Wikipedia:Help desk/Archive 67

Archive 60

←

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Do separate pages documenting new features in software releases violate WP:NOTCHANGELOG?

Hi all,

Ran across a bunch of pages [1] here which seem to extensively document new features in Windows. Vista seems especially prevalent, with 4 whole pages dedicated just to documenting various additions. Given WP:NOTCHANGELOG, should these pages be deleted?

Thanks for your help.

Rcfische2 (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

No, these pages should not be deleted, and WP:NOCHANGELOG says that a summary of development is fine which is what these are. Maybe look at an actual changelog, the level of detail is roughly a thousand times higher. Polygnotus (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Appreciate the response. Can definitely see that now, still, many of the pages read like Microsoft puffery. (And 4 pages + the main article for Vista seems unjustifiable and likely to lead to content duplication). Rcfische2 (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

@Rcfische2 Can you give specific examples of this WP:PUFFERY? I am not opposed to adding a banner to each Microsoft related article that explains how to install Linux, but some people might disagree with that. Polygnotus (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

As a representative example - Management features new to Windows Vista has lines like:

- "In addition, snap-ins present their UI in a different thread than that in which the operation runs, thus keeping the snap-in responsive, even while doing a computationally intensive task." which is not supported by a citation and seems to just document internal optimizations.

- "Windows Vista includes over 2400 options for Group Policy" followed by a detailed (and uncited) explanation of changes in the GPO architecture.

- More generally, the article cites 37 sources, 28 are Microsoft authored and 9 are independent. Of the 9 independent sources, 1 directly cites a Microsoft representative, 1 is from a Microsoft MVP, and 3 others are from books for Windows users/admins.

While I struggled a bit to find clearly promotional language, taken together, the length of the articles, their massive reliance on primary sources, and their detailed coverage of features which, from my (admittedly non-expert) perspective, seem very minor, all give the impression of undue coverage.

I do think a very aggressive trim of at least the Vista articles, with a final goal of merging their content together into Features new to Windows Vista is in order.

Per the second point, that'd definitely spark an edit war over which distro to recommend.

Rcfische2 (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

@Rcfische2 Meh, I'd leave it be. If people decide to try out Vista then that'll encourage them to switch to *nix sooner. According to the pageview statistics basically no one reads those articles anyway. Polygnotus (talk) 05:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Millicent Fawcett

Reference number 48 is wrong - please fix - I am confused. Sorry and thanks. Srbernadette (talk) 06:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

It is fixed. Polygnotus (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

According to our list of reliable and not so reliable sources, the Telegraph is not reliable for transgender-related issues, so I removed that bit. Polygnotus (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Uploaded Image Taken Down, Delinkerbot Took down Re-upload

Hi. My original image "Kevin_Fegan.jpg" was taken down from the Commons, by a user, under the reasoning 'low quality, no metadata, unlikely ownership'. It appears I can't challenge this as it was a while ago and has been removed from the archive.

I have re-uploaded that image under the same name, with higher quality, and metadata. I own this image. This re-upload was recently takendown by the delinkerbot. How do I go about preventing this? I want to use this image for an article. Sorry for my lack of understanding. Whirlpuddle (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Whirlpuddle Hello! You say you own it, but are you the copyrightholder, almost always always the photographer? For a picture of a living person, we need the copyright holders permission. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes! I just don't know how to prove that? Whirlpuddle (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Whirlpuddle, the original file was deleted on Commons, following a discussion there, so I would suggest asking at their Commons:Commons:Help desk what you can do now. TSventon (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Whirlpuddle has now been given advice at Commons:Commons:Help desk#Re-uploaded Image taken down by delinkerbot. TSventon (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

"It appears I can't challenge this as it was a while ago" Whatever the merits of the case may or may not be, this statement isn't true. There is no deadline for appealing deletions, here or on Commons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Original code in Red–black tree

I am concerned that the code in this article was rewritten by a single user, and it appears to be their original creation. While I do appreciate the fact that it is significantly simpler and easier to follow than the prior version, another user and I have raised concerns about its correctness and I've tried discussing with the author on the talk page. I think ideally the article should cite an existing source as a known correct implementation, ideally a peer-reviewed source, so it is easy to compare the code against another version for correctness (even if it isn't exactly the same). I am wondering how best to proceed here? Tombob51 (talk) 01:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Tombob51 I would recommend posting on WP:VPT. Polygnotus (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)