This is an archive of past discussions about Android version history. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Somebody replaced all mentions of 'Cupcake' with 'Cookie'. Could this page be reverted to the previous state and protected for some short period of time or smth like that? 89.176.223.126 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
They were deleted under Wikipedia:NFCC#8. I was told by a Wikiproject a while back that Android screenshots were under compatible licenses to free since they're a Linux fork (or something like that). Seems they were wrong...Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)14:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
No, they were right about Android's licence. It looks like these images were incorrectly tagged as fair use for some reason. And I'm not even convinced NFCC#8 would have applied anyway, since the images were inside collapsed sections due to article length concerns (which we really need a proper solution to, by the way), not because they were unimportant. I am tempted to restore the lot of them, but someone would need to go through and correct the image description pages, and possibly blur out some copyrighted Google logos. Rapture's Sander Cohen (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
With those sections uncollapsed the article is too big to navigate. What about splitting each version into separate articles? Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)16:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
The idea seemed radical to me and that's why i've taken so long to come around to the idea. As i see it the names would have to be similar to one of these:
The only questions remaining are: "is there support for this split?" and "Which names do the articles receive?". Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)08:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I was the one who nominated the images for deletion. As I can see, they failed at least three of the non-free content criteria:
WP:NFCC#1: Android is partially open source. Google takes the freely licensed source code and changes some things, for example by adding Android Market, and possibly changes some artwork such as icons and backgrounds. In this case, you would probably get the same understanding by using a screenshot showing only the open source parts of Android.
WP:NFCC#3a: You shouldn't use lots of non-free images when just one or two would give you the same understanding. There are often not that big changes between each version, so not all versions are needed.
WP:NFCC#8: You should only use non-free images if the images increase the understanding of the topic and if the removal of the images would be detrimental to that understanding. The images were in collapsed sections. A collapsed section screams that the contents of the section is something so unimportant that you can safely ignore it. That is more or less the opposite of what WP:NFCC#8. Additionally, the collapsed sections largely ignore what the versions look like, so the images would have violated WP:NFCC#8 even if the sections wouldn't have been collapsed.
I don't think that each of those versions would meet WP:N to qualify for an individual article. New versions pop up all of the time and they don't contain that many differences. Compare with List of Ubuntu releases where there isn't an article for each individual version. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, but this is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how many images are used, or where, if they weren't non-free in the first place. At least two images, File:Android 1.0 Home Screen.jpg and File:Android 1.1 Home Screen.jpg, contain no non-free elements whatsoever. Most of the others contain small Google logos which are incidental to the image, and might not be enough to make the image as a whole fair use - but if they do, blurring them out would have been trivial. Rapture's Sander Cohen (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Some wp:commonsense applies here. Do you think Google would object to the use of those images? No they wouldn't. In my opion WP:NFCC#8 does not apply. You don't judge it because it is collapsed. You judge it when it is uncollapsed and ask if it helps the uncollapsed content. Otherwise one could say delete all the content that is collapsed because it screams of not being needed. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Microsoft does not object to the use of Microsoft screenshots on Wikipedia (see {{Microsoft screenshot}}). However, all images which do not meet the definition are treated as unfree (see wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy) and need to comply with WP:NFCC#8. If some of the images were in fact free (although mistagged as unfree), then those images can be undeleted. However, they were, if I remember correctly, from a variety of different phone manufacturers. For example, I have a Samsung phone, and I would suspect that the default background image was produced by Samsung and that this image is unfree. You would have to verify that the background images and icons indeed are freely licensed. I would assume that many of the default background icons are freely licensed, but this is probably not the case with for example the Gmail icon, the Android Market icon or the Google Play icon. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
We deliberately chose screenshots that were as close to the free, default Android as possible. Everything is fine except for some copyrighted Gmail or Twitter icons on a few of the homescreens. As I said, I'm not convinced that one or two small, incidental icons can force the entire image to be fair use, but regardless it would be easy to blur/blank these out and the end result would be a free image. That's what I would like to do. Rapture's Sander Cohen (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I would support that. These could probably be photoshopped to remove the copyrighted icons anyhow in some/most cases. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)13:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Although it doesn't say in the image it appears that X is "distribution as of this date" and Y is "percentage of all Android devices currently in use". This assumption made on the basis that the image is updated every time new figures on activations are released.
