Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ITunes version history

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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--JForget 01:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes version history

[edit]
Reminder: This is not a vote. It is an attempt to achieve a consensus. Please keep all arguments relevant and supported.

This is not specifically covered by WP:NOT but I would think falls under the general criteria in WP:NOT that is any of a very long list of other terrible ideas. The terrible idea should be covered under WP:Not a software change log - this is a general readers encyclopedia and this belongs on a ipod wiki. Everytime I look at this, I think WTF. Fredrick day 20:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In line with comments below, I'd be happy with the article being transwiki'd. --Fredrick day 21:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral-User has not given any valid reason to delete it, as it is not specifically covered by WP:NOT. However, other than the latest versions for older OS section, I think that the changelog is not very appropriate for Wikipedia. So, I am neutral. Josephberte-Talk 20:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The specific reason I have given is that it falls under the general section that states that the named critera at WP:NOT is not exclusive and that it can cover any of a very long list of other terrible ideas. This is is a terrible idea, who besides an itunes spotter wants to know about every bug fix. itunes is notable but that does not mean that notability is passed down to any article we wanted to created. I did try and see what guidelines we had on software but bizzarely, the software notability page is a historical page - so this article falls seems to fall into a grey area of policy but it's still a terrible idea - and maybe this nom should form a precedent for change logs. Fredrick day 21:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you for the clarification, I change my vote to Delete. However, I do want the 'iTunes platform compatibility' section copied into the main 'iTunes' article similar as with the QuickTime article, I put a lot of time into finding those latest versions, so yeah. So, Delete is now my official vote. Thank youJosephberte-Talk 21:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but clean up the minor releases (i.e. bug fixes in an x.y.z release). Having a timeline of major new features, such as support for new iPod models, is useful. (Plus, it can keep clutter out of the iTunes article.) Fixing the bug with extra spaces after the name in the iTunes Store isn't notable. (Yet every time they fix a bug like this, Apple wants me to download a new copy of iTunes at 56 MB. What a waste of time and bandwidth.) --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I agree with Elkman that this is useful (I came across this afd after checking the article the way I usually do after getting a download notice on iTunes). I don't see how WP:NOT applies in any sense - I'm not convinced it's a "terrible idea" and I have no idea what an iTunes spotter is. However, if it is deleted I don't see how wikipedia will suffer, and I guess I can get my information elsewhere. --Joelmills 00:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spotter is an english term, we use it to describe people who have an interest in information that is of little or no interest to others. That why I say it's only of interest to ipod spotters. Fredrick day 08:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing that up. --Joelmills 04:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but trim - The article should be kept, however, not every minor tweak probably needs to be noticed. Perhaps streamline the article a bit. Someone somewhere *should* keep a thorough version history for a program like iTunes - not necessarily Wiki. HOWEVER, the more noteworthy version changes are definitely worth keeping around. DJBullfish 9:32, 14 September (UTC)
  • Neutral-I'm changing back to neutral, I think that it can be useful with tweaking or perhaps moved to here.Josephberte-Talk 22:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely Strong Keep This is an extemely useful article (its usefulness revolves around the fact that you have to redownload iTunes everytime its released, which for low bandwidth users, is just too much for features you a. dont want, b. dont need or c. are to small to justify the download), I agree it needs more meat, like instead of mentioning new features and fixes, name them and explian them. But this articles usefulness alone should make it a keeper
    Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 23:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Transwiki. Unmaintainable, unencyclopedic, and unreferenced. Ferdiaob and others: please see Arguments to Avoid in deletion discussions, and especially WP:USEFUL. I'm not opposed to transwiki'ing it to another Wiki (as Josephberte suggested) and linking from the iTunes article, but this just really doesn't deserve its own article. A list of the locations of all the parking meters in New York City is certainly useful, but it doesn't deserve its own article. Mysekurity 05:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
This article is not unmaintainable, because it’s been maintained since its inception. I’ve read and conformed with WP:Useful, in that I've stated its usefulness, then provided a valid reason. One reference would be required, which is Apple Downloads which lists the features added, and this is where they are sourced from when they are added to the article.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 11:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...So explain to me why it wouldn't be a good idea to have a list of parking meters in NY? There's a website and everything for it.... (Oh, and why is this any more useful than someone just going to the Official Apple page, and less useful than having it on another wiki?) -Mysekurity 05:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
because a list of parking meters in New York has no viable use, wheres this does, the offical website doesnt have a changelog and it might as well be on this one because with a little work it'll easly meet all the bs standards that are set down. There, done.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 12:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But I drive around new york a lot and need to know where they are - it's useful to me - that's the same standard we are applying here isn't it? --Fredrick day 13:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, not even close, if you read Wikipedia while your driving then your friends will have a funeral to attend I'm afraid, while I'm downloading my programs, Wikipedia is more then accessable. (So in other words this is the distinction between an online resource and a real world one.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 20:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer the question. Why is the iTunes changelog any more worthy of being placed on Wikipedia than any other piece of software (e.g. Mozilla Firefox)? That's why the Mozilla wiki was created! There's got to be some equivalent for the iPod, no? Oh here we go: the iPod Wiki, at Wikipedia's cousin-site, Wikia! The iTunes article should take a hint from the Firefox article and only list major changes that actually affect users, if that much. -Mysekurity 22:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did answer the question, and iTunes isnt more worthy than any other piece of software, they should all be aloud to have an article of this nature, just like the parking meters in a city, if thats what an editor desides to do, your the one who wants to compare the two, I never once said parking metres shouldnt have one, personally I would only vote delete on an article if it had some copywrite violation. And also, read the article, the changes have been stripped down, which would have been easy todo without someone jumping the gun like this, there was 9 days between thefirst suggestion for improvement, and the AfD, which I'm sorry, Isn't enough by half.