BetaWiki:Community portal

Windows 10 build 15023[edit source]

There is incorrect information on that page. 22:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

there isn't but alright Orbitron (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
yes there is 22:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
where Orbitron (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
you would know, you keep putting it back in 22:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
because you keep vandalizing the page? lmfao Orbitron (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
you keep reverting my useful edits 22:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Well because "Windows Vasta build 15023" isn't real. And inserting WNR/NROS into pages is against the rules. Bubblebeam (talk) 23:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Should Usernames be Replaced by Real Names[edit source]

Should we replace usernames of people with their real names? For example, replace "Grabberslasher" with "Steve Troughton-Smith"?— Preceding unsigned comment added by InsiderX (talkcontribs)

This is getting ridiculous...--Winins (talk) 10:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
No. There are many, many reasons why one may not want to use their real name. It's a personal choice and that needs to be respected. Xeno (talk) 10:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Definitely not. Stop invading the privacy of others. Jurta (talk) 10:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
If the did not say no, and they leaked/published their real names, why not? -InsiderX (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Have you considered mentioning people however they prefer to be referred to? What a revolutionary idea, right? --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 12:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
No, it is not ridiculous. It makes people much easier to identify, especially if they change their usernames very often. It also feels good when you put real names in articles. -InsiderX (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Okay, this is just straight up creepy now. There's nothing okay about using other people's names when they get leaked. Do you even know what privacy is? Jurta (talk) 10:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
How does referring to people by real names that are usually less known than their nicknames make people easier to identify? That makes no sense. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 12:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
tbh, in the given example of Steve, probably more people know him by his real name than his nick these days. However, my feeling is that generally we should stick to whatever naming was used in the relevant source material for the content. I know this means that in some cases, the same person might be referred to under different names in different places, but I think that's preferable to the alternative and helps people identify correct sources. Hounsell (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
It's people's own choice if they want to use a nickname or their real name. This "replacing" idea is an absolute non-sense. ToMi (talk | contribs) 08:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
That's ridiculous tho, it's a personal preference. Why?! Lucss21a (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Product keys for Windows 10 10240[edit source]

Why there are product keys for Windows 10 Build 10240 if this is the RTM build ouf Windows 10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LePikaDuCoin YT (talkcontribs)

I would assume these are generic keys taken from product.ini and cannot be used to activate Windows. Xeno (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

But they are still useless if they are generic because you can just click on « I don’t have ã product key » — Preceding unsigned comment added by LePikaDuCoin YT (talkcontribs)

Just remove it yourself like I removed keys from build 20344 and 20348. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Disambiguation pages should not be classed as an Orphaned Page[edit source]

Disambiguation pages should not be classed as an Orphaned Page since the builds that are noted in the disambiguation pages are not orphan — Preceding unsigned comment added by LePikaDuCoin YT (talkcontribs)

Do you know what an orphan page is? The Wikipedia glossary gives a good definition: "An orphaned article is an article with no links from other pages in the main article namespace." Unless they're linked to by an article, they're an orphan. However, disambiguation pages are meant to be orphans. That's their entire point - to be accessed when searching and to navigate searchers to the correct article. I also don't understand what the point of this comment is. As far as I know, BetaWiki doesn't have an Orphan tag like Wikipedia has. And sure, a build not linked to on the main OS page is an orphan and would be problematic, but it's not the topic of your comment. Rhinozz (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Should the One UI and AOSP articles of Android 10 build QP1A.020 be merged?[edit source]

Both builds carry the same build number, so shouldn't the One UI version of that build be given a heading in the AOSP paragraph?

A preview is available on my user page: User:Th3userscene/Android 10 build QP1A.020.

