BetaWiki:Community portal

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Removing "RTM Update" builds
After seeing some of these recent new Windows build pages, I feel like the "RTM Update" pages has to go. Most of these RTM Update pages are from Windows Update, and since there are over thousands of updates for each version of Windows, documenting RTM Update builds will take an extremely long time with Windows versions above 2000 having about 1000 pages worth of RTM Update builds. In case you don't know what I mean, here are some examples: Do note that there are some builds that will be specifically staying. Any betas of Service Packs will stay (including the Spring 2014 Update of Windows 8.1 and Server 2012 R2), as they are still betas and achieve our goal of documenting betas. Windows Server 2008 build 6003.20489 is also a special exception that will stay on this wiki due to the unique build number update. However, most of the remaining Update RTM builds should be removed as they only add more clutter to the wiki. I have a good feeling most of the RTM Update builds are also buildlist builds. BF10 (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Windows 2000 build 2195.7397
 * Windows XP build 2600.7259
 * Windows Vista build 6001.18702
 * Windows Server 2003 build 3790.5190
 * Windows 8.1 build 9600.31213

Support

 * 1) BF10 (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) Overdoze (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 3)  Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 19:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 4) Wheatley (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 5) -- ToMi (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 6) Strix (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Find 5 differences
https://windowsxp.miraheze.org/wiki/Windows_XP vs. Windows XP

-- Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 14:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That kid is creating more wikis... again?? They should deny his req, we've had enough. --ATeamInc (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * could you please stop calling us kids? also stop making fun of our wikis.43.224.156.149 15:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ...and my really first and last wiki: https://windows95wiki.miraheze.org/wiki/Windows_95 vs. Windows 95. -- ToMi (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Next time this happens, their acc should be reported if that is possible. BTW, the Windows 10 wiki is still going. -Meow (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Meow: Ever heard of alts? Sockpuppets?
 * Also whats wrong with creating wikis? And i dont see anything wrong just if a wiki is still going.43.224.156.138 12:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like the Windows 95 wiki is shutting down, it’s closed right now. Apparently in 6 months it will be deleted. -Meow (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Heck yes! The Windows 95 wiki was deleted! -Meow (talk) 00:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * THE WINDOWS XP AND 95 WIKI WERE DELETED! YES!!!! -Redfong2 (talk

Can't seem to upload files
I get this error, "Internal error: Server failed to store temporary file." Can it be fixed?--43.224.156.138 12:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

...
This is just crossing the line. https://freevandalism.miraheze.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/185.222.27.241

Also, if you reject this, this will prove how toxic you all are, and also prove you support harassment. Also, I might actually make a Toxic Fandoms & Hatedoms Wiki page about your community.43.224.156.155 06:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * That was done by a single user from our Discord who isn't a staff member. Overdoze (talk) 08:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Improved Windows Vista "about" screenshots
I've improved many Windows Vista builds 5435 to 5754 "about" screenshots to have Windows Aero + AeroShot. Coming up will be these builds: (you can help me with this)
 * Windows Vista Service Pack 1 and 2 builds - Windows Vista build 6001.16549 to Windows Vista build 6002.17043 (Windows Vista build 6001.18000 and Windows Vista build 6002.16489 are done!)
 * Windows 7 and Service Pack 1 builds - (Windows 7 build 6801 to 7601.17105 are done!) with some builds done (ALL BUILDS ARE COMPLETED!)

I hope that change will improve future our wiki! Strix (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Windows 8 builds - Windows 8 build 8102.0 to Windows 8 build 8400 (Windows 8 build 8128 to 8330 (fbl ie longhorn) are done!) (except Windows 8 build 8250)

Windows 10/Server 20H2 and 21H1 pages should be deleted
I suggest that the Windows 10 20H2 and Windows 10 21H1 articles should be deleted. The same should be done to their server counterparts. These articles are just speculation. We don't know what the recent builds are of, as they are just active development builds of Windows 10.

To hold the Fast ring builds, we should make a page like Windows 10/Fast ring builds or similar, without any speculation. I feel like this should remove speculation and ambiguity about the Windows 10 active development builds and make the wiki better. -- 2.27.117.92 14:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) -- ToMi (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) -- BenjiMadden7850 (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion
"We don't know what the recent builds are of, as they are just active development builds of Windows 10." I am not quite sure if you fully understand what you are talking about, anyway, I moved both 20H2 and 21H1 to Manganese for now to prevent confusion. When the 20H2 cumulative update development begins, it will get its own page again. -- Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 02:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Sandbox
make a sandbox209.107.216.61 19:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sandbox --Winins (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Write dates in full
ISO 8601 (YYYY-MM-DD) format is uncommon in English prose, and should not be used within sentences. It looks quite ugly for months, for example, 2020-06.