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 23:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(bringing it back out). The problem with that logic is that Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia. There are simply too many topics to cover and not enough good contributors to cover them. Without our system of rules and guidelines, Wikipedia would fall to disorder like so many other free-for-all content encyclopedias. And 9 days is plenty of time—some would even argue too much time—for significant improvement; just look at what happened since the AfD went up... The article, in all its changes, lost any useful information. The tables are bland and laborious to read, and if anything, and even better candidate for deletion. This article violates several of the WP:NOT guidelines, and much of the content would be better useful elsewhere. If you like, I can transwiki it personally. -Mysekurity 02:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or, you could leave it where it is, and no, in an encyclopedia of 2 million plus articles, 9 days to totally revamp and article is nowhere near enough, I'd say about 5 editors saw the complaint on the talk page, yes, encluding myself, but I'm too busy with other things to revamp it myself, if you dont like the tables revert the change, at the end of the day its the infomation that matters, not its layout.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 12:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral-Not the kind of stuff that is in an encyclopedia--at least not outside a trimemd version on the iTunes article... BUT I use it all the time and there is no other iTunes changelog on the web. Using iTunes has always been a pain (but required if you have an iPod), and it is less of a pain if you have a third party NARCing on what changes are being made. --Mrcolj 23:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article needs a LOT of maintenance, I've seen duplicated "new" features, i.e. both v7.0 and v7.0.2 say they add support for the 2g shuffle and 2g nano..Josephberte-Talk 17:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI-I've revamped the entire page, please go see it and comment on it Josephberte-Talk 18:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like, keep at it. Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 20:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also to add an important point Josephberte also added references for each verson change
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 21:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, not yet, I've only added it for some.. Trying to finish it tonight..Josephberte-Talk 22:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-Actually, I think it should be deleted, but moved to another site.. Mrcolj is right, I don't think it's useful here at Wikipedia, but very much so on say MacRumors wiki or iPod wikia... Josephberte-Talk 04:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No sources and not encyclopedic. It's just a list, not really an article. Doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I'd hate to see any article that is just a version history list for any piece of software. -- Atamasama 15:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, after Josephberte's edits, I think it should be kept, (and the article does have some sourses). Its useful when considered in parallel with iPod development for the last 6 years, it's significant developments (windows, video, podcast, etc.. support) [If not it should be merged with iTunes, which is already overcrowded] Epson291 04:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article acts as a timeline of iTunes and shows how it's been developed over the years, plus it does have references. I don't see any reason to delete it. Hurball 11:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep - All other pages has similar thing, why can't this, needs source. Jelly the Supermodel 16:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Everything on this page is accurate. It is hard to reference it because the information has been deleted from the Apple website. It is interesting to be able to go along and see when certain features where added, ect. I say keep it and revert it to the way it was a little bit ago, before this huge discussion, with screen shots. Get rid of the long ugly table. Cartman0052007 19:18, 18 September (UTC)
  • Keep - This page is accurate and contains information that is not on the Apple website (and certainly not easy to find). I use it every time a new version comes out to look up the changes. I think this is a valuable article that should not be removed. jaw959 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - What the person directly above said. Willnz0 20:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Everything on this page appears accurate, and is very difficult to find anywhere other than here. I don't think that 'it belongs elsewhere' (a la Fredrick day's comment at top of page) is enough of a reason to delete it - since when did we censor content based solely on some mission statement? I was under the impression that, as a 'general reader's encyclopedia' it made even more sense to include things that are pertinent to the readership, and based on the above it is apparent that this definitely falls into that category. Nitsky416 04:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — The nominator gives me no compelling reason as to why this article should be deleted as I'm not convinced this is a "terrible idea". I'm convinced by those in favour of keeping this article that there is room for improvement, furthermore I advise all uncited content be removed until such a time adequate citations can be provided. Matthew 13:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely Strong Keep This article isn't just useful and easy to refer to as well as being one of the most visited pages on Wikipedia, it also has quite a few links to external sites, some sites referring back to it, as well as a strong hold in many major search engines. If this does get deleted, a cut down version should at least be added. I also prefer the older version of the page, keep the sources and use the older page with the photo's. Cleaner and more informative. 172.159.77.129 00:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think this is what wiki is about. Bob.lanahan 15:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I needed some quick info on this topic and wiki was the first stop. Isn't that what wiki is all about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.250.86 (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not encyclopedic. (Can you imagine looking this up in Brittanica?) While WP:ITSUSEFUL, borders on listcruft. shoy 02:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow that logic and you can probably go ahead and delete a solid 60% of Wikipedia, the thing that makes Wikipedia great is the fact that it contains things that are not in Britanica or even Encarta.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 11:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point was not that Wikipedia shouldn't have articles that Brittanica doesn't, it was that this type of information doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. shoy 12:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same point as above, wikipedias scope is more the enought to encompase this, infact revisions to iTunes effects more people then the ammendments to the united states constitution, maybe I should go AfD that.
Ferdia O'Brien The Archiver, Reformatter And Vandal Watchman (Talk) 15:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While it may be on the cusp so to speak, there is a definite usefulness to it, and the others above have said that when they get the notice about the new iTunes update, they (myself included) come here to see if it is worth our time and bandwith to download or not. If it goes, i'd like to see it transwikied so the information would remain available.-MBK004 05:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Cannot be moved to iTunes article due to length, the program is popular enough and very commonplace on computers due to the software required to easily sync files to the iPod, the article recently got overhawled with an improved layout, very useful for comparing versions of the program when other websites including the official Apple site makes the changes unclear until you install the software. I personally check here every time a new version is released to see the changes. It is overall a very useful article. --Lakeyboy 11:21, 24 September 2007 (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/ITunes_version_history&oldid=1145552156"