Talk:List of free and open-source Android applications

osuosl.org page

The page is indeed similar to the page, but I don't have access to that site to update information about my own Android application. Ivan.volosyuk (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as copyright issues. I wrote a significant percentage of the content on the page. In addition it is part of an open source project, that is compatible with the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license, so it is explicitly allowed to copy it here.

Teeks99 (talk) 11:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Market filter for Open Source apps

It's a shame the market doesn't make it easy to search for stuff that is open source. While some Wikipedians might complain about Wikipedia not being a list it seems to make sense to have these here. Anyway there are still plenty of apps that can be added. In the meantime I'll dump a bunch of random links to follow-up here. Alex (talk)

Waze

why doesn't waze appear in this list? --Izar00 (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Links to follow-up

Please delete these links once the main page has been updated:

• Jeffery Blatman is responsible for a number of apps: http://code.google.com/u/jeffrey.blattman/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex (talk • contribs) 15:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Article is in trouble

Articles that are lists to non-notable (by Wikipedia standards WP:NOTABLE) subjects tend to get deleted. Wikipedia is not a directory. All of the items listed with the exception of a couple do not have articles about them which is the litmus test, generally speaking, for inclusion in such lists. Deleting all the non-notable apps from this page would not leave much. I have no idea how to salvage this article but if anyone cares about it they should do something or it will most likely get deleted. SQGibbon (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

List of free software web applications has just been restructed to remove all non-notable apps and standardise the format. Maybe something similar could be done here? Stuartyeates (talk) 06:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah maybe. Looking through the article in its present state I only see three apps that link to existing articles. Removing all the other ones doesn't leave much of an article. SQGibbon (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Half to two thirds were pruned from List of free software web applications. Since apps are a relatively new phenomenon, maybe allow those with articles or two substantive/quality reviews? Stuartyeates (talk) 07:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I would think that if the reviews came from reliable sources (two reviews for each app from sites like CNET or Gizmodo) then that would be sufficient notability to create articles for those apps which would then be fine for inclusion in this list. That's a lot of work for a lot of apps listed here. Would it be better instead to merge the information here with another article? Maybe List of free and open source software packages and then just redirect? SQGibbon (talk) 07:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I've actually suggested a similar pruning of List of free and open source software packages too, if you look at the talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you have your own guidelines on notability misinterpreted. Notability applies to whether something should have its own article or not, not whether it should be present anywhere on Wikipedia. What you're doing with this page makes absolutely no sense. It's like removing all references to somebody's spouse just because he/she is not notable compared to his/her wife/husband. Please leave all applications that were diligently entered by their authors or other users here. My application (bVNC) keeps getting removed from here even though it has 130,000 downloads on Google Play. Please reconsider how you're applying your "notability" rule and my analogy as to why you should not require individual articles for all applications listed here.173.230.188.153 (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

If there are no other ideas or any objections I'm going to delete all the apps that don't have articles or at least two substantive reviews from reliable sources. This is standard practice on Wikipedia for such lists. SQGibbon (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I object to your decision, please see my reply above. Please also put back quality open-source applications which have no articles on wikipedia in the list. Thanks! 173.230.188.153 (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

This article used to be useful, now it's not. One has to go into history to find the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZecG (talk • contribs) 10:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely. I suspect we should allow apps like wordpress where we have an article for the software / company but not the port of the software. It should be linked, of course. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

After seeing the changes, the page is now basically empty. I think it is a stronger candidate for deletion now than it was before, as it serves almost no purpose. Before it was a fairly vibrant page with lots of users adding new items on a regular basis. I propose that instead of deleting it, we put it back how it was, and go through the list creating pages for the items that we feel are notable (most of which are, just too new to have had a chance to build their own pages). Teeks99 (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it was always a very strong candidate for deletion as it was always made up of what appears to be non-notable apps. The fact that people were continually adding content does not mean that the article meets the encyclopedic standards that Wikipedia strives for. That said, the information is still there in the history. If you think the information can be salvaged/expanded then I would suggest creating a user sandbox page (linked to from here) containing all the apps and you, and anyone who wants to contribute, can begin creating pages/finding sources to establish notability for the apps. The difficulty you're going to run into is that for each app you need to find significant coverage of the app (i.e., not just mentioned in a list) from two reliable sources (not the apps' creator or some random blog) in order to establish notability (for inclusion here or for creating a page). I randomly checked a number of the apps listed here and didn't find any kind of significant coverage like that which does not leave me optimistic that there is much to be saved here. SQGibbon (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