More examples:
 * Imagine if we write about an event that has been taking place in 28 - 30 June 2020, how should we write that in ISO 8601, "2020-06-28 to 2020-06-30" or "2020-06-28 to 30"?
 * If we write "28, 29 and 30 June 2020" in common use, how should we write that in ISO 8601, "2020-06-28, 29 and 30" or something like that?
 * If we say "late June 2015", writing it as "late 2015-07" looks so ugly.

So, do you think we should write the date in full, like "30 June 2020" or "June 30, 2020"? Yue Ling (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "30 June 2020" will be better. ToMi (talk | contribs) 17:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You use the full ISO date for ranges. Either way, I am fine with using either in prose, as long as it is consistent, so you don't end up with articles that use both date-first and month-first. Don't use it in infoboxes for now, as they can't handle it, probably avoid using it in tables as well. Consider something like the Wikipedia's Manual of Style section on date formatting. -- Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 08:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Put up a draft of the new policy onto the Guidelines page. (and yes, I was very inspired by the wikipedia policy at this) -- Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 21:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I decided to go solely for the DMY format, as that is what the MediaWiki signatures already use, plus the MDY format doesn't really work that well in titles. Allowing both was an option I considered, but that would be quite inconsistent, which I think would look quite stupid on such a small wiki. -- Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 11:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Allow me to upload files bigger than 2MB
Hi. I want to upload some screenshots of Windows 10 build 20158. There's one problem though, I can't upload files bigger than 2MB, I want to find a way to bypass this. Can the admins please make the file size limit bigger? File size of these pics are 2.1MiB. BenjiMadden7850 (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That might be a limitation of MediaWiki and not something the admins can change very easily. You could always just compress your images a bit. -Meow (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Should indefinite blocked users have their user pages deleted?
I think so. They are not coming back to BetaWiki, and they just take up space. -Meow (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Meow (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) ToMi (talk | contribs) 15:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) BenjiMadden7850 (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) They take up space even if deleted. -- Ryuzaki  (talk | contribs) 16:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Oftentimes funny to point and laugh at these people's userpages, especially the really young and dumb ones like Win2005/Kool Guy. Cosmo (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk
Cosmo, you need to think about the users themselves. Do they really want that on BetaWiki after they are blocked? -Meow (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * One thing: remove some of the blank ones such as Microsoft Windows XP. BenjiMadden7850 (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, even if this does not get implemented, ones like MCpillager need to go. -Meow (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * They can always contact me if they want their user pages gone. -- Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 18:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Because MCpillager needs *so* much thought, especially when he made hundreds of articles screaming about raping people. See what Ryuzaki said. Cosmo (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Separating Windows RT/RT 8.1
Since Windows RT/RT 8.1 have different brand names, should we separate it?

Oppose

 * 1) Winins (talk) 07:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) Please see my talk on discord, #community-portal - https://discordapp.com/channels/305415513503432705/305415513503432705/740487659645829141 Gus33000 (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) BenjiMadden7850 (talk) 09:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) ToMi (talk | contribs) 10:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) CNE
 * 2) BenjiMadden7850

Separations of Windows Products is not consistent
On the wiki a choice has been made to separate some products, like Windows Server 2008 from Windows Vista. This separation makes little sense, considering products like Windows NT 3.X Server, Windows NT 4.X Server, Windows 2000 Server, Windows 10 Server Rdsh, Hyper-V Server, Server Web 2008 are not separated. It however makes sense for Windows Server 2003, which branched off the main source tree, featuring different code, and a different codename. The same can be said as with server 2003 for XP MCE, and XP TabletPC. I am proposing that we agree on a standard to separate products in a consistent manner. There is also no difference between Windows RT and Windows 8, aside from the hardware it can run on. People have been doing separations based on the sole principle of if the branding is different, then it should be separated, but this is also not consistently applied with things like Windows Server Web, and thus, we lack a standard. An idea that could be adopted is to separate a product when the codename and the underlying binary code is different as with the rest. This would work for Tablet PC, MCE, Home Server, Server 2003 etc... but would consider things like Server 2008 the same. Relevant discord discussion: https://discordapp.com/channels/305415513503432705/305415513503432705/740487659645829141 (please read for more background)

