Talk:MicroG

In all official sources the project is styled to as microG (with a lower case m and upper case G) but this artcle refers to it with an upper case M except when talking about Lineage for microG.

Is this an error or am I missing something?

^[1]

^[2]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by P4t4t4t4t (talk • contribs) 06:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi P4t4t4t4t, Wikipedia's style guide rules for trademarks says: "When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should examine styles already in use by independent reliable sources. From among those, choose the style that most closely resembles standard English – regardless of the preference of the trademark owner." Since sources such as Vice and Ars Technica capitalize the "M" in "MicroG", the capitalized form is the preferred spelling in this article. — Newslinger talk 12:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

that Vice article is very inconsistent, it refers to it both as microG and MicroG throughout. This page too, is also inconsistent. In the history section it is referred to only as microG, but in the introduction it is referred to as MicroG. I think that there should be more consistency in this. Many more indpendent articles also refer to it as microG, Android Police and microG and 9to5 google. P4t4t4t4t (talk) 09:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

​"MicroG" is a proper noun. As long as there is some independent usage of "MicroG" in title case, that is the preferred style according to MOS:TM. If you disagree, feel free to submit a requested move, since the title of this article needs to be consistent with the text in the article body. — Newslinger talk 16:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

​​ In the Vice article, some of the inconsistency is in quotations, from what looks like emails from Marvin (but some is not). Without doing an exact count, it seems like reliable sources as often or more capitalize M as not capitalize m. Thus, I also favor M, except when within quotations. I'll fix the one or two places I was carelessly inconsistent. -- Yae4 (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Despite this discussion, I came here to see the article using "microG" throughout. I would really like to see a rationale, given the discussion here seems to verge on a concensus for capital "M", and that is also what I'd do based on MOS:TMRULES. LjL (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, MOS:TM supports the restoration of the "MicroG" spelling in Special:Diff/1002286190. — Newslinger talk 12:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• IP editor(s) from France wants to remove a quoted phrase: and "installing /e/ is a monster of a job." which has been in the article since February 2020 when the article was featured in Did You Know, after reviews by independent editors.
• Note: With Special:Diff/1105063524 they added a claim of "more than 250 devices" with a citation that says "these 240 different smartphone models" (verification fail). I reverted with Special:Diff/1105174482.
• While adding new info' about Murena selling phones with /e/, they also want /e/ listed first, whether in chronological order or in alphabetical order.
• Enough ROM projects include microG that it could be unwise to continue adding them all, with details, to this list. Perhaps a simple statement with wiki-links to other articles is sufficient? -- Yae4 (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• "installing /e/ is a monster of a job." is related to /e/OS, not to microG. Not appropriate for this article.92.184.117.227 (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
• "Murena" is a commercial distributor of /e/OS. The ROM name is /e/OS, so alphabetically first in the list of ROMs. Note that looking at edit history the introduction of "Murena" in this paragraph has been done on purpose to move the /e/ entry at the end.92.184.117.227 (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  Your edits appear to be promoting /e/, and not respecting WP:NPOV. By your stated logic, no additional details about /e/ or Murena should be included, only the basic fact /e/ uses MicroG. If more is included, the quote gives accurate context statement - what the citation said about using /e/ with MicroG. Other editors agreed. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  Those edits are not at all to promote /e/. Those edits are here to ensure a fair and neutral tone, I'm editing in good faith. I don't have any prolem with adding information about Murena but it's not the /e/ ROM project name.

  On the other hand:

  - your latest edits recently added two references with primary sources instead of secondary sources

  - your latest edits repeatedly assumed that Murena (that you have introduced) is the /e/ ROM project name, which is mistaken

  - your latest edits repeatedly added back a quote specific to /e/OS while we are on the microG page 2A01:CB05:26B:BA00:E8D9:D724:82B7:D66F (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  Your edits speak for themselves - only involving e, removing criticism, adding (exaggerated, failed verification) promotional language.

  • Primary sources: For basic facts about a project, like including MicroG or not. See WP:PRIMARY and WP:ABOUTSELF. Android Police source has been discussed elsewhere and is a marginal source.
  • Introducing Murena: Your edit Special:Diff/1105063524 introduced the source on Murena, exaggerated number of devices (verification fail), mis-stated e foundation is selling Fairphone, Gigaset and Teracube phones without mentioning Murena the subject of the citation (verification fail). Murena is one of at least a few companies formed by Duval et al to sell devices with e installed. There is no mistaken assumption.
  • Long-standing quotation you wish to remove - see above regarding previous consensus to include it. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  Your edits speak for themselves - only involving e, removing criticism, adding (exaggerated, failed verification) promotional language. - sorry but I don't see what you are talking about and I don't like your accusation my friend. I discovered this microG article with some parts about /e/ that are wrong/inexact/low quality content. So I'm just trying to help improving this article in good faith, by adding some pieces of information that can be of interest regarding microG adoption. And each time I'm doing an edit, you just delete it.

