Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IOS version history

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 keep. Heavy snow in the forecast. The Bushranger One ping only 22:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IOS version history

edit
IOS version history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a collection of changelogs, which is what these articles unashamedly are. Any changes of note (e.g. Siri for iOS 5-on-4S) can, and most likely are, covered in their parent articles. Also nominated:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - These articles (both this and Android) are beautiful examples of collaboration on the web. I have used these articles countless time, and are extremely useful when used together to compare the two systems, and their feature. They are also useful for people looking into which phone OS. I would hate to see them go. From personal experience I can say that finding and and collecting, and compiling this data is very difficult for one individual, a reason I believe this page has flourished. Please do consider the traffic to this page in your decision, but I must say that I am against it. Dbnaruto (talk) 00:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Why would you want to delete this article it has so much great information that tracks the history of the iOS. Please keep this article!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveg65 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This Article is extermly helpful and a lot of work has gone into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.89.23.242 (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - That's not even what these article articles are. They contain irreplaceable, detailed prose. Marcus Qwertyus 18:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a great resource for people. I use this website all the time. When someone asks why they should update I point them here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.88.209.93 (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A token amount of prose does not change the fundamental nature of these articles, which is to document changes in each release, contrary to WP:NOT. Indeed, Android (operating system) already talks about Ice Cream Sandwich in a more succint matter, and using reliable sources. However, I will withdraw Windows Phone in favour of completing the merge agreed to on the talk page. Sceptre (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the cited part of WP:NOT was removed by the article creator, KelleyCook (talk · contribs), claiming a lack of consensus for its specific inclusion. However, this article still inherently violates Wikipedia's policies against indiscriminate information and cataloguing. Sceptre (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Definitely agree that these articles do contain detailed, irreplaceable prose, and must add that all of the information in those articles (at least in the Android version history article) is cited from reliable sources. List of Ubuntu releases was nominated for speedy deletion for this same reason, and it too was kept. I don't see any difference between that nomination and this. --Kenny Strawn (talk) 02:31, 10 October, 2011 (UTC)
    I would love to see this "detailed, irreplacable prose", because I can't see it. User:Dr.pda's page size tool counts a total of 922 words of prose on iOS version history and 523 words in Android version history, including the lead section. The "4.x Ice Cream Sandwich" section in the Android article runs to 149 words of reliably sourced information, so it's not really detailed. The prose of both articles also mostly duplicates their parent articles, so it really isn't "irreplacable" by any long shot.
    Your other arguments are also lacking. The Android article includes citations to droid-life.com and androidcommunity.com, which both appear to be glorified blogs that I doubt have been vetted by RS/N. And the comparison to the Ubuntu article is spurious too; never mind that the existence of one article has no bearing on the existence of the other, the Ubuntu article is structured in a way that prevents the collection of indiscriminate information, while these articles in their conception encourage violations of NOT (IINFO, DIRECTORY, CRYSTAL). And as far as I can tell, that article was nominated for being too long, not for violating IINFO. There's a subtle difference between those two. Reality distortion field much? Sceptre (talk) 02:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article may not be as "clan" and detalied as it could be, but its much better than cutting it all into induvidual articles. I say we keep it. 83.108.196.101 (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep but needs to be drastically revamped. As it is, this is a changelog, with a bit of added prose. It fails WP:NOT, but that itself is rarely a reason to delete. Instead, this can be revamped to be something lime "Timeline of changes to the iOS operating system", and culling down to the major additions (additions of notable programs yes, but this like "now displays music lyrics" or the like that I'm seeing in the tables, absolutely not). Distill down this information and make more prose than tables. I'm sure there are offsite pages that have this information well documented. --MASEM (t) 17:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with 83.108.196.101. Oddbodz (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but the lengthy table of release notes should be removed and the rest re-written to focus on significant innovations, preferably ones that are significant to the industry, not just to Apple's commercial progress. (I agree with MASEM.) --Northernhenge (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This page has had a lot of edits; really any of the many layouts work. I myself prefer something I can expand and collapse, just for usability, but it's a great separate page (and useful collection of information) for what has changed over the history of Apple's iOS. I know I visit the page for information every once in a while. Ard0 (Talk - Contribs) 00:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Android article because:
  1. The article is already a summary of "changes of note" between releases, as selected by the editors, not a comprehensive changelog detailing every change (there are usually hundreds or thousands of changes in each version). Since it is selective, it isn't indiscriminate. Some of the entries for more recent changes are a bit too detailed but could be edited down.
  2. Usefulness: For commercial reasons the release dates of software and the introduction of features have become quite significant, and such milestones in the software's history can be notable and are worth documenting. Major, complex pieces of software like operating systems usually have thousands of changes between versions, and obviously listing every single change is inappropriate, but a condensed list selected by editors is worthwhile and provides a valuable reference by showing a condensed history that is (ideally) free from marketing gloss and hype.
