Talk:Xbox 360 system software

2.0.14719.0

There has been an update to this version today, if we know what's it for, we can add it. --142.167.90.253 (talk) 11:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed Skype from the list. It has been long speculated that the release date will be sometime between 2011-2012 (and we all know it didn't happen last year) -- this release has been halted due to internal politics between Microsoft and Skype. When Microsoft announces an OFFICIAL release date then it should be added back, but it's highly irresponsible for an "encyclopedia" to promote a false release date for what is presently a vapourware product. ~QuietAndross — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuietAndross (talk • contribs) 18:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Xbox 360 applications

Concerning the information on the applications, rhere's already an article for this content, Xbox 360 applications. This article is about the system software, not the applications that run on it. Therefore the content is outside of the scope of this article, and unnecessarily duplicates existing information. I don't see any reason why the content should be here when it is already present at the other article, which this article already links to. - SudoGhost 09:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

June system update?

IPs continue to add specifics about a supposedly-already-occurred update to the dashboard software. As of yet, no source has been provided, and this update has yet to go live in North America (with the former item being the bigger issue). I've asked for page protection to get people here talking. So, will someone kindly produce a reliable source indicating that this is indeed the current version number and what its features include? Or is this someone's idea of a joke? --McDoobAU93 02:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

June system update 2.0.15572.0 indeed!

Source links:
https://twitter.com/majornelson/status/212605615976095744
http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/12/xbox-360-spring-update-rolling-out/

All both sources say is that some users are receiving an update, and that the rest get it the following week. That doesn't sound like a "public" launch to me. Public beta, perhaps, but not public launch. Besides, neither source includes (a) the updated revision number and (b) what is included in the update. You'll still need to provide that. --McDoobAU93 14:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

How about?

How about adding a certain colour to the current Xbox 360 software version, and a different colour for the beta version similar to what they did over at the iOS version history page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomoK12 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

We're a file repository now?

After I noticed that edit summaries were all but hidden because the subhead names were simply too long, I took a closer look at the article. A good-faith effort was made to include links to the various software versions, many of which remain available on Microsoft's website, and the links directed users to Microsoft itself. I've gone through and removed the subhead links per WP:MOSHEAD, relocating any citations to the "Release date" column and external links to the "Availability" column. This should make it easier to follow edit summaries going forward.

That said, is it our duty to provide links to this software? I can't find anything in policy that definitively says we should or should not, but I am curious as to the thinking. As I said in my edit summary, I wasn't going to remove any content pending discussion on the matter. All I did was reorganize what was there. --McDoobAU93 19:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

2.0.16203.0

Nut allergy? Wut? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.26.81 (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

"Anti-Piracy 3.0, XGD 4.5 Challenge responses has been updated" This is highly believed to be false, and I believe doesn't really have sufficient evidence or reference. I suggest removing it until proven true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eitherrideordie (talk • contribs) 20:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

2.0.16517.0

There is currently no reliable sources for what changes the 2.0.16517.0 beta contains. I have removed the unsourced changes and added references for the ones I could find. If you must include "XOSC Challenge Responses" can you actually explain to the passing user (and me) what they actually are.

Users who post other changes having actually participated in the beta are probably breaking the Non Disclosure Agreement they signed up to when joining the beta program. I will continue to remove any other unsourced changes until the update becomes official.=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Just saw this after updating the article. I came across a reliable source that states two other changes and added them. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

As the new software is now 'public' the non disclosure agreement no longer applies. Of course, it doesn't mean that we can now add other changes without reliable sources. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I reverted my edit. After a lot of searching, I couldn't find a single source to back up WinBeta's claim. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a shame I can't find another source for the removal of Messenger as it'd be one of the notable changes in the update. Everyone is concentrating on the currency changes. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

2.0.16547

What are the new features in this update? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.235.178.231 (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2014

The new system update 16756 can be found here http://download.microsoft.com/download/B/6/9/B6917DAC-C3F2-43EE-97DC-2E19D259F4B8/SystemUpdate_16756_USB.zip Bilkoff (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 01:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

About that update history

If there is a compelling and encyclopedic need to include details about past versions of the system software, could we limit it to important and/or noteworthy details? Wikipedia is not the place for complete version histories (but anyone can feel free to start your own wiki for that purpose!). —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I’ve tagged the section as being copied and pasted (from official descriptions). I also note that there was a hidden comment asking for the current beta to be included; why? Wikipedia is not news. Unless there’s something notable about the beta, something that we ought to include from coverage by independent sources, we probably should not include beta versions. Can anyone give a reason for? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

No justification has been given for keeping the section since I first posted here, and it’s chock full of copyright violations of questionable encyclopedic value, so I’ve removed it again. If there’s any reason to keep it, please join in the discussion here. Thanks. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Here’s a list of usable third-party sources from the changelog table, probably with widely varying weight:

