From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Nuvola apps kedit.svg Article milestones
September 11, 2009Articles for deletionNo consensus
September 18, 2009Articles for deletionDeleted
September 25, 2009Deletion reviewEndorsed
December 5, 2009Articles for deletionKept

Citations removed by TheWeakWilled[edit]

I have restored the citations removed by TheWeakWilled. The "WP:SELFPUBLISH" and "WP:TWITTER" guidelines refer to citing self-published documents as an authority on the truth value of encyclopedic claims of fact. In other words, anyone can set up a web site that says "African elephants are not endangered," but if the source- be it a web site or a twitter feed or whatever- is not from a reliable or credible authority, this does not make for a good citation. However, the CyanogenMod article is not claiming that the statements made within the cited references are or are not true. Rather, it is merely making the claim that certain discussions (or statements) took place, which is entirely different. To go back to our original example-- an article on elephants would violate WP:SELFPUBLISH by citing our rogue web site to support an encyclopedic claim that African elephants are not endangered. The same Web site, however, might be a perfectly legitimate citation for an article on, say, Internet hoaxes which claims that notorious hoaxter "Joe Blow claims on his web site that African elephants are not endangered." In this context, the citation is supporting the assertion that Joe Blow says something on his website, not whether or not Joe is correct in what he says. Similarly, the citations in this article are merely saying that a discussion about Google took place and not whether or not the correspondents were correct in what they were saying.) The citation of Cyanogen's tweet is de facto support of the claim that Cyanogen made such a statement-- unless TheWeakWilled is calling into question whether Cyanogen is actually the developer of CyanogenMod, which I can't imagine he is. --Replysixty (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I second all of that. People often misinterpret WP:RS, the WP:SELFPUBLISH section of WP:V, and related guidelines and essays. If all self-published material were banned from WP in all contexts, then virtually everything published before the mid-19th century (and much of it published well into the early 20th century, before publishing became dominated by large corporations and the extant system of agent–publisher "gatekeeping") would all be invalid works to cite here. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 11:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010 news?[edit]

Anything new as of late July 2010, e.g. whether Droid X will be supported in CyanogenMod 6? I've only been following this topic for about an hour (literally), so I'm not in a position to do any credible work on this article yet. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 11:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge from the "UltimateDroid" stub[edit]

I've merged the pointless little UltimateDroid stub into this article, since as a stand-alone article about something that is simply CyanogenMod repackaged under another name with a fraudulent claim of originality, it was destined for a snowball AfD any day now. It could probably be tightened into about 60% of its current rambling length, but I'm tired and am going to sleep. It badly needs complete and properly formatted (Template:Cite web) citations. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 12:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Although this is a months-old edit, I don't think Ultimate Droid should redirect here especially when it makes no mention of the Ultimate Droid project. Whatever happened back in April, Ultimate Droid was not originally and is not currently a repackaging of CM but is a distinct project. One release was claimed to have lifted a large amount of CM code without giving credit, but again the incident is not in the article. Vitriol drips from your comment, by the way. Not sure if that's in the spirit of neutrality. --Saren —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarc3n (talkcontribs) 17:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Needs to be reorganized and updated[edit]

Now that CM6 is released and supports many more devices the page is looking increasingly disjointed. We probably need to do a complete rewrite of the page to include separate sections for CM4, CM5 and CM6, include the Google issues and possibly the UltimateDroid controversy as separate sections and make the article not so Nexus One focused. Also we should use either codenames or official names for devices, for example the "Slide" refers to the HTC Espresso which is sold as the T-Mobile MyTouch 3G Slide, the term "Slide" is an informal nickname and not very descriptive.Raitchison (talk) 17:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Edited last part[edit]

The information given by "In late September 2009, Google issued a cease-and-desist letter to CyanogenMod's chief developer, Steve Kondik. This action was widely viewed as a challenge to the open source community Google had claimed to embrace. However, the legal issue was Cyanogen's inclusion of closed source Google applications in the ROM, not the open source Android OS." is almost the same information as given below that. I've rewritten the last section to include the details not mentioned to get rid of this unnecessary introduction. -- (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

edit: In the rewritten part "as a challenge to the open source community Google claimed to embrace." needs confirmation too. However, as I don't see how I can point to the last part of the sentence, I'll just post this here, so for above written part of the sentence [citation needed] is in order.

