Talk:Google Play

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Entire Article[edit]

Reads like an advertisement. Along with a price list for music? Why not just describe the program and let Google sell the app? Yes, it's informative but hardly objective. Blondesareeasy (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Article organization[edit]

I was planning to move the article Android Market to Google Play, however that was not possible because that title already existed. I then decided to create an article from scratch and I think it is better to add content from Android Market and Google Music incrementally instead of just making enormous copy-paste merges. Having said that, I'm currently working to update this article as fast as possible, so please have a little patience for the next hours in regards of style/references, but feel free to contribute and your opinion on the direction of the article is very welcome. --SF007 (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Since you're merging this in as we speak, I'm going to leave you to it, but I'm a bit concerned that it might result in this article being dominated by app-related content when apps are now just one part of a larger service. I guess this is a problem we can tackle afterwards. – Steel 22:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I also completely share that concern. Thats why I just merged the most important stuff and did not merged all the content right away. Meanwhile I have turned Android Market into a redirect to avoid confusing readers. The info not yet merged can still be accessed via the page history. I think the current revision is reasonably balanced, but some info can be removed, if necessary (now or in the future). Feel free to share your thoughts. By the way, I am largely done updating the text part, It is far from good, but I hope others now improve it, as I'm not that good with words. --SF007 (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
The fact that Android Market lead to Google Play where there is no explanation why is grossly confusing! The old article text at least says that "android market" now will be under the "google play". Assuming i dont read news on google daily (and have no encyclopedic knowledge on things that happened 3 days ago), how am i supposed to know the obvious to you fact of the transition? You lost the forest for the trees. EnTerr (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you also don't seem to read the article you are complaining about. How are you supposed to know the facts? How about reading the introduction to this article! Where it clearly states "Google Play was introduced in March 2012 when Google re-branded its predecessor Android Market and Google Music services." --SF007 (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Your approach to "move" Android Market -> Google Play is generally flawed. Android Market is just a piece of the intended G-Play (whenever they accomplish that - it is not available yet), just like Apple's AppStore is only part of iTunes store. You should have just started new "super" (or "meta" if you will) article that links to the three components (Music, Books and Apps) and let the history run its course with updates as those services become available, instead of prodding wikipedia for Google marketing's sake! I find abusive that you MOVED 20 articles in non-EN wikipedias. Do you speak those 20 languages? I doubt that, so why are you meddling with them?! don't deside for others what is good for them EnTerr (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
The Android Market already contained music, books, and apps far before the Google Play transition, so it is misleading to call it a "piece" of Google Play. The basic interface of the Market/Play app has not even changed appreciably since the transition (save for putting in "play" buzzwords everywhere). Google Play is just a rebranding of the Android Market, pure and simple.
It may have appeared (by purely looking at the Android Market and Google Play pages) that Google created a superset of several existing stores with Google Play. If this was your perception, I must apologize for myself, and on behalf of the other editors of the Android Market page for not keeping it sufficiently up to date. Now that the initial move from the Market to Play has taken place, and most of the dust has settled, I will likely return to aid in the move of information to the new Play page.
--Amlz (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Merge; as the Android Market has been mostly discontinued, it should be merged with Google Play. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support; as the Android Market is now Google Play.--Wikien2009 (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose; the android market was a separate service. BitTorrent (software) and μTorrent have separate articles even though they are now the same piece of software with different skins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
    • BitTorrent (software) and μTorrent both started by different people, very likely with different goals, both existed at the same time in the past and both exist in the present at the same time. While from a technical point of view they are almost the same, they are still two programs with different names and available at different places; In a way, they can be seen as two separate entities. Google Play is simply a re-branding of Android Market, they never existed both at the same time, and Google Play can be seen as the same "entity" as Android Market, as they are largely the same, but simply with a new name, new branding and some new features.--SF007 (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, Google Play is simply an "evolved" version of the Android Market. --SF007 (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose; - when i looked up Android Market today, it redirected me to Google Play and there was not even mentioning what Android Market "was" nor anything about transition, no history, no nothing! Don't be so in rush with fashionable news... There should be some rule of slowing down updates - imagine the mess in the case of Netflix announcing Qwikster and deleting immediately the DVD section under Netflix and having to rework it when they backtracked in a week? EnTerr (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Your reasoning is flawed, as I mentioned above, this article clearly indicates Google Play is a re-branding of the Android Market. If you think this article is bad or missing info (I certainly agree this article is far from good, and I take a great deal of responsibility for that), then the solution is to improve this article, not to keep an article with pretty much deals about the same entity (Google Play = Android Market with new colors and some new features). --SF007 (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
well that statement is wrong, Google Play is a fusion of "Android Market", "Google Books" and "Google Music", not simple re-branding. And it is not ready yet!! The market app is still called "Market" - why are you rushing ahead of Google even? So far "Google Play" is just a marketing blurb? EnTerr (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
The Android app is no longer called 'Market', and has been replaced by the 'Play Store' on all of my devices, at least. --Amlz (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I notice User:EnTerr has restored the old Android Market article. I am in half a mind to summarily revert this on the basis that his/her objections make no sense. As above, this article clearly does explain on the third line that Google Play is a rebranding of existing services. Also the edit summary restoring the old article complained about a lack of history, which is puzzling because all the history info for each service has been moved here in their relevant sections. That's not to say this article is perfect, because it isn't. It's not SF007's fault, he's done a really good job of this so far, but this page is only three days old and it will take a little while longer to figure out where to put everything and what we don't need and so on and so forth. Should the article say more about the rebranding? Yeah, probably. But restoring the old article doesn't solve any of these issues. – Steel 15:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

