Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xbox One system software


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. A begrudging close as "no consensus" because it is the only outcome that can be applied to the overall discussion: Serge and Czar made the most pertinent points in their rationales to redirect, but as a closer it would be irresponsible to discount the volume of opposition. From my perspective, the few well-backed reasons to redirect IMO balance out the numerous relatively poorer (though not necessarily incorrect) rationales to keep.

This closure is specifically without prejudice against individual renoms, especially for the Xbox & Playstation & PSP/PSVita articles (since the Wii/WiiU ones were by far the most discussed here), if you still believe the articles should be deleted/redirected after the removal of the changelogs. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  15:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Xbox One system software et al

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

asserts per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_99 that articles describing video game console operating systems must be removed as a violation of WP:NOTCHANGELOG, WP:GAMECRUFT, and unnecessary duplication of content already contained in parent articles.

However, I assert that this requires additional discussion as it is a significant change that was backed by a single editor in a two-year-old discussion. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: Please do not simply state that the articles or tables are “useful.” Wikipedia doesn’t care if you think they’re useful. Instead, explain how they could be useful to readers of a general encyclopedia. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * AfD is the wrong venue. AfD is only for arguments of deletion (else they are kept as SK#1) and no one is actually arguing to delete the pages. – czar   15:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a procedural nomination. Additionally, I did present an argument for deletion; the discussion and violated policies. ViperSnake151   Talk  15:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're actually proposing that these pages be wiped from WP, then all right – czar   16:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn as a blatant violation of the principles of AFD and WP:SK#1. I hereby assert support for the merging of game console system software pages per assumed consensus. ViperSnake151   Talk  16:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WAAAAAIT!, - The wording in SK #1 has changed. It now allows for proposing redirects (and by association, merges I assume). See the this and the current wording. I didn't learn this until rather recently myself...  Sergecross73   msg me  17:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Funny story, I'm actually in that discussion but didn't see how it ended. Sorry about that, VS. Oh well, here we go – czar   17:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Aye sir. Struck that out. Feel free to revert my re-reversions. ViperSnake151   Talk  17:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect all to their respective console's sections on software (which is to say restore the redirect). Both What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTCHANGELOG#4, policy) and the WPVG guidelines (WP:VGSCOPE#9, guideline) both say explicitly that we do not host changelogs as an encyclopedia. If the respective console articles began to bulge in their software sections and saw a need to spill out summary style into their own articles, then no problem, but that's not what's happening here. These are just really big tables of every single, minute change to software, which meets the policy and guidelines of what we do not host to the letter. Anything that needs to be said about the system software can be said in the parent articles unless reliable sources show that the software has something significant that makes it more than just a part of the product. – czar   17:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: So why are we allowed to have Android version history and iOS version history? VGSCOPE does not say game hardware, it says the version history of a game (although I just amended that guideline right now, because the whole passage applies to game and game-related topics). But that seems to be in the spirit of WP:NOTCHANGELOG. However, the WP:NOTCHANGELOG really says "Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources in articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article. Common sense must be applied with regard to the level of detail to be included." So it's not a full-on ban on changelogs. ViperSnake151   Talk  18:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Other stuff exists. The spirit of NOTCHANGELOG is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is a difference between a change log (0.01 version update minutiae) and a synthetic history of version changes based in secondary sources. Android/iOS is famous as software while Xbox's software is secondary. There is more merit (and reliable sources!) about the differences between Firefox 3 and 4 than the differences between Xbox OS X and Y. That's fine. But this is not a discussion about Software version history but about specific articles—I see no case in which it is worth retaining the primary source version histories of these articles nominated, and once those are removed, there's nothing left to keep, so we're left to merge. The articles on the history of iOS/Android/individual web browsers are a different animal, an animal that still should have its primary source change logs gutted but at least has the potential of being rewritten as a synthetic history between major features and versions. The video game console software doesn't need a separate article for that and can be written summary style. I'll add that my suspicion is that these lists are the equivalent of WP:Dateline—it's easier to maintain an article where you just dump version history than it is to write the useful, synthetic history that should be in its place. – czar   18:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect all of them - per WP:NOT. It's not encyclopedic to list every system update that occurs, and the operating system info is better shown as a (shorter) section in its respective parent article. (I would have challenged these articles sooner, but the pure volume of these sorts of articles made me think they were acceptable. If you actually look into policy though, it is not.)  