Yes i support this idea, go ahead and do it :) MShinoda8768 17:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Can my account get deleted? "Not blocking"[edit source]

I don't want to use this account and edit this wiki anymore. I'm done. Can administrators delete my account? I don't ask for blocking, I'm talking about deleting account. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbczadgjliqetup (talkcontribs)

There is no way for deleting it. ToMi (talk | contribs) 18:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
But I fail to see who upset you this time, WhiteShark? -- 19:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Are you replying to me or to Mbczadgjliqetup? ToMi (talk | contribs) 19:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
He's replying to me. I saw the insults made towards me on Discord. Then remembered them. That's why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbczadgjliqetup (talkcontribs)
Thanks for clarifying. ToMi (talk | contribs) 19:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Android RTM and security update builds.[edit source]

Much like the update pages for Windows, I feel that Android most RTM and security update builds shouldn't be listed on the site. Xeno (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose[edit source]

Support[edit source]

  1. As mentioned in my short comment, I don't feel a need to keep every build of Android listed on the site. We don't allow update builds for Windows, so why Android? Sorry for the poor typing, am tired. Xeno (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  2. MShinoda8768 17:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  3. Jurta (talkcontribs) 17:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

About Sounds[edit source]

Do you guys think we should add sounds? -Beta Kiwi (Talk) Choose 13:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Support[edit source]

  1. I support it! --liamchat (talkcontribs) (我是王牌66) 15:01, 28 November 2021 (CST)
    Why. WinInsider (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2021 (WIB)

Oppose[edit source]

  1. I don't see a valid reason to add sounds to this wiki. Xeno (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  2. Jurta (talkcontribs) 13:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  3. MShinoda8768 13:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  4. Why. -Gamerappa (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  5. No. WinInsider (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2021 (WIB)

Discord server?[edit source]

i see the link for discord but the invite is invalid, is it still around or has it been discontinued? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Generaaleric (talkcontribs)

About 355x builds[edit source]

Why arent 355x Builds listed? There are files in other builds (EX: 4088 references 3551) that confirm that the 355x builds existed, so should we add them? I thought of this because lots of unknown Neptune builds have files in Windows Millenium Edition Betas, and why not in longhorn? -Beta Kiwi (Talk) Choose 13:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

These files aren't an accurate method of proving a build is real. As for Neptune, the pages do say but it is unknown whether this Neptune build was ever compiled.. I would assume Neptune is a special case with how little info we have about other builds. Xeno (talk) 13:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Because they're just Server 2003 build tags with major/minor version 6.0. They're not Longhorn builds. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 22:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
File versions aren't really the best source of evidence we have, that's why we tend to not use them as a source. Jurta (talkcontribs) 22:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Questions page[edit source]

We should have a page to ask questions, Ill give and example of a wiki question: "Am I allowed to make a page called User:Beta Kiwi/Windows 4.0?" Another page (or the same page) Could be dedicated to Windows Questions such as: "Why is Windows Neptune 5111.6 Not Listed?". If not, I may make one on my page, still deciding if it should be in a testing room, or something else -Beta Kiwi (Talk) Choose 13:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)~

You're literally on the page intended for that... --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 22:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
This is a page for Community Questions, like do you want me to say "Should I add text onto my user page" and people will oppose/suppose it?? -Beta Kiwi (Talk) Choose 22:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Well if it's stuff related to your user page then use your user talk page for that. The other question that comes to mind is whether anyone cares in first place, not to mention that you're not really contributing to the wiki if your editing is restrained to the user space and the staff will take note of that. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 22:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
You are correct on that -Beta Kiwi (Talk) Choose 23:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Boot Screens[edit source]

Should we replace Boot screens with animated GIF images? I feel like it would be cool to have it so when I open lets say, The Windows xp RTM, instaid of a basic image of the boot screen itself, we would have a boot screen including the animated bar! -Beta Kiwi (Talk) Choose 23:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

