Difference between revisions of "BetaWiki:Community portal"

From BetaWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
Line 39: Line 39:
 
# [[User:LilShootDawg|LilShootDawg]] ([[User talk:LilShootDawg|talk]]) 17:34, 22 December 2018 (GMT)
 
# [[User:LilShootDawg|LilShootDawg]] ([[User talk:LilShootDawg|talk]]) 17:34, 22 December 2018 (GMT)
 
# TCB also does this too, so we might as well have it like that. [[User:BF10|BF10]] ([[User talk:BF10|talk]]) 19:01, 22 December 2018 (GMT)
 
# TCB also does this too, so we might as well have it like that. [[User:BF10|BF10]] ([[User talk:BF10|talk]]) 19:01, 22 December 2018 (GMT)
 +
# [[User:DVINTHEHOUSEMAN|DVINTHEHOUSEMAN]] ([[User talk:DVINTHEHOUSEMAN|talk]]) 15:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  
 
=== Oppose ===
 
=== Oppose ===

Revision as of 15:16, 14 May 2019

Cleanup the old naming scheme

If anyone has a script or bot that can help with changing old naming schemes like "Windows:7" to "Windows 7" and "Windows:NT4.0:1500" to "Windows NT 4.0 build 1500", that would be appreciated. It's everywhere in Windows Vista and later articles and cleaning it up isn't an easy task. BF10 (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2018 (BST)

Likewise, if anyone has a bot or script to replace the "bios" to "compiled" in for infoboxes alongside correcting the date, it would be well great if that can be used. Like I said though, it is expected to set the bios dates back by 1, not just replace all references of "bios" to "compiled". BF10 (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2019 (GMT)
Just finished cleaning up the old naming system for all Windows builds in one of the most cumbersome ways possible, since AutoWikiBrowser refused to log me in here. The only pages in use with the old naming space now are Windows:10:Windows Update Builds and its subpages - Windows:10:Windows Update Builds:9xxx, Windows:10:Windows Update Builds:100xx and Windows:10:Windows Update Builds:10xxx. --Cvolton (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning that up. Now all I have to do is to choose how we name the update build pages. BF10 (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I know I'm bringing this up again but...

Hahaha. http://osesbeta.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Raffine2014/Leaving_Operating_System_Beta,_etc._Wiki --LilShootDawg (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2018 (GMT)

I have a good feeling it was fake though. BF10 (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2018 (GMT)
That was in 2017. LarryTN7722 (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2018 (GMT)
Oh lol, guess he's stupid enough to "block" himself. Who's gonna miss his ripoff wiki anyway? -ATeamInc (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2018 (GMT)

Oh, look at this

https://www.betaarchive.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page I'm just gonna leave this here, lol. --AlphaBeta (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2018 (GMT)

Merge Longhorn and Vista

There has been a debate on the Discord regarding this. IMHO we should merge Windows Longhorn into Windows Vista, since even though many ideas such as WinFS that were planned for Longhorn didn't make it to Vista, a lot of them did. This is even noticeable in the terminology used to refer to the development phases: "development reset" implies that the project has been restarted, not scrapped. --AlphaBeta (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2018 (GMT)

Support

  1. AlphaBeta (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2018 (GMT)
  2. Ovctvct (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2018 (GMT)
  3. LilShootDawg (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2018 (GMT)
  4. TCB also does this too, so we might as well have it like that. BF10 (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2018 (GMT)
  5. DVINTHEHOUSEMAN (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. LarryTN7722 (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2018 (GMT)

Itanium and DEC Alpha users wanted

Since some builds such as Windows 2000 build 1855.1 and the Windows XP 64-Bit builds needs special architectures that can only be done on real hardware. If anyone has necessary hardware to run these builds, that would be appreciated to get them installed and provide images of the build. BF10 (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Android and other misc operating systems need Infoboxes.

