This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
@Xose.vazquez: Why did you revert my blank and redirect to this page? Wikipedia is not a changelog, and the content on this page which is appropriate for Wikipedia can be merged into the main Ruby article itself. I've not taken this up myself as I frankly do not have an interest in doing this, but I do not see any reason why this content should be kept. Also, I'm likely going to take this to AfD if this discussion does not reach consensus; hopefully you're okay with this. Gracen (they/them) 16:05, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That page is not a changelog. It is a summary of features, and it is allowed.
No need to be snide; I'm open for discussion here. As far as I can tell, this article is almost entirely based on primary sources, which violates the general notability guideline's statement that a subject is generally suitable for a standalone article when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject; the official Ruby blog and bug tracker are obviously not independent of the history of Ruby. Admittedly, the GNG is a guideline, not policy, but I believe that it is tantamount to policy in situations like these. Also, WP:NOTCHANGELOG says that it's good practice to use reliable third-party sources in articles dealing with software updates, which this article does not. Given that there's clearly some consensus against using mostly primary sources for an article about the history of a piece of software, I'd argue that you need some more substantial justification for this article existing by itself and not being merged into the main Ruby article. Finally, I disagree with you that this is a summary of features, but I feel this is the least important point here. Gracen (they/them) 17:11, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delayed response, I found myself busy in real life. While these articles do exist, I'd argue that the only article that actually presents information of enough encyclopedic value to warrant a separate article is History of Python. Unlike this article, it actually provides information beyond just "this feature was added" and "this feature was removed". In other words, the fact that other poor-quality articles exist in mainspace is not justification for this one existing as well. See also WP:OTHERCONTENT. Edit: it doesn't seem like this discussion is going anywhere, so I'm probably going to notify relevant WikiProjects. Gracen (they/them) 20:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
