BetaWiki:Community portal

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

GitHub References
While some builds that are mentioned on GitHub come from more than one repository and fall under the acceptable notability guidelines. I believe that the majority are not notable as they just say "Hey, this build exists!", only consist of a build number and don't mention any notable bugs or features. Not to mention that I feel that these build pages clog up their respective OS version pages. Given that most Win10/Win11 updates have recently been removed, I feel like these references should follow suit. Especially since right now, Copper is around 45% GitHub references.

I think there are three potential ways forward: These are just some thoughts I've had over the last few days. Xeno (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Delete and disallow most build references that come from GitHub (This would be extremely unfair)
 * 2) Move the references to a separate page and potentially format them into a table as seen on my sandbox. Table Sandbox (The table is just a personal preference)
 * 3) Keep things as is


 * I think the second option you suggested is the most appropriate solution. It serves to mention that we know these builds exists without having a page for each of them. (I also think this idea can be extended to other "unnotable builds" as well, just a list to reference their existence). • Kiki79250CoC (Talk • Contribs • My Toaster™ specs) 06:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I want to create pages!
Please, let me create pages! --PrelevatedInsider (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Why? What pages do you want to create? Jurta (talk • contribs) 10:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * My user page and every non-existent pages! --PrelevatedInsider (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I want my custom Userpage and Sandbox!
I want these to tell others about me and for testing BetaWiki features and my editing skills with condition that nobody will ever touch the page. --GoldieAxolotel1320 (Talk) 14:40 Apr 10 2022 GMT+01:00 Warsaw
 * You're copying my message! --PrelevatedInsider (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I need this too! --GoldieAxolotel1320 (Talk) 15:09 Apr 10 2022 GMT+01:00 Warsaw
 * Same. --Vannura (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Deprecate The Use of The Term "Development Semester"
I don't think Nickel and Copper should be called the 22H1 and 22H2 development semesters, respectively, given that Microsoft has most likely switched to a yearly-based development cycle rather than semester-based with recent internal mentions of Windows 11's 23H2 release being Copper. Some may argue that the development semester is not related to the version number, but it would be very awkward as we get further and further into the future when development semester and the version number diverge (for example, Gallium would be either 23H2 or 25H2). Therefore, I think we should stop using the term "development semester" after Nickel. Charka123 (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I honestly agree 100%. Imagine the mess in the near future once we reach 2024 or 2025! Cliria (talk)
 * Well, they are called development semesters for a reason... The 22H2 development semester is for the 2023 release, aka 23H2. Same also applies for 22H1, being called 22H2 instead of 22H1. --Icanttellyou (talk) 09:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We can't do much until Microsoft confirms that themselves. It's likely we'll just keep it the same until we have enough proof whether Microsoft did switch to development cycles from development semesters. Jurta (talk • contribs) 16:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Purging Vibranium (Win10 2004 thru 21H2) and Cobalt (Win11) update pages
To reduce clutter throughout each Windows version's build pages (from VB onwards), I'm holding a vote here to see if anyone's fine with getting rid of the unnecessary update pages for the above mentioned Windows versions, as they do not have any notable changes. The only pages that will be kept (as they feature significant UI changes) are the following:

Vibranium

 * Windows 10 build 19041.329
 * Windows 10 build 19041.423
 * Windows 10 build 19041.962
 * Windows 10 build 19042.608
 * Windows 10 build 19042.844
 * Windows 10 build 19042.962
 * Windows 10 build 19042.1023
 * Windows 10 build 19043.1023
 * Windows 10 build 19044.1499
 * Windows 10 build 19044.1618

Cobalt

 * Windows 11 build 22000.282
 * Windows 11 build 22000.466
 * Windows 11 build 22000.526
 * Windows 11 build 22000.588