Nightlies section[edit]

This section is just a boilerplate bit of developer text. It has no secondary sources and seems to exists solely to guide editors who might want to get involved in the development of the software. The non-argument used to re-add it was:

this is not commercial software; it is open-source, community oriented. Thus, a notable portion of CyanogenMod distribution (~25% of users) use development/nightly builds. This belongs in the article

The same could be said for a large proportion of software products covered by Wikipedia, but we are not obliged to provide such boilerplate for them either. This should be removed, as this is a tertiary source covering what notable secondary sources have said about the subject and not just some sort of extension of the CyanogenMod website. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that if 25% of users are on nightlies, that might be worth mentioning somewhere. But I agree that the section as it stands is not good, in particular the "citations" are just urls to the download pages... – Steel 01:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I can't find any reliable source which repeats the "25%" figure. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Although the context is missing, those tables seem to indicate that these are cumulative values rather than snapshots. As such it would seem extremely likely that the nightly count is significantly inflated due to repeated (daily, indeed) reinstalls compared to the point releases. So it's not "25% of users use nightlies" at all. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Except it isn't. Reporting installs are identified by IMEI/MEID, to differentiate new installs from upgrades. gu1dry • ¢  02:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. Now, is there a secondary source which reports the same information? From a primary source it's only useful as a data point; from a secondary source it's a notable fact worth discussing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


Clearly "slighl" wasn't supposed to be the summary. A null edit afterwards gave the actual summary. I would have thought anyone could see this.

Anyway, this can't stay in the article. For starters the wording is misleading - noting a bug fix in a changelog does not constitute Netflix officially supporting anything (and should we even be using Rootzwiki as a source??). Aside from that, this isn't even an interesting fact since 99.9% of Android apps work on Cyanogenmod anyway because Cyanogenmod is just Android. This is on a par with device-specific issues, for example one day someone might find a bug in Galaxy S devices and that'll be fixed, the next day there'll be a weird incompatibility with a HTC wifi driver and that'll be fixed. Would we list any of these in their articles? Of course not. Similarly the fact that Netflix is popular-ish means little. They aren't the first popular company to fix issues specific to CM and they won't be the last. Are we going to list every single one? The article is supposed to document things of lasting encyclopedic importance. This isn't. – Steel 01:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. The inference taken from the reference was invalid. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Carrier IQ[edit]

CyanogenMod team announced "We would like to assure everyone that Carrier IQ has never, and will never be a part of our Operating System". • 08:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Version history[edit]

This is a very long, very useless, and mostly unsourced table. The parts of it which are sourced just link back to the CM blog or Cyanogen's twitter, against WP:RS (Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided.), and including every single minor release to three or four decimal places is WP:NOT what the article is for (Changelogs or release notes. An article about a product should include a history of its development and major improvements; creating a list of all changes to software or hardware between each minor version violates other precepts of this policy.; WP:NOT not A complete exposition of all possible details). At the very least it needs to be cut down to just the major releases, though tbh those are covered above in the prose anyway, but it can't stay as it is. Move it to the CM wiki, which would be the ideal home?

More generally this article is bad on the sourcing front with 75% being to the CM website itself, and the rest to xda or the Android newsblogs. – Steel 00:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Supported devices