Oppose

 * 1) We should separate things based on what almost everyone count. ThatRandomToast (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Gus33000 (talk) 09:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) BenjiMadden7850 (talk) 09:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) ToMi (talk | contribs) 10:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) Winins (talk) 11:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) Ovctvct (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) Applegame12345i (talk)
 * 7) Cirrubec (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 8) WindowsBetaGeek (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Windows 10 updates vs development cycles
With the nearing release of Windows Server 2022, perhaps it's the time to clear up the difference between updates and development cycles. Up to last year, Microsoft consistently (mostly) released an update at the end of each development cycle, therefore we didn't have the need to differentiate between the two, however, Manganese/Iron/Cobalt have bumped the system significantly and I feel that there is a need for a systematic solution, since renaming Iron Server to 2022 clearly won't make the cut. Windows 10X is going to cause some problems as well, considering it follows the same development cycle system and in all aspects is pretty much an SKU of Windows but all builds go currently to the same page. Discuss. -- Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 20:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * imo i think manganese and iron server should be deleted cuz they are redundant now. Why? All the manganese and iron server builds are now in server 2022. cant i replace server manganese and iron with redirects? urgh... Norman 12:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Quick question: why do you care so much? The admins have already made the decision. --AhmadB (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In case of Manganese/Iron and server 2022, we essentially have duplicates that are pretty much the same pages, the only differences is that on server 2022, the page has both manganese AND iron based server builds. I think that manganese and iron server pages should be removed because the server 2022 page exists. Dunno what to do about cobalt and nickel tho. :/ Norman 12:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Are applications that aren't pre-installed on Windows allowed?
Are applications that aren't pre-installed on Windows allowed such as Scratch? I mean, Scratch has quite alot of versions over the years, starting development back in 2003 and officially releasing in 2007.

I think BetaWiki should add the languages that the Build have.
This is important.Like Windows ME 2499.7,includes Chinese (Simplified, PRC); English (United States); German (Germany); Hebrew (Israel); Japanese (Japan); Korean (Korea).

Windows Server version 21H2 should be deleted
I think this page should be deleted because there's a confusion. Is "Windows Server 2022" or "Windows Server version 21H2" real 21H2? If "Windows Server version 21H2" real 21H2, then "Windows Server 2022" should be 22H1 or something else. If "Windows Server 2022" is real 21H2 then this page should be deleted.

I disagree, because much like 21H2 client, it can be obtained through enablement packages. Xeno (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Lemme just say it, just like 21H2 client, it can be obtained through enablement packages. The enablement packages in question are: Microsoft-Windows-UpdateTargeting-ServerOS-21h2-EKB-Wrapper-Package~31bf3856ad364e35~amd6410.0.19041.1023.mum Microsoft-Windows-UpdateTargeting-ServerOS-21h2-EKB-Wrapper-Package~31bf3856ad364e35~amd64~en-US~10.0.19041.1023.mum Microsoft-Windows-UpdateTargeting-ServerOS-21h2-EKB-Package~31bf3856ad364e35~amd64~en-US~10.0.19041.1023.mum Microsoft-Windows-UpdateTargeting-ServerOS-21h2-EKB-Package~31bf3856ad364e35~amd6410.0.19041.1023.mum Microsoft-Windows-Product-Data-21h2-EKB-Wrapper-Package~31bf3856ad364e35~amd6410.0.19041.1023.mum Microsoft-Windows-Product-Data-21h2-EKB-Package~31bf3856ad364e35~amd6410.0.19041.1023.mum Scamdisk (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Then tell me which one is real 21H2. Windows .NET Server 2003 (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * All of these files that were listed by Scamdisk are part of 21H2. Install the latest Windows 10 update (assuming you're on 21H1) and run the batch script found in the Windows 10 build 19044.1023 page as administrator to get 21H2, and then open up winver.