Let me know what you think about these proposed changes below. - pivotman319 (📫) 18:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Agreed, we should only cover the ones with notable changes. -- 18:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree, there is no reason to have pages of builds that don’t contain anything important. WaterMelon (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Three's a trio. I'm in favor as there are a ton of unnoteworthy builds and removing some of the update builds is a great start. Xeno (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) As the one who began the whole post-GA thing, I fully agree with this. Jurta (talk • contribs) 20:07, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Boa (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) I agree, many of the post-GA builds of Vibranium and Cobalt are nothing more but security updates and quality updates that fix bugs and security issues and they clog up the build lists for those pages. It only makes since to cover post-GA builds that have actual notable changes like the ones listed above. WindowsGuy2021, 3:59, 12 May 2022
 * 7) I'm pretty sure I have proposed long time ago that any Update RTM builds wouldn't be allowed here (aside from service pack betas and build 6003). Many if not all of these pages deserve to go, otherwise it'd be cluttered with over thousands of pages of Update RTM builds. BF10 (talk) 01:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) Nara Insider (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 9) Kendrenogen (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Purging of cumulative updates of betas (Only for Manganese and up)
I think we should purge all of the cumulative updates of betas in post-20H1 Dev Channel as they do not contain any useful content as well as notable changes. I meant all builds with these labs without notable changes: This proposal excludes all builds from 22000.51 to 22000.184.
 * rs_prerelease_flt
 * fe_release_svc_prod(1-3)
 * fe_release_svc_im
 * co_release_svc_prod(1-3)
 * co_release_svc_im
 * ni_release_svc_prod(1-2)

Oppose
I think it wasn't. Look into this one.
 * rs_prerelease_flt (from 20H1)
 * 18965.1005 (20H1): This build changes the version numbers for a few system components.
 * 18970.1005 (20H1): Nothing updates
 * 19551.1005 (Manganese): See Windows 10 build 19551.1005
 * 19564.1005 (Manganese): You must use an IDE or SATA hard drive if you want to install this build in VMware, otherwise the setup won't be able to find the drive.
 * 19608.1006 (Manganese): Nothing updates
 * 19613.1005 (Manganese): Nothing updates
 * 20211.1005 (Iron): Error update of build 20211.1000.
 * 20231.1005 (Iron): Nothing updates
 * 20236.1005 (Iron): Nothing updates
 * 20241.1005 (Iron): Nothing updates
 * 21292.1010 (Cobalt wave 1 Cilent): See Windows 10 build 21292.1000
 * 21292.1010 (Cobalt wave 1 Server): Only the update files of this build were released to Windows Update on 15 January 2021 alongside its client counterpart.
 * 21296.1010 (Cobalt wave 1): Nothing updates
 * 21301.1010 (Cobalt wave 1): Nothing updates.

And there some build like this lol. 2001:f90:40c0:a072:9aa:460c:a255:8787 19:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC+08:00)
 * 1) I wouldn't say all. Take 22581.100 for example. This "service pipeline" reintroduces tabbed File Explorer. Xeno (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * These can be excluded from this proposal. But rest of them doesn't seem that useful.
 * I'll take 22621.160 as example. It introduced tabs and revamped navigation pane, But, its earlier CU, 22621.(2-4), and it's later CU, 22621.105, does nothing. Someone, 10:01, 28 June 2022
 * Then, 22621.160 is fine. But shouldn't 22621.(2-4) or at least 22621.105 be purged since there aren't any notable changes or features?
 * Then take 22621.1 as example. 2001:F90:40C0:A072:187A:BD42:911F:1CCA 03:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Restore Windows 11 build 22000.346 page
Restored as requested. - pivotman319 (📫) 14:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand why the page for build 22000.346 was removed as a part of getting rid of post-GA update pages. It actually had some notable changes, including the redesigned fluent emojis and changes to the BSOD color. Some of the pages that had fewer changes were actually kept, such as 22000.282 (which only contained minor tweaks and adjustments) and 22000.526 (only added Microsoft Account page in Settings). Considering that these two post-GA updates were kept, I think 22000.346 should stay too. Charka123 (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, at least unleaked post-GA updates should stay.

