Talk:Android Lollipop/Archive 1

Archive 1

Android L Update for OnePlus One

OnePlus has announced on their forums that their OnePlus One will receive the Android L treatment three months after the final build release. This announcement has received media coverage and it seems like it should be added to the "Release" section of the article, where similar information about HTC's update resides. My addition of this OnePlus One information has been reverted, so I am bringing it to the talk page. Feynman1918 (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi.

Have you studied WP:CRYSTAL? Product announcements are not allowed in Wikipedia, unless they are just mentioned as an essential background for something important that cannot be replaced with a time reference.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Codename Lisa.

When you reverted my change, I did indeed take a look at WP:CRYSTAL. I am not experienced with Wikipedia's rules, but to me it seems like this update announcement should be allowed. The last section of WP:CRYSTAL explains that product announcements should not have their own articles, but should be merged into a larger topic (in this case, Android L). The page is clear that speculation and rumors are not allowed, but verified release dates are. Again, this is what I take from WP:CRYSTAL, but I may be wrong.

Thanks!

Feynman1918 (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I apologize for forgetting to include an edit summary when I reverted your deletion. I will make sure to do so in the future.

I should have known there is a misinterpretation somewhere. You are trying explain what you did based on the explanatory prose while you seem to have ignored the bold text that it is explaining and the introductory paragraph of WP:CRYSTAL. Specifically:

Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place.

...and:

Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements.

This entails with Wikipedia's mission statement of being an encyclopedia that reports facts, as opposed to promises. When "OnePlus One" became a fact, you can include the announcement as part of its history because then, it shows have far in the past its development efforts was going.

Of course, if you are not convinced, you can bring additional input to this discussion to establish consensus. Your first stop would be WP:3O. (That's your best bet.)

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I completely understand the section you are quoting. It means that product announcements should not be in their own articles, but if they are verifiable, they can be included in other articles. The exact text reads:

Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content.

The underlined section is the part I am referring to when I say that the announcement (not rumor) of the OnePlus One's Android L update should be included in the Android L article. Just as a side note, information about HTC's schedule for updating their devices to Android L is also included in this article, so there is no reason why not to add OnePlus's schedule. Again, the exact text from WP:CRYSTAL is pretty clear that OnePlus's announcement is appropriate for the Android L article, but if this is somehow not clear, third party input may be necessary.

Feynman1918 (talk) 02:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles for individual Android revisions are a new concept on Wikipedia (surprisingly, this was the first one ever. I've also done ones for ICS and the Jelly Bean line), and I've had to make concessions about how to handle the coverage of planned updates. We cannot obviously cover upgrade plans by every single OEM, because it would be too long, a lot of them can only be adequately sourced to blogs (which we do not generally consider reliable sources), and it would also be undue to give them the same level of coverage as major OEMs. As such, eventually, it will be more of a list like the Android Jelly Bean article.

tl;dr Any manufacturer can release Android L updates, but that does not mean they can all get equal coverage. OnePlus is merely a startup. HTC is an established and major Android OEM. Also, I consider Android Central to be a blog; blogs and primary sources are generally not considered reliable. It must be a reliable, secondary source. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bencdodge:: Since you aren't dedicating an entire article to a rumor, I don't understand why you keep quoting the part that bans dedicated articles. Initially, I thought you are perhaps trying to deceive me into thinking that WP:CRYSTAL is strictly a policy on dedicated articles. But I dismissed that assumption, as it is too childish a trick to pull; and I don't think this is the case anyway. I can read WP:CRYSTAL, you know. Whatever is your reason, you'd better focus on more relevant parts.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello again.