how about Wiktionary:measure twice and cut once? sounds you are suggesting to keep chiseling until something turns out. this is encyclopedia that is live, people come to read about a subject and if you don't have the "google play" article ready with everything from the "android market" - do not redirect the title yet, as simple as that! i was really annoyed the other day when i came to look something about android market and get redirected to google play and i had no idea what's going on. i am not computer illiterate yet i had no idea android market is just getting re-branded and from the "new" article it was not OBVIOUS that was so. can you imagine the state of confusion other people get as well? EnTerr (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support; Google Play is just a rebranded version of the Android Market. No need to have two separate pages. --Amlz (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've redirected Android Market back here. There is still some information about application approval and security which we ought to bring over to this article - or maybe it would be better off at Android software development and this article can just link to it there. I'm not sure. I'll give things a better look later this week if nobody does it sooner. – Steel 01:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


Do we really need the icons for various sections of the store? I can't see that it particularly helps the reader to illustrate that the icon for the "music" store is a pair of headphones, or that the icon for "books" is a book. --McGeddon (talk) 10:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that it actually improves the article.
And a picture is worth 1000 words as they say Jenova20 10:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Jenova20. We could argue if they are needed or not, but then what? If they are needed should we then conclude they should be removed? We could easily say "all logos in wikipedia are not needed" or even "no images are needed". I think they should stay as they are clearly fair-use and certainly improve the article and navigation through it. - Joel Bastos — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

This article at the moment fails WP:NFCC because of the number of non-free images which add nothing to the article, and the icons do make the page look cluttered. I'm not going to do anything because this kind of thing usually ends up in a fight, but still... just saying. – Steel 23:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it does as there's no absolute limit on pictures and i had to use this article myself the other day just to figure out what happened to the Android Market.
It would have been more difficult do this if i had to use Google instead of Wikipedia.
It should come down to just 2 questions-
  • Is the article quality improved by the pictures - yes
  • Would the article quality suffer if there were no pictures but instead descriptions of them - yes
Thanks Jenova20 15:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think anyone's suggesting that we alter the article so that it's no longer possible to learn what happened to Android Market.
I've moved the images from the top-left of subsections per Wikipedia:IMAGES#Location, but I still think it looks awkwardly cluttered to have a grey box with a much smaller icon floating inside it. It'd look good if the image was just floating with no caption or border, but that would lead us away from how images are used on Wikipedia - we aren't designing a standalone website about Google Play, we're writing an article to fit with Wikipedia's house style.
I've tried replacing them with larger versions of the app icons, but they still look cluttered. I think it'd be more useful to have a screenshot of the actual app in each case, rather than just showing the reader what its (entirely literal) app icon looks like. But the Books and Music sections need fleshing out with some text anyway, they're both a bit sparse. --McGeddon (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Regional Availability section/table[edit]