I also wondered about the axes Readers shouldn't have to come to a Talk page to understand the chart. The description of the axes should at minimum be in a footnote on the chart(if the axes can't be made more clear). Also, all the references for the chart really need to be on the chart. From reading above, it looks like the creator has compiled the references in an external spreadsheet, so maybe that wouldn't be hard to do. BTW, I love the chart, and it adds a lot to the article. 108.17.33.35 (talk) 04:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I can see about the caption but i think the rest of that would require someone like fjmustak (the creator). You're right of course though. It needs to be simpler. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)08:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I've updated the versions up to the June numbers. The updated spreadsheet can be found here. I created two versions of the chart, one with every API version available (the second sheet), and the other with only dessert names (the first sheet). The third sheet contains the references to the historical data. Note, the months that are missing are the ones that I took the numbers directly from the Android developer site. As for the axes, the horizontal axis is the date data is released by Google, while the vertical axis is the percentage of usage recorded by Google for each API level. It is worth noting that the way Google now collects data is slightly different as of the April numbers, which is somewhat obvious from the jumps in the chart. More details can be found here. --Fjmustak (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Also note that the x axis is not exactly linear, as Google is now releasing the numbers monthly, while in the beginning it sometimes released the numbers twice a week, other times every couple of months. --Fjmustak (talk) 12:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
The Image description says it is Android 2.3, and the caption adds "on the Samsung Nexus S". Since every manufacturer can reskin Android to take a different appearance we really can't take your word for that. If you can prove it then we can do something about it. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)08:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Nice spot! To be honest i remember when the icons looked like that but don't remember which version they are from. Jolly good ツ Jenova20(email)08:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually the prior screenshot was Android 2.3 but not with the stock/vanilla skin. The screenshot was from a Sony Ericsson Xperia phone running Android 2.3 with their OEM skinning. Just FYI, I personally believe a stock screenshot is preferred over a OEM skinned screenshot. 「gu1dry」⊤ • ¢08:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Reference 4 in the article is empty, can someone track it down in the history tab and fix it, or otherwise remove it? Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)08:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
The Geofencing and Wi-Fi scanning APIs in the new Google Play services (revealed at Google I/O) now have system-level support on certain hardware, the new Nexus 7 and Nexus 4 being the only Google devices that are currently compatible. For example, the gyroscope and magnetometer can now report raw and ostensibly more accurate data to games and apps, and the WiFi scanning mode can be enabled without connecting to a network for better location tracking without using GPS.
I am thinking the 2 examples provided above could be used to provide some context as to give a general idea of what it does and also add a note that only the 2nd Gen Nexus 7 and Nexus 4 support it at the moment, the same also for the improvements to Photosphere (Only Nexus devices officially):
System level support for Geofencing and Wi-Fi scanning APIs (For example, The gyroscope and magnetometer can now report raw and ostensibly more accurate data to games and apps, and the WiFi scanning mode can be enabled without connecting to a network for better location tracking without using GPS.)
While on the topic of changes to 4.3., Would the "Google Play Music" update really be considered part of the 4.3 Android update? Lorondos (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Historical distribution chart
I created a chart with historical distribution of Android version (access from Android Market/Play Store)
I added it to the page, since it seems like a relevant chart, instead of the Android logo, but it was removed for whatever reason. I will keep updating the chart as new data becomes available, and can share the underlying data (not sure how). --Fjmustak (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Slight criticism - you could have at least used varyingly different colours so we can tell which version is which easier. Just because it's Android, it doesn't need to be green. Other than that it's a lovely chart and would be great to include. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)17:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I think the chart might be more relevant in Android_(operating_system)#Reception than this article. It was certainly removed because it shouldn't be used in place of the android logo at the header of this article at the very least. But I think it would go well accompanying the pie chart at Android_(operating_system)#Reception, but I do agree with the above criticism - this chart would definitely benefit from more contrasting colours> I found it really hard to read of the correct versions. --kikumbob (talk) 10:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you both for your input. Next week, I will change the colors. I would also like to share the data file, but am unsure how to do that within Wikipedia. --Fjmustak (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
There's a bigger worry here that it will be out of date really quick and we may need a completely new article for it or constant updates to it... Or we could have a new article to free up some space in the main Android article; maybe something along the lines of Android version distribution? Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)23:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, this is much clearer. Is the data from those official pie-charts on developer.android.com or somewhere else? – Steel14:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
The data is from all over the place (all screenshots of the tables initially posted on the developer site). I will try to recompile the list of sources I found, and add them to the Excel file Done. Some of the older data was particularly difficult to find. --Fjmustak (talk) 09:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Can we also colour code the tables for versions to match the historical distribution chart in the same way that both the Windows Phone and iOS version history articles do? This would add a much needed splash of colour and defeat some of the repetitiveness from the article. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)23:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I was bold and made a change to the layout (or 15). I'm sure you'll all find the new look satisfactory? And you don't have to be gay to look good Steel. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)20:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Discussing Android with my dad and we came across this chart, he noticed it was a little hard to read the bottom dates. Decided to play with it and change around how the dates are displayed. Just uploading both versions I made, if you wanted to do anything with them. - Brendan10211
This is definitely easier to read, but were the last few months cut off? The current one finishes at Feb 2013, these ones at Nov 2012. – Steel23:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea why the months are cut off.. it should just be a matter of adding more data to the chart. I don't have the means of doing that currently, sorry about that. Brendan10211 (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
@Fjmustak I added a new section to the bottom of this Talk page. Please link to the source of that data. Right now this is OR, and that is not acceptable by Wikipedia terms. Also, on a side note, could you create a chart by API version. That would be VERY useful, too! I want to be able to grab API specific data, map it over time, and project where it will be in several months. I created this StackOverflow page for this request. Ciscorucinski (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
What is the point of version history by API level?