If I'm going to make pages for the more-notable of these apps, is there a good template that I should work from for software packages? Teeks99 (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

So I finally got around to reading the page that explains what is and is not a notable page, and lo-and-belold it has a section on stand alone lists: WP:LISTN. Here it explicitly states that: "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." So it appears we were incorrect in removing all the items without links, as it is fine to keep items that aren't notable along with the others. As there are numerous examples that this topic is in itself notable (here's just a few of many): [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]; if no one objects, I'm going to put back the original list here. At that point, we could trim *some* of the less notable apps...possibly after discussing them on an individual basis. Teeks99 (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I object. The original list was a grab-bag of links, mostly added by IPs with little or no apparent consideration to relevance or notability. It was a shocking mess. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that's being a bit dramatic. As a casual android user, I recognized over half the apps on that page, even though I only use a handful of them. But the fact that it was a mess isn't a good reason to remove everything, it seems like the more reasonable course of action would be to clean up the mess. I'm sure that there is lots we can do constructively to make the page better, but I think it needs to start with putting back all the originals, and going through one by one to see what really is cruft. Teeks99 (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

And what criteria do you propose that we use for inclusion? And how in the world are you going to get everyone to agree to it? Also, instead of putting everything back in and recreating what looks to me to be an intractable mess, I suggest creating a sandbox page and putting all the deleted apps there. This way you, and anyone who wants to help out, can work on those apps and when they're ready add them back to the article. It's much easier to build up a quality article than throw a bunch of crap in it and hope everyone has the energy to clean it up afterwards (didn't mean that to sound so aggressive -- in my mind it's better for an article to have too little information than too much that doesn't belong). SQGibbon (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:LISTN allows us to use regular notability standards for the contents of a list "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." I think that given what a mess the article was before we should limit ourselves to notable apps to keep the page clean and free from people promoting their pet projects. Also, even though WP guidelines allows for lists to have non-notable items, general practice throughout Wikipedia is to require items in lists to be notable (an article or two reliable independent and significant sources). This makes things much, much easier for editors. Otherwise every item in a list devolves into an argument that goes like this "I think it's notable because 50 people downloaded it in two days" "I think that's rubbish, it needs 100 downloads in three days" and so on in a never-ending cycle of drama. Restricting the list to a fairly objective criterion (WP notability) avoids that mess. Also please check out WP:LSC which goes into more detail about lists and notability. SQGibbon (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It is worth bearing in mind that the page links to two separate directories of apps. Neither WP nor this page is in competition with those directories, as per WP:NOTDIR. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

What happened?

Wasn't this list originally a list of open source applications for Android? All the points about wikipedia not being about lists are noted but it was a useful collection of application links where coverage elsewhere was patchy at best. Has the title changed, I can't tell from the history? Alex (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Major rewrite needed

This article is woefully out of date with lists that contain more non-notable items than notable.

An easy way to fix this if you agree, would be to remove any disputed items, then use the external links at the bottom of the page as references. Using the "most popular" features on those sites should make it easy to determine if an item belongs here. Beakermeep (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The list contains apps that are notable by the wikipedia definition. This is the consensus that was previously reached, to stop free-for-alls. I have just removed the two non-notable apps from the lists. Note that list items do not need references / citations if they are references to a wikipedia page (which is assumed to have already reached the notability criteria). Stuartyeates (talk) 05:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the flagging of this as out-of-date. Someone needs to go through Category:Android software (and sub categories) and add the free software ones. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Such lists are not for Wikipedia... there is a better place! :-)

It's sad that most of the list has been erased, but understandable due to Wikipedia's goal.

Let's all contribute in a place designed for this: http://f-droid.org/repository/browse/

Once you tip them about an app, they check the opensourceness of the license, inspect the source code for spyware, and add it to the list. They even compile the app and distribute the APK, so that you can be sure the APK matches the source code.