You should mention why google play is not available in some countries such as Syria. Is it because of Google or the authorities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we need a table of regional availability when we already have that information in the appropriate sections. It just wastes space, is redundant, and is simply not necessary. Is there a good reason to keep it? --SF007 (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is redundant, but i think it brings a lot of clarity into worldwide coverage, which otherwise is scattered over a long article. Many tables (and other stuff like infoboxes) in WP are redundant but still included because they provide "ease of use". I vote for re-adding the section --RScheiber (talk) 12:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That is a solid reasoning, however, there is still a problem with the table itself: it is incomplete at best and misleading at worst. The problem is that it list "Apps and games are available for the rest of "the world", but that is only true for free apps, paid apps are only available in 129+ countries. The table:
Country/Region Apps and Games Books Movies Music
 United States Yes Yes Yes Yes
 United Kingdom Yes Yes Yes No
 Canada Yes Yes Yes No
 Australia Yes Yes No No
 Japan Yes No Yes No
Rest of the World Yes No No No

Anyone feel free to suggest a table with the complete info. --SF007 (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

There used to be a fairly complete table on the old Android Market page (last seen here [1]), although Dcxf decided [2] (and rightly so, in my opinion) to simply ref to Google's Paid App Availability list [3] instead, as the table was getting a bit unwieldy. --Amlz (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
This table would be a good addition to the article and if it gets too big it could be encased in a collapsed section. Thanks Jenova20 14:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Corporations changing product names, where is the line?[edit]

Android Market was a more descriptive identification for this page than Google Play. Where is the limit where Wikipedia will rename to whatever the corporation wants? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

What would be the point of keeping the name as Android Market when no such thing exists only to then create the exact same article under the Google Play name?
Google has No influence over Wikipedia, we change article names to reflect encyclopedic value and since the Android Market article can no longer grow and the Google Play one can then it's a no brainer to rename the article. Think about it Jenova20 21:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
If the Android Market existed still and so did Google Play as different services we would have both articles, but since Google Play IS the Android Market then we rename. If tomorrow Google renames it to Google Store then we would likewise rename again since this article would become a dead end and there's no point duplicating content when it can be avoided. Thanks Jenova20 21:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Question[edit] Why do you guys have that there are 600,000 apps when there are only 495,000 according to appbrain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


  • "Google Play's books are available in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Italy and Australia."

Can we have this reworded or deleted since it's an unreferenced ever-expanding list of countries? It's not so encyclopedic compared to what Google Books actually is anyway. Thanks Jenova20 14:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The above section "Regional Availability section/table" would be a perfect cure for these lists of countries appearing in the article if there is agreement to add it? Thanks Jenova20 14:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Google doesn't make any money???[edit]

" Application developers receive 70 percent of the application price, with the remaining 30 percent distributed among carriers and payment processors. Google itself does not take a percentage.[15]" Really? And reference is some article from 2008 when Google play was just lunched and had 50 applications (as written in article)?

And outside USA significant number of phones are bought SIM free, and people install apps on WI-FI only tablets as well, so I don't get why would cut of applications that users installed be given to any carrier. On their official help page [1] they say "30% goes to the distribution partner and operating fees" so except taking fees for operating market - they could also take fees for making android. And distribution partner is also them - in every case there is not special deal with operators like to bill through them. (talk) 09:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I updated the article and there is new up to date reference. (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Since people typically buy an app and make "in-app purchases" by sending money to Google, who then gives (70% of) the money to developers, should Google Play be listed on the list of online payment service providers ? --DavidCary (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Google Store[edit]

Google has also Online Store, which is not Google Play. There is many Google products, like shirts, cups etc. But Google Store is currently redirect to this article. --Stryn (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Maximum app size conversion[edit]

Is this conversion (4146MB/4.05GB) correct? It doesn't look it...Thanks Jenova20 (email) 10:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It indeed does appear to be incorrect. The correct conversion should be 4146MB/4.146GB. I've changed the conversion to the correct one. Sunmist3 (talk) 06:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
4.05GB can equal 4146MB because the terms GB and MB are ambiguous. See Gigabyte. 1GB is sometimes used to mean 1024MB and sometimes 1000MB. Neither of the amounts "4146MB" or "4.05GB" appears in the original article referenced so I am removing them as they are probably Original (and confusing) Research. They were probably calculated as follows:
  • 2x(2GB) + 50MB = 2x(2x1024)MB + 50MB = 4096MB + 50MB = 4146MB
  • 2x(2GB) + 50MB = 4GB + 50/1000GB = 4.05GB using both 1000 and 1024 as multipliers in different places. Now "4146MB/4.146GB" is better as it uses 1000 consistently, but may not be what was meant by either Google/Android or by the writers of the article referenced. That article heading, and a quotation within the article, gives "4GB" as the total (probably ignoring the 50MB relative to the 4GB). The article also gives the total as the enormous "4050GB" (probably by taking 4GB = 4000MB and then adding the 50MB, and then either dividing again by 1000 and forgetting to put in the decimal place; or putting "GB" instead of "MB"). FrankSier (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
On second thoughts I am putting in "[approx] 4GB" as total size, as 4GB is what is quoted in the reference, and added "[approx]" in case anyone is perplexed by 2x2GB plus 50MB coming out to 4GB. FrankSier (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Gift cards[edit]