Version history by API level is great for developers and the information is readily available at http://developer.android.com/about/index.html Wikipedia on the other hand is made for the general public and most people don't know what API is. I really can't see the relevance in showing version history by API level when 99% of people don't know if their phone is on API level 15 or 16. If people really think it is a good idea to list API level then the actual levels 1, 2, 3 etc should also be written out for every version in the article. User93117:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Maybe the API levels should be spelled out...It would be a bit more informative. It does reflect what is in the main Android article though. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)16:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I spelled them out but after a while i felt it was just too much information cramped in, hard to oversight. I made a separate table for API versions instead, could we compromise on this? Cheers User93123:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
The table you added is very good but it looks out of place on its own. I just toyed with placing the main article image in line with it but that also looked too much...Maybe Someone else can give their opinion if available here? Steel perhaps? Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)22:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I restored an older version because i just noticed you hid a lot of the versions. They're grouped by API level, NOT name, and that is the reasoning for the split. Please use edit summaries too as some of your edits are controversial. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)22:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I didn't hide any versions, they are all there, but this split of versions to API level is something you created which never was here for several years before. And your complete unwillingness to compromise is frustrating to say the least.User93123:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I never created it and i've told you that before. All i did was collapse the sections because the article was too big. And i coloured it to match the table made by Fjmustak (apologies if i spelt that wrong). I don't have to cooperate with something i don't agree with. I liked the table you added before and still do, but it looked a bit out of place. I never said remove it, i just said it looked out of place a bit. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)23:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Also edit summaries like your last seem designed to damage the article just to spite me.
There is no need to list an API level in the heading of each version like that and make it less readable as it can be included either in the table or left out completely since it's already in the image at the start of the article. We have to stop this feud. We don't agree but this is childish. ツ Jenova20(email)23:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
...Because it's completely green and Fjmustak made his first table green (which he/she showed off here) and agreed to change the colours because it was difficult to interpret.
Google's graph is a pie chart and less informative than what we currently have in many ways. And i defend the layout solely because it looks better, is easier to find the vesion you want, and because no one else has complained about it, argued, or attempted to edit war over the layout. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)23:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
The thing is, as i mentioned above, no one, not even on technically oriented web pages, talk about Android versions as versions by API levels. That only has purpose for developers. But now this whole article is changed just because of adaption to a home made graph. I disagree that Googles chart is less informative, i find it more current, up to date and easier to read. User93100:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) FYI, the dashboard thing on the Android website lists actual distribution percentages per API level. The codename - API level hierarchy that was here before made sense: codenames group a larger set of releases, whereas API levels distinguish between major releases (ie, releases with changes significant enough to warrant a new API level). — daranz [ t ] 23:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
And so there we have it. Like i said before, grouping by names hides a lot of important content and the API level graph in the article not only shows more than Google's pie charts, but also shows the history and how fast the uptake of the new versions is. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)00:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not particular about the chart. I could combine all dessert versions with different API levels together. However using a pie chart does not show the historical distribution! Chart using only dessert name versions without API level or version number --Fjmustak (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
The historical distribution must be preserved as it is massively informative to the article. It sums up the Android version history simply and informatively! Google shows the newest uptake figures, we show all the figures. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)09:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
While "we show all the figures"...this is a very high level, low granularity version. I would suggest more low level, higher granularity versions (Also by API levels...there CAN be more than 1 chart!). I might also suggest presenting the historical data with bell curves that show the actual percentages!! Please consider this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciscorucinski (talk • contribs) 18:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Android Version History Chart is Original Research (OR)...Link to reference
I wrote the following on Stackoverflow to try to find a better graph (or data) on rates of change of Android versions (or by API level). I have not been able to find actual data, or any archived data that would allow me to build this chart over again...or even a derivative of it.
