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. Clear consensus to keep this. It may be in need of some cleanup or a split or two, but that's not for AfD to solve or a reason to delete. I'll note that most !votes discuss the utility of the page rather than notability, so perhaps this isn't as resounding a keep as mere counting might suggest, but still, a strong keep for the content. ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c)00:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)reply
This article is going to get longer and longer as new Windows 10 updates come out. What can we do when the article reaches 500 kilobytes?? This article might violate "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts."
Georgia guy (
talk)
23:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)reply
That guideline is for the release notes for software projects where each release is not notable (i.e. not described in reliable third-party sources independent of the subject). Each Windows 10 release has had non-trivial mentions in reliable third party sources, e.g.
[1] (Windows 10 1803)
[2] (Windows 10 1709)
[3] (Windows 10 1703) etc. Indeed, the guidelink you link to 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" (emphasis mine)
Samboy (
talk)
17:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - There will be a day Win10 will be replaced with Win11 and that is when the size of the entry is decided.
I found the way the information is presented very useful and accessible. This entry gave exactly the information I was after helping me to solve an issue where otherwise I would have been left in the woods. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.6.151.114 (
talk)
13:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm sure there never will be such a day. Windows 10 will always be the newest version of Windows according to what Microsoft made official.
Georgia guy (
talk)
14:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Snow Keep Why is this even in
WP:AfD?? I was Googling Windows update history and was shocked to see this AfD. Knowing which Windows 10 versions exist is very useful information. Finding references from reliable sources is trivial; here's one from a 20 second Google search for "Windows 10 1803" (the version running on my laptops):
"Here's what's new in Windows 10 April 2018 Update".
ZDNet. We do not delete articles because they might get too long; we split them (
Windows 10 updates from 2015-2019;
Windows 10 updates from 2020-2024; etc.) Deletion is for non-notable topics; Windows 10 updates, used by millions of users, are obviously notable.
Samboy (
talk)
16:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep there are plenty of secondary sources on the topic. Splitting by years (I imagine near years might make sense to sever along major updates) is the way to go. Deciding what size each article should be I would leave to those most interested in the article.
Nosebagbear (
talk)
19:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep I agree with the above, I use this page for reference often, but perhaps clean up the References, that section makes up most of the page and is a mess!
206.123.216.105 (
talk)
17:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep I'm sure of great interest to some, and an extremely notable product, with this page keeping the more detailed information pertaining to it off the main Windows 10 page, and attempts to be informative and encyclopaedic.
Nick Moyes (
talk)
00:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)reply
That's to keep the
Windows 10 page from being too big. But we need a way to keep this page from being too big; it will just get bigger and bigger every time a new build of Windows 10 comes out.
Georgia guy (
talk)
00:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep This information is extremely helpful when installing Windows 10 from an ISO and winver reports Build 10240 but it is known retroactively as 1507. This was the first hit on Google and answer my question perfectly along with additional releases so I know how far behind this system is. --
64.141.165.2 (
talk)
14:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment@
Samboy: - the article is clearly too long at its current length - I think waiting until 2019 to launch a break would leave it too late. It would be the easiest to get user approval for (since it doesn't require any difficult break-point discussion) but would leave a very large article. I think 2015-17 ( that's inclusive: 2015-2018 exclusive) makes more sense, i.e. end of last year.
In any case, these are post-AfD discussions, there is a clear solution to the article's only issue, and that issue didn't warrant deletion in any case
Nosebagbear (
talk)
08:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)reply
No one needs the approval of the Wikipedia bureaucratic committee to split up an article if it’s getting too big. Just do it! I know this isn’t the Wikipedia of 2005, but, really, whoever goes to the effort of splitting the article gets to decide how to split it up. This isn’t a hot button article about religion, politics, or sex—so I don’t think people are going to make any significant controversy.
Samboy (
talk)
08:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Very true - I can't imagine any split you (or another) implementing causing significant controversy if you just went for it. My point is just to stop a future argument that the articles are still too big because they've been severed into too large chunks.
Nosebagbear (
talk)
08:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Certainly... But, just remembering: "Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."
King James Version (KJV)
I am sure that future things can be dealt with when they are really present. Wikipedia shows that Wikipedians are very competent to offer the best solution in all cases.
Aainitio (
talk)
12:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)reply
"Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof" - generally a dangerous viewpoint to hold in life I would say, @
Aainitio:! "Wikipedia shows that Wikipedians are very competent to offer the best solution in all cases." - A spectacularly optimistic POV given past experience with the site, I feel!
Our contrasting world viewpoints aside, that was just my advice on article size breaking - it's not an article I'm linked with, nor is size-splitting a speciality of mine, so we'll see what happens then. While there is a delete !vote at the top, we've really hit snow grounds now.
Nosebagbear (
talk)
14:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep I refer to this article when I need to and I find it helpful. I don't agree with the purpose of deleting the article. Just split it in different page and sub-page and that's it.
RafaelS1979 (
talk)
23:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep as this information is very helpful and useful, sort of like technical world history. In 10-years when we find that Win10 PC running 16299.248 we will know what it means without having to read 10 pages on a Microsoft site. If the article can not grow larger than 500KB then perhaps offload some data into new sub-articles or trim out extraneous details from this main article. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
ParrFour (
talk •
contribs)
16:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Snowball Keep as it has been and continues to be a very useful resource. There are other, varied ways to resolve excessive article length concerns.
Timeshift (
talk)
10:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep, but split... this article into suitable subsets, so that such subsets refer, for example, to chosen arguments, such as time (year, semester or other), edition or otherwise. Thus, the current article would have only the initial part and the evolution table ("Overview").
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.