No, GIFs are way too limited for that. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 23:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
why. -Gamerappa (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Gifs would prolly work for win95 to vista MikeShinoda2001 (Norman) 23:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
And there is a site where you can turn clips from youtube videos into GIF files, so theres some hours saved -Beta Kiwi (Talk) Choose 23:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
The size limitations in place pretty much restricts such gifs from being uploaded. Plus, I don't see a valid reason to have gifs of them when still images work just fine. Jurta (talkcontribs) 13:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I will add some boot screens to Windows XP, revert if you guys dont like it, again this is a test to size limits, because if we can add this and it only takes up about 1000 something bytes, then that would be arund 10k bytes from 95 >> Vista (they are a bit more high-quality with no watermark) -Beta Kiwi (Talk) Choose 23:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Support[edit source]

I will donate some terabytes if needed--Beta Kiwi (Talk) Choose 01:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose[edit source]

  1. Would just be a waste of our time dealing with this. Everything is fine as is. Xeno (talk) 01:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Page for BSD and its derivatives[edit source]

We've already got a page about Linux, so what about BSD? It also plays an important role in UNIX family. --GT610 | Sorry for my poor English! (talk) 12:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Renaming Server MN and FE[edit source]

Should we rename all server build pages from builds 19504 to 20282 to Windows Server 2022? I am asking this here because in the past, my suggestion was rejected. I think renaming them to server 2022 would make sense as we have not seen any builds of server cobalt or nickel. Example would look like this: Windows Server 2022 build 19504 MikeShinoda2001 (Norman) 23:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

What does Cobalt or Nickel have to do with this?? Personally I would only rename LTSC builds starting with 20201, since these are explicitly labeled as "builds of the next LTSC channel release" i.e. Server 2022 --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 14:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Outside of mentions in update files (cobalt 21292.1010 and 21337.1010), there were no publically released builds of server cobalt and nickel. Windows server 2022 has been out for a while now and i think it would make sense to rename 19504 to 20282 server 2022. 14:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Cool and how does the fact there are no known Cobalt or Nickel builds justify renaming Iron and Manganese to Server 2022? --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 14:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
SAC server is dead, there is only ltsc from server 2022 onwards. Also on this site, manganese and iron server are now set up to redirect to server 2022 14:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Support[edit source]

  1. MikeShinoda2001 (Norman) 23:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  2. -Beta (Beta Kiwi) (Talk) Choose 13:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)~

Oppose[edit source]

Purge all non-Windows related content[edit source]

Let's just point out the elephant in the room. All non-Windows stuff on the wiki gets literally no activity besides one or two users. There's also many other wikis for the non-Windows stuff we cover, such as The iPhone Wiki for iOS, Apple Wiki for Mac related stuff, and DistroWatch for literally everything Linux related. The game articles (that aren't Windows games) are relatively useless as well, great example being the legendary Create with Garfield article, which has since been deleted, as there's Wikipedia pages for many of these already, and The Cutting Room Floor and The Hidden Palace exist for this wiki's exact scope, but obviously for games instead. I don't know about you, but when I think of BetaWiki, I think of Windows, and Windows betas, not Mac or Linux betas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orbitron (talkcontribs)

lol you would have to rename the wiki to "WindowsBetaWiki" because if that was ever put into place, it would be only about windows betas MikeShinoda2001 (Norman) 03:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
What? I'm saying to keep anything Windows related, such as built in games and apps, it wouldn't just be Windows betas. Orbitron (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
is that an excuse for keeping a backlog of old abanadonned articles? the Half-Life 2 articles have had 4 major edits in the past 6 years. -Gamerappa (talk) 03:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't see why would you have to rename the wiki if it's still about betas. We are a Windows-centric wiki already, we would just stop trying to be a general wiki and just focus on our biggest strength. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 15:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
I love how a lot of people are opposing this yet they aren’t editing non-Windows articles. Why have a backlog of abandoned articles? -Gamerappa (talk) 13:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

This debate has been bought up a lot here since the last few years I've been here and I get that some areas aren't fully updated at all points. Yes, I do agree there are sections that should be removed, but I don't believe everything that is non-Windows should be removed. Here's my opinion on this:

Remove all game articles for any game that isn't pre-installed in any of the Windows/macOS systems. The Cutting Room Floor and Hidden Palace already does a better job documenting games and most of the game articles we had in the past is only fluff and just there because people want to add changelogs to games they like.
Remove IOP OS. WiiBrew Wiki suits this better.
Remove iOS and Android and their respective version pages. Rarely documents betas and only OEM stuff. Better suited for updated wikis. Do note however, that the listed Apple Wiki is far from a good wiki to source anything, and will stand far any wiki hosted on Wikia/FANDOM.
Remove the version pages for all Linux distros (such as Ubuntu 15.04, Fedora 15, etc.), alongside main pages for less notable Linux distros. We can probably keep a few noteworthy Linux distros such as Ubuntu and Debian alongside the main Linux page itself, but the version pages itself are usually fluff with no beta related content in there. DistroWatch isn't a full on wiki for documenting Linux distro betas, so we can probably have a gallery for the beta versions of a few distros while also removing the versions without known beta versions.
Remove all non-Windows or Apple pre-installed applications, such as Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox. Pointless fluff with nothing related to betas documented here. Microsoft Office is also rarely documented, and should be removed if no one is willing to update it further.
Remove any remaining less important OSes I haven't listed as keep below. This includes BeOS, Haiku, Apple DOS, TempleOS, NeXTSTEP, Novell NetWare, and EComStation to name a few.
Keep MS-DOS and similar IBM equivalents back in the day such as 86-DOS. They form the basis for Windows in early years and are well documented as it is.
Keep OS/2. OS/2 betas isn't documented anywhere better and is responsible for forming a basis that would create Windows NT. Some remaining build pages can be finished and I might be able to get on work for those. Alongside, builds before Warp 4 are already well documented.
Keep macOS. As I have stated above, the Apple Wiki on FANDOM is not a good wiki to host information about these builds. It barely hosts any data on the beta builds, has a non-existent administration so will likely be vandalized from WNR wannabes, and overall hosted on a less reliable host (using FANDOM is basically impossible without making an account there as you will get bombarded by ads and malicious bloat). The only reason why Apple builds aren't well documented is because of the different hardware required for these builds that are harder to emulate than Windows builds. QEMU has recently gotten updates to support and run 68k builds and all versions before Mac OS X 10.5 is well documented as far as it is. I might be fine removing the update builds until all of the beta builds are done, but I believe that the macOS builds do gain a slight amount of attention and should stay for the meantime until a better wiki can be found to host it.
If anyone needs help installing these builds, I could create a sandbox guide that will list how you can be able to accomplish installation on these builds. Also, there's also a good reason why ia64/Alpha builds of Windows aren't well documented here.

While I do get the incentive to host only one type of version because it is the only one active, most of the versions I listed as keep are those that have already been well documented as of currently and if anything, only the later builds of those listed OSes are the only ones lacking build pages and can be finished through until someone can provide a better wiki suited for those that are willing to document these betas there. BF10 (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

That does seem like a good compromise to me, although personally I would leave all open source software out, so that means all Linux distros. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 16:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Support[edit source]