Heyo, just an anonymous user here to say that Google Play gift cards are available in supermarkets in the United States (at least Albertson's). Might want to amend the article. (talk) 06:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Balance[edit]

This article contains a lot of detail about the Play Store, and surrounding services, but doesn't really formally discuss the content objectively. Frankly, it comes off like an advertisement. I think we could stand to trim down a lot of the detail about how Google does business and what specific features GP has from one day to the next and add more information about things like public reception and the like, as we would for any other software. (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree --Aleksd (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Prominence of All Access[edit]

Suggest more prominence for Google Play Music All Access. At least a subsection heading. This paid-for service competes with Spotify, Rdio and others, and should be cross-referenced from those articles. -- Wire723 (talk) 09:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done, although the cross-referencing has been left to others. HairyWombat 16:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Unlock the article[edit]

To me the article right now is biased. It sounds like proprietary written advertisement and it is not informative. For example, the first thing I noticed in Google Play is that generally information about apps' authors or developers is missing, they are in fact anonymous with this forging large security issues. neither developers are shown with their real names, origin, age, picture, nothing. It is supposed that if you don't like an app you can simply un install it but would you do that same thing about your computer, I don't think so. Also I don't see open source among the free apps. It is true that for some thousands users apps we could know about development info from other sources like media or security experts but to me this is a kind of overall negligence in terms of security and disrespect to users who get surprised almost each time. I am not sure if it is all the same with Apple store but still it is a type of unfair practice. --Aleksd (talk) 12:12, 25 February 2014o (UTC)

And one more thing. There isn't an app release status, whether it is beta or a final release thus letting users litterary test on their sometimes paid expense while the Story and developers profit regardless of quality. And I will give a famous example with WhatsApp (available in Apple Store so all the same) do you know for how long the app had security issues? Well check the media. Most apps are beta releases, not known in origin, not checked for their security and yet delivered for the public. --Aleksd (talk) 12:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Music standard/all access[edit]

What is the definition of "standard" Google Play Music (with regard to Denmark is listed as having "Standard" Google Play Music, but we only have the app; it isn't possible to buy music or upload own music to the Google cloud. The source doesn't have a mention of Denmark in Music as well. I haven't edited the table since I don't know the definition. Alrekr42 (talk) 11:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Slacker data Delisasimmons3 (talk) 05:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Malicious Apps[edit]

There is a [citation needed] tag by the sentence declaring Talking Angela the most downloaded malicious app of 2013. the citation needed tag is definitely needed because according to and, that statement is just an urban legend. Maybe we can remove this statement? I actually googled Talking Angela because I was curious as to how a malicious app became so popular and was deeply disappointed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I've added a citation for it. I'm puzzled as to why Talking Angela would be considered a malicious app, though; the rumors were all false. (referring to the Facebook chain-letters and spam about it having something to do with pedophiles and spying on children) (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Google Play Store[edit]

I really feel Google Play Store should have a seperate article. Play Store isn't just an Android app, as given in the section title, as it is also accessible on the web. (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


In the table with "Yes"es and "No"s, all Yeses are green and all Nos are red. However, some cells look yellow if I move the scroll bar with the mouse. Why?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Georgia guy
I assume you are talking about Google Play § Availability. I can see no Yellow cells. A screenshot would probably help.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
You're going to have to scroll the bar with the mouse quickly. Georgia guy (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
@Georgia guy: Just did. Nothing. —Codename Lisa (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Wait a second! Are you talking about the brief visual illusion that appears at the top and bottom of the screen? I personally chose a monitor that is devoid of this flaw but I know it exists. The red and the green merge for a split second and they become yellow. If your monitor has a control panel or settings app, try increasing or decreasing its response time. See which setting is better. But of course, since this not an article problem, this is not the right venue to discuss it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Google Play. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