This table suffers from the same problems, but arguably more so. – Steel 00:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hence the {{primary sources}} tag. I'd be happy with the removal of both sections; The CyanogenMod website has a wiki where they could live if editors wish to maintain them. The removal of material attributed only to primary sources is important if this article is to move forward. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
It seems pretty common practice to have version histories for software, e.g. iOS version history, Mac OS X Snow Leopard#Release history, List of Microsoft Windows versions, List of Ubuntu releases, Android version history, iTunes version history, etc, etc. As point about the Android news sites. Most news about something is going to come from a news source more specialized in a that something. You don't Ubuntu in major newspaper publications, for example. And I really don't neither actually contributing to this article, but nitpicking it... gu1dry • ¢  01:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
(re: edit summary) You'll notice that this thread was here for over a week before anything was done to the article. After a few days I got the feeling that nobody was going to contribute to the discussion unless I just went ahead with the changes. Surprise surprise that brought everyone to the talk page. Complaining about lack of consensus no less! – Steel 14:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
The sourcing of this is pretty unimpeachable as it's easily verified from the source tree and the website both of which are public. There are also third party sources for the more significant and more recent releases--sites like Android Police which announced and reviewed most releases over the past two years.
The one criticism I'd make is that the third party sources could easily be used to track the evolution of the distinctive CyanogenMod system. This does need more work, but it shouldn't be removed. --TS 01:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I think people would care less if the darn table had some actual text the described what changed at each revision. The Android version history and Chrome browser#Release history describe the changes with text, so where is it in this article? Another thing, Chrome has a jillion releases, almost one every week, but they sure the heck don't pollute their table with hundreds of meaningless minor releases, which means you should include only the most important ones. History is important, but the detailed history should be on a web page on the CyanogenMod webiste and this table would only list the most important releases (and point at the full history). • SbmeirowTalk • 11:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree. It would be much better if more effort was put into writing something interesting about CyanogenMod's major releases rather than plucking dates out of thin air for every single minor version. In fact, someone (not me) actually edited the table down a few months ago to just major releases, IIRC just to one decimal place (or less). I thought that was really good, but unfortunately short lived due to this article's stalwart reverter. – Steel 14:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I also agree that the version history has to be shortened, as of NOTCHANGELOG. Also, I am not fond of the background colors for the major versions. It looks pretty, but does hardly add information to the table. Hence, a cell with background:#44798E is too hard to read, especially if there is a link inside. See WP:CONTRAST. Also, please read my efforts to standardize version history tables in Wikipedia. In short: I will work on a shortened version of the current release history. Current state will be archived, tbd. Jesus Presley (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. Please note that (a) colors are not finalized as of this proposal, (b) I borrowed some informqation wether releases are still supported or not from the german version. Backed up the old version history here. IMHO, table can still be shortened. --Jesus Presley (talk) 07:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
This is an improvement overall, but there should not be two columns colour-coded. It's confusing, and at any rate the support status of the entries under "CyanogenMod main version" are implied by the colours of "Last or major release". – Steel 14:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Supported Devices List[edit]

Summary: User SudoGhost boldly removed the supported devices list and was subsequently reverted. His/her rational: "No third party source, no weight." Discuss.