1. IGN: new Dashboard mandates Avatars, which can be “pretty badass”
2. Engadget: NXE features delayed
3. Eurogamer: small but significant changes in Summer 2009 update
4. Engadget: Fall 2010 update is big
5. PayPal (archived): PayPal payment option
6. uutiset: separate images on same screen
7. GamerZona: 3D in games
8. MSXbox World: Xbox 360 adds 3D support; PS3 was first
9. GameZone: bug fix
10. Polygon: Microsoft Points ended in favor of actual money
11. GamesRadar+: camera takes pictures

Is this enough to build an update history section around? Are any significant third-party sources missing from this list? Please discuss. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

If no one has any ideas, does anyone have any objection to simply removing the section? I don’t find that ideal, but it seems preferable to having disjointed paragraphs jumping from version to version. I seem to be the only one trying to work on this, but I’m open to suggestion. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather prefer to summarize the updates and only keep the main points instead. --Cartakes (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• The back and forth reverting of the change logs section needs to stop. The AfD stopped short of redirecting the lot, but there was consensus to remove the change logs and write the articles in prose if they were to exist at all. When the change logs and unsourced sections are removed, there is nothing left in this article. In an effort to stop the reverts, I think this article should be redirected to Xbox_360#Interface, where it can be sourced and expanded with secondary sources. If that section grows enough to warrant a content split, that would be fine as long as the summary style sections are splitting sourced content. – czar 15:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I’d support such a redirect for the time being. Should this be in AFD? (The mass-AFD’s closure suggested individual nominations.) —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

AfD shouldn't be necessary – czar 05:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

How come that the solution was so successful on the Xbox One system software article, but failed with the others? I reckon there is a way to close these articles down (Except for the Xbox One system software article), as users are not willing to change, even though the solution is simple to implement. Wagnerp16 (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, that solution (in its current state) is not ideal; it’s a classic example of WP:Proseline, and it really doesn’t flow at all when you read it. There’s not really any indication of the importance or significance of any of the changes. For this one, we could maybe describe the major interface changes like NXE, but there’s not much else of worth in the sources cited in the tables. If we want to discuss the history of the OS, we need secondary sources that analyze its history beyond simply describing a single version. If these sources exist, we need to find them, read them, and cite them in whatever we add. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

And where is the difference between removing the changelog from here and from <Put any other software article in wikipedia> ? If your proposition is to simply remove all changelogs and version histories of Wikipedia you're removing an important part of history and the past. I don't think there must be an argument about why the changelog must stay here (and in Wii, Wii U, Xone, etc), but more about why not. And the important, and noteworthy, is not in a single version update, but in the whole evolution, piece by piece, of the software's history. Removing them from a centralized place and pointing users to external references (that, don't doubt about it, will disappear in oblivion -just search the web for OS/2 1.x or NeXTStep history and you'll see how difficult it has become-). Wikipeda should not abide to the young theme of "only some information in some format" like Larousse and others, but to the even older "the compendium of all knowledge". And software version histories and changelogs, are knowledge, important details about evolution of an application. That is my opinion. Claunia (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Claunia: “And where is the difference between removing the changelog from here and from <Put any other software article in wikipedia> ?”

Doesn’t matter. See WP:OTHERSTUFF: we’re talking about this article right now, not about every other article that may be doing it wrong. Also see WP:LOSE: we don’t preserve information simply because it’s endangered.

“I don't think there must be an argument about why the changelog must stay here (and in Wii, Wii U, Xone, etc), but more about why not.”

WP:NOTCHANGELOG is policy. If you disagree with it, if you think our software articles should include detailed changelogs, then make a proposal at WT:NOT or WP:Village pump (policy) to change the rule. Or if you don’t disagree with the rule in general but just think it doesn’t/shouldn’t apply here in particular, explain what makes this article an exception. I believe that you would be the first to do either of these things.

“And the important, and noteworthy, is not in a single version update, but in the whole evolution, piece by piece, of the software's history.”

If you can find one or more reliable secondary sources that broadly discuss the evolution of the software, that would be fantastic. That’s what I keep hoping for—something that we can actually build off of, something that describes why this update was important to users, or why that update altered the course of the console’s history. But we can’t analyze it ourselves, and we don’t do raw data dumps in absence of external analysis.

“[Wikipedia should be] ‘the compendium of all knowledge’.”

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That is policy. The same advice I gave about NOTCHANGELOG applies here. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

67.14, I think you can drop the line of inquiry—their concerns are more for the What Wikipedia is not talk page. Wikipedia could host all kinds of stuff, but instead it is an encyclopedia. Any changes to that are outside the scope of this talk page. – czar 16:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Sources for OS history?

