Open main menu

Cleanup the old naming schemeEdit

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...Edit

Hahaha.,_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 thisEdit I'm just gonna leave this here, lol. --AlphaBeta (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2018 (GMT)

Merge Longhorn and VistaEdit

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)


  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. TipzTeam (talk) 06:22, 3 July 2020 (HKT)


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

Itanium and DEC Alpha users wantedEdit

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.Edit

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 pagesEdit

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? 19:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)



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



Suggestions for infoboxes on build pages.Edit

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. 17:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)



  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   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. -- 14:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)



Cancelled versions of WindowsEdit

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 buildsEdit

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 1481Edit

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 policyEdit

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 pagesEdit

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)

Stop talking about MCpillagerEdit

Seriously, he just gets angry when you make fun of him. Don't make fun of him, don't talk about him. If he vandalizes, block and revert, that's all. Don't take the piss out of him, don't insult him behind his back, as it only makes him angrier and inspires him to vandalize more. An admin WILL punish people who insult MCpillager, or make fun of him.

To MCpillager, take this as a "gesture of peace". --Dolphin01 (talk) 07:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll remind you that you do not get to tell the admins here what to do.--Overdoze (talk) 08:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I show myself a "gesture of peace" as well. Good try. --Ryuzaki (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Dude its true. That explains raptides vandal attacks. 13:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Nice try again. Also, even then we have our moderation queue to deal with users who aren't automoderated. BF10 (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


Due to targeted vandalism attacks on BetaWiki, we were forced to tighten some stuff:

  • Most edits will now end up in a moderation queue. Staff has the right to make your edits go through directly once they deem you are trusted. Staff will not use this mechanism to do any sort of quality control (bad grammar etc.), as we believe in openness and the revert mechanism is better suited for that. Only blatant vandalism will be rejected in the moderation.
  • We made some behind-the-scenes changes for better performance and security. We ask all users to report if anything doesn't work or behaves weirdly.

Sorry for any inconvenience, but this was unfortunately necessary. We want to keep BetaWiki open to casual edits by everyone.

--Ryuzaki (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC) (originally written by JaGoTu on the BetaWiki Discord)

This is just disappointing, how people (like the people that vandalized pages) want to ruin things and cause things like this to happen. I do agree with what you did though, hopefully vandalism will stop. -Meow (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
It hasn't gone unnoticed that several users have been promoted to "automoderated users". Contributions of these users don't pass through the moderation queue and are applied directly as if no moderation mechanism has been introduced. Users can request these permissions at the administrators' noticeboard, where we will evaluate their past contributions and promote them if they are deemed to be trusted. --Ryuzaki (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't agree with this, when new users that make about 76 helpful edits that improve this wiki ex. screenshots with AeroShot, they should get automoderation status. Strix (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Removing "RTM Update" buildsEdit

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)


  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 differencesEdit 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. 15:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
...and my really first and last wiki: 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. 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)

Can't seem to upload filesEdit

I get this error, "Internal error: Server failed to store temporary file." Can it be fixed?-- 12:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


This is just crossing the line.

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. 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" screenshotsEdit

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)

I hope that change will improve future our wiki! Strix (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Windows 10/Server 20H2 and 21H1 pages should be deletedEdit

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. -- 14:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)



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


"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)


make a sandbox209.107.216.61 19:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

BetaWiki:Sandbox --Winins (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Write dates in fullEdit

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)

Allow me to upload files bigger than 2MBEdit

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)