Nicolas1981 (talk) 09:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget they reject apps which use non-free services even if they are open source. 212.44.17.78 (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, Open Source apps that use non-free services are not actually rejected, they are just tagged as such. In the FDroid settings, there are checkboxes you can activate to show apps that contain "Anti-Features" such as Advertising or Non-free network services. By default they are not activated. Nicolas1981 (talk) 09:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Notability

When trying to determine the notability of a particular application, in addition to the normal wikipedia guidelines, the google play store provides statistics on the number of downloads/users. This can be a good reference point. Packages with more than a few thousand users would generally be considered notable without the need for any other sources. Packages with less downloads would need other sources to determine their notability. In addition, keep in mind that many of these apps, being open source, are distributed through other methods than the play store (such as the f-droid repository) so the numbers in the play store may be lower than they would be for a typical app. Teeks99 (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it is good to check these stats. However, as WP:N describes, notability comes from reliable, published sources like books, newspaper articles, and anything similar that can be trusted. Since stats from Google Play are a primary measure of popularity, it's not the sole measurement of what is notable. Just something to keep in mind. Steven Walling • talk 03:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The stats in the market can be useful for determining which apps might be notable, but you'd still have to find sources to prove it. Reach Out to the Truth 16:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Beats Portable was removed, which I find strange. On the market it shows some 500,000 downloads and the site has a few thousand users. I'm not sure what that is if not notable. 50.193.204.125 (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

When we use the word "notable" on Wikipedia we mean it as defined by Wikipedia which you can read about here. Basically it means that there needs to be two reliable sources (like NY Times, Wired, etc.) that discusses the subject (Android app, in this case) in significant detail (the history of the app, its context, what it does in detail, etc.). Listing the app or giving a brief review does not go toward establishing Wikipedia notability. Having a lot of downloads also does not establish notability. General practice is to create an article for the subject first (making it sure it meets Wikipedia standards for verifiability and notability) and then add the link here. SQGibbon (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding MyTracks, a quick search provided these articles/reviews. Do any of these make MyTracks notable?

Note: Although some of these sources wouldn't be considered reliable, several of the sources are reliable by mainstream media standards. This is proven by the fact that several of these websites have had features on mainstream news programs.

1. Technology News Websites
   1. TechCrunch
   2. Engadget Engadget #2
   3. CNET CNET #2 CNET #3
   4. SoftPedia
   5. The Verge
   6. Venture Beat
   7. LifeHacker
   8. VatorNews
   9. CNN Tech
2. Android-specific Websites
   1. Phandroid
   2. Android Central
   3. Android Police
   4. Talk Android
   5. Android Pit
3. General News Websites
   1. Examiner /article/android-apps-for-fitness-free-from-google-check-out-my-tracks-tasks-and-maps
   2. About About #2

If not, then we should remove a significant amount of the applications that are less notable from the list. An example of applications that need to be removed are ones under 'Games'. Although they have Wikipedia pages, the pages themselves aren't exactly notable, mainly because their references are links to the project site, Blogspot, and fan sites. In addition, some of the applications are just ports of notable applications. The Android ports themselves are extremely non-notable.

One could also argue that the general notable guidelines don't fit the guidelines needed for opensource applications. Just following the current guidelines, only big-budget projects(eg. Ubuntu, Firefox, etc) would fit the notable category. Basically, notoriety would just fall into what is popular enough to get mainstream news and what isn't. Ultimately, their needs to be some discretion in discerning what is more important, the notability guideline, or the quality of the code and overall project. Of course, one could always leave disclaimers on the page like several other pages that use this practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Future Proof Reader (talk • contribs) 02:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

For the purposes of this list, something is notable if it already has a wikipedia article. You're welcome to try writing an article. I recommend the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process as the best place to start. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Done: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/MyTracks It's not the greatest work, I still haven't figured out how to reference properly and the history and reception sections need expansion, but I hope it will do. I'll send the link to a few Google developers and to see if they want to help expand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Future Proof Reader (talk • contribs) 07:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Some of the articles in the first section look like they might go toward establishing notability of the app. I didn't look at all of them but most of the ones I read did not cover the app in much detail, the second CNET review being somewhat of an exception. Still, between all those my guess is that an article could be created that would successfully survive an attempt to delete. The other sections are problematic, for example about.com is not generally regarded as a reliable source. But like I said, the first section is probably good enough.