Sergecross73   msg me  02:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hold on; shouldn't each of these be discussed separately? Wii system software is more than just a changelog; it also has a good bit of material about the nature of the software that is not found in the parent articles. &mdash;SamB (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. It's all unsourced and there's nothing to merge. If you want to merge other parts, go ahead. – czar   19:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, well, being unsourced now is not listed as a WP:DEL-REASON; there'd have to be a thorough attempt to find reliable sources first. &mdash;SamB (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Chicken and egg. If the article topic had enough sources, it would split out summary style from its parent article. If someone wants to find or debate sources and build it out, it can be done from the Wii article's section on software. – czar   19:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The policy is NOT to cut off limbs and see if they grow back. Also, what section on software? And, has something significant changed since Articles for deletion/Wii System Software? &mdash;SamB (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP's notability standards have changed significantly in the last eight years. – czar   22:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

For now I am going to change related articles to Afd and remove all changelog part to see how they will fit. --Cartakes (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

So I have removed the changelog part in articles such as Nintendo 3DS system software, Wii U system software and Wii system software. I do think they perfectly fit in Wikipedia even without the changelog part. WP:NOTCHANGELOG is now invalid for these articles. --Cartakes (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. &mdash;SamB (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

But surely the changelog is notable enough to be in the page? I really found it helpful for many years. Can you elaborate upon your point? Does the changelog detract from the rest of the page? Never mind. I just re-read the "no changelog" guideline. Sorry - my mistake. --BenM64 (talk)


 * Keep after deleting the changelog: Obviously, the nominator's argument for the deletion of these article is WP:NOTCHANGELOG and WP:GAMECRUFT. It is better to remove the changelog part than simply deleting all these articles. Both of these reasons are now invalid for these articles since changelog no longer exists. --Cartakes (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand now. I suppose the changelog took up more of the page than the main summary, WP:NOTCHANGELOG or not. --BenM64 (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What's left after removing the changelog info though? And is that info covered by 3rd party sources? And if there's anything left, would it be better as a section in the parent subjects article? Sergecross73   msg me  22:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Take a look at Wii U system software for example. There are A LOT of contents and 3rd party sources provided. And obviously it does not fit in a section in the parent subjects article as well. --Cartakes (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Almost all of the content (Miiverse, Wii Mode,etc) is, and/or should be, covered at the main Wii U article or their own articles... Sergecross73   msg me  22:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Almost all of these contents in fact don't have their own articles (remember? the nominator was even trying to delete articles such as LiveArea). The Wii U article only has some very brief mentioning of features such as Wii mode for example, compared with the article Wii U system software, which contains much more detailed information regarding these features, which don't really fit in Wii U article either. The parent articles are not supposed to be detailed collections of every information about them.--Cartakes (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Which makes the "system software" page a coatrack for non-notable software features and change logs. Serge has it exactly right—there's nothing left to substantiate a fork for "system software" after removing the change logs. – czar   22:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * May I see the "system software" page as a "Main article" for the software features etc of the parent articles? These information are too detailed to be fit in the parent articles. Compared with for example Konqueror vs KHTML, the latter containing more technical info regarding Konqueror. --Cartakes (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Just about all of these are discussed somewhere else though. Miiverse, Nintendo eShop, Nintendo TVii etc. The article is unnecessary and redundant.  Sergecross73   msg me  22:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Just want to mention that the "system software" page is for discussing the software features etc of the parent articles themselves, not an article about individual features. You may in fact consider the "system software" page as a "Main article" for the software features etc of the parent articles, which are too detailed to be fit in the parent articles. --Cartakes (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Main articles" (usually called "parent/child articles", and usually based on summary style) require proof of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) A list of vetted video game sources is available here. From a cursory search, no one is discussing "Wii system software" as independent from the Wii itself. – czar   23:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at Wii U system software yet? It contains lots of independent sources already. For demonstration purpose you can see what I mean as a "Main article" here. No, it is not