WP:CRYSTAL IS about dedicated articles. The page is always talking about how this or that is not an appropriate ARTICLE TOPIC. It even says that "product announcements should be merged to a larger topic," so clearly verified announcements can be included in a larger article, but should not take up a whole article themselves. I am not alone in thinking this either. Two other Wikipedia editors have included similar information in this article. As I already mentioned, HTC's update information has been included, as well as a predicted date for the Android L release. In response to ViperSnake151's comment, all OEM's get "equal coverage," whatever that means. Android is open source, so all OEM's have access to the same stuff. I don't know what you mean by "OnePlus is merely a startup", as they have manufactured a phone and are considered an OEM. Especially in the tech community, the OnePlus One is VERY well known. You said that we cannot cover the upgrade plans of every single OEM, however this is a very special event. Most of the time, OEM's take a long time to update their already existing phones to the new Android version, if at all. In this case, only two OEM's have promised this, so information about these two should be included. Also, I read WP:PRIMARY, and it is clear that reliable primary sources can be used, so long as they are facts, not opinions, and they are not interpreted in the article. An announcement from OnePlus meets these criteria. Finally, I don't think that Android Central should be considered a blog, but there are also MANY other sources reporting this. Outlets include Android Headlines, Android Geeks, and Android Authority. There is DEFINITELY enough coverage of this to show that it is a notable event, and that it is certainly going to happen.

Feynman1918 (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

All of your so-called sources are also blogs. Again, you're putting undue weight on minor OEMs. I did not say all OEMs get equal coverage, I said that "Any manufacturer can release Android L updates, but that does not mean they can all get equal coverage [on Wikipedia]." The NPOV policy states that articles must "[represent] all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Boy Genius Report, which I do consider reliable, did make a report on this plan, but it merely aggregates the same forum post that you attempted to use as a citation, which means that its proportion is much lower in comparison to HTC, whose upgrade plans received a much larger amount of media coverage. And your argument that it is "very special" is highly opinionated; OnePlus gave pretty much the exact same timeframe as HTC, but they do not have to do as much because its already running a variation of stock Android. HTC is committing to port both Android and its HTC Sense software to L, so it is much more significant. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

First of all, according to WP:PRIMARY, "a primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." This is clearly the case with OnePlus's announcement on their forum. No interpretation is necessary, thus no secondary sources are necessary. Even so, one secondary source that is NOT a blog and has reported on this topic is the International Business Times, a well known online news publication. I do see what you mean now about it not being as important as HTC's update, however there is another reason why this information is very important. As you know, the OnePlus One is a low-cost yet high-spec'ed phone. It runs CyanogenMod, which looks and feels like stock Android. It is a natural competitor to the Nexus 5, because they are very similar in those ways. However, the one true advantage of the Nexus 5 is that it runs true stock Android and gets updates from Google, while the OnePlus One runs a modified version of Android and gets updates from its OEM (OnePlus). It is therefore important news that OnePlus will in fact be releasing an Android L update soon after the final build release. Feynman1918 (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

"WP:CRYSTAL IS about dedicated articles."

Shutting your eye and pretending the sky is made of candy doesn't change the fact of the matter. And to add insult to the injury, you've added an "other stuff exists" discussion too and tried to misrepresent notability policy as well!

Until you decide to treat the issue at hand with due regard to the facts and without resorting to gaming the system, goodbye.

Codename Lisa (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Codename Lisa.

When I claimed that WP:CRYSTAL is about dedicated articles, I gave evidence to support my claim. I mentioned how it always says that articles about such and such are not appropriate, and I gave the quote about how product announcements should be included in larger topics. It is important to realize that WP:CRYSTAL does not completely ban anything. It just bans unverifiable rumors, which the OnePlus announcement is not. When I said that what WP:CRYSTAL cautions against is dedicated articles, you said that I couldn't close my eyes and pretend that the sky was made of candy. You said I had to look at the facts. However, you just said I was wrong, and didn't explain anything or give any factual evidence yourself. If you disagree with me, then I am open to discussion, but you can't just say I'm wrong and leave it at that. That is not constructive and we will not get anywhere.