 * That's all the proof I can give to you that 21H2 exists. - pivotman319 (📫) 14:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * You can know which one when you start reading instead of asking questions. -AhmadB (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Can you stop me asking to google everything? Windows .NET Server 2003 (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Both are seemnly real, I mean I wouldn't had made the page if I didn't find the enablement packages. Scamdisk (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * It was not tempting along with Client 21H2, because normally I was expecting Server 21H2 to be in "Iron" Codebase and Client 21H2 to be in "Cobalt" or "Nickel" codebase. Windows .NET Server 2003 (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * What? Orbitron (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Working on other OSes
This wiki has a lot of stuff about Windows. I'm happy about that, but it's just that the other OSes are going completely unrecognized. Some OSes don't even have version pages. Literally about every build of Windows does, even if it's just an infobox and a sentence or two. I would like to see more work done on the other OSes on the wiki. 152.26.89.248 14:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's pretty easy to criticize on work (or lack thereof) done by others, so why not take the challenge and try to improve the wiki by yourself? -- Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 14:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The creation of the wiki takes multiple people, not just one. It's very obvious that you need more than one person to run a wiki. Otherwise, it's just a rotting webpage. Tell everybody else to work on the wiki. Why don't you start to tell others start as well? 152.26.89.218 15:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Other operating systems might seem to be neglected either due to lack of interest or due to lack of knowledge from a significant portion of the current userbase. That being said, there are members which contribute to sections about other OSes quite frequently. In the end, this is a non-commercial site run by volunteers who do all their work in their free time and as a result, there is nobody working for BetaWiki as a full time employee. It just so happens that most of the userbase is interested in Windows, presumably because it's what's running on their own computers. Since nobody is getting paid to do this, your best bet is to add any content you feel that is missing yourself. Perhaps someone will take notice and join you on this. --Cvolton (talk | contribs) 16:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Should we merge all "Windows 10 Manganese, Iron, Cobalt and Nickel" pages into one?
I think these pages should be merged like how Windows Longhorn and Vista pages are merged into one. Or will the merged page be very long?
 * They're development cycles, not one version, therefore they should stay as is. Orbitron (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ...and why would you want to do that? -- Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 01:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Because Windows Longhorn and Vista merged into one page. I got this idea yesterday. Windows .NET Server 2003 (talk) 10:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The difference between Longhorn/Vista and Manganese/Iron/Cobalt/Nickel is that the latter are different projects while the former were basically the same. Orbitron (talk) 12:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What would you call the resulting article? -- Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 12:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Won't they be released to non-Insiders as RTM with different name in future? I think all of them should be merged in one page. Also I think major update can be postponed again. Major update can be 22H1 not 21H2 I think. Because 21H2 still uses 20H1 kernel and it doesn't seem to be a major update. Windows .NET Server 2003 (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if so, they were development cycles of that release. Orbitron (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If they're development cycles of Windows 10, then Windows Longhorn is a development cycle of Windows Vista. So these pages should be merged. If not then Windows Longhorn and Vista seperated. Windows .NET Server 2003 (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * How is Longhorn a development cycle for Vista? --AhmadB (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Longhorn is not a development cycle tho. ToMi (talk | contribs) 17:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you consider Longhorn a dev cycle for Vista you might as well consider Whistler as a dev cycle for XP, and you'd fall into a loop of dev cycles here. --AhmadB (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyways, they should be merged in one like how Longhorn and Vista are merged. I can't believe why all of my ideas get refused. Windows .NET Server 2003 (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * they're dev cycles, not one release. Orbitron (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Then Longhorn is not a one release too. Is there any Windows Longhorn RTM (Not talking about Vista)? Windows .NET Server 2003 (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Longhorn was reset, it was supposed to RTM. Development cycles on the other hand are not tied to a Windows release. --AhmadB (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So, it means they won't be released to non-Insiders as 21H2 when it'll be stable? And all Windows versions from now will be 19045, 19046, 19047... Windows .NET Server 2003 (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * As of right now non-Insiders are on 21H1 with 21H2 (19044) already in the works. We don't know much further than that. However, as most people have said already: Manganese, Iron, Cobalt and Nickel are all development cycles and are not tied to a single release of Windows 10. Some of their features, such as News and Interests, will get ported over to non-Insiders. Longhorn didn't have this concept of development cycles. Xeno (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you even tell the difference between a development cycle and a release? The way you equate Longhorn and Manganese/Iron/Cobalt brings me to doubts. -- Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 18:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I just think all this discussion is absolutely pointless. ToMi (talk | contribs) 18:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I won't talk with you guys again. You guys and I will not be able to make peace. Or else I'll be cancer. Windows .NET Server 2003 (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's ok. I got it. ToMi (talk | contribs) 07:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Is it a bug or something?
Normally we can see all recent changes up to 500. But I wanna see 1000 at once, so I've changed the link to this "https://betawiki.net/wiki/Special:RecentChanges?hidebots=1&limit=1000&days=30&enhanced=1&urlversion=2" by replacing 500 with 1000. Then I wanted to see more recent changes. I replaced 1000 with 2000. It actually showed me last 2000 changes. But the link description and limit showed on "Results to show"" are stuck to "1000", Finally, I made 3000, it actually made me see all changes to 22 May, but link description and limit showed on "Results to show" are still stucked on 1000. Is this a bug or some feature to prevent BetaWiki to slow down? 94.123.39.175 (talk) 11:17, 7 Jun 2021 (UTC)

