Talk:Xbox system software/Archive 1

Hi, was wondering if the descriptions of versions need to be reworded? The AfD deadline has passed, so no action has been taken i.e. the removal of the article. However, to satisfy both parties, I propose a major article cleanup. How does this sound to everyone? Wagnerp16 (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest starting with the parts of the changelog that are only sourced to primary sources. In an ideal state, this article would describe (in prose!) the major changes to the system software as deemed important by WP:VG/RS reliable sources. – czar 16:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see the section immediately above. So yeah, I’m in full agreement with you both. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Czar and 67.14.236.50 thanks for your input. Would you mind assisting me with this task, as this is a big task for 1 person to do? Wagnerp16 (talk) 07:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

You can summarize it by providing a row for each group of intermediate versions between relevant, third party reliable sources. Otherwise the incomplete table would look like a random selection of incomplete information. Diego (talk) 09:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

So for example, version 6.2.13194.0 could be reworded to 'In this update, game streaming to a Windows 10 device that was in testing previously' then a citation? Wagnerp16 (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking something more like:

(*) Versions with third party RSs

(**) Versions without third party RSs

I've seen this done in other software articles, and a long changelog is turned into a short timeline with the highlights of the most relevant versions. Diego (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Diego, I don't know if you've seen my latest edits. Could you tell me if they are to long or not before I proceed any further? Wagnerp16 (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I do prefer prose to lists, as it would reduce the instances of copyright violations we've seen when people just cut and paste from Microsoft's site into the tables. --McDoobAU93 15:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so redo the table as Diego has suggested but with citations or keep the existing tables with detailed synopsis of the updates? Wagnerp16 (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• What's the reason to keep the table? What's important is not the version number but the date range when a feature was added, why the feature was added, and the cultural context around which it was added (the direction of the team, what other companies were doing, what users wanted). Table doesn't help with any of that context. It's important not to dump the changelog from the source but to use their analysis for why the announcement is important or useful. If you feed me a few sources, I can make an example. – czar 16:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Here:

  Microsoft added Windows 10 streaming and backwards compatibility features to the Xbox One in-between Electronic Entertainment Expo 2015 and the release of their upcoming interface redesign, the New Xbox One Experience.^[1] In advance of Windows 10's launch, a July 2015 update let users stream games from their Xbox One to their personal computers. Though the feature was announced in January,^[2] the development team wanted time to test the feature on wireless networks. (Maybe something about the "unified coding system" here?) Users can access either individual games or the Xbox One dashboard through Windows' Xbox Live app. The service streams only to one device at a time.^[3]