The next thing you said was that I added an other stuff exists argument to the discussion. However, just like WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OSE does not explicitly ban anything. It just gives guidelines as to when "other stuff exists" arguments can be used (see my previous comment as to why the OnePlus announcement is as important as HTC's). Also, just like WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OSE is mostly about deletion and creation of articles (just look at the headings). Finally, WP:OSE is not even a Wikipedia policy or guideline, it is "comments and advice of one or more Wikipedia contributors." In any case, you said I was wrong to include an "other stuff exists" argument as part of my reasoning, yet the page (which is not even a policy) doesn't even ban them. I do understand though that these types of arguments are not preferred by Wikipedia editors, so I agree it would be better to focus on the other arguments I have made.

Finally, you claimed that I was not following the notability policy, but let's examine what the notability policy actually says. It states that "notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." Just like WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OSE, WP:N IS ABOUT DEDICATED ARTICLES! No articles are being created or deleted, so this policy is not even relevant. In your last sentence, you said that I had to consider the facts and not try game the system. None of what I am doing is gaming the system, and please try to bring up facts too. The comment left by ViperSnake151 was objective and had some good points. Your previous comments have been factual and objective, while this one consisted of mostly just accusations. I think that we should be sure to analyze the facts as I have done here, and not indulge in making harsh accusations.

Thank you for your patience, Feynman1918 (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC).

Codename Lisa, it has been approximately four days since I left my last comment on this page, addressed to you. Perhaps you have elected to leave this discussion, as you have not responded. After a long discussion about the addition of OnePlus One information, you indicated that you believed I was not following many of Wikipedia's policies. I believed that I was, and provided a lengthy explanation. I still have interest in adding this definitely worthy OnePlus One information to the article, and will do so in the next few days if there is no further objection from you or any other users who would like to voice their opinion. Thanks, Feynman1918 Talk 08:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC).

WP:SILENCE § What does not constitute silence Codename Lisa (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Due to the link you responded with, I presume that you are still in disagreement, and left the discussion because you thought we were iterating the same points over and over again. This is a logical argument, so I decided to go back to your earlier suggestion and request a third party opinion. Since ViperSnake151 left the discussion a while ago, I think it is okay to assume that the argument is just between us, and thus a third party opinion is appropriate.

Feynman1918 Talk 00:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC).

Response to third opinion request:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Android L and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

I am accepting this request, as I believe ViperSnake151 has left the discussion. Ugog Nizdast has restored the request at WP:3O, so I believe this is acceptable. In my view, Feynman1918 is correct. Although WP:CRYSTAL bullet 5 does indeed say "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors", it does not preclude mention of product announcements in larger articles -- indeed the mention of HTC here is just such an announcement. As Feynman1918 says, WP:CRYSTAL only precludes whole articles about those product announcements. The bullet also mentions that "... Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products ..." and "product announcements should be merged to a larger topic", which is what Feynman1918 has tried to do. Further, I do not think it justified to suppress mention of the OnePlus announcement while retaining mention of the HTC announcement. The argument that we can't include everything doesn't justify our giving more weight to some than to others. The argument that HTC are springing a bigger surprise may interest observers of the technology, but that's a tiny minority. Nevertheless, it must be sourced properly, and while the OnePlus forum isn't a blog, it definitely is a forum. The Mobileburn source would be more suitable, I think. Regards, Stfg (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

As it appears that the third party thought the information should be included, I will include it.

Feynman1918 Talk 03:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Not so fast!