Merging of Manganese, Iron and Cobalt
Exactly what it says on the tin. I have a proposed draft on my sandbox. The reason for this is now that Windows 11 exists, we have a reason to merge these pages and we know what we will call the article.

Support

 * 1) Winins (talk) 08:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Norman 08:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Icanttellyou (talk) 09:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Xeno (talk) 10:26 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) ✔ Support - pivotman319 (📫) 11:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) Orbitron (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Nara Insider (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion
Wait, I also asked the same thing before. But it was rejected. So, I don't think your request will be accepted. Mbczadgjliqetup (talk) 10:10, 24 Jun 2021 (UTC)
 * You asked the question before Windows 11 was confirmed so /shrug --Winins (talk) 10:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm very confused about what to say about this. I don't see any fairness. Mbczadgjliqetup (talk) 10:17, 24 Jun 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to realize that back then, Windows 11 wasn't a thing when you suggested to merge said pages. Information changes all the time and as the Winins said, Xeno (talk) 10:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Then, there's nothing I can do about that. I can only add myself as "Oppose" and it's worthless. Mbczadgjliqetup (talk) 10:39, 24 Jun 2021 (UTC)

I think we should merge just the builds on the existing Windows 10 Cobalt page into the Windows 11 page, because Windows 11's RTM release is also based on the Cobalt codebase, and many of the early Cobalt builds which still branded themselves as Windows 10 included some Windows 11 features such as the new icons and virtual desktop improvements. --86.4.119.180 16:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thing is, Cobalt is only one dev cycle of the three responsible for Windows 11, Orbitron (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

"Outdated article" template
https://betawiki.net/wiki/User:ToMi/Sandbox/2; I think we can use this template for outdated pages to tell users that the page is outdated and needs attention. ToMi (talk | contribs) 13:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Removing builds
Minimum and maximum version numbers don't exactly tell whether or not the build actually exists. It's just a maximum version number. Ones like this one make sense as they actually say. Orbitron (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Orbitron (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Winins (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Icanttellyou (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Xeno (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) AhmadB (talk) 11:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 6)  Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 14:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) BF10 (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Mbczadgjliqetup (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Nara Insider (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Norman 11:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion
I'm in favor of also removing most pages that rely on to get the page's build number. Xeno (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I just tried to be stinky for a while. Otherwise I don't care about the  pages. You can do it whatever you want.
 * To be fair, all of these pages and that includes the page that Orbitron linked as making sense don't really bring much information other than "this build number probably exists". Also would Norman and Nara mind explaining why they oppose this proposal? It's not majority but arguments that win such debates🙄 -- Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 14:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that the pages are becoming quite cluttered because of these builds. 86.4.119.180 14:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I thought we made it clear that file versions never indicate that build is confirmed to exist, and if that is a sole reason a build page exists, it would be removed. BF10 (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * i marked my self on oppose, cuz of these two pages, windows 8 build 8331 winmain and windows 8.1 build 9428, which were winJS build pages left behind from the cleanup last may. If these (winjs) pages are still there, i think its fair to keep the windows 10 localization builds, is it not? Norman 16:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought we were in the process of removing those pages, no? Orbitron (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what do buildtags from WinJS have to do with this? That's a completely different thing. -- Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 16:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * i think that while winjs and lxps are two completely different things, these pages are very similar to each other, like how they come out of a certain file, full strings and build numbers for winjs and build numbers for lxps (in the latters case, it is the tested versions) i dont understand why 9428 and 8331 winmain are still there despite the rest of the winjs build pages being deleted last may Norman 16:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh my god... Why are you bothering with the WinJS pages again? If they still weren't removed as of July 2021, I suppose it was decided to keep them. ToMi (talk | contribs) 16:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)