And so on, minding due weight that we don't need a huge paragraph about this feature dwarfing the rest of the article unless there really is that much coverage in proportion. Streaming and Backwards Compatibility should be the biggest parts of the section that covers the span of E3 to the "New Xbox One Experience". More detail to add from about some of Streaming's specifics, etc. Also would be nice to work in preliminary reviews of the service, for the outlets that comment on it (better than reviews of how it works in preview settings). – czar 16:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I think that we need to work together to improve the article, as we have conflicting ideas. I am open to any ideas. Is there anyway that we can summarise the versions into yearly sections, or will that make the article too long? If anyone wants to implement their ideas then please do and then we can discuss it on the talk page under the 'Article Improvement Discussion' section. When we do reach a final solution, then maybe we can roll it out to the other articles. You can find sources that I've added today from April - July 2015 in the descriptions if you want to make your own examples for debate. Wagnerp16 (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I like what you’re going for with these edits (it definitely helps resolve the copyvio problem), but you’re just restating the same information in a different way, and some of that information (to me) seemed indiscriminate. That doesn’t change with presentation. I agree with what Czar said about only discussing the stuff that sources made a big deal about; we don’t need to mention, say, updates to the Party app’s diagnostics if no one’s talking about it. The things that matter to secondary sources are the things we should treat as important. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, should I just generalise the minor versions and then put more emphasis on the bigger updates? I have noticed that there are some updates which are so small that no-one knows what they do. The question is what should we do with them, either keep or delete them? I'll do more cleaning up today, but it may take a few days to go through, plus I'll be away for the next two weeks, so I can't do any more editing until 1st September. Wagnerp16 (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Only include what secondary sources describe as important. The idea is to turn this article from an indiscriminate list of changelog items into something that discusses why those changes were important to secondary sources. So, yes, "delete" the stuff that secondary sources do not cover. To be honest, if you're going to put in the work, I'd recommend not converting the changelogs but looking at the major items, finding what the WP:VG/RS secondary sources say about them, and paraphrasing them as a coherent narrative. – czar 08:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Just looked back on the updates and there are about 15-16 which are really major changes. All of the rest are 'improvements to this or that app'. Some examples of major improvements were removal of always online DRM, external hard drive support, media server support, changes to wifi settings in the EU, power settings, Windows 10 support, MKV codec support etc. Should I go ahead and create a new section to round these all up? Wagnerp16 (talk) 10:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I recommend starting with the earliest item, finding sources via a video game reliable sources custom Google search, and paraphrase/write from there. A new section is fine. Changelog is going to go eventually. – czar 10:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm just typing a rough document out for the new section which I'll post on this thread, although it'll be unfinished, it will give us something to work on. Is it possible to use your example from yesterday Czar? Wagnerp16 (talk) 10:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to be bold and put it right in the article. More important than just having the draft is to source it accurately (with footnotes). It's usually easier to rewrite a section than to retroactively find and properly reference its source material, so best to do it right the first time around. And all WP contribs are licensed under cc-by-sa so it's fine to use them somewhere else on WP as long as they're attributed to the editor/location. – czar 10:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Just started rewriting. Feel free to have a look. Wagnerp16 (talk) 11:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the tables, since there’s no need to keep them while they’re being replaced. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope to finish it off today. Does it matter if I write it in Queens English rather than American English as I live in the UK? Wagnerp16 (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Go for it. Rest of the article's in American English and MDY format but someone will come by and fix it if it bothers them. Don't let anything like that ever stop you from contributing, though – czar 06:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Considering the article is about a product made by an American company, it’s arguable that it should be written in American English. However, I’m not sure WP:TIES really applies, since the company operates internationally and the product has been released and used internationally. I’d say just try to stay consistent with what was already there, but don’t fret it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Wagnerp16 (talk) 06:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Completed the cleanup... for now. If users do start tabling versions, I'll ensure that it will be corrected. Wagnerp16 (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Please use this section to share your article improvements. Wagnerp16 (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Isn’t that what this entire page is for? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

It was meant to be a scratch pad for any ideas about how to go forward dealing with the tables. This section can be removed now, since I've now dealt with the issue. Wagnerp16 (talk) 06:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Wrong, WP:NOTCHANGELOG never banned changelogs nor changelog templates from Wikipedia, only that they would require 3rd party sources (thus being notable), in fact I'd almost state that your edits are less encyclopedic than the easier to read template which was previously in the article, don't get me wrong WP:PROSE still applies, but it excludes templates so your revisions can be seen as hampering the readability of the article. --Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 10:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:WHENTABLE, but until this discussion closes I shan't undo your edits until we've solved it in a WP:CIVIL manner. --Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 10:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Please don’t simply undo those edits, at any time. If you do, then please remove or rewrite the descriptions, as most if not all of them were inappropriately copied verbatim and en masse. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I did do edits in the table check the article history two days ago, but I was advised that even though I sorted out the list, it didn't resolve the possible copyright issue i.e users copying and pasting lists straight from the Xbox website without changes. Please refer to the Version Table Changes/Major Cleanup section above for a in depth discussion about this. Wagnerp16 (talk) 11:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Moved from the article (deleted by Zero Serenity, copypasted here by me):