1. First, the WP:3O is null and void. A 3O is invalid when three editors are already engaged. I think I made it very clear with my last message that continued reiteration of disagreement is not necessary; "I believe ViperSnake151 has left the discussion" only makes sense when ViperSnake151 says "I'm leave and withdrawing all my comments; consider it null and void." That would leave only two editors.
2. Second, Stfg fails to demonstrate the ability to understand that 3O is only appropriate with discussions with two editor. How am I supposed to accept his judgment about WP:CRYSTAL? I don't feel he has answered all my objections in full. I can indeed invoke WP:NOTADVERT if you feel CRYSTAL is about dedicated articles only.
3. Third, Stfg is making another "other stuff exists" discussion without evidence to support other stuff must exist as well. Delete the other product announcement as well, I say. I don't believe for a moment that these products may ever come.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, just take it as the opinion of an uninvolved editor, then. You are as free to agree or disagree with that as you are with a 3O. @Feynman1918: WP:DRN might be the place to go. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Feynman1918: FWIW how exactly would this information improve the coverage of Android L? Why do you want to include it? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 02:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: The statement of OnePlus does announce future event, but more importantly it tells of their commitment to bringing Android L to their phone ASAP, and this commitment is already ongoing. I doubt that this statement is significant enough to be mentioned here though. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 02:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Czarkoff: Well, actually, that makes sense. If there is a risk that the absence of this sentence is misconstrued as lack of commitment, we do have a perfect NPOV rationale here. I think we need a bit of c.e. there to add context in the line of the question you asked but I think it can be done. Very well; I'll abandon my position

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

This is the reason why I am against to mentioning OnePlus here. Yes, its a future event, but yet again I must emphasize that OnePlus is a startup OEM with only one device. HTC is an established phone maker with a large array of models and has been an established Android OEM since the beginning. It is only your opinion that OnePlus committing is "important". ViperSnake151  Talk  04:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@Czarkoff: You asked the question of why we should include this information in this article. It is because information about the release of a software product (or any product for that matter) is essential. That is why pretty much every page for a product has a "release" section. The way a new version of Android is released is a bit complicated. It is first released to Nexus and Google Play edition devices. Then, new Android phones start to ship with the new version. In some cases, OEMs decide to update their existing devices to the new version. Thus, information about the release of Android L should definitely include information about if and when OEMs will release an update for their existing devices. If this information is excluded from the article, then it could be viewed as a potential violation of NPOV, as Codename Lisa explained. That is my rationale as to why information about the update for HTC and OnePlus devices (and any other devices that will be updated to Android L) is important.

@Codename Lisa: Sorry if this is a silly question, but what do you mean by your third sentence, and what is "c.e."? Do you mean that the article should explain the update process or why the information is important?

@ViperSnake151: You have already made the point that you just made, and I have already responded to it. In case you did not see my response, I said this:

I do see what you mean now about it not being as important as HTC's update, however there is another reason why this information is very important. As you know, the OnePlus One is a low-cost yet high-spec'ed phone. It runs CyanogenMod, which looks and feels like stock Android. It is a natural competitor to the Nexus 5, because they are very similar in those ways. However, the one true advantage of the Nexus 5 is that it runs true stock Android and gets updates from Google, while the OnePlus One runs a modified version of Android and gets updates from its OEM (OnePlus). It is therefore important news that OnePlus will in fact be releasing an Android L update soon after the final build release.

In addition to the argument that I made above, I would like to add that the OnePlus One is an extremely popular and well known device to a certain group of people. The fact that OnePlus is a relatively new company does not automatically mean that they are not important. In order to adhere to WP:NPOV, the viewpoint of all significant groups should be included if possible. In the very large tech community, OnePlus is almost universally well known, so information about it should not be deemed "unimportant".

Thanks to all, Feynman1918 Talk 04:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC).

@Feynman: HTC is in dire straights – they don't earn enough and loose market share. Their announcement is likely just an attempt at marketing their current handsets as Android L phones. Actually, HTC routinely makes similar statements regarding new Android versions and does not always hold to them. OnePlus One was released quite some time ago and there was no much mention of the vendor recently. Their announcement may have the sole purpose of retaining presence in mobile-related media. Be there any less troubled vendor, I would have no doubt that this information is worth inclusion. Also note, OnePlus has vivid developer community, and their support for Android L would likely be implemented by polishing one of early Android L releases from community; the amount of commitment required on their part is minimal.

@ViperSnake151: OnePlus and OPPO belong to rather separate genre of handset vendors, so mentioning any of them is no less significant then mentioning more established Android vendors. They are not just off-the-mill phone makers.