There is no source to this chart and the data cannot be found...therefore this is OR. I would suggest that information be published on the web and linked to it. Google's own Android Dashboards does not satisfy the requirement for actual data of that chart, because it is not achieved. Google Cache and Wayback Machine either don't go back far enough, or don't save the pictures to see what it was.
Please make this changes as soon as possible. There is important information that people will want to use that information for because that chart does not provide the level of granularity needed. Ciscorucinski (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The graph is made by Fjmustak from updates from Google to the Android distribution whenever they announce the new data. There is no requirement to cite it and it is not Original Research since anyone could find the old data and see for themselves. That you cannot find the old sources for it does not make it WP:OR, it means simply that you cannot find evidence any more. Citing the graph would be useful but would likely result in a handful of dead links on a regular basis. Does anyone have a suggestion for this? Also what "level of granularity" are you expecting? This is the version history article and the information you want might be in Android (operating system). Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)10:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
The file description for File:Android historical version distribution.png already has a bunch of citations listed for the version distributions at different points in time. These links are mostly blogs and news websites that have taken screenshots of the distribution chart at the time, so they are less likely to rot away. There are, however, some gaps that they do not cover. Note that the image transcluded in this article is not this, but a derivative, so it doesn't have the links in the description. — daranz [ t ] 13:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Expected future updates
This section is complete speculation, there are no references, just links to blogs and news pages. It is even written "may carry the version number ..." and "Google has not yet officially confirmed this".
Wikipedia is not made for speculation and rumors and this section has no place on Wikipedia. Removing it as the crystal infobox informs you to do: "This article may contain unsourced predictions, speculative material or accounts of events that might not occur. Please help improve it by removing unsourced speculative content." results in constant reverting. Even adding "citation needed" or making it clear to the public that this section is speculation is reverted.
Why especially Jenova20 has this agenda and wants Wikipedia to be his/her rumor blog is very hard to understand. User931 22:19, 30 May 2012
Pushing aside the personal attack there, i did not create the section in question but did restore it after someone else or possibly you (i don't remember) deleted it. Citing WP:Crystal as an excuse to have it deleted is no good when i can use the same policy to justify its inclusion.
So what i've tried to do here and for the last 2 (?) weeks is get you to contribute to a discussion (and now i need you to do it in an adult way) and quit the edit warring. Jenova2020:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I have a suggestion, why don't you create a new page on wikipedia instead, "wikipedia.com/speculated_android_updates" where you can blog about this without getting disturbed? User931 12:19, 1 June 2012
Android Jelly Bean
I heard that Google announced at least a partial hint about Android 5.0 rumored to be named Jelly Bean. Put this in Summer as there will be more announcements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee, Eungki C. (talk • contribs) 11:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
This section is very speculative and all the product features are simply rumours. The reference used for the features is not a decent (primary) source. I propose the entire "Features" section be removed until there are clearer details surrounding this release of Android. 163.1.120.27 (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Possible future upgrades is verifiable in reliablish terms and is line with policy predicting events as notable and almost a certainty.
If you want to keep removing the same section then bring it up here as edit warring is unacceptable and it can be avoided. Thanks Jenova2008:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
There are sources. Not at all meaning this to seem rude but can commentors please read the section before you ask questions that could be solved yourselves simply by reading?