  1. Gamerappa (talk) 03:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC) (I deleted create with garfield)
  2. As Orbi has said, there are better sites for Apple/Linux products and games outside of Windows. Android has virtually no edits to it and version pages end up just having OEM revisions added. MacOS pages have one or two editors who just add in builds, create a basic page and that's it. Linux pages are even worse with most distros not having a page. Not to mention the obvious, majority of the traffic to this site are to pages relating to Windows. Xeno (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  3. As per the general conversation last night/early this morning. Apple products have their own specialized communities, and each Linux distro has its forum, abandonware or not. The point is, most of these non-Windows/DOS and non-Microsoft articles just aren't maintained and take up too much dead space on the wiki. For games and other random applications, I also heavily support purging for the same reasons - each game has its own Fandom wiki. If you want to talk about those, go there to find a group of like-minded people, and don't be the sole contributor of a BetaWiki article for something you're not going to come back to. Rhinozz (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  4. Windows gets the most focus and attraction here while macOS and Linux gets barely any. There are indeed other websites that people can go to and edit if they so choose to, so I don't see a reason to keep the pages that aren't related to Windows here. Jurta (talkcontribs) 15:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  5. When I checked this page, it actually mentioned some Windows-related communities. BetaWiki is WindowsWiki (Windows-centric wiki). Since its founding in 2013, the wiki has grown to become the largest source of information on pre-release builds of Windows. WinInsider (talk) 08:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  6. A new wiki is responsible for taking these non-Windows contents, so BetaWiki could just focus on Windows Betas then. What I just want is some time to move them to new Wiki. --GT610 | Sorry for my poor English! (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose[edit source]

