Material from the associated project or article page was split to other pages. The page histories of the associated projects or article pages now serve as the attribution history for part of the contents of those pages. Please see the events in question for more details:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Free Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of free software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of apps on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Android (operating system) is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a collaborative attempt at improving Wikimedia content with the help of openly licensed materials and improving Wikipedia articles related to openness (including open access publishing, open educational resources, etc.). If you would like to participate, visit the project page for more information.
This article is within the scope of the Alphabet Task Force, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alphabet Inc. articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the Alphabet Task Force discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Hello! IIRC, such a proposal has been already discussed without becoming accepted. Quite frankly, I find Android as a disambiguation page to be better than naming this article "Android", simply because neither the robot nor the operating system meaning could be seen as the clear primary topic. However, we should hear opinions from more editors. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
We do go with the more common usage of the word as the primary article, right? I.E. Apple takes you directly to the fruit, not a disambiguation page with both the fruit and company. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
As the WP:PTOPIC guideline says, it's about the respect to usage and about the long-term significance. "Apple" as a fruit (and primary topic) surely has a greater long-term significance than "Apple Inc." as a company: the fruit exists for much longer, and many people would surely suffer or even die if all apples disappeared for some reason. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Unlike the fruit, android for a robot, is a made up thing, and didn't exist except, in science fiction. Yes, the concept is older (first used in an encyclopedia in 1727–51(?), actually the much older than the more used, newer, 1921 word "robot", that is strictly not a synonym) than the OS, but actual androids (or gynoids, actroids, droids, humanoid robots or just whatever you want to call them, maybe just robots) are fairly new, yes, a few were made earlier to the operating system (the first one?: Steve Grand's: "project from 2001–05 was Lucy, a mechanical baby orang-utan").
"A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage [..]" – seems to apply here
"A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance" - I'm not saying Android the OS will always be most popular, but are android robots even popular (in numbers) at all? And violating WP:CRYSTAL that they will be?
"In a few cases, there is some conflict between [the two above]. In such a case, consensus determines".
I wouldn't push much for this (or be against), but WP:COMMONNAME of Android seems to be for the operating system..
At least none of the other uses for Android, such as "Methyltestosterone, brand name Android", can claim that (that is a slang, not "brand name"). comp.arch (talk) 14:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
About "One reviewer commented[undue weight? – discuss] on "desktop" use of Android".
I put the section in, I agree, this is only one reviewer. Not sure what the objection is. 1) Is it that those, who do not possibly like Android as a desktop (say compared to Windows), should be quoted? 2) Much less used than Windows? 3) Or even much less than Android as non-desktop? If number 3) see my section on desktop-Android variants above. comp.arch (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
So I didn't add the undue tag but it's good that we've come back to this. I think the review is a perfectly valid review to reference in the article. But I'm sure I removed the large quote on a previous occasion and I still don't like it. Why has this review been given such lengthy attention? Why this particular review over any other review? – Steel 21:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
This is just a review I found, that was not on a blog by some unknown. At the time (and you seemed ok with), I just wanted it clear that you can run Android with a keyboard and mouse (and people do not find it horrible, I've yet to try out myself..). I've been looking into other reviews (about hardware) but I would like the reviews to be on the software/features not on some bad hardware.. See also upcoming Pixel C, where Google bases it on Android not Chromebook. comp.arch (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
OK. Really my main issue is with the long quote. What was wrong with this edit? – Steel 17:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I have reapplied my edit above. – Steel 10:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Comp.arch, why don't you place such comments on this talk page, and provide only a brief pointer to the talk page discussion as a Wiki code comment? Just as a suggestion, you'd have much higher chances for sparking a discussion that way, which would also comply with the purpose of talk pages. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The problem would be "have much higher chances for sparking a discussion", as I thought not needed/just some misunderstanding.. (I however took out one word (you could add back if ok..), and was "informing" an editor, by "reverting" that user with comments added). See my next edit summary. I guess this is resolved now. [Not sure what a "Wiki code comment" is. Might be helpful..]comp.arch (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Those are the comments in Wiki code, <!-- ... -->, nothing you haven't already used. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Dsimic, ok.. :) I misread you.. or thought you meant Wiki code comments here.. I do not see a reason to comment out here.. Except, I didn't want to bother people at all at the talk page.. comp.arch (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
IMHO, that shouldn't be seen as bothering, because people reading this talk page are here to make the article better, and suggestions can be only beneficial. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2015
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change the last sentence of the overview over this article since there is a grammar mistake. Precisely, please change "The Android's success..." to "Android's success..." Thank you. Gittigitt (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
[Experimental] multi-window mode. FYI - Say something on this or proprietary Android variants that do similar?
"The Pixel C display has a 1:1.414 aspect ratio, which seems purpose-built to show off Android Marshmallow's experimental multi-window mode. In early Android M Preview builds multi-window could be turned on, but it was extremely buggy and unfinished. It has since disappeared from the developer preview, and Google isn't talking about it on the Pixel C, but we get the feeling the hardware was built with split screen in mind."