"currently" used a lot, and related info is probably no longer current[edit]

"currently" currently (4 April 2016) appears 6 times in this article, and the info being referred to is no longer current. See Template:When. I am not sure what is best fix: put in a date for the info? update the info and put in current date? avoid this type of info? other? FrankSier (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Update maps[edit]

Hi everybody! Does anyone here know how to edit and update an .SVG file? I have no idea, but I hate to have the giant update banner in the article. I am actually inclined to say that if nobody updates the maps, I will be removing them. They are out-of-date, and although visual images are always good to have, an out-of-date availability map itself doesn't really give a good impression anyway, especially not when it causes a big update banner to appear. So, please, if anybody knows how to edit it, I would really appreciate it! Otherwise I want to remove the images from the article. Thoughts? LocalNet (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Going to assume silence means consensus and remove the map images. LocalNet (talk) 13:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

High-Handed Reverts - talk section as requested![edit]

@LocalNet:, you have reverted my edit, again, despite the detailed explanation of the undo I provided you with. And, while you suggested discussing your actions here on the Talk page, you haven't created a section yourself here (to set out your reasons). I am not a mind reader. This is not a therapy session. I have no idea what you think you are achieving with your summary judgements and execution. Simply referring editors to the repositories of wiki guidelines (there are pages there discussing the problem of burgeoning guidance) is not helpful in any way whatsoever. In my opinion, fwiw to you, your edits are little more than vandalism. They achieve no improvement to the content of wiki itself and only damage the community. So, now that I have done the leg work for you, perhaps you would kindly explain yourself, and in case you can't be troubled with reading what I wrote before: why you judge your deletion of the inline citation request and deletion of the referenced statistic BETTER than your unreferenced statements. BTW it is irrelevant that references are given LATER in the body. Convention is to provide references at the first occurrence and THEN if considered necessary (i.e it's optional) for later occurrences). Ledes should be referenced. But I do not intened to enter a ping-pong match here with you. It seems abundantly clear there is no reason NOT to have references while there are very good reasons TO have them. LookingGlass (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello @LookingGlass: Thank you for coming to talk here! Wow, a lot of things to read. I'll try to explain myself in steps. So, first off, content should always appear in the article before the lead, as per WP:LEAD, which explains that "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". Unfortunately, your edit did not follow that policy. That was my first objection to your edit, which only added information in the lead. I also explained that in my edit, writing "please write information in the body before the lead". Secondly, vandalism has a very strict definition: "editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose" - I don't think I did anything near that definition. The only differences between our edits were "2.8 million" vs. "2.7 million", a citation and a citation-needed tag, which I don't believe constitutes vandalism. Please refrain from using that term in the future in similar situations :) Third, you write that "perhaps you would kindly explain yourself" - Please know that I explained my reasoning in my edit summaries, writing that "Info is easy to find and clearly referenced in article", with a link to WP:LEADCITE, which explains that "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material". The information on number of apps downloaded is easily found in a section helpfully titled "History of app growth". Furthermore, a simple browser search for "50 billion" and "2.7 million" helpfully directs the user to the material, should they want citations. I thought I explained myself pretty clearly in my edit summaries. You don't have to be a mind reader or in a therapy session to see that I explained my motivations :) But I apologize if the summaries were not clear enough. I'd also argue that saying I "damage the community" is a little aggresive. I even went to the effort of putting smileys in my reversions to try to create a friendly tone. But I also apologize for not creating a new section on this talk page, but I'm very happy we can have a proper discussion. Have a lovely day! :) LocalNet (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
One more point @LookingGlass: Having re-read your post, you end with "Convention is to provide references at the first occurrence and THEN if considered necessary (i.e it's optional) for later occurrences). Ledes should be referenced" - That's a direct contrast from both the verifiability policy, which states that "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." and WP:LEADCITE, which states that "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." I just wanted you to know this, because I don't know where you read what you wrote, but it's important to me that you are aware of the actual policies involved in editing Wikipedia. :) LocalNet (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm completely with you on this one LocalNet. The information is cited further down in a table with the figures for everyone to see. It seems the dispute has moved over to whether the Lede requires citations or not now. Per WP:LEADCITE i'm going to point out: "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material.".
Since these figures have their own table further down it seems obvious that they shouldn't reqire a citation in the lede. It's far from hidden information, easy to find, and reliably cited in the applicable table. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 08:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jenova20: Thank you for commenting! :) LocalNet (talk) 08:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jenova20:, I think the editorial guidance you cite here is given so as to avoid bloating. In this case however, my edit merely added a reference, and very few words. Specifically it replaced an unsourced figure for a sourced figure. If a better or contradicting source is available, then simply add that. Surely another superscript could not reasonably be seen as diminishing the article's quality. I would suggest it could only improve it. There really seems little to object to here. The fact that more detail is added in the body is something only to be expected. It does not stand in any contradiction to the goal of making the lede an accurate, and referenced, summary. Whereas from the headline onward, the function of the sections of a blog post, newspaper, or newstand journal, is to entice the reader to read on, the lede of an encyclopaedia, should be capable of standing alone as a summary. LookingGlass (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
@LookingGlass: I know you ping'd Jenova, but I'm not sure they will reply and I do want to answer. 1) "I think the editorial guidance you cite here is given so as to avoid bloating [...] however, my edit merely added a reference, and very few words" <-- The guideline very clearly states, as has been repeated here, that: "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material" (emphasis added by me). It isn't technically unsourced: the information, and its citation, is easily found in the article. 2) "The fact that more detail is added in the body is something only to be expected" <-- but your edit didn't follow that expectation, as you only added it in the lead. 3) "lede of an encyclopaedia, should be capable of standing alone as a summary" <-- yes, and it does that now. The 50 billion downloads number and 2.7 million apps is in the article with the lead summarizing it. With your edit, the lead did not summarize the article, it added info that the article didn't have. LocalNet (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I see your point @LookingGlass:, but it's a single citation and the information is not unsourced. It has it's own section/table and is sourced there, as is appropriate for information likely to be challenged. If this was contentious information i'd back down over this dispute and agree it should be sourced to avoid this in future...But it's two figures - both in a table further down. Can we get any leeway on this or just get an RFC? WP:LEADCITE does seem quite clear on this. I'm semi-retired so i'll reply when i can but don't set your watch by me. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 08:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