Yes, there are all sorts of problems all over Wikipedia including some of the apps currently in this article. No editor has time to track down every single problem and fix them. If you want to point out some of the games whose articles are especially bad then maybe I, or some other editors, will take the time to do the extra work and propose those articles for deletion. It's often a very contentious issue and can take a lot of time and cause no end of headaches (look how contentious the discussion over this article is and it's a relatively easy and straight forward one) but maybe someone will be willing to take on the extra work.

The reason for the notability guidelines comes from the policy on verifiability. Any reader who comes along needs to be able to verify that every single claim made in an article can be supported by a reliable source. If reliable sources cannot be found that discuss the subject in detail then there should not be an article on that subject. That is how Wikipedia operates. Not everything deserves an article, that's just how it is. If we start making exceptions then two problems will occur: everyone will want an exception made for their pet interests and the overall reliability of Wikipedia will suffer. Also, there are no disclaimers on articles. What I assume you're talking about are the notes at the tops of some articles calling into question the notability of the subject, its neutrality, the quality of its sources, etc. These are notices for other editors that there are problems with that article that need to be fixed otherwise some or all of the content in that article needs to be removed. Whenever I come across an article that has one of those notes and it hasn't been fixed in the years (or less) since the note was first put there then, assuming I have the time and energy, I will either try to fix it myself or nominate it for deletion. SQGibbon (talk) 04:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The MyTracks page that I created finally got published. I'll leave it up to others if the page should be added here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Future Proof Reader (talk • contribs) 22:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Re-adding Replica Island as notable. 1, 000, 000+ downloads. Extended reviews on independent.co.uk , pcworld.com and t3.com . I would go so far to say that this may be the most notable Android FOSS game. Think before you delete this one. 58.7.239.29 (talk) 06:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

If this game is notable by Wikipedia standards then create an article for it along with the sources that establish notability. If you do not want to create the article yourself then at least provide the links to those articles here and then maybe someone else will create the article. Once the article is created then it can be added to this list. SQGibbon (talk) 07:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

If something is as clearly notable as this, I think it should be added to the page, and left with a link so that any other user of wikipedia can come along and make a page for this. As noted a year ago, there is no rule stating that only things with pages can be included in lists such as this. One or two users shouldn't be able to make a policy for the page that dictates otherwise. Teeks99 (talk) 12:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

We need a clear inclusion rule that isn't temporary and doesn't involve subject calls, and we can't include things without independent coverage. You're welcome to propose alternative inclusion rules. Stuartyeates (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Common practice throughout Wikipedia is to require the elements in lists like this to be notable (by Wikipedia standards). Doing this makes everything so much easier for all editors involved. If something has an article (i.e., passes notability) then there can never be a good argument for removing it. If we don't use notability as the criterion then it can turn into an endless debate about what makes it notable: 10,000 downloads? 1,000 downloads? Being mentioned on 5 blogs? 10 blogs? We'd have nothing upon which to establish whether or not something is to be included in this list and everyone's criteria will be just as valid as anyone else's. By using Wikipedia notability it makes everything easy. Just find the two reliable sources that cover the subject in detail and create the article with those sources. This also means that any editor who is patrolling recent changes can very easily see if a recent addition belongs and delete it if necessary without spending a lot of time reading through the talk page to discover what peculiar rule for "notability" is being used for the article. SQGibbon (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Both ways are common on Wikipedia. There are many lists that have items without pages, where they just show up as red links. Many of the other lists of free software (aka pages very similar to this one) allow notable items without pages. See: List of open source video games List of GNOME applications List of KDE applications List of open-source programming languages. It seems more common in lists that don't have a ton of entries, which as you mentioned above under "article is in trouble" this page has. If we allow some of these items to exist, the theory goes that the list will improve when users see the red links and create new pages.

I'm not as worried as you about the time input required by 'the editor who is patrolling recent changes' to determine what can stay. A couple of google searches before deleting something isn't that hard. But more importantly, I would gladly trade some time of the seasoned editors of this page to make new users who may be submitting for the first time feel more welcome to add content to this page. I don't think it is widely appreciated how disheartening it can be for a new user to have they content they created in good faith immediately wiped out. Better would be to work with them to improve it, without removing it. Teeks99 (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