Someone fix this page! Where are all the history of updates gone. Who ever removed them put them back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.65.250 (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2015‎

Hopefully, this user will see the prior discussion here. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I highly doubt it, probably need to post a temporary message to redirect users to the discussion. Wagnerp16 (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I posted a message to the user’s Talk page, if that’s what you mean, with a link to here. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Not quite what I meant. I mean on the article page itself. Wagnerp16 (talk) 07:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps {{Under construction}}? If it’s still in progress, that is. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

And another one, this one automatically bot-reverted:

PLEASE CORRECT THIS PAGE.... Someone has removed the history of updates. Please restore this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dieselxx (talk • contribs) 12:46, 4 September 2015‎

I’ve posted to his Talk page, directing him to this discussion. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I’ve done some cleanup to the updates section, including commenting out some material that seemed irrelevant or wasn’t properly sourced. If anyone disagrees with any of these removals, please discuss here, or uncomment it with an explanation in the edit summary. If none of this happens, I’ll remove them. Thanks. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I’ve also removed the “Planned upgrades” section, If that content should be included (and doesn’t violate WP:CRYSTAL), it seems to me it rather belongs in the update history with the rest. Instead, it was a single instance of the WP:NOTCHANGELOG problem. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Spaces need to be added between sentences and citation numbers, as they look 'scrunched' together. I also disagree with the commenting out of 'OneCore' as we already know that Microsoft has built a unified code base across all platforms, which will come to the console in November. Wagnerp16 (talk) 10:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

We don’t use spaces between punctuation and refs. See e.g. WP:CITEFOOT: “Note also that no space is added before the citation marker.” And again, please feel free to undo any of my changes if justified. WP:BRD and all that. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok then, it just seemed awkward (to me at least) to read. Should we wait for the NXOE in November to reinstate the 'OneCore' unification, as there may be more information out by then? 86.137.234.230 (talk) 09:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I would say yes, but I don’t have any objections if you think it’s relevant now. I just didn’t see how it fit in a section about system software upgrades, but if that’s just me, I’m cool with it. Any other opinions? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I've added the {{Under construction}} tag to the History of updates section. Wagnerp16 (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• A note on the current draft to avoid dateline if possible (On January 199X, this... On February 199X, this...)—integrated prose, such as the blockquote example above, is preferable, especially if it tells the history of a feature rather than listing features that exist by date. (It's also a reason not to minimize coverage on minor features that received few reports in secondary sources.) – czar 14:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

  @Czar: I fully agree. But I’m a terrible writer on my own, so, please, go for it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It’s been a while since the last edit to that section. If the rewriting is done (even though it’s still datelining all over the place), is everyone cool with removing the {{uc}} template, and all the commented-out content? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• @67.14.236.50: Yes you can remove the {{uc}}. The only thing to keep is the sentence about OneCore, as this will be re-instated once the November 2015 update lands. The idea of the {{uc}} was to stop people from re-instating the old version table. About the citation for the preview software, there isn't any central place other than the xbox preview dashboard. Wagnerp16 (talk) 08:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

  We can cite that dashboard, then. I don’t think there’s a suitable template for it… maybe {{cite sign}} or {{cite AV media}}? Probably could just do it in plain text. Could someone who’s seen it cite it? Thanks. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

  Fortunately, I am a preview member, however the changelog has not been updated since 11 August. Also, there is a complication where the XONE number may have been bumped up to 10.x.x.x. Wagnerp16 (talk) 06:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