Move all the images
I think every image only this example was best:
 * File:Windows10-6.4.9850-Metro.png

Use this example to move all images. Please everyone do it. 2001:F90:40C0:A072:6840:4743:E02B:B5F0 06:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Why move these images? 88.228.248.220 01:02, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Too much users created file by using this example. 2001:F90:40C0:A072:10D6:7825:C69E:30F7 05:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, don't. There is no naming scheme for files and I don't see any point in introducing one. -- 10:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Make a document about the 23H2 builds (archive)
If Copper released a build then the 23H2 page doesn't have that build. So, if make a document, it will be easier. 2001:F90:40C0:A072:6840:4743:E02B:B5F0 06:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agreed. It should have some builds. They can just avoid server builds and show client builds Someone (talk) 10:09, 28 June 2022
 * That was odd lol 2001:F90:40C0:A072:6840:4743:E02B:B5F0 11:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

First move
There are 2 windows 2000 builds it was not moved. This is the list of not moved Windows 2000 builds: 2001:f90:40c0:a072:5189:e019:ae56:b207 18:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC+08:00)
 * Could you also move Windows Live Messenger build 14.0.3921 to Windows Live Messenger 2009 build 3921? The page already exists, but it is a redirect. - 212.23.130.206 (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Nara Insider (talk) 11:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Second move
Please, move this page.
 * (ATTEMPT: Move this page to Windows NT 4.0 build 1124. In this attempt you must move before 08:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC).) 2001:f90:40c0:a072:2193:ed23:ccfd:7a64 16:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC+08:00)
 * And what would happen if we didn't? Seems dumb to set a deadline for a simple move Xeno (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If didn't moved before that time, I will give last 5 days time for you. 2001:f90:40c0:a072:2193:ed23:ccfd:7a64 12:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC+08:00)
 * ✅ --Nara Insider (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Third move
There is 1 page and 2 files need to moved.

Pages (Only Xeno)
 * 1) Microsoft Office XP build 2511 (RC) -> Microsoft Office XP build 2511

Files (Only HawHoo)
 * File:VirtualBox Windows 2000 20 12 2021 19 35 29.png -> File:2511 WordAbout.png
 * File:VirtualBox Windows 2000 20 12 2021 19 18 34.png -> File:2202 WordAbout.png 2001:F90:40C0:A072:6CDB:CDDB:CC9E:D0CF 04:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ Nara Insider (talk) 06:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Will Windows 10, version 22H2 come out?
Now Windows has been released 19044.1806. But there is a the 19045.1806? Will Windows 10 Version 22H2 come out? 2001:F90:40C0:A072:500D:1A9D:213C:68F7 04:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It has been confirmed, but the page for it isn't created yet. Someone (talk) 10:15 28 June 2022
 * Those pages were created. Faynti (talk) 20:56 3 July 2022

i386, IA-32, ia32 or x86? x64, x86-64, x86_64, AMD64 or amd64?
I do not know what to use. 16:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * x86 and x64. By the way, I'd suggest signing your comments with . - pivotman319 (📫) 16:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The general guideline is to call it however the OS calls it. There is no explicit standard on that (yet). -- 17:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It was I386, x86, AMD64, x64, x86_64, ARM64, IA-64, 68k.2001:F90:40C0:A072:5061:2F54:E04D:CC34 23:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So x86, IA-64 and x64 for Windows and i386, ia64 and amd64 for Linux? And, thanks for the tip, it was very hard to put in signs manually. 88.67.248.152 15:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

ViVeTool 0.3+ related syntax
Well, I forget to discuss this first before... May we can change the older  code (from version until 0.2) with   code (from version 0.3+)? I need to know, if we can keep it for compability reason or change it to better experience. 😸 Hi. I'm NekoSam395. (💬 | 👨‍💻) 15:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've also mentioned this on the Discord. Xeno (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I currently not using Discord a while, until a few weeks. All the decision is under the admins for now. :) 😸 Hi. I'm NekoSam395. (💬 | 👨‍💻) 15:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I would just mention the feature IDs itself and leave out the ViVeTool specific bits. -- 11:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That's nice idea. 😸 Hi. I'm NekoSam395. (💬 | 👨‍💻) 20:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

