@Dsimic:, @Comp.arch: Are you two planning on expanding this article? If so, I'll drop the proposal, if not I'll fix it up, the links are a bit broken at the moment. Jerod Lycett (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
- Hello! I'd love to expand the article, but unfortunately I don't have the time to do that. However, I'll be reviewing the changes; the article should be copyedited first. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
- I don't have time neither, which I what the proposal is about. I think I'll correct the linkage. If someone wants to expand it in the future that can split it out. Jerod Lycett (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
- However, all merger proposals need some time to "cook", usually for about a month, and it's quite likely that someone will expand the article during that time. It's also much more likely that someone will expand it rather than split it off, which is the reason to leave the merger proposal open for at least one month. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 17:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
- Yes, wasn't talking about immediately merging it. Just, if you were going to expand it then there'd be no need for a merger so I'd drop the whole thing. You can see, I corrected where it was pointed. Jerod Lycett (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
- I have no intention of updating this article (e.g. more that I just did. I didn't even know it existed..). Seems, merging to Android version history is in order. I'm not saying Gingerbread, wasn't important, but the next version, Honeycomb, was (a change of direction), and even it doesn't have a special page. comp.arch (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
- Well, we also didn't have the Android KitKat article until June 2015 when it was created, for example. Having no article about something doesn't imply lack of importance or insufficient notability. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
- I can also go with, just keeping the article (it would need to be fixed then), it just doesn't seem to say much that isn't in the history article. I see now, that
all the versions after since that one all the versions after Honeycomb have it's own article, only infoboxes do not link to them in all cases.. Android Froyo, is however only a redirect and Android Eclair (and probably, earlier) not even that. Does notability *require* its own article? I feel a redirect can be ok, and if that target expands too much, a full article can always be reinstated? comp.arch (talk) 10:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
- It's just that the chances for having someone turn the current Android Gingerbread article into a good one are much higher than having someone split it off later if we rush the merger. By the way, as we know notability doesn't require an article to exist, but rather warrants it. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=logo}