  3. This article's contents were split by consensus from the history section of the main Android article, so reversing that as suggested by the nominator would go against consensus. The version history section in the main article is a summary section, as suggested in WP:SPLIT, containing only recent changes. Older changes are still an important part of the history of the subject even if they aren't as topical. Dcxf (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article contains lots of relevant information that is not found elsewhere. It is much more than a change-log. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheJammingYam (talk • contribs) 20:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I completely agree with Marcus Qwertyus on this one, this article is well-written and contains an abundance of relevant information regarding how Apple's iOS has changed over time. Rickington (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - iOS page contains relevant information for the user even if it is highly detailed in it's account, i would rather it kept than deleted, and if it was to be deleted it would be nice to merge it with another article of similar content. --mickyfitz13 Talk 23:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - this proposal comes across as a cynical attention seeking motivation in almost every way conceivable; especially just as a new version of the OS is coming out right now (thus this page possibly getting millions of page views) in order to gain the proposer themselves attention it seems! This is most certainly NOT just a 'changelog' as the proposer is attempting to state. There is much more to the page that is written in prose, and the tables are simply very in-depth —rightly or wrongly, because of the mass interest in the product— listings of the features of each new OS version; which is exactly the purpose of the page due to its title. --Jimthing (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Okay, are you guys looking at the same article I am? I can understand Masem's "keep", but seriously, there is only a token amount of prose in this article! I mean, seriously, I can count at least three people arguing that 150 words about three years of constant software development counts as "detailed". And it is literally just a changelog. It documents the changes between each version; that's the dictionary definition! Oh, and "it's useful" is not a reason to keep an article. If you want to know all the changes in iOS 5, this is the correct place, not Wikipedia. Sceptre (talk) 01:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The changelog policy is being debated at the moment, and even the current wording is not a blanket ban on changelogs, so "it's a changelog" is not a rationale for deletion. WP:ITSUSEFUL says "If reasons are given, "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion." Dcxf (talk) 04:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: Yes, this is a very useful article. However, it does violate Wikipedia's policy. Therefore, I believe that the article needs a major revision (see "Windows Mobile" article). This is a valuable page that simply needs revision. (By the way Apple updates there website the minute they release something. Ex: Try to find information on the iPhone 3G or iOS 3.x.x. That is why this article is so valuable.) Stephens — Preceding unsigned comment added by Computerboy1672 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    But likewise, Wikipedia is not the Internet Archive either. Sceptre (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is why the article needs to be rewritten and/or added to another article (Ex. iOS Devices. In a similar format as the "Windows Mobile" article.--Computerboy1672 (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I use this article very often to see what the latest releases are and the estimated release dates and features are. if you looked at the logs you would see i have been on this article 1000's of time. please keep. Toothycardus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.74.61.61 (talk) 10:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: This article is a source of valuable information regarding a major operating system and its history throughout its life, and is useful for those who wish to know the release date without doing the cumbersome navigation that is required on the Apple site (which fails to inform visitors of release dates of software or hardware.) Rory Come for talkies 11:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Facepalm Facepalm . —stay (sic)! 11:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: There's info in this article that's almost impossible to find elsewhere and even if you can it would take hours to track down. Please don't remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jd2157 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Several of the above points that are saying "it's information that can't be found elsewhere" should realize that if that information doesn't exist elsehwere, it is not WP's policy to keep it, we keep information that can only be verified. And if it is more that it is (perhaps) the only page that has combined all the major changelogs that are otherwise split across multiple pages, you're arguing for usefulness, which is also not an appropriate reason to keep a page. I still believe this page should be kept, but it cannot be kept in the current form and instead focuses on the highlights. --MASEM (t) 13:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re "you're arguing for usefulness, which is also not an appropriate reason to keep a page." : again, WP:ITSUSEFUL says "There are some times when "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful"." Dcxf (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point I'm arguing, that the agglomeration of detailed changes in the major version releases of the iOS, when otherwise they are likely spread out across many pages at www.apple.com, may be useful to a selected audience but in this format is not appropriate for WP, which has a goal to be a tertiary source that summarizes sources. It's not reference information like, say, a periodic table which has universal usefulness. We can keep this page, but as argued it needs to be focused on the major features identified by sources for each release; not an iOS user but aware of these, I'm talking about highlighting elements like the App Store introduction, Facetime introduction, etc. etc. Bug fixes and small changes, unless notable by sources, are not appropriate to include in this type of article. It can be kept and fixed but can't be kept in this form. --MASEM (t) 18:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I cannot believe people want to delete this - I came here looking for this info which, while in theory each thing is available somewhere else, is not in one place anywhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.48.158 (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Don't delete everything like they do on the German Wikipedia… --Salocin Talk 19:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep - Deletion of this page would be insane. Pure and simple. 76.121.63.75 (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep I think this page is too important to remove. --Fuzy2K (User talk:Fuzy2Ktalk) 00:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep There's nothing wrong with this page. Its very informational, one search and there's all your information. Maybe some tune ups will do the job. But surely, there are worse articles than this. --Madeincat (User talk:Madeincat) 9:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Deletion of this page would be insane, plain and simple, and I think this page is too important to remove. It is infinitely useful for jailbreakers, unlockers, as well as normal users. Haseo9999 (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-referenced information useful to a large group of people. Deleting these articles would in no way improve the encyclopedia and aid our readers; the spirit of the rule therefore easily trumps the letter of the rule. (I might add that the letter of the rule only applies to articles about a product which these are not; they're articles about a product's history.) These articles are beautiful examples of functioning collaboration; deleting them would also work against our larger goal of encouraging and retaining contributors. AxelBoldt (talk) 05:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/IOS_version_history&oldid=1137923031"