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. Clear consensus to keep this. It may be in need of some cleanup or a split or two, but that's not for AfD to solve or a reason to delete. I'll note that most !votes discuss the utility of the page rather than notability, so perhaps this isn't as resounding a keep as mere counting might suggest, but still, a strong keep for the content. ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c)00:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)reply
This article is going to get longer and longer as new Windows 10 updates come out. What can we do when the article reaches 500 kilobytes?? This article might violate "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts."
Georgia guy (
talk)
23:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)reply
That guideline is for the release notes for software projects where each release is not notable (i.e. not described in reliable third-party sources independent of the subject). Each Windows 10 release has had non-trivial mentions in reliable third party sources, e.g.
[1] (Windows 10 1803)
[2] (Windows 10 1709)
[3] (Windows 10 1703) etc. Indeed, the guidelink you link to 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" (emphasis mine)
Samboy (
talk)
17:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - There will be a day Win10 will be replaced with Win11 and that is when the size of the entry is decided.
I found the way the information is presented very useful and accessible. This entry gave exactly the information I was after helping me to solve an issue where otherwise I would have been left in the woods. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.6.151.114 (
talk)
13:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm sure there never will be such a day. Windows 10 will always be the newest version of Windows according to what Microsoft made official.
Georgia guy (
talk)
14:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Snow Keep Why is this even in
WP:AfD?? I was Googling Windows update history and was shocked to see this AfD. Knowing which Windows 10 versions exist is very useful information. Finding references from reliable sources is trivial; here's one from a 20 second Google search for "Windows 10 1803" (the version running on my laptops):
"Here's what's new in Windows 10 April 2018 Update".
ZDNet. We do not delete articles because they might get too long; we split them (
Windows 10 updates from 2015-2019;
Windows 10 updates from 2020-2024; etc.) Deletion is for non-notable topics; Windows 10 updates, used by millions of users, are obviously notable.
Samboy (
talk)
16:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep there are plenty of secondary sources on the topic. Splitting by years (I imagine near years might make sense to sever along major updates) is the way to go. Deciding what size each article should be I would leave to those most interested in the article.
Nosebagbear (
talk)
19:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep I agree with the above, I use this page for reference often, but perhaps clean up the References, that section makes up most of the page and is a mess!
206.123.216.105 (
talk)
17:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep I'm sure of great interest to some, and an extremely notable product, with this page keeping the more detailed information pertaining to it off the main Windows 10 page, and attempts to be informative and encyclopaedic.
Nick Moyes (
talk)
00:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)reply
That's to keep the
Windows 10 page from being too big. But we need a way to keep this page from being too big; it will just get bigger and bigger every time a new build of Windows 10 comes out.
Georgia guy (
talk)
00:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep This information is extremely helpful when installing Windows 10 from an ISO and winver reports Build 10240 but it is known retroactively as 1507. This was the first hit on Google and answer my question perfectly along with additional releases so I know how far behind this system is. --
64.141.165.2 (
talk)
14:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment@
Samboy: - the article is clearly too long at its current length - I think waiting until 2019 to launch a break would leave it too late. It would be the easiest to get user approval for (since it doesn't require any difficult break-point discussion) but would leave a very large article. I think 2015-17 ( that's inclusive: 2015-2018 exclusive) makes more sense, i.e. end of last year.
In any case, these are post-AfD discussions, there is a clear solution to the article's only issue, and that issue didn't warrant deletion in any case
Nosebagbear (
talk)
08:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)reply
No one needs the approval of the Wikipedia bureaucratic committee to split up an article if it’s getting too big. Just do it! I know this isn’t the Wikipedia of 2005, but, really, whoever goes to the effort of splitting the article gets to decide how to split it up. This isn’t a hot button article about religion, politics, or sex—so I don’t think people are going to make any significant controversy.
Samboy (
talk)
08:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Very true - I can't imagine any split you (or another) implementing causing significant controversy if you just went for it. My point is just to stop a future argument that the articles are still too big because they've been severed into too large chunks.
Nosebagbear (
talk)
08:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Certainly... But, just remembering: "Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."
King James Version (KJV)
I am sure that future things can be dealt with when they are really present. Wikipedia shows that Wikipedians are very competent to offer the best solution in all cases.
Aainitio (
talk)
12:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)reply
"Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof" - generally a dangerous viewpoint to hold in life I would say, @
Aainitio:! "Wikipedia shows that Wikipedians are very competent to offer the best solution in all cases." - A spectacularly optimistic POV given past experience with the site, I feel!
Our contrasting world viewpoints aside, that was just my advice on article size breaking - it's not an article I'm linked with, nor is size-splitting a speciality of mine, so we'll see what happens then. While there is a delete !vote at the top, we've really hit snow grounds now.
Nosebagbear (
talk)
14:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep I refer to this article when I need to and I find it helpful. I don't agree with the purpose of deleting the article. Just split it in different page and sub-page and that's it.
RafaelS1979 (
talk)
23:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep as this information is very helpful and useful, sort of like technical world history. In 10-years when we find that Win10 PC running 16299.248 we will know what it means without having to read 10 pages on a Microsoft site. If the article can not grow larger than 500KB then perhaps offload some data into new sub-articles or trim out extraneous details from this main article. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
ParrFour (
talk •
contribs)
16:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Snowball Keep as it has been and continues to be a very useful resource. There are other, varied ways to resolve excessive article length concerns.
Timeshift (
talk)
10:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep, but split... this article into suitable subsets, so that such subsets refer, for example, to chosen arguments, such as time (year, semester or other), edition or otherwise. Thus, the current article would have only the initial part and the evolution table ("Overview").
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.