mean to be independent from the Wii U itself, but as a child article for the Wii U section. The Wii U section contains summary style info, while the child article contains more detailed info. --Cartakes (talk) 23:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying, the articles were deleted, nothing of encyclopedic value would be lost; the "changelog stuff" doesn't belong, and the rest of it is covered at other articles. (The parent article, the spinoff articles for their online services, etc) Sergecross73   msg me  19:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I already removed all the "changelog stuff" in all these articles yesterday, so the "changelog" issue basically no longer exists. As for the rest, a question for you: should the article Features new to Windows 8 be deleted too when the section Windows 8 already exists? Obviously the article Features new to Windows 8 covers more detailed info than the section Windows 8, similar to the fact that the article Wii U system software covers more detailed info than the section Wii U. --Cartakes (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think your example is also excessive and should just have the main points in the parent article. There's too much excessive detail - if you want that much detail, you may as well go read the software manual. Sergecross73   msg me  21:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So where's all the changelog stuff now? I thought it was interesting to have all that stuff in one place...is it being archived somewhere? Do the official websites have changelogs that are that complete and detailed? 91.5.30.174 (talk) 16:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC) — 91.5.30.174 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * There's a lot that could be left over if the article was redone. As far as I could see, Wikipedia contains no information on the Kinect's software.  This page would be an appropriate location for such information.  Software-based DRM could be discussed here. Windows 10 for Xbox One could be discussed here.  However, currently the article is just a hyper-detailed changelog with a brief blurb at the top.  As it stands, if the changelog is removed, there's absolutely nothing that couldn't be merged into the Xbox One article in two sentences. Eggbake (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep all as is I don't think it's cruft to list these previous versions, there's plenty of precedent on Wikipedia to list previous versions and what changes from one version to the next. Seems a little overambitious to me to wipe these from the wiki. Essentially, WP:BROKE.  True  CRaysball  | #RaysUp 00:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I should add that I'm also not too fond of having an AfD over a three comment thread from two years ago where no consensus was established.  True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 18:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The discussion from 2013 never had any bearing in this discussion and no one ever claimed that it did. Plenty of articles exist that haven't been fixed—it doesn't mean we stop following sitewide policy when attempting to fix them. – czar   17:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, but we can ignore it on a case by case basis if it improves the wiki, and I think these improve the wiki.  True CRaysball  | #RaysUp 05:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)‎
 * I’m not sure if we should be replying here, above the thing that says “Please add new comments below this notice.” But I disagree with the notion that it improves the encyclopedia. If a wiki sought to be a database of every software update to any piece of software it treated, no matter how trivial that update might be, then these would improve that wiki. Or if a wiki sought to preserve all historical information about the system that uses the software, these would improve that wiki. But Wikipedia is not that wiki. Information that improves a resource designed for hobbyists, or pro gamers, or stamp collectors, or model train enthusiasts, does not necessarily improve an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is designed to be a general encyclopedia, not a specialized resource. Cluttering up the article with every update ever released just buries the notable/important updates, which do not get the WP:WEIGHT they are due. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The link you gave says "incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias", so specialized knowledge is within our scope. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, it has no limits in depth of coverage.  Diego (talk) 10:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I've found all of these articles to be helpful over the past years. And if they got removed, then that would be simply inconsistent as we do keep changelogs for platforms like Android and iOS. --84.195.214.118 (talk) 11:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFF. Sergecross73   msg me  13:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well then, the reason I've found these articles to be useful is that there are no other places that keep track of it, not even the companies that design these softwares. I can't point to any source that has a nice, solid, objective and trust worthy overview of what has been done and has yet to come for any of the for deletion proposed artikel's operating systems. I only know that Sony is keeping track of this but since their Generation 8 website, the information is hard to find and even prior to that, it was never that objective or just flat uninformative, where Wikipedia always did provide some information on what actualy changed (for example, Sony's "The software should now work even more reliable" (or something like that), is on Wikipedia replaced with the issues that got fixed). There is, right now, no place to track these updates better then on Wikipedia. --84.195.214.118 (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not put the system software history table on a new category for the corresponding console? It can even things out... 202.160.36.113 (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, S warm   ♠  01:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep WITH changelogs as I have found these articles more accurate and in-depth than the official listings, and in some of the cases where there only are delta changelogs available on the system software websites while on Wikipedia there are full changelogs of every version. These articles are better than official sources and, most often, there is no other source that compares to Wikipedia in these cases. Haseo9999 (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And how do you reconcile this stance with WP:NOTCHANGELOG? That flies directly against what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Sergecross73   msg me  02:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * First, Your 10 crushing tons of WP:BRICKS has been felt heavily. Second, I encourage you to look at High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors as that may help you understand how better to word your replies. Third, WP:IAR. Fourth, If it ain't WP:BROKE, don't fix it. Fifth, the discussion is over 2 years old. Sixth, IP 84.195.214.118 is right. If broke doesn't work. Maybe there could be a better way of doing the change logs. Maybe we could get together some users who have an interest in these articles to go over the change logs update by update and remove cruft or condense them down to the essential features. We're not doing an article regarding the History of Linux to the extent where every revision in the kernel's git repository is recorded. That's far overkill. History of iOS is similar, but Apple does not provide a change log to the extent that A History of Linux would be like if we used the kernel's git log. History of iOS, however, strikes a balance between too much and too little info. I feel that these "Articles for Deletion" are as notable as History for iOS is and, as such, require the same degree of support. Haseo9999 (talk) 04:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh, what? All I did was ask your to explain such a stance, and I did so pretty clearly and succinctly. I'd do the same if someone said "Keep, along with all the WP:CRUFT, WP:TRIVIA, and unsourced material!" It's difficult to understand a stance like that, knowing Wikipedia policies. Also, citing WP:BROKE doesn't make sense because it is in fact "broke" - it doesn't follow policy, and the age of the discussion is irrelevant because we're having new discussions on it right here. We're not going to make a decision based on the 2yr old discussion, we'll make a call on what's being discussed here. Sergecross73   msg me  14:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It’s unfortunate that no better resource was available; perhaps these changelogs should be copied to a wiki devoted to video game consoles. (Incidentally, I can’t help wondering what they were based on [OR?] if they were better than all available sources.) But merely being WP:USEFUL to a specialized audience is not a criterion for being included in a general encyclopedia. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * These changelogs where based on multiple sources (like any Wikipedia article should be) and rewritten to be objective. that's why they are better then any available and official source. --84.195.214.118 (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We might not be tracking the history of Linux, but there are plenty of other subjects we do track. Like the one about iOS you've mentioned, but also Google Chrome release history and the Firefox release history and the History of Android. In essence, this discussion is also about these articles. If these changelogs have to go, so have the Chrome/Firefox/Android/etc. changelogs. --84.195.214.118 (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:Other stuff exists. But I wholeheartedly agree that all comprehensive changelogs should be removed from Wikipedia, or pared down to include only important/noteworthy information. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge into the consoles’ articles (unless summary style is warranted), and do away with the excessively detailed changelogs. Do we need to let readers know that the PS3 added Vita support in November 2011? Absolutely. Do we need to let them know that it added a menu option to delete Vita backups? Absolutely not. As for merging, the system software is not notable in its own right. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And a suggestion to anyone who has found the changelogs useful: You are free (under the CC-BY-SA terms) to copy the tables to a Wikia site devoted to a particular console, or all consoles, or what have you. You’re free to start your own wiki and preserve the update history there. If it’s already been removed from our article, just find it in the page history. If Wikipedia is the only resource hosting this content, change that. Especially now. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: I've added the PSVita and PSP articles to the top list as this discussion is also about these articles and they where missing. However, I've also noticed that on the PlayStation 3/4/Portable/Vita articles the changelogs have already been removed before a consensus is made here. They should be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.195.214.118 (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2015‎ (UTC)
 * The changelogs in these articles were removed per WP:NOTCHANGELOG. --Cartakes (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I’ve removed them from the list, since it strikes me as very inappropriate to alter what is ostensibly being discussed in the middle of the discussion. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note to closer: A friendly reminder that AfD "consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." What Wikipedia is not is a core WP policy and the only defense above is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" (not policy-backed). I get that editors find the changelogs useful, but I don't think those editors understand the scope of the encyclopedia forged through many years of consensus. – czar   17:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I’ll also point out WP:USEFUL, as another user did earlier. It’s great that some find it useful, but is it encyclopedic? That’s the pertinent question. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, as mentioned in Talk:Nintendo_3DS_system_software, we could in fact limit the past versions of the systems software to important and/or noteworthy details instead of either keeping or deleting all of them. --Cartakes (talk) 12:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I’ve posted that on every affected article’s Talk, actually. I was thinking these updates or features could be discussed in running text rather than presented tabularly, as well as discussing what makes them significant. But if we just cut the fat from the tables, that would also be great. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Those tables are not WP:USEFUL in the sense that a changelog is useful for a software developer, i.e. for finding out every change from one minor version to the next; which is what WP:NOTCHANGELOG was crafted to avoid. They are WP:USEFUL in the sense of providing information that has been regarded relevant by third party RSs, of what versions are the most significant and what changes between them are important; and that is encyclopedic, as being noted by reliable sources which provide analysis in the context of the topic is how we define the WP:DUE weight of content. Diego (talk) 14:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If it was relevant at the time of release, that’s one thing. Maintaining that relevance after the changes are long past is quite another. I posit that not only the majority of the versions documented in these articles, but the majority of feature updates and changes in the remaining versions, would fail e.g. the 10 year test. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability is not temporary. If a feature or version received analysis and coverage from independent sources, that does not wane away merely because of passage of time. Diego (talk) 08:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep without changelogs sure changelogs are against wiki policy but the content of the articles can be rewritten to fit the style of WP:PROSE and no longer appear to be changelogs and leave out all over detailed or non notable content, for example major features being delivered via a software update is most certainly notable, but it doesn't need a changelog, though personally I would like to see the changelogs stay and though Wikipedia is notorious for double standards (as the iOS changelog has gone unchallenged for quite some time, but gaming console changelogs are to be deleted), but policy is policy, but then again I've seen enough "seasoned" editors throw out wikipolicies whenever they please and with these articles I'm sure that a lot of experienced editors have contributed to these changelogs, too bad that there isn't an option to migrate them to more specialized Wikia sites. --58.187.228.171 (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * “too bad that there isn't an option to migrate them to more specialized Wikia sites”—What’s stopping you? This would be ideal, I think. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Move software changelogs to console's page then redirect 202.160.36.113 (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC) — 202.160.36.113 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep without the changelogs or merge into Nintendo 3DS their respective console page.  Ana  r  chyte   03:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep all the entries referenced to reliable sources per WP:CHANGELOG, which states: "Use reliable third-party in articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article." WP:CHANGELOG is not a prohibition to have changelogs, it's a warning againts excessively detailed ones. Everyone saying that the policy forbids changelogs should re-read what its wording actually says. It is commonly understood that a listing of the main changes from one version to the next, with its significance being analyzed by reliable sources, is encyclopedic and not against the policy. Also, comment: please keep the content of the articles being discussed while they are being an object of debate. This removal of the article's contents make it difficult to know what we are talking about.  Also, I agree with SamB's request to discuss each article on its own merits. Blanket interpretations of policy are not useful, each decision should be made according to the level of coverage in reliable sources on a case-by-case basis. Diego (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If our changelogs included third-party analysis of each version’s significance, there’d be a strong case for keeping them intact. But there doesn’t appear to be any discussion of significance, just feature-lists and changes. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's one more reason for debating each article independently, with a line by line analysis of sources for each table, rather than a blanket "belongs/does not belong" for multiple articles at the same time. Diego (talk) 08:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * “Please keep the content of the articles being discussed while they are being an object of debate.” Why? If we can make the articles less problematic and less likely to be deleted, isn’t that a Good Thing? In fact, I’m fair certain that working to improve an article while it’s being considered for deletion is actively encouraged. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't it obvious? Because we don't agree that removing the tables in an improvement; that's precisely what's being discussed. Not being able to see what we're talking about makes it hard to analyze it. (And, the articles are not likely to be deleted before the deletion discussion ends. :-) The current status of articles doesn't influence deletion discussions, only what the can become). Diego (talk) 06:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. I think one good compromise solution would be to keep a line in the tables for each version which has received third party coverage. Other intermediate versions between those could be lumped together in a single line (e.g. "Versions 1.5.7a - 1.8b: new features and bug fixes"). The trick is to turn WP:CHANGELOGs into WP:TIMELINEs, i.e. lists of events which are relevant to the sofware as covered by independent reliable sources. Diego (talk) 08:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Keep. very useful and in-depth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.186.185.230 (talk) 04:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The discussion clearly heads in the direction of no consensus; I am relisting it for the second time in the (weak) hope the consensus could be achieved.