  Having read all that complete no consensus over on AFD, 67.14.236.50's talk, WP:HD, WP:NOT talk, and WP:VPP, all that indeed feels like a lot of bricks. While lists and tables are better format for the style of changelogs maybe allowed by "Not exhaustive logs of software updates", i.e. those using reliable third-party sources, using proseline contributes to a "wall of text" effect and hence distracts a potential reader from finding the information he may be looking for, especially since first-party sources are often limited on information, readers mostly try to find the information on Wikipedia. Next, if there is no proper changelogs anywhere, then the information is potentially being lost in time in the long run. So due to that, and since the preview dashboard and associated updates are only available to preview members, how it can be independently verified or cited, if preview updates are essentially "private"? The way it's currently done calls to OR if it can't be sourced, or we're just continue to IAR for the last preview version in the infobox, like I did for the last couple NXOE updates, updating the version once getting it on my Xbox? In addition to the preview dashboard, Microsoft lists all update notifications with summaries in the preview forums for each wave per each update, but that again can't be linked to. --Arseny1992 (talk) 07:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

  If information would be lost to time, perhaps it doesn’t belong on Wikipedia. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

  Hi Arseny1992, the reason why we changed from tables to proseline was due to redundant updates i.e. improvements to X and Y application. Also, the tables did not resolve possible copyright issues, as users may copy and paste the information directly from the Xbox website with little changes, thus there is no reason for duplicate information, as this may cause data and information redundancy. With proseline, it also helps users understand why the software was changed, and also aids with updating the article as users do not have to scroll through pages to find what they want to edit more easily. I hope that this explanation helps. Wagnerp16 (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

  Just pointing out that WP:Proseline describes something undesirable. “Proseline” is an ugly hybrid of prose and timelines, and is something best avoided. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

  Sorry, I got confused. What I meant to say is by using paragraphs rather than lists, it means that the information 'gets to the point' more quickly. Wagnerp16 (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I’ve started a discussion at the help desk which may be relevant to recent changes to this article: WP:Help desk#Unremarkable software updates. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

And then a village pump discussion about what WP:NOTCHANGELOG says and should say. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Arseny1992: Please verify the validity of this citation for the preview version info. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@67.14.236.50: like I said above, since the preview is essentially "private", you need to: a) have the console; b) be invited to the preview program, which is outlined by the link on the previous revision; c) download the preview dashboard app; d) enroll to NXOE and wait for updates from that branch; e) and only then you can get the current version that is installed to display - and the same is also in settings/system/info&updates section. The earlier link also describes the private feedback forums, where Microsoft lists changelogs per each update that is pushed on. Your plain text citation doesn't link to anywhere, so it may be considered as original research without any sources. Therefore I think that inclusion of that primary source to be appropriate there, since that's a straightforward fact and can be verified by anyone who is in the preview. --Arseny1992 (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Arseny1992: I don’t see the cited information on that webpage. WP:V lists no requirement for citations to include links, or for sources to be on the Internet; but it does say: “Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access.” So please consider restoring the citation of the dashboard app as a source. Or if the preview forums use static URLs, consider linking to the official thread/post where the version number is updated. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Never mind—I hadn’t noticed that you’d left the app citation in the ref, or that the ref was used to cite info that is on the webpage. I’ve separated the two citations; the version number is in the app but not in the FAQ, and the info about the preview program is in the FAQ but (presumably) not in the app. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Considering the recent issues with the article due to WP:NOTCHANGELOG, and the proposition to have these sorts of content moved elsewhere in the old form, it seems that there's still a suitable place for such content within Wikimedia. I noticed that version history was added to this page regardless, though indirectly. Can someone help out over with all the version numbers (with branches/dates) over at d:Q17048762? Wikidata, as being a database of such structured data, is appropriate (d:WD:I) --Arseny1992 (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@McDoobAU93: , Special:Diff/690207535 , Release updates are being released to Preview a few days earlier, but there was no single occurrence yet with Xbox Previews, that the release version would be one that wasn't the same one that is released to Preview last for the current wave. Furthermore, Larry Hryb's post clearly states

that links to the same ref used for that infobox field, and there that same version is locked. --Arseny1992 (talk) 01:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The fact that previous updates did that (the last preview was the final release) is irrelevant to this or any subsequent release (we'd be making an assumption), but the fact that Microsoft has said it would be in a public post is indeed relevant. --McDoobAU93 15:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I have reinserted the old version history and have added appropriate sources, if anything is unsourced or copyrighted then please remove it, but I've checked most of it and this time the version history templates should actually fit the description and rules given by WP:NOTCHANGELOG so please notify me if I have missed anything.