  1. were called Beta Wiki, not Windows wiki, plus, I wasted lots of time on iOS and macOS pages. -Beta Kiwi Start Button 20:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
    We're called BetaWiki because we document betas, removing all non-Windows related content from this wiki wouldn't erase the main focus, which is obviously betas. Plus, if you even bothered to read the comments made here, then you'd realise that this has already been addressed. Jurta (talkcontribs) 20:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
    "BetaWiki shouldn't focus on what drives 99% of its traffic" is a rather interesting assertion to make. Starfrost (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
    That's not what I was saying..? Jurta (talkcontribs) 21:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
    Nevermind, just realised what you meant. Yeah, I made that assertion because I intepreted them saying "were called Beta Wiki, not Windows wiki" as them implying that the wiki would have to be renamed to "Windows wiki" if all non-Windows related content were to be removed. Jurta (talkcontribs) 21:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)``
  2. We are called BetaWiki, not WindowsWiki. This is like if BetaArchive removed all non-Windows content, it would need to be called "WindowsArchive" Plus, Me, BetaKiwi and Johndoe123 work on iOS Articles, we should have Non-Windows content as long as there is betas. Orangera1n (Talk | contribs)
    I really fail to see how is the name thing anywhere near relevant -- Windows betas are still betas, so the name would still apply. I want you all to think about the gist of the change, rather than just reject it purely because the site has a certain name. I don't take "we are called BetaWiki" as a valid argument. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 23:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
    We could just diversify our documentation Orangera1n (Talk | contribs)
    Far easier said than done. - Rhinozz (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
    Problem with that is you need to find more users that are ACTUALLY interested in non windows oses MikeShinoda2001 (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
  3. MikeShinoda2001 (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  4. afaik the wikis mentioned above did not have information in build level so at least these information on BetaWiki have their uniqueness. CI611 (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
    But does BetaWiki even have this information? Most of the pages for software other than Windows remains untouched, with articles uncreated. It's just a list of strings. No information. A list. - Rhinozz (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
    I definitely edited the entire Mac OS 8 page, and I remember that Mac OS X Developer Preview page is very complete... CI611 (talk) 01:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
    What we're trying to say here is that the Windows articles get much more traffic, therefore that's what we should be focusing on. Orbitron (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
  5. GT610 | Sorry for my poor English! (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC) We are BetaWiki, not WindowsWiki. Betas of Mac OS, Linux, are equally important as Windows betas. Thus we need to keep them.
    Read my original argument. Windows and Microsoft related products get all the traffic, therefore I and many other people feel we need to focus on. Orbitron (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
    Did you forget our goal? Go to Main Page and you will find the definition of BetaWiki. "An open encyclopedia of software history". Yes, "Software history", not "Windows history". JaGoTu and BF10 have devoted to reach this goal, and now we are going to destroy all? --GT610 | Sorry for my poor English! (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
    Add: BetaWiki should be focused on Windows, but that doesn't mean we need to abandon others. Imagine you're in a garden with flowers around. Then you want to cut all the leaves just because they are not flowers. Ridiculous? But that's just what they want to do.--GT610 | Sorry for my poor English! (talk) 12:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
    Flowers need leaves since they are the part of the plant that sustains photosynthesis. On the other side, we don't necessarily need non-Windows content. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 14:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
    No we need. We need introductions and information of virtualization softwares to help new betaers understand the basic theory of Windows betas, and basic operating system theories to assist the newcomers. There are still lots of MacOS and Linux betas, which belongs to beta circle. BetaArchive has an area to discuss and share information of these non-Windows relatives, and why we can't? DistroWatch - they sometimes offer information which is not trusted and even provide false ones. So in this situation BetaWiki acts as a platform providing real and trusted knowledge with justice and fair. Thus, these non-Windows pages also play significant roles in BetaWiki.--GT610 | Sorry for my poor English! (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
    First, we are not BetaArchive. Neither are we a forum. Not to mention the non-Windows sections on BA are pretty much dead. Second, how is DistroWatch being questionable our business in the first place? And no, BetaWiki does not act as such a platform, because the "real and trusted knowledge" is not there to begin with. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 10:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
    I'd like to add a bit more things. Non-Windows pages takes up some space of server storage, which needs to be considered for a server runner, but simply deleting or purging them will produce too many logs, which also takes even more space. So it's not worth doing it, and it will also comsumes unnecessary CPU and memory costs. Even if only one person would see these pages, at least these information helps one people. And that's just enough.--GT610 | Sorry for my poor English! (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
    Yes. There is no way for permanently deleting it. WinInsider (talk) 03:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
    Sorry, but that's probably the most pathetic argument in this discussion. You can't change because you would have to work in order to achieve that change. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 10:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  6. BetaWiki is a collaborative open encyclopedia that documents the history and evolution of popular operating systems and applications. - Windows is not the only popular operating system. Linux and macOS are also popular. WinInsider (talk) 12:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC) [EDIT: Now supporting, not opposing. WinInsider (talk) 08:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)]