They don't have any. Also, the Mac ones need updating. --LilShootDawg (talk) 03:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

ToMi and I made infoboxes for NeXTSTEP, Android, and MS-DOS.--MCpillager (talk) (Sandbox) 1004065811 bytes of data 14:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion for the Longhorn/Vista build pages

Because Windows Vista was codenamed Longhorn and both pages have been merged, we should replace all references in all pre-reset pages from Longhorn to Vista. Do you think we should do it? 2.30.192.61 19:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

  1. LarryTN7722 (talk) 05:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. Caveria (talk) 12:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussions

Questions

Suggestions for infoboxes on build pages.

On infoboxes on build pages (for every operating system) we should add which build came before it and what came after it. I will leave a poll below so people can decide whether it is any good. 2.28.175.216 17:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

  1. We already have done this in the past and it was hard to maintain it. The next/previous settings had to be removed for a good reason. BF10 (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  2. Actually, I Symbol oppose vote.png Oppose it too. If you keep adding builds to pages (like with the Windows 10 pages) you would have to find the build before it (with an article) and edit the next/previous setting. This would be inaccurate for builds in between without articles. --2.28.175.216 14:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

CLOSED

Cancelled versions of Windows

There seems to be some inconsistency in the naming of articles covering versions of Windows that have been cancelled and therefore are referred to by their codenames. There is Windows Nashville, Windows Neptune, but then we have Microsoft Cairo and I think it would be nice if we agreed on a single standard regarding these. I am not going to make this a simple yes/no vote, since this needs to be discussed thoroughly.

Personally I am leaning towards removing the Windows/Microsoft component from the names, i.e. "Cairo", "Neptune build 5111", in order to make it clear that it wasn't a part of the codename. --AlphaBeta (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Well for one thing, the boot screen of Windows Neptune build 5111.1 refers itself as Microsoft Neptune, but Windows Neptune on the desktop buildtag too. I feel like Windows should be used on builds that have at least one released build but Microsoft for stuff like Blackcomb and Odyssey. BF10 (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion we should use the Windows prefix for everything to separate these projects from things completely unrelated to Windows (such as Microsoft Midori). In fact, if you look at some of the antitrust documents for Neptune/Odyssey, you will see Microsoft reffering to them as Windows NT "NepTune" and Windows NT "Odyssey", not Microsoft NT. In my opinion we should use Windows for everything, that was clearly intended as a version of Windows. Cairo is a special case though, as it did not refer to a single version of Windows, instead being a set of components. I am not entirely sure what to do with that. --Cvolton (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Windows RT builds

Does anyone have a trustworthy list of Windows RT builds? I want them for my Windows RT page.--MCpillager (talk) (Sandbox) 1004065811 bytes of data 14:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Before you get any further with this, I'd like to mention that the current agreement is that Windows RT builds will be listed on the Windows 8 page, as they're nothing more than a different SKU of Windows 8. So if you wish to create a separate page for that, I'd suggest you to discuss that in the first place. --Cvolton (talk | contribs) 21:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Memphis build 1481

Does Memphis build 1481 exists? BA user sonicridersuser claims to have this build, here. --MCpillager (talk) (Sandbox) Me discover fire, invent wheel, build server. 09:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion policy

Everybody please review the new Deletion policy. It defines exact reasons under which an article is eligible for quick deletion, which should prevent further confusion. Thanks. --Ryuzaki (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

New restrictions on user pages

Beginning today, we are limiting user pages and subpages to registered users only. A major reason for this change is that many anonymous users are using dynamic IP addresses, which doesn't play well with our abuse filters blocking changes to user pages of other users. Many user pages ended up being abandoned due to this. We also feel that this change will motivate anonymous users to sign up for an account, which also brings several other benefits. Also worth mentioning is that this does not affect user talk pages, so anonymous users can still respond to messages that other users have left on their talk page.

Existing IP user pages will be kept for at least 30 days from now, after which we will start deleting them. I would also love to use this opportunity to remind everybody that while it's perfectly okay to use your user page and subpages to talk about your interests, keep track of your work on BetaWiki or use it as a sandbox, it's certainly not okay to talk about WNR fantasies or similar topics that could lead visitors to confusion. Such pages can and will be deleted in order to prevent user confusion.

Thanks for flying BetaWiki. --Ryuzaki (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)