It is 15 hours when 7985 was shared
Created 2001:F90:40C0:A072:A459:8FCB:27F:AEBD 01:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

It was to be 15 hours when Windows 8 build 7985 shared to BetaWiki discord. Why this page was not created? 2001:F90:40C0:A072:A459:8FCB:27F:AEBD 10:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Merge Service Pipeline updates with their respective build pages.
Windows Insider Service Pipeline updates aren't notable enough to create a new page every time one is released. It'd be better if there was a note on the build's page and would reduce the need to upload a winver image for every pipeline. An example would be build 25151 merged with build 25151.1000 Xeno (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Xeno (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) 😸 Hi. I'm NekoSam395. (💬 | 👨‍💻) 20:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Agreed to this on Discord already. Most of these are irrelevant and the "changes" they contain only stem from feature configurations for different branches. -- 13:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Other minor pre-release build updates don't have their own pages (except special cases like 8102 which was preinstalled), so these also shouldn't. 89.241.109.169 13:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) HawHoo (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) Nara Insider (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) I didn't agree to did this. Even some builds of Windows 10 have changes or bugs. 2001:F90:40C0:A072:E594:60B8:55A2:CDD7 12:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What? -- 13:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe 17713 (rs_prerelease) is october 2018 build?
Just like: 18980.1000.rs_prerelease.190907-1312 is compiled after 18980.1.vb_release.190907-1301, not build of 1903?
 * nope 2001:F90:40C0:A072:958A:2177:A4A8:83B9 01:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Are those builds notable?
They don't include nothing new. The enablement which installed, will update itself to the same version, if you installed a CU that compatible with 19041.

Deleting pages will affect:

19043.789.vb_release_svc_prod3.210129-1243

19044.1023.vb_release_svc_prod3.210517-1726

19044.1052.vb_release_svc_prod1.210604-1652

19044.1055.vb_release_svc_im.210609-2133

19044.1081.vb_release_svc_prod3.210607-1924

19044.1082.vb_release_svc_prod3.210624-2043

19044.1083.vb_release_svc_prod3.210703-0820

19044.1110.vb_release_svc_prod1.210708-1509

Are you agree with me? if you agree, i will start the AFD. - Faynti - 8:58 05-07-2022 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Those update builds are not notable since those builds didn't include anything new, apart from the build number change. Nara Insider (talk) 09:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Faynti (talk) 09:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Mobile app fault error
OS: iOS 10.3.4 (14G61) System: iPad 4 Model: MD5113LL/A Bug: Can`t edit without vandlilsm abuse (Block), when i answer the question it says "Wrong code, try again." without wrong answers. i tried to use Google Chrome app (version 71.0.3578.89), Microsoft Edge (version 46.3.30), it also didnt work. 2001:F90:40C0:A072:958A:2177:A4A8:83B9 02:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not recommended to share your iPad's serial number with everyone. Remember, your iPad's serial number is your own and private info. Nara Insider (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I thought BetaWiki is not available aa a mobile app. Anyway, try to edit with the desktop version of this page. - 2.204.222.238 07:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That IP thought BetaWiki has a mobile app that can be used to read and edit pages, even though the IP is just visiting the mobile version of the site. BetaWiki does not have a mobile app! Nara Insider (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This sentease (That IP thought BetaWiki has a mobile app that can be used to read and edit pages) was false. I didnt use a mobile app to edit pages. 2001:F90:40C0:A072:958A:2177:A4A8:83B9 01:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That sentence was true. I know you didn't use a mobile app, but it seems that you didn't read the sentence correctly. I said "BetaWiki has a mobile app" in the sentence, not "That IP is using a mobile app". Also, hiding your iPad's serial number from the reading view just doesn't make sense, because the serial number is still visible when editing the source of this page. Nara Insider (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You're probably being ratelimited by the wiki. That's intended behavior. -- 09:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)