  The thing is that like you write: your edits speak for yourself. Your edit history on the microG page clearly show that you miss Wikipedia:Neutral point of view regaring /e/. Also I just discovered on this talk page that you seem to have a long story (since 2019 actually!) of being non neutral. It's interesting also to notice that you have have been blocked already for edit concerns with the GrapheneOS page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:GrapheneOS&action=history).

  "Android Police source has been discussed elsewhere and is a marginal source." - Where? Any reference about a consensus about this claim?

  "exaggerated number of devices (verification fail)"' - I just checked again on the /e/ OS download page: "Number of Smartphones officially supported by /e/OS : 269". I wrote "more than 250". Is 250 > 269? Your claim is wrong.

  'mis-stated e foundation is selling Fairphone, Gigaset and Teracube phones without mentioning Murena' - I don't know who is selling the devices actually. This interesting information is in the referenced ZDNet article. Before my edit it was written "In 2019, /e/ began selling refurbished smartphones with MicroG pre-installed". This was here before my edit. So I just added the information about new devices, without knowing who exactly is selling the smartphones. And in all case "/e/ began selling" doesn't mean "e Foundation began selling". Your accusation if factually wrong on all the line.

  Again I don't mind about adding or not adding "Murena" to this paragraph. My only point is that Murena is not the /e/ ROM name. You(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MicroG&diff=1106532082&oldid=1101724063) actually added "Murena" for the single purpose of changing the way ROM project entries are sorted by confusing the /e/ ROM name with a company that sells smartphones with the /e/ ROM.

  "Long-standing quotation you wish to remove - see above regarding previous consensus to include it" - I can hardly think that people with common sense agree that adding "installing /e/ is a monster of a job" is adding any interesting information to an article related to microG. It's just off topic and goes against Wikipedia interest. On the other hand, looking at your edit history related to /e/, I tend to think that you like to have this quote included. Where a discussion/consensus has been found about it? please provide a link. 2A01:CB05:26B:BA00:E8D9:D724:82B7:D66F (talk) 07:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Should the "Reception" section of this article about MicroG contain the statement 'installing /e/ is a monster of a job' ? - Mnair69 (talk) 03:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC) Mnair69 (talk) 09:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Extending the duration of the RFC to initiate some decisive voting. To elaborate the topic.. there is a comment in the reception section of this MicroG page ..installing /e/ is a monster of a job. To explain the context, /e/OS is an android Operating system. MicroG is a tool which allows users to install Google applications on the /e/OS and other android operating systems which similarly use MicroG. To assume that due to microg being a part of /e/OS, the installation of /e/OS becomes difficult is wrong. This comment has been cherry picked with the sole intention to painting /e/OS in a negative image. More details and clarifications around microG and it coverage on /e/OS can be read in the posts marked Response below. Mnair69 (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Note(Summoned by bot): To clarify, the 'statement' in question is not in wikivoice, but is rather an attributed quote from a review regarding the product; this might be germane information for some respondents as the language would arguably not be very encyclopedic if it were article prose, but is of course permissible in a quote. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• No, remove. The article is dedicated to MicroG. This statement has no relevance in an article on MicroG. Full disclosure, I work with ECORP the organisation behind /e/. This statement was brought to my attention by our users. The discussion in the previous section did not seem to have reached a conclusion. I created this RFC to create some consensus around the question. - Mnair69 (talk) 09:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Question: Mnair69, can you give us some sense of what proportion of the deployment of MicroG is taking place on /e/, as opposed to other OS platforms? Looking into this, as someone with extremely superficial understanding of android software, my inclination is to agree with your position that the quote is not WP:DUE for this article, but a little extra context in this respect would be helpful. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
• Response: /e/(operating system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki//e/_(operating_system) is an Android Operating system for smartphones forked from lineageOS. It removes `Google calling` code and gives the users a safer version of a smartphone OS. There are multiple other operating systems which also provide various degree of security and privacy to the end user. Removal of all the Google code prevents some of the popular applications like social media apps from working on the /e/OS. This is where microG comes in. It fakes a `Google environment` for these apps and gets them to work. microG code is a part of /e/OS, though not essential for /e/OS to work. User can disable microG and /e/OS will continue working perfectly. microG is a part of other custom Android Operating systems like LineageOS for MicroG as well.