For my part, this table is absolutely encyclopedic, notable, and useful. It is illustrative of a key appeal and feature of CyanogenMod (its availability on multiple platforms) in a way that extends beyond a simple claim that it is "available on numerous devices". Moreover, there is a reasonable presumption that a typical lay reader would want to know, and gain benefit from knowing as a matter of research, information, and general enlightenment regarding the subject, which specific devices are actually supported. Furthermore, Wikipedia has established a clear precedent for listing supported devices in similar article relating to software from the BlackBerry OS to Rockbox to Samsung Kies to GPE to Symbian and on and on. I give these examples not only to illustrate standard practice for Wikipedia articles (which provides evidence for my position but should not be seen as sufficient) but to establish that this kind of information is clearly considered encyclopedic by a wide number of people in the WP community-- contributors, editors, and readers. As for the second objection, a lack of third party sources-- although Wikipedia certainly does permit non-independent sources when they are clearly identified as such, there are plenty of additional sources which can be used relating to each device listed, and I invite SudoGhost to use a simple investigative tool at "" to add any citations he feels are missing, rather than wholesale delete the entire section. I cannot imagine s/he is calling the veracity of the information into question, however, which might merit removal. If this is however the case, I ask that SudoGhost explain the reasoning. --Replysixty (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
This list of each and every one of the 60 supported devices is WP:UNDUE: An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. As the only source for this list is the primary source, the CyanogenMod website itself, this list has very little weight. A simple statement saying how many devices are supported is sufficient, and proportionate to the source, a complete listing is not. Wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Unless a third-party source goes into detail or gives weight to the listing of each and every device supported, a summary is preferred to a "complete exposition of all possible details". - SudoGhost 00:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Also, it is not up to me to provide sources for you. Your comparison to other articles (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS notwithstanding) isn't a good comparison, the Symbian article you linked, for example, shows 5 devices, and although it is only 5 devices, has 11 reliable sources establishing weight. I'm not saying that table does or does not belong on that given article, but it's not apropros to compare five devices with eleven strong sources to sixty seventy devices with one non-independent source. - SudoGhost 00:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
How is the device list ( with over 40 devices) on the BlackBerry OS considered more "appropriate to its significance to the subject" while the support table on the CyanogenMod? And if you want sources, it really isn't hard to find third-party sources.... gu1dry • ¢  18:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Well volunteered! – Steel 00:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Who said the BlackBerry list was more appropriate? The existence of lists on other articles isn't a reason to have such a section here, not least of all because this list is supported by a single primary source, and I believe it runs afoul of WP:NOTEVERYTHING. If it really isn't hard to find third-party sources, then find them and place them in the article. As it stands however, the list does not belong. The list is going to be impractical to keep up to date, especially when it is all taken from a single link that will always be up to date, so why not just link to the actual content? I think the article should instead say that it supports however many devices, and then list prominent examples that have been noted by reliable sources: "CyanogenMod officially supports over 70 devices, including the HTC Example[1], the Motorola Whatever[2], and the Samsung Galaxy XYZ.[3]" That way it solves the issues of WP:NOTEVERYTHING, the WP:UNDUE weight of having such a long section supported by a single primary source, and also solves the issue of the article's over-reliance on primary sources, which apparently is a big enough issue that the article has been tagged with {{primary sources}} since November. - SudoGhost 18:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with SudoGhost and also think the list does not belong here. It simply is a copy of the cyanogenmod page. A simple link to that page is enough and do not adds clutter and does not reduce usability of this article like the table does. Not to mention the burden in keeping that table updated is completly unnecessary when we can simply have a link to the updated info. If this was just about 3, 6, or even 10 devices, then OK, but 75? Sorry, but this crosses the line and does not belong here. --SF007 (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Everyone can see my opinion in the section above. – Steel 00:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Given the comments above, it seems clear that this table, as it currently is written, does not belong. I haven't removed it because I'm waiting for these "very easy to find" reliable third-party sources that are being mentioned, if they're added then it solves the issue of this very large undue list being supported by a single primary source, but if they aren't added then this table needs to be removed and replaced with a few prominent examples per WP:DUE and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. - SudoGhost 21:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am glad to see that you agree with yourself. Including your stated reason for the edit, five of nine comments on this matter are from you. One is from myself in dissent, another from Steel (not exactly clear as he refers to a different chart, which is still in the article), another from Gu1dry in dissent, and one from SF07 in agreement. There is no consensus that I can see yet. You make assertions and claims of WP:NOTEVERYTHING that are unsupported; cataloging the devices supported by an OS, when a notable characteristic is its availability on many platforms, is hardly including "everything", nor trending in that direction. As for your demand of a third party that "gives weight to the listing of each and every device supported", I trust you don't mean an article that lists each and every device supported-- that is a level of detail one would expect in an encyclopedia entry or first party source, not from a third party. However, I can certainly cite examples where the multitude of devices available itself is deemed notable by third parties:
Those are not articles which casually mention the multitude of devices, but where it is the first sentence or headline. It was the result of a fast search; I'll leave it to others to cite more. One final point-- the chart also provides the "codename" of each device by which the cyanogenmod project is identified. This does not come from the CyanogenMod site directly, but is sourced on a per-device basis. This information may indeed need support from 3rd party sources.
Ultimately, I think the question to ask is-- will this information be useful for the lay visitor who comes to this article to have a better understanding of its subject? I think it does, it is salient, relevant, and notable information presented in an easily-digested format, and it is very much in line with other charts one finds in an encyclopedia, whether it is of judges, brands sold by Kraft, states in Africa, devices by a particular manufacturer, or the many examples I have given above in which a software product include lists of the systems upon which they can run. --Replysixty (talk) 07:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Consensus is not a vote, and a protestation that "sources are easy to find" does not make this list suddenly relevant without actually providing these sources. But if I'm understanding correctly, you're saying there's no consensus that this list needs additional references? This list, as written, lacks sources. Which comments, I wonder, dispute this? Because it seems you're seeing something I'm not. What I do see is statements claiming that such sources "must exist" and are "easy to find", yet absolutely no attempt to include them in the article. The sources you included, by the way, do not support this list, but rather are reflective of exactly what I proposed above, a summary of notable devices. Not a single one of those sources give weight to an all inclusive list. Not one.
But to answer your question, the answer is no. Wikipedia is not meant to be the end-all and be-all source of all information. It is not useful to unnecessarily duplicate an undue listing that can easily be given in a link. This is one of the reasons why external links exist, to provide additional, more detailed information. I think the more important and relevant questions to ask are: If reliable sources don't think it important or notable enough to list each and every device in painstaking detail, why should this article do so? If articles should reflect reliable sources with appropriate weight, why shouldn't this article do so? If Wikipedia articles are not meant to be a complete exposition of all possible details, but rather a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, why should this article not follow that policy? Most importantly, if this information is easily contained in a single, constantly up to date link for readers to access, how would an undue regurgitation of that data, which would be difficult and pointlessly redundant to keep to to date, somehow provide "information useful for the lay visitor" that the link is incapable of? - SudoGhost 08:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I second SudoGhost here, there is no need for the supported devices table. As he said, this is a very good example of why external links exist. Not every device needs to be listed in a massive table, instead maybe a short paragraph in the form of an overview and then external link to devices menu on the CyanogenMod website? Just my two cents. --SteveTurner —Preceding undated comment added 06:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC).