In the early days of Wikipedia it made sense to have lists of redlinks as an indication of which articles need to be written. Now it makes less sense. Especially as those kinds of lists tend to become populated with everyone's pet projects. In other words, fancruft. Wikipedia is bursting at the seems with fancruft, do we really need to make matter worse? Also, in the case of the KDE and GNOME lists a good argument could be made that those lists are official lists from those projects and are finite in nature. The list serves to help define those software projects. But lists like this one or the list open source programming languages are entirely open-ended and invite every editor and their cat to add every single stupid little pet project they've ever heard of. For instance, some 20 years ago I began working on a visual LISP language and even created a website for it (with one of those free hosts -- long gone now). The code never actually got out of the pseudo/planning stages but ideas for the implementation were there. Should that be included? If we follow Wikipedia notability then the answer is an obvious, no. If we don't then you will not be able to come up with an objective and compelling argument better than mine for not including it. It all comes down to what each of us likes and Wikipedia fills up yet again with more crap

A "couple of google searches" does not establish notability. And if the editor has no idea what constitutes notability for this particular article then those searches are worthless. Instead the editor has to read the talk page to figure out how "notability" is being defined this time then do an Internet search, analyze the results, and then make the decision. Of course the conscientious editor will realize what a time-consuming effort that was and then not wanting other editors to have to waste their time will create an article for that subject (and then deal with all the effort required to defend a non-notable subject) or at the least add sources to this article. No matter what it's a lot of wasted time. The onus is always on the editor making the edit to make sure they've covered all the bases -- the rest of us should not have to do their work for them.

Finally, I became an experienced editor by learning how to edit properly; reading up on guidelines and policies; observing how other editors edited; reading carefully notes left on my talk page, article talk pages, and other users' talk pages -- basically learning the Wikipedia way. If something I did was reverted I took that as an opportunity to learn. And I wanted to learn because I hold this project in the highest regard and want to do my part to make this encyclopedia great. Obviously I get that not everyone cares as much as I do or wants to spend the time learning about Wikipedia before editing (I bought and read a damn book before making my first substantial edit) nor is anyone required to go through all that (and I'm fine with that) but this does not mean we have to allow bad/non-constructive/questionable edits especially when it just means a lot more work for the rest of to go back through and clean up the messes that everyone else leaves. Sorry, I'm ranting, but I really wish I could spend my time contributing good content to articles instead of reverting vandalism, cleaning up the exact same messes created by well-intentioned editors over and over, and doing the extra work to try to get their edits up to WP standards especially when it's on a subject I know nothing about nor care about.

So please, let's follow the standard practice on well-patrolled, open-ended list-style articles on Wikipedia and require notability. If an editor does not understand why something was deleted I'm always willing to explain, in detail, with a lot of words, why the edit was reverted and to help them learn a little more about the way things are done on Wikipedia. This way they learn and can hopefully become productive editors. SQGibbon (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I am definitely in favor of such lists/charts on wikipedia. They are very helpful. So, I probably would tend to the inclusion of more, not less data. I would think that one thing we would want to prevent would be people trying to use the list to spam and promote commercial efforts. However, I really don't understand the decisions being made. Why are things like nethack worthy of inclusion on this list and things like emacs or vi not? Why are things like rockbox which the description on it's entry clearly says it's unusable being included? Centerone (talk) 06:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Making this list less frustrating for users

In the last day there were >10 users who tried, in what generally appears to be good faith, to contribute to this article, but at the end of the day the page was nearly identical to the original. Speaking from experience, this can be very frustrating for new users. I think we need another solution besides simply deleting content, that will make users feel more welcome and encourage their increased participation.

Many of the list items that the users wanted included were low-quality and probably would not meet wikipedia's notability guidelines. However, there were several that are very popular and are immediately recognizable by any user of open source on android. Unfortunately these were also deleted simply because they didn't have pages created already, which does not necessarily indicate a lack of notability.

Instead of simply deleting them, I would propose that items deleted be added here on the talk page, so that they can be further discussed (as to the notability). This would also give a list of articles that may need to be created in this subject. Teeks99 (talk) 13:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Removed Items

Here is the list of items removed from this page. If you wish to remove an item as non-notable, please insert it into this list and add a note to see the talk page when deleting it.