  The point of this RFC is that microG is not dependent on /e/OS and a cherry-picked comment about the installation of /e/OS does not need to be in a page dedicated to microG. - Mnair69 (talk) 05:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

  I appreciate the response, but I was able to basically gather all of that from the article itself. What I'm curious about rather is how much of MicroG's distribution, proporationally, takes place on /e/, relative to all of the various platforms it can operate on. I appreciate you might not have exact figures, but any insight you can provide would be useful. I do think that ultimately this should come down to a WP:WEIGHT determination, so I may support your proposal on that basis alone, but before I weigh in with a formal !vote, I was hoping for some more context regarding just how likely it is that a given copy of MicroG is to be operating on /e/, as opposed to another OS. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• On the fence: Agree with Snow Rise: my !vote would rely on WP:WEIGHT, but will pop back in when context is given. Please !ping me when this is done so I remember to return. waddie96 ★ (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• Response: To answer what proportion of microG code is deployed in /e/ you can compare the component list in the source code on microG project code and the /e/OS gitlab . As you can see, GMSCore, Fakestore and UnifiedNlpAPI libraries are mainly used. There should be no difference between the implementation on LineageOS for MicroG and /e/OS. Users can check the version of microG by going into the settings of /e/OS or any other operating system (which uses microG). Also which microG features are enabled or disabled are visible through a User Interface where users can check or uncheck features. It may not be possible to put a percentage value on how much of the OS code is microG though it would not be more than five percent. Just to clarify, as mentioned in the article, MicroG does not control how the OS boots but just helps various Google code requiring applications to work. - Mnair69 (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you again for the response, Mnair, but again, I don't think you're quite understanding what I am asking. I'm not asking about the nature of the code or how the software is implemented. I merely wish to know: of the total number of instances of distribution of the MicroG software, what percentage is running on /e/ systems, as opposed to systems running a different OS? Assuming you have data or any degree of insight on that question, that is. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• Response: I am assuming you are checking on the number of installations of /e/OS on user smartphones. We have around 25,000 active users spread across 269 devices. There are also a few unofficial builds which we do not have statistics for. These unofficial builds may add up to 1K. - Mnair69 (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, include it and possibly expand coverage of e foundation aka Ecorp aka ... sponsorship and involvement with microG development and promotion.

Why did Mnair69 dodge the simple questions, "what proportion of the deployment of MicroG is taking place on /e/, as opposed to other OS platforms?" and "how much of MicroG's distribution, proporationally, takes place on /e/, relative to all of the various platforms it can operate on."? Things you should know:

• Ecorp, aka e foundation aka more shell company names, has been the main official sponsor of microG, (see Home page, Sponsors at bottom) since announced in July 2020.
• e foundation aka Ecorp knows how many users and microG users they have, because they replaced google "call home" systems with their own Ecorp systems, for certain functions. As they sponsor and work with Marvin Wissfeld, the developer of microG and distributor of microG for LineageOS, he can tell them how many downloaders of microG for LineageOS there are. They were able to identify precisely how many users were potentially affected by their May 2022 data leakage to single digits: 26+379=405.. They probably don't want to publicize how much statistics and data they have about their users, for obvious reasons.
• CalyxOS, LineageOS for MicroG and /e/ OS are arguably the top 3 distributors of microG. Proprietary IodéOS seems somewhat popular, maybe 4th, but who knows. Ecorp aka e foundation sponsors or controls 2 of those 4. CalyxOS may be somewhat more popular, based on Twitter followings etc, so I would guess roughly half to two-thirds of the deployments of microG are connected with Ecorp aka e foundation. A significant proportion.
• I credit Mnair69 for taking a more open approach, this time.
• As noted here at /e/ OS Talk, e foundation has been recruiting wikipedia editors since at least February 2021. Sockpuppets were identified and blocked after they edited a few Duval (Ecorp owner) related articles, going back to 2017 or earlier. Scrubbing criticism and promoting with wikipedia is standard MO.
• The same issue was raised at NPOV noticeboard and didn't go anywhere, so this looks like forum shopping. -- Yae4 (talk) 09:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

• No, remove. Statement should be removed as it is not relevant on this page. GoldenNatureRifts (talk) 12:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  GoldenNatureRifts, you have exactly zero other edits anywhere in mainspace on this project, and three total edits, and yet you are here !voting in this RfC: you wouldn't by chance have a WP:COI that you would like to disclose? Do you for example work for ECORP, like Mnair? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:02, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, include: it's a quote from an appropriate source and contains relevant detail about the topic. — Bilorv (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)