I don't think that WP:NPOV is really a ground for inclusion of these announcements. Such promises are known to be routinely broken by vendors, so their relative weight is minimal. I think their inclusion is purely a matter of editorial judgement, and I don't see good arguments neither for nor against mention. Provided that we are editing an encyclopedia, I would suggest to step back and assess survivability of this information – is it going to be worth keeping when Android L is released and updates are rolled out? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey everyone! In my opinion, we should either leave both HTC and OnePlus, or delete both. Why should HTC's commitment weight more than the one stated by OnePlus? If we go with "yeah, HTC is a big guy and OnePlus is a small startup", then we're far from being neutral... Right? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I think Dmitrij has got to the heart of the matter. These announcements are sometimes made by companies, not for good informational reasons, but to uphold their presence in the marketplace. The announcements may or may not genuinely foreshadow a release. He is also right to ask the last question. Imo the information will date very quickly, so perhaps all such announcements should be avoided, per WP:NOTNEWS. I agree with Dsimic, too: what is sauce for the goose must also be sauce for the gander. Arguments based on the relative importance of the companies involved tilt the commercial playing field, and we should never be doing that. --Stfg (talk) 10:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

If Dmitrij thinks there is no NPOV concern and I have misunderstood his comment, then I am afraid my opinion returns to square one: Include neither. But of course, this time I am more lenient towards the whole subject matter and more welcoming to changes. I am shown that there are other aspects. I cannot help but to tread cautiously. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I now understand what Dimitri is getting at, and now hold pretty much the same position as Dsimic. Until recently, I only supported including both pieces of information. However, now I think that including both or including neither are both good options. I still hold that the information has been covered extensively and is thus notable, but it seems that this is not where the issue lies. Continued media coverage is probably an incentive for companies to make update announcements, although I'm not sure that this particular fact really matters in the inclusion discussion. I have done a bit of research and Dimitri appears to be right in that HTC has broken update promises before, which is a big reason not to include their similar current promise. Dimitri also questioned the survivability of this topic, but I think that information regarding the updates from HTC and OnePlus will be even more important once the updates actually come out and are verified. Overall, I would still advocate for inclusion, but I am very open towards not including anything (at least until the updates actually arrive). Given that everyone is either against inclusion or very lenient, I now think that not including anything would be best. Feynman1918 Talk 13:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that information regarding the updates from HTC and OnePlus will be even more important once the updates actually come out and are verified.
— User:Feynman1918 13:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

And then we will have a real WP:NPOV problem: reporting that, say, HTC announced an update to Android L for models X, Y and Z but only updated X, will be taken as implication of negative reception of this new Android release by readers who (unlike you) have not performed the research on HTC business practicies. Discussion of HTC's announcements' credibility and customer support history is certainly inappropriate for this article.

The promises of future releases will be worth keeping here only if Android L will never gain widespread acceptance; but, provided that this is the very next version of Android, such situation would be covered in multiple secondary sources, making individual vendors' statements rather worthless as separate mentions. Aside this case, such announcements are only appropriate for articles about the particular phone models and, maybe, respective vendors themselves. (Unless, of cource, these articles are already full of similar trivia.)

All in all, I wouldn't count on these announcements still being in the article for long, so I don't really see a point of introducing them regardless my assessment of Codename Lisa's and ViperSnake151's objections. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Just as Feynman1918 described it above, those "we'll update our product X to software Y within Z months" promises are mainly serving for vendors to get some media coverage. Also, that way vendors try to lure more customers into buying their products under the impression that they'll receive latest and greatest stuff very soon.

Maybe some kind of a solution could be the following:

• In this article, include something like "Some vendors announced their phones to be upgraded to Android L soon after it is officially released", with references to HTC and OnePlus announcements.
• In the manufacturer and phone articles, more detailed descriptions could be included, though it might be better not to have that more detailed "within Y months" stuff at all.