Also if one or more things are unsourced then either remove the sentences or the ask them to be cited and I'll search for a source in Bing News but like Android version history this new version is well sourced, but it's not up to date as this is the old version and if anyone wishes to expand on it I ask them to use non-Microsoft sources.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Due to the removal of the version history earlier some things may appear double in the article, I'll try to clean some of this up later but I'll try to preserve the writing-style and references as they might be more appropriate for the version history as well.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

After the discussion last year about change logs, I propose the removal of the 'Version History' table as a lot of work was done last year to make this article more encyclopaedic (please see the Version Table Changes/Major Cleanup section for why this was done). If anyone wants to view the version history, then please see the links in the 'External links' section. Wagnerp16 (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason why the "Version History" section needs to be removed. Since it collapses into sections it's not really something that's cumbersome on the page, and it's nice to have available on this wiki (in my opinion at least). 173.167.75.141 (talk) 22:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The problem was that it was encouraging plagiarism by users copying and pasting content straight from Microsoft's own website without any changes. Wikipedia does not support any kind of plagiarism. Secondly, the "Version History" has a huge amount of redundancy, i.e. changes to app X, small fixes, and improvements or changes to the system. It is important to explain why these changes were made, rather than just listing them. Wagnerp16 (talk) 08:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information I have removed this section from the article yet people are reverting it and accusing me of section blanking and vandalism. I do not believe there is any room for discussion on this subject but Power Users are gonna Power Use I guess Nukleon (talk) 23:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus to remove this information and you are deleting over 50 sources with one major and uncalled for edit. Also, lose the insults CaptainPedge | Talk 13:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

I was just looking at the version table, and noticed that plagiarism is starting to creep back into this article. Please be aware that if anyone starts to copy/paste information straight from Microsoft's own website without rewriting it and/or not using third party sources, then this content will be removed without notice. Wagnerp16 (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

And removed without notice it is. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed – please see below. There's no reason why there shouldn't be a table if there's consensus here that it belongs in the article, but textual descriptions may not be copied from Microsoft's copyright pages, because that is a copyright violation. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for enforcing this, been having this issue for months now! Is it possible to ban users with IP addresses as their user ID, as there is a particular user who keeps reintroducing the copyrighted material? Maybe in the new year I'll get around to updating the article properly. Wagnerp16 (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I opened a request to have the page semiprotected here. K_arunamon ^Talk 16:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://support.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-one/console/system-update-operating-system, https://support.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-one/console/system-update-operating-system-2015 and the like. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me, I wasn't aware that the texts were copied from any copyrighted sources, I simply restores the old text which were only removed due to a lack of references, I suggest that someone with a laptop and more free time than me will re-word these additions as I no longer have a laptop and editing from my phone has proved to be difficult. Note that this was the text that has been in this article prior to my additions and from all the sources that I've added to the text the body of text itself seems different enough to have fallen under WP:NOTCHANGELOG and I was unaware of the text being copied from any source.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I hope I have not wronged you, 86.81.201.94. When I look to see who first added the ungrammatical text "Fixed an issue where certain type of disc-based bundled games would not properly install", copied verbatim from this copyright page, the Blame tool shows that it was you, with this edit on 26 March 2016. If it was in the article before, please show me where (so that I can ask for those revisions to be hidden). Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Are you seriously asking for every revision between march and now to be obliterated from the site? --CaptainPedge | Talk 04:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

It's probably not kosher to include the release notes, but I think there's an argument that a table of the released versions constitutes factual information that's inherently not copyrightable. K_arunamon ^Talk 16:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)