Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firefox version history (3rd nomination)

Firefox version history

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTCHANGELOG; almost no links to secondary sources. Information about releases which actually got coverage in secondary sources should be moved to the main Firefox article.

Also it's just a burden in general to maintain such constantly updated abominations, and that's exactly because they're constantly updated. MinervaNeue (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, that sort of run-along-after-the-fact cataloguing is pretty much a textbook version of what Wikipedia is not. There is no point our doing an organisation's job for it, nor is the matter of any encyclopedic interest. The existing Firefox article is quite sufficient as a home for any reliable secondary-sourced material about the tool. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Do it yourself then. Icaneditalot42 (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up someone else's trash isn't and shouldn't be my responsibility. MinervaNeue (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I have no opinion on this article/list, I did want to point out that it mostly only covers post-2011 versions, as everything before that was split into a Firefox early version history in 2019. That one obviously does not need as frequent updates as a list that is intended to contain more current information, but some of the other "not a change log" issues may apply, so a discussion for that article may also be warranted (not necessarily bundled into this one; in any event, I have no opinion on that one either). (The existence of the other page briefly came up in this article's second nomination—the first nomination predated its creation—but so far as I can tell it has never been nominated for deletion in any form itself.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the article I nominated, the one you mentioned doesn't need to be updated constantly, so I think it's fine. Though it written in prose and covering only major releases (and I'm sure there are secondary sources for all major releases of Firefox before 5.0) would be better than using tables and listing every single hotfix in them, because that would comply with WP:NOTCHANGELOG. MinervaNeue (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well if we deleted this that one would make no sense, so surely we would have to delete it too. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It can be rewritten to be a rules-compliat version history article in a reasonable amount of time, unlike the one we're currently discussing. Therefore I don't see any point in deleting it. MinervaNeue (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we have an "early" version history without a version history article? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"i don't hate the other trash so it could stay, get rid of this thing I like"

Wonder if this came from jealousy that Firefox article got chronological history instead of cluttered mess that is Chrome history Hyoroemon2 (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

" almost no links to secondary sources"

Release date is a fact.

Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue Hyoroemon2 (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTCHANGELOG. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]