    Thank you both Nara and GT610 for repeating this absolutely irrelevant argument. You're basically saying that the mission of BetaWiki can't be changed because the new mission would be different from the current one. You can't change because that means you would change. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 14:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  7. Of course, Windows is going to remain on top when it comes to public interest in its development history - especially when it has the lions share of the desktop market, though I don't think popularity should be the driving metric in determining what gets to stay. There's plenty of non-Windows pre-release media that I am personally interested in. For instance, I've wanted to learn more about the development of Half-Life since availabilility of pre-release media for that game is quite barren, especially when compared to Half-Life 2. And from what I see, TCRF doesn't keep a handy list of what versions are known to exist. Having the list would surely help others in identifying what builds of the game are known to exist. Without such lists, that interest that sparked in me probably wouldn't have happened, and I wouldn't have noticed this "half-life alpha v 0.61" tag in this particular video. To have those articles removed would definently surpress public consciousness and interest, as I can't find any other pages that solely lists those builds in order. I've also planned on delving more into OS/2 and Mac territory at some point when I've finished the bulk of Windows builds from Windows 1.0 to about Windows 7 on my website. And that combined with my regular activity on BetaWiki would surely go to good use on improving those particular articles. So from my perspective, just because something gets the bulk of attention shouldn't mean that all other articles have to go. The Internet all too often strugles with the concept that something may not interest a particular group of people, but can have value to others. --Blue Horizon (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you for your opinion. This is not really driven by popularity, but it's rather an acknowledgement that the non-Windows content does not hold up to the rest in both quality and quantity. Unfortunately that's a result of the wiki coming from the Windows beta community in the first place. This isn't a change that would happen overnight either, as the exact scope would need to be thoroughly defined. I wouldn't mind including MS-DOS and OS/2 for example, since they are both an important part of Windows history in a way. I do want to put up a backup of the contents prior to removal of the affected articles on the Internet Archive or a similar site, as I believe it's still worth its place on the Internet. Perhaps it will even encourage somebody to create a similar wiki by taking our content as a starter set and hopefully attract other communities to it. And even if this change does not entirely happen, I think we should sit down and think about what we want to focus on, since I am sure we don't want to become distrowatch wiki either --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 14:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
    I wouldn't lose sleep over some things like iOS and Android being removed, as I'm not into those systems myself. Though for other niche articles like games and various applications, archiving those articles is something I would be fine with. While there are times I find Windows interesting above all else, I do like to give other non-Microsoft products a go once in a while. I at least have my website to share those endeavors and information with others, so at least that can be something to fall back on should this wiki remove such articles. --Blue Horizon (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
    The problem with Android is that there is no single Android, so I don't even know where do these versions even come from. Apple systems have their own active community and most of our pages about macOS and iOS just say when a build was released to the public. Even the countless Windows 10 build articles have more information in them. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 10:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
    Maybe just split betawiki into two, one half on windows and the other half on other oses like macos, linux and other oses etc. How will this work out? MikeShinoda2001 (talk) 11:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
    Probably we can get together and run another Wiki that is independent from the current one, holding MacOS and Linux pages. And then the current one can be used to focus on Windows things.--GT610 | Sorry for my poor English! (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
    What? Other wikis exist for this stuff. That was my original argument for this. Go there if you want to edit macOS and Linux articles. Orbitron (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
    But, they can provide false information. WinInsider (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
    So can BetaWiki. Edit the articles if you think they contain false information. That's the whole point of editing a wiki. Orbitron (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
    Experts on BetaWiki will stop false information spreading as soon as possible, but capitalists won't.--GT610 | Sorry for my poor English! (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
    Yes. I just want to support GT610. WinInsider (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
    Capitalists? What? Also, there's nothing stopping you from just removing the false information, I don't know what's hard to understand about that Orbitron (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
    I think what they're trying to say is that the aforementioned wikis basically has a non-existent moderation due to being abandoned by majority. You can already tell how well a non-moderated wiki ends up with. BF10 (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  8. Idontknowwhatusernameiwanttoput (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC) I think games and applications that are not included with an operating system doesn’t have their place here but Operating Systems and applications that are included in these can stay.
  9. I think getting rid of all non-windows content would be a step too far. Pruning some stuff makes sense. I don't think the Linux articles add much value for example - mostly it's just a list of distros with release versions - low amount of content and not relevant to BetaWiki. I think we just need to look at which sections have a good base to build off, and which are just too large a task to be taken on. Hounsell (talk) 09:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
    I agree. Some articles are unnecessary, but there are also Linux articles with great quality, which is of value to keep it. We can just throw off some low quality "trash", and keep the "diamonds".
    I've also found some articles which are currently less contents but have a potential to be great ones - For example, some Deepin, UOS or other distributions - these I think we need to, and we can keep it and improve it to better, comprehensive ones. --GT610 | Sorry for my poor English! (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
    Wait... My opinion is that we can throw out Firefox, for example. As Android and Linux articles are large works and cannot be done in one day, we can just improve them to make them better. If they really need to ne removed please give us some time to backup our works. --GT610 | Sorry for my poor English! (talk) 15:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
    I highly support this type of decision, and that we should selectively remove less important material. I have listed most pages that should be removed above. BF10 (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
    Yes! I absolutely support this. - Rhinozz (talk) 20:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Window shadow[edit source]