─────────────────────────@Jenova20:, Hi. thank you for replying and no worries about speed of reply :) The substantive (?) point is not 2.8 million vs. 2.7 but the uncited words: "Google Play store had over 50 billion app downloads in 2013 " (the reference in the article is an article citing an announcement by the head of the Android and Chrome teams for Google - so not actually third party). The figure is contentious as the app is bundled with phones not "downloaded" (RIP US anti-trust and EU fights). Added to this pushed-updates may well also be being counted in these figures, having a multiplier effect on already suspect data. The bold statement in the lede stands out like a promotional sore thumb. That in my opinion should be rectified. Localnet disagrees for reasons that to me are weak at best. LookingGlass (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

They're not uncited though. You yourself mention that they are cited, just not where you would like. And apps bundled with the phone and downloadable through the Play Store are still downloaded, even if not by the customer directly. And do these even count in these figures or is it an assumption? Since you're challenging the norm and per the pretty simple wording of WP:LEADCITE i'm going to restrain my replies and counter-arguments from this point as it looks like beating a dead horse. If you wish to reinterpret the policy then that's between you and whoever that irks, but as it's pretty clearly worded. I'm pretty much done here. Thanks Jenova20 (email) 14:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jenova20: But I clarified the citation and lede points:
the reference in the article is an article citing an announcement by the head of the Android and Chrome teams for Google - so not actually third party
Your dead horse (link takes me to a Beatles page?!?)but if that's the sam as a dialogue of the deaf I agree, yet I seem to be replying to the points you raise and we appeared to be converging before this last comment of yours. My point here is about bias. I am not asking for it to be added but asking that it (the self promoting "trojan" citation) be removed or clarified as being essentially OR - it's a report of Google's statement not a third party measurement. LookingGlass (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Data on Number of Apps and Downloads[edit]

Hi, I was looking for information about the number of applications available on Play and how much they have been downloaded. The information on downloads seems quite sparse. The formatting of the table could also be improved. I could work on this, but I don't really know where to start collecting data points. Does anyone have experience finding this sort of data? Groceryheist (talk) 07:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)