[Effortpost] Furryfox Users are upset at Wikipedia, claim Furryfoxemsia when their Version History page gets set for deletion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_version_history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_version_history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome_version_history

We will be discussing Firefuxs, iOS, and Wikipedia, so please wear proper attire for this thread.

Also mid-way through typing this up I got to a claim that Google Chrome wasn't up for deletion. But upon checking for myself it has now be nominated for deletion.

I was doing my once a month "let see what is going on with those r-slurred furrryfox users and found the thread linked to and the OP below.

I just got on the [Firefox version history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_version_history) Wikipedia today as I do every few months, to grab version numbers of all the releases that I need to download for my archives. Well, much to my surprise when I got there today and noticed that ALL of the detailed Version History was removed!

I checked the "Talk:Firefox version history" page which redirects you to the "Talk:iOS version history" page and seen that the user responsible for the removal, Nosferatlus has also took it upon themself to remove ALL of the detailed Version History from the iOS Version History page as well! The user posted this, Release notes need to be deleted

The user stated the "release notes were a clear violation of WP:NOTCHANGELOG". I checked the WP:NOTCHANGELOG and item #4 in the list states...

Exhaustive logs of software updates. 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. Common sense must be applied with regard to the level of detail to be included.

The last sentence reads, "Common sense must be applied with regard to the level of detail to be included.". So does this users common sense trump everyone else's common sense? Because my common sense says that all of that detailed version history information was absolutely useful and I'm sure there are plenty of other users who would agree! Maybe this user is training to become an Apple employee or something, thinking that removing things somehow makes something better? Of course we know that's how Apple does innovation these days. Is this the mentality of people these days? I mean seriously, what kind of fruitcake removes all that useful data? There was a total of ~700KiB of data removed from the Firefox and iOS Version History pages combined. Is Wikipedia strapped for storage space these days or something? Do I need to donate a hard drive to them?

I've never ran into this issue before and am unfamiliar with how to go about addressing this on Wikipedia. I was hoping that someone here who is familiar with Wikipedia might know how to address this issue and/or have this ridiculous data removal reversed. I read something about being able to do a "Rollback", but it seems only Admins have access to this.

I'll be transparent and admit I am far too lazy to go through any wiki:talk page. I only have enough willpower to do reddit. Sorry, not sorry.

Their common sense doesn't make any sense, I agree.

"Exhaustive logs of software updates."

This sentence clearly indicates that no detailed update logs should be on wikipedia, which makes total sense but a version history, no matter how long, is not an update log. Clearly this person is not familiar with the topic and should not have taken action.

I agree. Meanwhile, the Chrome Version History page still exists in it's full entirety. I'm sure that's only because this user, Nosferattus, hasn't discovered it yet. I mean seriously, who in their right mind is bored enough to remove that much data? LESS is NOT MORE in this case! SMH

Of course the Chrome Version History page wasn't removed. This stinks to high heck of Chrome fanboyism trying to stick it to Mozilla. (Edit - I'm assuming this same user created the Chrome Update History page? I'm not on Wikipedia much, but is it possible for ANYONE to edit or delete stuff on there?

Firefuxmesia!!1!

This is sentiment is common in /r/firefox. The world is against them because they don't use Chromium (or safari). They of course jumped the gun, as seen above.

The article is now being considered for deletion. Maybe add your opinion or it might actually completely vanish.

It's not being considered for deletion. It's going to be moved to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_release_history

When you enter the Talk page of Firefox version history, there's no discussion there. The discussion was moved to Talk:iOS version history because they are talking about renaming all "version history" pages to "release history".

But /u/bluefisch200 is right. There's another discussion about removing the page here.

Apparently they're not deleting them at all! They're just renaming every single page with "x version history" to "x release history" for "reasons" autisim

Active Wikipedia editor here: Reddit is not the place to conduct off-site discussions or direct attention towards this sort of thing. It was not professional to link the offending user's Wikipedia page in this post.

For some context, the Firefox version history article is the 12th longest page on English Wikipedia. It appears as though Nosferatlus is attempting to cut back on this list, as an edit to the page for season six of a Philippine TV show might suggest.

The first thing to note is that Wikipedia has several policies and guidelines. The most pertinent here would be WP:LENGTH, which deals with three different types of sizes. It's difficult to cut down on Firefox version history's markup size because a large portion of the size is lists and tables. If one seeks to cut down on the article's size, then they should attempt to split the article out. The most logical way of doing this is to create separate articles, such as Firefox version history (Firefox 1-37) or Firefox version history (Firefox 38-77).

There is nothing that explicitly says an article must be below a certain threshold, although MediaWiki (Wikipedia's software) requires articles to be under $wgMaxArticleSize, or 2 MiB by default. The article List of Gunsmoke (TV series) episodes is a featured list on English Wikipedia and its eighth largest article; it was considerably large even in 2010, when it passed a featured list review. A large article may suggest, however, that the contents of an article may violate a larger policy. List of Hindi songs recorded by Asha Bhosle is the site's third largest article and was created in May of last year by a now-blocked user. The article has an excessive amount of detail for the topic. List of Statutory Rules and Orders of Northern Ireland—the second largest article—does not cite any sources.

The prevailing philosophy for many users is be bold, and one that ironically applies here as OP has brought this issue to a larger (at times uninformed) audience rather than fix it themselves. Conversely, editors must be careful while handling long articles that obviously do not violate some policy. The article for Trump's presidency is the largest article on Wikipedia that is not list-class. It remains such because Trump's presidency is a large topic that has been covered extensively. Removing even half of the article's contents and relying upon article topics for the subject has consequences towards coverage of the topic. It's for this reason that the removal of 400,000 KiB from the Firefox version history is reckless, disruptive, and misses the point of the policy.

The point of WP:NOTCHANGELOG is to establish an encyclopedic tone, as are the rest of the encyclopedic content related "nots". The issue with applying even the most apt policy here—WP:NOTEVERYTHING—to this article, is that this type of article demands full coverage. It would be illogical for an article about the version history of Firefox to not have complete coverage of the topic at hand. Mozilla's articles are licensed under Creative Commons, so a user cannot even claim that this is a copyright violation.

Having assessed the whole situation, I do not believe nominating this article for deletion is a compromise. There appear to be some anomalies, as Nosferattus pointed out, in how this nomination is being conducted. Perhaps this article could also do with a rework; rather than covering just the version history of Firefox, the history of Firefox as a whole could be covered, with a split obviously necessary.

Someone who edits Wikipedia typed this and it looks as boring and lacking of life as most wikipedia articles. I may read it before bed if I am having insomnia tonight.

tldr: some nerd upset other nerds because of technically details that people who frick will be baffled at