However, all that contains a very small amount of encyclopedic value, so it might be better not to have anything at all. Thoughts? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

In this article, include something like "Some vendors announced their phones to be upgraded to Android L soon after it is officially released", with references to HTC and OnePlus announcements.
— User:Dsimic 02:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

...just to have someone inseart {{whom2}} after "Some vendors", sending us back to square one. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Hehe, so true. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I think Dsimic's idea is very good. The articles for the One (M7) and One (M8) have included information about the promised Android L update for quite some time now, and the promise can also be added to the section of the OnePlus article devoted to the One. In the future, when the updates actually start rolling out, there can be a discussion about whether or not to mention these updates in the Android L article.

Feynman1918 Talk 11:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, mentioning announcements in articles about specific smartphone models, and only mentioning released updates here (at least several earliest) sounds good. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Like --Stfg (talk) 13:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Video

May I suggest displaying this video instead of the current one because the video I have suggested is from the Google developers themselves and it showcases the material design aspect more clearly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.210.51.171 (talk) 08:25, 23 August 2014‎

Hello! You're right that the above linked video is much better, and I've added it into the Android L § External links section. However, what about the licensing? In order to be displayed within the article, it needs to be licensed properly so it can be uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

5.0 or "L"

In the last few edits, ViperSnake151 pretty much changed the designation of new Android version from "L" to 5.0, based on using a video as a reference. As the article was still titled "Android L", and as one video might not have been good enough for introducing changes like that, I've reverted those edits. Of course, that change might be just fine, but I'd say that it should be discussed a bit first. Thoughts? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

No matter what, the article has to be moved to Android 5.0 now. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Please don't get me wrong, but being more elaborative should be a good thing; "has to be" isn't much of an explanation. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 17:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It is inconsistent with the other Android version article covering a single version (Android 4.0). We only used the codename in the title for Jelly Bean because it spans multiple revisions. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

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: no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 03:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Android Lollipop → Android 5.0 – Consistency: I had intended for this article to be located at its version number, not its codename. The 4.1 article only uses its codename as the article title because it spans three versions that shared the same codename, in which the other two were not notably different enough to be separately notable. As such, the 4.0 article is not at Android Ice Cream Sandwich but Android 4.0. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: Some of the Android codenames span more than one version number (as is the case with Android Jelly Bean), and as such can't have a proper numeric article name, so for the sake of the consistency that you seek, all articles should be moved to their codename, not their version number. --uKER (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: What happens if Lollipop becomes version 5.1 do we need to move the article again? Every major update seems to come with a codename, I believe the codenames should be the primary name and version revisions be listed in the article to explain any substantial changes. As codenames continue in use after release and are still referenced it makes more sense to use the codename in the article title instead of a version number which changes with each patch. I would also recommend moving Android 4.0 to Android Ice Cream Sandwich to maintain a consistency. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a sourced assertion that it is a WP:COMMONNAME? As for OS X, there is consensus that articles for its versions must primarily be identified by their codename and not their version number in order to adhere to Apple's marketing, but that 10.0-10.2 cannot because they were not primarily marketed with their codename. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Every source I can find uses both version number and codename [1] [2]. Even our own list of Android version history lists the codename as the primary name. Since version number changes have less impact I don't think it should be included in the title.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 20:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It also lists both. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Whatever we decide, it should be applied to all related articles so they use a consistent naming scheme. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Problem is, there's no way to make it work for numeric titles. What are you going to do with Jelly Bean, as I mentioned? Make an article for 4.1, one for 4.2, one for 4.3 and one for 4.3.1? I still haven't understood the argument AGAINST the use of codenames. I don't see anyone wanting to use internal version numbers for articles about versions of Windows or OSX. --uKER (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

In theory, an article could be named "Android 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.3.1" – but that would be simply awkward. Thus, going with codenames all around would make much more sense. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 19:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: If we're going to use codenames at all, the titles should be in the format 'Lollipop (Android OS)' or some variant, per the same reasoning that moved 'Android Rooting' to 'Rooting (Android OS)' a few months ago. – Steel 19:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

There were people insisting we use names such as Jelly Bean (operating system) for absolute redirects earlier. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, and for the record endorse usage of popular names. These names are advertised on mass market TV. They're well known as such. What's the problem with them? Per above, we use "Windows XP", not "Windows 5.1"... I'd endorse reverting Viper Snakes's move and restoring "Android Ice Cream Sandwich" as well. SnowFire (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: I sense an "all or nothing" climate. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that what consistency is about? --uKER (talk) 00:34, 26 October 2014 (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.