Has anyone found any sources that broadly discuss the history of the system software? Or should we just slap together a paragraph of WP:Proseline about assorted unrelated updates using the sources listed above, or should we remove the section entirely? These look like our only options, short of revising Wikipedia policy like WP:NOTCHANGELOG (and I would prefer any of these options [even doing proseline] over a crufty changelog). —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe that the best option of the restructuring of the Xbox 360 operating system history would be to follow the example of the Xbox One system software page, as it seems to follow the encyclopaedia policy of Wikipedia. Unfortunately I do not personally know exactly where to source ten years (at the time of writing this message) of update information, while also not sourcing from official or self published sources.

58.110.204.14 (talk) 05:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

If you know all the version numbers, then I would recommend using a video game reliable sources custom Google search and then paraphrasing the information that you find. That's how I restructured the Xbox One system software page. Wagnerp16 (talk) 09:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not know all the version numbers for the Xbox 360 system software, so I cannot personally edit the page.

58.110.204.14 (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

So that’s one !vote for unconnected proseline paragraphs, I suppose. I was hoping to avoid that, but anyone else for or against it? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 12:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm all for prose edits. The Xbox One page looks very good, and this one could too, as long as it focuses on major additions (not every component or changes that aren't customer-facing) and is sourced properly. --McDoobAU93 14:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Would it be helpful if I post a list of updates? A decade worth of updates is too much for one person to handle. I am all for prose edits, sorry if I didn't explain myself well enough. Wagnerp16 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I think first we’d have to decide which of the updates described in the above-listed sources are worth mentioning. Some are incredibly minor, some seem minor but may be significant, and some are complete overhauls. This is why I think we need sources that actually cover the whole scope of the console’s history, rather than leaving that up to editorial judgement and original research. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The only big updates are the NXE and possibly cloud saves, as they were revolutionary at the time they were introduced. Wagnerp16 (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with those two, especially if “revolutionary” is verifiable. But if it’s just going to be a lead and a bit about two updates now, I propose merging this article into the main Xbox 360 article. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: Please review WP:Proseline. If you’ve read it and you still think the practice is appropriate here, or if you just disagree with the essay, very well. But hopefully you understand why I’m pushing for something more cohesive. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The newly written section (by @Cartakes) contains a lot of information about a lot of updates, but only one source for one update. It also doesn’t quite seem to be written for a general audience; for example, it drops in “the blades interface” as if that’s a term the reader should know. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:26, 29 September 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) 02:04, 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)

detailed version history removed

i realize that you guys had a discussion about it and decided to remove it. i didn't read thru but i understand that this isn't necessarily the place for a complete version history. HOWEVER, there was no other place online to find this, and now i have to go into the history to see it. PLEASE reconsider this, because frankly, this page sucks otherwise... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.118.240 (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want, you can go ahead and make your own copy of that section anywhere that will have it, as long as you credit Wikipedia with a link. Put it in another wiki, put it on your own website, whatever. But that’s beyond the scope of an encyclopedia article Talk page. Best of luck. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

This was a bad decision. Very helpful information. Why is Firefox, Java, Google Chrome Itunes and IOS version histories okay but not this? Seem like a Playstation fan deleted it. And reasons for deleting it I dont by at all.69.126.106.149 (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I restored version history using approved template from XONE software wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.22.9.229 (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

You are free to restore the version history but please do so under the conditions specified here at Wikimedia Wikipedia, as version histories are allowed to be here as long as 1) they are not copy-paste versions of what the Microsoft Corporation/Sony 株式会社/Nintendo 株式会社 publish on their own websites, this means that you have to re-write it in an original manner and rephrase it whenever necessary. And 2) have primary, secondary, and tertiary sources to back up your claims, an example would be what I have done at Xbox One system software where I first sandboxed the old version history on my talk page, then went looking for sources and then re-inserted it on the relevant page.

Tip, you can simply search "Xbox 360 November 2014 update" in Bing News and you'll find relevant second and third party sources that you'll be able to use for your version history, and then when you have gathered enough sources and re-worded the version history templates you are free to place them back into the article.

Believe me if I had the time I'd do this myself.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you 86.81.201.94 for re-instating that. I have to laugh at the "PlayStation Fan" jab, I removed it keep to help keep integrity of the article, you can see my edit on Xbox One article here it properly follows WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Wikipedia does not take WP:COPYRIGHT lightly. Some articles get deleted because people Copy-paste and don't bother changing it. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability. WP:PRIMARY states something but need secondary and tertiary souse to show that the statement is notable. Kyle1278 (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Xbox 360 system software. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100920232547/http://www.xbox.com:80/en-US/kinect/entertainment.htm to http://www.xbox.com/en-US/kinect/entertainment.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100411035833/http://www.xbox.com:80/en-GB/live/NXE/faq.htm to http://www.xbox.com/en-GB/live/NXE/faq.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)