The phonetic transcription in IPA differs from the one given on I don’t know which one is right, but would be happy if someone else who knows could fix it. Thanks!

-- (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

File:CM9 SGSII.png Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]


An image used in this article, File:CM9 SGSII.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:CM9 SGSII.png)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

What does "lockscreen" and "ICS animation backports" mean?[edit]

  • Lockscreen updates
  • ICS animation backports

Electron9 (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Closed-source drivers[edit]

Hi all,

  1. Does the CyanogenMod team have permission to ship each of the closed-source drivers that ships with each of their builds?
  2. I wonder if you could please add an answer to my question to the Licensing section of the article?

Cheers, Unforgettableid (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


Which is the current CyanogenMod logo? Has a new logo been even announced?
In a new boot animation (link, link), which most likely will be included in the stable CM10, the wordmark looks exactly as in the previous 7.x version. However, in the "logo" currently at this article, the wordmark text is written in usual thin Open Sans font.
I think it is because it was used as usual text, to present (sign) mascot, not the logo. That graphic was taken from their blog, where they were presenting new mascot, not new logo. By the way, the logo on official website has not been changed at all.
I think only one of the mascot Cid projects will be used in a logo, and maybe even cropped, as on Google+ page of CyanogenMod. wmq (talk) 07:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: I've asked one of the CM designers, Ciwrl, about the official logo. he said the one on is official. I've replaced the logo, here, and on other language wikis.

Anything using any variant of Cyanogen(mod), CyanogenMOD, or Cyanogen^(mod) is considered deprecated and to be replaced (soon).

CM should be written as 'cyanogenmod' or 'CyanogenMod' only.

— Ciwrl

wmq (talk) 11:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


This sentence in 'History and Development', while factually correct, sounds editorialised?

CyanogenMod developers voted against protecting users privacy, citing that vendors would be upset

Would this be better?