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I think WP:NOTCHANGELOG is misguided to begin with. For software that has met the bar for noteworthiness I believe version data should be kept in a sub-page as has been done with the game consoles previously. Wikipedia is likely to be one of very few long term reliable host of this data in to the future, if it is not held on Wikipedia it is likely to become lost in time. The main article about the game console is not being impacting by storing version info on a separate page. As it does not impact the readability of the main article are we risking the longevity of this popular data over some disk space? Deleting popular data in an era where disk space is cheap does not appear to serve any people currently or into the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.173.214 (talk) 12:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)  — 58.160.173.214 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please see WP:RELNOT; it lists “If it is not stored in Wikipedia it will be lost to the world” as an erroneous argument. The longevity of the data is only a concern if the data’s relevance has longevity, itself. That is what I, for one, am questioning. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say that that rule should be up for revision, NOTCHANGELOG doesn't seem to apply to History of iOS and editors for years have claimed that these changes are notable and relevant, I honestly second them and it would be a shame to see all these articles go as they do not seem un-encyclopedic to me in the least bit, in fact I'd almost say that the NOTCHANGELOG rule should be challenged and that operating systems with sufficient coverage and notability should have a sort of changelog as the NOTCHANGELOG was written in a time before mobile operating systems and constant computer updates, in fact today we live in a world where operating systems are more different from themselves after several over-the-air updates than they were with major releases in the past, the whole rule seems archaic and personally I'd say that we should keep these pages, though it's sad that someone prematurely deleted the Xbox One system software page. --Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 09:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Xbox One system software is still intact. As for the rest, that’s a discussion for WT:NOT. If you’d rather not open that discussion yourself, would you mind if I quoted you there? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Replying to this thread located above the relisting notices, to a comment by WP:NOTPAPER only means we don’t have technical limitations on the amount of content. “However, there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done ….” So the question is not whether these articles or changelogs take up too much space, or whether anyone finds them useful, but how well-suited they are to an encyclopedia. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, and how well suited is the content is determined by the availability of third-party reliable sources discussing its relevance (which several entries in the tables of sofwtare changes in the linked articles have, BTW). It has nothing to do with the content being "general" or "suitable for all audiences". The myth that Wikipedia is only a general encyclopedia is dispelled the moment you find an article about an obscure mathematical demonstration, historical character or medical condition. In fact we have a whole guideline (linked from WP:NOTPAPER) dedicated to explain how to split the content that is too detailed for a general article and have the more specific parts organized in related articles. Diego (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, some updates do have sources discussing their relevance. So let’s limit our version histories to those particular versions, and discuss the relevance rather than the changes. Problem solved. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what I said we should do :-) Diego (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, and I'll explain the definition of WP:NOTCHANGELOG "Exhaustive logs of software updates. Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources in articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article. Common sense must be applied with regard to the level of detail to be included." Note that Wikipedia doesn't care if you think changelogs are not encyclopedic Wikipedia is not against changelogs if there are plenty of 3rd party sources that cover it (thus making them notable) and as far as I can tell every article mentioned in this nomination has had a significant amount of 3rd party coverage and I'm sick of people abusing WP:NOTCHANGELOG as an excuse to delete any changelog on Wikipedia if enough neutral sources cover them then they are not against WP:NOTCHANGELOG sometimes I think that those people just read the title of WP:NOTCHANGELOG without ever reading what the actual guideline says, this nomination is completely unfounded and unsourced material is almost always removed from Wikipedia, heck well sourced material gets removed so citing the older definition of WP:NOTCHANGELOG holds no relevance in the light of this discussion. --Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As an encyclopedia first and foremost, Wikipedia certainly does care whether any given content is encyclopedic. There’s no blanket ban on changelogs, but exhaustive changelogs are unnecessary and undue, and most if not all of the entries on these pages cite primary sources exclusively while absolutely failing to discuss the update’s relevance or establish long-term significance. In short, I don’t know what changelogs you’re talking about, but the ones I’m seeing don’t cite much if any third-party coverage. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.