Application name	Description	Website	Apk	Market	Sources	License	API	Note
AdAway	ad blocker for Android using the hosts file	AdAway	apk	Yes	git	GNU GPL v3	Android 2.1+
Lumicall	Free Calls Using Open Technology On Android	Lumicall	apk	Yes	git	GNU GPL v3
Plumble	An open source Mumble (software) client	Plumble		Yes	git	Custom
ServeStream	Streaming Media Player	[7]	apk	Yes	svn	Apache 2.0	Android 2.2+
Speed of Sound	Car audio volume adjustment	[8]	[9]	Yes	git	GPLv2	Android 2.1+
Aurora for Mobile	Android version of the Aurora web browser	Aurora Mobile	apk	No		MPL
PPSSPP	PSP Emulator	ppsspp.org	apk	Yes	git	GPLv2+
Beats Portable	Rhythm game compatible with StepMania files	Beats Portable		Yes	svn	MIT	1.5+	In market as "Beats, Advanced Rhythm Game"
Share via HTTP	High Speed File Sharing Tool	Android Market	latest	Yes	hg	BSD	1.6+	quickest way to share files and folders though WiFi
WordPress	Blogging	site		Yes	svn	GPLv2
Agit	Git client for Android	Agit		Yes	git	GPLv3	2.2+
Emacs	Editor	site	None provided	Yes	git	GPLv3	2.3+	(emacs port)
Vim Touch	Editor	site	None provided	Yes	git	Apache 2.0	2.3+	(vim port)
Rage Comic Maker	Create rage comics on you Android device	Rage Comic Maker for Android	latest	Yes	git	GPLv2	2.1+	A rage comic maker application specifically designed for Android
My Tracks	GPS tracking	MyTracks	apk	Yes	svn	Apache 2.0
ReplicaIsland	A basic platformer	http://replicaisland.net/			svn	Apache 2	1.5+
Andor's Trail	Roguelike RPG on Android	Andor's Trail	apk	Yes	tgz	GPLv2
Quill	Handwriting note-taking app for Android tablets	Quill	[apk]	Yes	tgz	GPLv3
bVNC Secure	Android VNC viewer	bVNC Secure		Yes	git	GNU GPL v2	2.2+
Xabber	Open source XMPP clientAndroid	Xabber	[? apk]	Yes	[?]	GNU LGPL v3
Newspaper Puzzles	Crossword, Wordsearch, and Sudoku	homepage	play	Yes	git	GPLv3	1.5+	combination of 3 games
Astrid	Task Management app	Project Page		Yes	git	GPLv3
AntennaPod	Podcast manager	GitHub		Yes	git	MIT
Journey To Pluto's Arcade & Action	A little Pluto inhabitant crashed in Earth. Now it’s his epic journey to climb to Pluto again, ported to Android Market Google Play	Website	apk	Yes	Google Play	GPL	1.5+
Google Authenticator	Authentication	Project page		Yes	git	Apache 2.0	2.1+
Gameboid	Nintendo Gameboy Advance Emulator	site		Yes	direct	GPL v3
FreeOTP	Two-factor authentication	site	apk	Yes	direct	Apache 2.0
Monster Dance	Make Cute Monster Dance by Tapping on body parts with Music	[10]	[ https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.cs.monsterdance]	Yes	[NA]	GPLv2	2.5+	Cute App for Kids

This table is very helpful, thanks. I wonder why My Tracks, Google Authenticator and a few more from that list were removed. Maybe if people remove an app that seems like it could go either way they could levave a note here on the talk page. Beakermeep (talk) 18:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Including links in the table(s)

Use Odie5533 had made a revision to the communications table removing all the external links, referencing the [WP:EXT] page. I feel that the links on this page (being a list, not a typical article) are very useful. Also they follow WP:EXT's guidelines for "What can normally be linked" in that they are links to the official pages and to legal distribution sites which are both explicitly allowed. What do others think of this? Teeks99 (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Complete list or partial

Should this page be compromised of every possible FOSS application for Android or is it meant to be selective? If you take a look at the F-Droid repository, there are at least 900 applications as of this writing. I'm fine with working to include each and every application as I think it would be beneficial, but I suspect that there will be dissenting views. --WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

You may want to read the discussions on the talk page. The simple answer is: the application needs to be notable. Centerone (talk) 05:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I read the notability section. Thanks for the help.--WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 06:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Outdated libretro/RetroArch link

The new link to the website is:

www.libretro.com

The URL to the Play Store entry now is - https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.retroarch

84.26.28.77 (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)