How do you make screenshots of windows (not the os) show shadows in the photo? WaterMelon (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Use AeroShot. ヾ(•ω•`)o Hi. I'm SamCool939. (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Ok thanks. Where can I get AeroShot? WaterMelon (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
You can get it here. ヾ(•ω•`)o Hi. I'm SamCool939. (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

i can't sign up and can't use discord[edit source]

got this question What kernel function implements the Blue Screen of Death on Windows NT? i have no idea bro. signed up to discord using the link and i do not see the server, does it even exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0B:F4C1:2:0:0:0:0:243 (talkcontribs)

What's wrong with the NFO file of Windows 2000 build 2195.1?[edit source]

I don't know why the abuse filter is annoying with the "Addition of repetitive content" error message. Bubblebeam (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

It might be because of the ASCII art that's present in the file. Jurta (talkcontribs) 19:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Should Android (Surface Duo variant) be renamed to Android 10 (Surface Duo variant)?[edit source]

The Duo 2 runs Android 11 instead of 10, and an upgrade is also planned for the original Duo. The emulator has been updated too.

I think the current Duo variant page should be left for Android 10, and an Android 11 page should be created. Th3userscene (talk) 09:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Windows Neptune[edit source]

If BetaWiki makes Windows Builds that are seen in source codes,then why are all the Neptune builds apart from 5056, 5111.1 and 5000 confirmed but not leaked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TechActivate 781 (talkcontribs)

Because, uh, they are not leaked??? --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 19:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
I believe this comes from a misunderstanding. A build with files of a file version is not leaked; on the other hand, one that has been shared, publicly leaked, or otherwise dumped is leaked. - Rhinozz (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

What I mean, is that why are they unconfirmed, they should be confirmed but not leaked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TechActivate 781 (talkcontribs)

Because they're not confirmed according to our policy. A file version found in another build alone is not proof of existence. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 17:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Protect Windows 12 page[edit source]

Protect Windows 12 page. - WinHEC2009

Support[edit source]

Oppose[edit source]

What is the Windows 12 Page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TechActivate 781 (talkcontribs)

It's a page about a version that may or may not be released in far future. Having a page which doesn't serve any purpose will be non-sense. So this page should be protected. Same goes to the Copper page, there're no any confirmed builds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
Windows 12 isn't a thing; let's not try to break the WNR rule.
See BW:GUIDE. - pivotman319 (📫) 12:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
It may be released in future. But it doesn't exist for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Please you can create a page?[edit source]

Do you can create an Vandalism on BetaWiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

No, why? --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 02:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
There was a Sandbox, but its protected (sorry if i have added this wrong, i don't understand the editor much, also i dont know how to add a username) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

About {{lowercase}} template[edit source]

Why do we use this for some macOS pages? It causes an additional empty line. Bubblebeam (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

And sadly, I can't fix the template. WinInsider (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Will not let me make my userpage[edit source]

I cannot make my userpage, it says I do not have permmision to. Can someone help? Somethingyouknow (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Title pre-21990 Cobalt builds as Windows 11 as opposed to Windows 10[edit source]

Currently, only Cobalt builds with Windows 11 branding are titled Windows 11. However, Cobalt builds with Windows 10 branding are technically not Windows 10. Brandon LeBlanc, who works in the Windows Insider Program, has stated that builds like 21390 are early Windows 11 builds, but with Windows 10 branding. For previous versions of Windows, like Windows 8, the wiki has titled the early builds that contain older branding with the name of the final release. For example, most of the early Windows 8 builds have Windows 7 branding, but they are titled Windows 8 rather than Windows 7. To maintain consistency, I think these Windows 10 branded Cobalt build pages should be titled Windows 11. Charka123 (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

ARM32[edit source]

Should mentions of "ARM32" be changed to "ARMv7", as this is the architecture version targeted? (Except for the rumours of very early builds of the port being for ARMv6) 10:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

We definitely need some consistent set of arch identifiers so pages do not constantly change between x64 and AMD64. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 15:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Disk Check[edit source]

Does the disk check actually exist? If so, what are the requirements for the disk? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TechActivate 781 (talkcontribs)

What? --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 15:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not give enough information. In the 21996 page, it says that there is a requirment for disk. What is it and does it exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TechActivate 781 (talkcontribs)

Do you mean disk space?

Well, no because for disk space there is BypassStorageCheck. What I mean is why does it say BypassDiskCheck on the 21996 page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TechActivate 781 (talkcontribs)