Criticisms on stability?

There's no mention here of how bug-prone and unstable Lollipop is in relation to previous Android versions. Nor is there any explanation for the slow takeup. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 08:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Any references, please? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Not offhand, no. But there have been a lot of articles in the trade press and tech press about users finding it buggy, slow and crash prone, having problems with memory leaks and spontaneous reboots, which might explain the slow takeup. I would expect it should be pretty easy for someone who edits in this area to find plenty of reliable sources to add a paragraph or two. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 09:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2015

Under "Features", it states "A number of system-level, enterprise-oriented features were also introduced under the banner "Android for Work": Samsung contributed its Knox security framework for segregating personal and work-oriented data from each other on a device, along with accompanying APIs for managing the environment. Devices can also be configured so that users do not have to unlock their device with a PIN or pattern if it is within a trusted, physical location, or is in proximity to a user's Android Wear device.[11][18] Device encryption will be enabled by default"

According to Rajen Sheth (via http://recode.net/2015/02/25/google-expands-its-android-for-work-efforts-in-bid-to-get-more-businesses-using-its-phones/), “That was the original intent. We didn’t actually integrate code from Samsung.”

The line about Samsung should probably be rewritten to something like "Originally, it was planned for Samsung's KNOX security framework to be used as a foundation, but Google instead stuck with their own technologies for security, segregating personal and work-orientated data from each other on a device,..." 192.12.88.96 (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done, updated the article. Thank you for pointing it out! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

Replace Google in developer with

• Google
• Open Handset Alliance

--Lumia930uploader (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

•  Not done - please provide a reliable source for your proposed change. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2015

General Availability section reads "4 months", whereas it should now read "5 months" as of April 3rd. Igacek (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

•  Not done - whilst I agree with you that the number is wrong, it seems to be a failure of the template, and as such, there's nothing we can do on this particular article. Thanks for pointing it out though! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • A WP:NULLEDIT will fix it; the page simply hasn't been regenerated since 2 April. Alakzi (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It's easier (and better) to simply WP:PURGE a page. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2015

Please add Android M into the "Succeeded by" section of infobox. The wikipedia article has existed, and it has been announced in Google I/O just now. 202.62.16.86 (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC) 202.62.16.86 (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Done Gparyani (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2015

Let me edit this page. I am a non-registered user to update this page. Change 5.1 to 5.1.1 in "spanning versions from 5.0 to 5.1". 122.167.208.249 (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request. - Arjayay (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

5,000 new APIs?

It seems unlikely to me that there are "5,000 new APIs" in this relase, given that an API is "a set of routines, protocols, and tools for building software applications" (according to Wikipedia, and to which I agree). I wonder if what is meant was really "5,000 new API functions"? I can read what the mentioned sources say, but they may have misunderstood it. I have not investigated it any further. Anyone else that has or have? --Jhertel (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Emotive words like 'plagued'?

I thought Wikipedia avoided emotive phrases like 'Android is 'plagued' with memory leak issues' ('Issues' section). I have a Nexus 10 on KitKat and Lollipop (now on 5.2) and have never seen real world impacts that would justify a word like 'plagued'. Edit please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.11.54 (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

This is another issue with that edit and why it has to be constantly removed. ViperSnake151  Talk  14:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Uses position-idependent executables (PIE)

It should be mentioned that this release uses PIE and enforces PIE for security. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.217.45.26 (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)