CyanogenMod developers rejected implementing a system to prevent apps from accessing private information, as it may have upset vendors

Ms.henrick (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Someone tried to remove this already but it was edit warred back in by an IP. I too would be happy to remove it entirely, but failing that it should be rephrased to be less partial: it wasn't just about preventing apps from accessing private info, the system would have sent fake data instead - and sending fake data might have upset vendors to the extent that it could have jeopardised the existence of the entire CyanogenMod project. – Steel 15:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah so I tried rephrasing the sentence but once you take out the editorialised summary it becomes a random, non-notable patch that was rejected, so I just removed it. – Steel 16:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Using CyanogenMod on iPhone?[edit]

Is it possible to replace the iPhone firmware with that of CyanogenMod or any other free firmware? Electron9 (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Certainly not unmodded CyanogenMod, look at jailbreaking for what is possible. Why would anyone want to do that when Android hardware is typically much cheaper? Richiez (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Second hand (i)phones are cheap ;-) ,besides it would be a nice tease to Apple that want to micromanage their users. Electron9 (talk) 02:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


I'm starting a page on the AOKP ROM, if anyone wants to contribute here: User:Jerome Charles Potts/AOKP (firmware). When sufficient, we'll move it to the main space. --Jerome Potts (talk) 05:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Cyanogen Inc[edit]

With CM becoming Cyanogen Inc, should that be a new section of this article or a new article?Frmorrison (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I see there is a section, but I think an article on the business is now warranted. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

industry reaction - unlocked bootloaders[edit]

"Device manufacturers HTC[51] and Motorola[citation needed] announced that they would support aftermarket software developers by making the bootloaders of all new devices unlockable."

I recently purchased a moto g and obtained a bootloader unlock code from Motorola. I don't know if the following link works as a citation or not, but it should verify Motorola's cooperation. Itsnoahyo (talk) 10:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)itsnoahyo 05:50 29Dec2013


WP:SPECULATION and wp:recentism should have kept microsoft out of the article. It was just speculation that CyanogenMod would become a host to Microsoft experience. While microsoft had been in talks with CyanogenMod [1] they did not prove fruitful. I've removed it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The highlighting as "Older version, still supported" is without references[edit]

Someone took the information whether releases are still supported or not from the german version. See the post by "Jesus Presley" in Version history However, this information was added to the german version without references. So it looks like you'll need to find other references or remove it. --TheRandomIP (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

After there was a note for more than one month, I removed those questionable informations.--TheRandomIP (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

CyanogenMod Logo[edit]

why did you change the logo to an outdated version of Cyanogen Inc? 1) This article is about CyanogenMod 2) Cyanogen Inc changed their logo in 2015, so your logo is outdated anyway. Please stop changing the logo or explain why you think an outdated logo of Cyanogen Inc fits better than the CyanogenMod logo. --TheRandomIP (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Cyanogen OS != CyanogenMod[edit]

CyanogenMod and Cyanogen OS are two distinct entities. You can't say that "CyanogenMod, also known as Cyanogen OS ...", because they are not the same! Source: If you want to mention "Cyanogen OS", you can do this in the "Cyanogen Inc" paragraph. --TheRandomIP (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Stagefright vulnerability[edit]

Please add security-related details, such as Stagefright vulnerability and patches.- (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Steve Kondik Departs Cyanogen Inc.[edit]

  • Sharwood, Simon (December 5, 2016). "Cyanogen parts ways with its founder". The Register.

The redirect from Steve Kondik no longer seems as appropriate. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 09:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Website Status After LineageOS Announcement[edit]

It looks like parts of their website are down. I can only access the downloads page. the forum was set read only, and now won't load. I'm speculating here, but maybe they are moving it, or maybe they are just getting too much traffic today. Autumn Wind (talk) 17:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

== is down permanently ==

All referances to are now dead links. The site has been shut down by the owner. All links to it need to be converted to archived links. Phatom87 (talk contribs) 21:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Officially confirmed by the @Cyanogenmod Twitter.
Should CM be now considered in the past tense, with Lineage being a separate article, or should Lineage simply be considered a continuation of CM? arivie (talk) 22:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
That's a question I'll leave for others. For what its worth I regard Lineage as indeed being a re-branded CyanogenMod at this stage. The change both because of the possibility the naming rights being sold and to dissociate the community supported OS from the defunct commercialized version. Phatom87 (talk contribs) 03:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Why past tense? Only because it's discontinued doesn't mean it stopped to exist. See also Windows 1.0, MS-DOS, and so on. All in present tense. I'm not a native speaker though. What do you think? --TheRandomIP (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on CyanogenMod. 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.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 21:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)