and less in the right part. But all must to be in the some place, and more today speaking about copy right. complicated thing...it's to will be (no se como decir esta por verse) in wich part gone be. we will see if is or not the devil, but this quote is just old no? wich is the new shit? how will be the new shit? how will say Marilyn Manson. 88.10.30.255 (talk) 05:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

RfC on 9to5Google as a source

There is an RfC at WP:RSN on reliability of 9to5Google as a source.[10] Only 3 opinions have been given in about 19 days. More would be appreciated. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

RISC-V official support anounced

This article is pretty large, so I don't feel comfortable messing around with it. Still, the news is here. Saedes (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

"Latest Preview" needs update

Current preview is DP2 released March 8th Patrioticparadox (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 13 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) JJPublic (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

– The operating system is likely the primary topic. A search for Android on Google and the page views show that the OS is likely the primary topic. Interstellarity (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  • Oppose. I prefer to error here on the side of the long-term significance aspect of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, with Android (robot) having about the same equal weight of 'enduring notability and educational value'. Especially when you consider all these fictional androids in science fiction and pop culture like Data from Star Trek and KOS-MOS from Xenosaga. Or look up any dictionary on "Android" and the first definition is almost always about the robot topic. Thus, I do not think anything has really changed since the last RMs 2010 and 2011. In fact, as it was suggested by one of the commentators in that 2010 RM, I would not be surprised that Google itself is artificially tilting the Google test of their own OS in their favor. Zzyzx11 (talk) 12:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Android (robot), the historical meaning and still quite relevant. Steel1943 (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Steel1943 - The robot is still relevant. –Davey2010Talk 17:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose There is no primary topic. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose If anything, I would regard the robot as the primary topic. PatGallacher (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:SNOW early close. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose This word for the concept of an artificial or mechanical or robot human-like creation goes back nearly 300 years and is firmly entrenched in English language culture and literature. That meaning should not be eclipsed by a 15 year old Google marketing term. Cullen328 (talk) 07:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  • https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Android shows that, last month, of the 4.5k people who view this page, 1.92k go to the OS, which is ~42.66%. That alone already indicates that this topic is not more frequently sought after than all others combined. The second entry in the clickstream list matches the second entry in our list as well. The little historical view we have in the graphs below indicates this is consistent with the previous month as well. I don't think there's anything to do here, the average English encyclopedia reader is getting navigated quite reasonably by the existing setup. --Joy (talk) 09:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2023

Kyle9998 (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I need to Add The New Android Logo into the logo box.

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Tollens (talk) 23:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2023

197.184.176.30 (talk) 10:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

i need to use it

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Tollens (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion to Change Index/Theme Name

index and section 9. is called "es" i suggest to change it to a more complete and understandable one.

"Android 14" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Android 14 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 29 § Android 14 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2023

Kindly change the identifying logo from File:Android logo 2023 (stacked).svg to File:Android 2023 3D logo and wordmark.svg as the latter visually represents the subject of the article more accurately than the former since the subject introduced a rebranded look featuring the Android robot rendered in 3D, which the latter logo stated here is an accurate representation 203.189.119.120 (talk) 03:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2019/03/introducing-android-q-beta.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Android_(operating_system)/Archive_8&oldid=1184866542"