Turns out everyone who thought Key Lime Pie was wrong, although i'm guessing it was the official name until Google changed it's mind to KitKat. Anyway, for now, for version 4.4 the discussion is over. Now, let's start discussing when the name and version 5 is official enough to put on this page ;-) PizzaMan (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Éclair or Eclair and Kitkat color
I just reverted an edit from a user. One of his changes was renaming Eclair to Éclair. The latter is obviously the correct French spelling, but all the references i find, seem to use a plain E. Also, note that the red color for the Kitkat version is the official color for the logo of the candy. Seems the only appropriate color to me, even though it's a bit brighter than the other colors in the table. But please share your opinion... PizzaMan (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Colour seems fine to me. All the previous versions start light and get darker with each API level. I think we should call it Éclair only if Google does. I was forced to do the same for every mention of Citroen in quite a few of their vehicle articles even though that necessary symbol is not on my keyboard. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)08:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The discussion affected this article also and ultimately decided a consensus to leave the two articles how they are despite concerns (by some) about possibly violating WP:NOTCHANGELOG. There's another AfD for the same thing currently, but targeted only at this article. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)14:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Any chance someone could change the colours of the previous versions of android to something less pathetic and cold looking? OS from 2009 is now implied to be obsolete by this colour scheme, because a few android wikipedians live in a innovation-obsessed tech bubble. I encourage making people feel less worthless and formenting human insecurity [the majority aren't on the latest or even 2nd latest OS] because they don't have a more up-to-date operating sys on their cell phone.Oxr033 (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The colors are arbitrary, so it doesn't matter what colors are used. Even if they did imply something, the versions are still obsolete. - M0rphzone (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
No one is being made to "feel worthless" by a table showing periodic user base. If a person owns an old phone and feels "worthless" then that's completely unavoidable on this end. I fail to see how changing the colours would even help with that, but either way it's not a problem of or caused by Wikipedia. The only version to have a colour even debated or discussed was KitKat (see above). Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)10:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Astro, Bender, and R2-D2 (WTF?) have appeared at the start of the article again. I've heard of the two but remember us hashing this out before when Petit Four was also mentioned. Can someone (with more spare time than me) finally put a nail in this coffin and sort it so The Register stops chastising us for promoting hoaxes again. From what i remember last time, i believe Bender is a hoax, and i've never heard of the R2-D2 part before, but it sounds like vandalism or a hoax. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)19:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Those "sources" are just comments on Google+ posts. They certainly don't pass muster as "reliable sources". In fact, the one post is crowing about "winning a Wikipedia edit war". It's nothing but rumor. —Al E.(talk)20:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll leave it for someone else here to do the honours and remove the rhumours then since i'm currently burning myself with a drink, and have a lot already planned. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)20:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Accroding to that article, the names "Astro Boy" and "Bender" were pre 1.0 milestone names - not release names, just build milestones; and there's no mention as to what those milestones specifically represented - so I have no problem removing them unless a better source can be found. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I've adjusted the wording to better match the sources that claimed these to be internal milestones and internal developer releases; but as mentioned above, I have no objection to the removal of this content, as the sourcing is weak (the one article appears to be based on the forum postings in the other refs). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Rote list
I don't like the 4.4 list. There should be some text what each means. For example: Enhanced notification access. What does that mean? I think the entire list should be deleted and not added back until descriptions are added. What do you think? Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
The list needs to be trimmed significantly, it's far too big and completely uncited. We didn't go through the WP:NOTCHANGELOG argument just to then add even more information, which means very little to most people. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)22:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Impact, legacy
Although this article is more about Android feature history, it does not delve much into what the general impact was of the operating system and its various major versions. The same is with legacy, as Android 2.3 Gingerbread, while outdated, is still widely used, marketed and sold on low-end devices; in some cases the same applies even to Android 2.2 Froyo. Neither is CyanogenMod mentioned, and its impact on extending the functionality and lifespan of devices first released with stock Android. -Mardus (talk) 06:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Kitkat size
That section is growing out of proportion and is mostly uncited. Can someone trim it down to a list about half the size? Remember the CHANGELOG discussion stuck along the lines of us offering only a few changes, not a huge amount (like an actual change log). Not all of those are required, necessary, or even that explanatory. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)15:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I think the date format of the release dates should be updated to a more readable format.
For example: A date might currently show as 5 December 2013 but for readability it would be better as December 5, 2013. --Jimv1983 (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll fight that because it may be common in America but i really don't understand Month, Day, Year. Day, Month, Year is chronological and simple. When the entire month is spelled out in full it looks even weirder to put the day after it. Thanks ツ Jenova20(email)21:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Luckily, there's no need to fight. :) Let's just use {{date|YYYY-MM-DD}} when writing dates, and they will be formatted and displayed according to each user's preferences (explained here). The YYYY-MM-DD format for dates is also known as ISO 8601, if I'm not mistaken, and it's the best format regarding sorting, lack of misinterpretation etc. — Dsimic (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Done - Rapture's Sander Cohen fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out! ツ Jenova20 (email) 10:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
