BetaWiki:Community portal

From BetaWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to BetaWiki community portal!

This is where we discuss the operations of BetaWiki. Please help us to set down policies and guidelines, improve articles and more.

To add discussion, please add a new heading under this line.


Test[edit]

Test community portal... Tau Ceti (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2015 (BST)

Regarding the spammer[edit]

AlphaBeta, The IP that has attacked a few users about here should be blocked. The IP's attack behaviour was unacceptable. I know you say it's not spamming. But it's personal attack, which some may consider worse than spamming. Tau Ceti (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2015 (BST)

Main Page[edit]

I have restored some of the elements of the Main Page, such as the News section. VIPs are now again able to edit the Main Page, but please restrict that to editing the News section. --AlphaBeta (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2015 (BST)

Windows 10 Update Builds[edit]

Should we add all update builds to the Windows 10 page as soon as it RTMs or should we keep it in the current state, perhaps with BLItems instead of ESD filenames? --AlphaBeta (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2015 (BST)

Keep it in current state. Otherwise, Windows 10 main page will be cluttery. Tau Ceti (talk) 08:36, 3 June 2015 (BST)

Yet another question[edit]

Should we name pages like Windows:Explorer, Windows:DCE according the Guidelines and leave the current state or apply the Guidelines naming system to builds only and rename these pages to Windows Explorer, Desktop Composition Engine and so on? --AlphaBeta (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2015 (BST)

I think we shall apply the Guidelines naming sistem to builds only, because names like Windows:DCE can be quite confusing, since "Windows DCE" never existed.--46.102.69.61 19:24, 2 June 2015 (BST) (ovctvct)

Improvement[edit]

I am going to improve the articles on BetaWiki. People, it is not good that some of our pages are merely a few words. They should have more information, so I will add more. We have some very good articles (such as Windows 1 DR5 and Windows 8.1 Preview) but some are underdeveloped. So I will enhance them with content, images, etc. Thanks for your attention. Tau Ceti (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2015 (BST)

I have to move several pages because of people not following the guidelines. It says that we are not BA, don't include the timestamp in the article name. Tau Ceti (talk) 11:37, 2 August 2015 (BST)
I want to improve the articles about Windows 8 builds. I would like to start with build 7850; does anyone have an ISO in their collection they could provide a link to (on MEGA, preferably, it's more secure)? Callum90ish (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2015 (NZDT)
There's something wrong with your signature Callum. Also, I don't have an ISO, but try ftp://oscollect.old-dos.ru. Tau Ceti (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2015 (BST)
Unfortunately, there is nothing there on Windows 8. It's going to be difficult fixing up the wiki, when half the builds are only available in Fort Knox (BA FTP). Callum90ish (talk) 20:37, 15th August 2015 (NZDT)
Hey, I can help you with several builds. However, I can't provide any builds due to my (lack of) upload speeds. --Recycle.bin (talk) 10:50, 15 August 2015 (BST)
What builds can you help me write better articles for? I've got Windows 7 Beta & Pre-beta build 6801, Windows 8 DP and a wide range of Vista builds. Do you have some other builds you can provide information and screenshots for? callum90ish (User talk:callum90ish|talk]]) 11:14, 16 August 2015 (NZDT)
I did screenshots of build 5048, you can see them on the build's page. I also have some screenshots of: Windows 98, NT 4, Windows 10 Technical Preview. Tau Ceti (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2015 (BST)
What 98 builds do you have screenshots of? Might as well start from the earlier builds, since that's what people look at (in my experience, usually either because I told them too, or because they're more interesting). callum90ish (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2015 (NZDT)
Hey, I have the following 9x builds, and I can sort them by the difficulty in installing them in VMware or Virtualbox: Easy: 431, 445, 450, 456, 468, 474, 490, 501, all of the leaked 950-r? builds, 1094, 2106-2222A, 2332-2470, 2481-2535. Difficult: 58s-73g, 189-405 (except 346), all leaked 11xx builds, 1411, 1434, 1593, 1619, 1650-1900 (English builds only). Painful: 81-122, 1511, 1518, 1525, 1559. I don't have access to my main right now (and it's going to undergo an upgrade soon, anyway) but I'll try to start on more of these articles ASAP. I already did 1 or 2 of the more boring builds, like 445, as they may literally only have a couple of changes noticeable to normal people.--Recycle.bin (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2015 (BST)
Okay, then. If you work on those 9x builds, I'll start work on NT5/6/10 builds. I have quite a few of them. The problem will be getting hold of builds in order to gather information and screenshots. Curse Steve Sinofsky and his obsession with plugging every last leak!!! callum90ish (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2015 (NZDT)
[takes jacket off :P] I'll do Windows XP screenshots, earlier ones are a little intimidating at this point but I'll figure it out. Tau Ceti (talk) 06:46, 16 August 2015 (BST)
I might start with Windows 7. If anybody wants to help me, download links for ISO's (excl. 6801/7000), screenshots and information are all welcome. callum90ish (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2015 (NZDT)
Does anyone know a good website for Windows 7 builds? callum90ish (talk) 10:19, 17 August 2015 (NZDT)
Sadly none exists afaik. BA is the only one who provides ISO's of 7 betas. Olddos.ru only gives a 6780 ISO, plus that ISO is broken(throws error during setup). Would you like a 6936 ISO? But I can only upload it to my google drive. Note: To install 6936 in workstation,select windows 7 x64 as guest, select LSI Logic adapter ONLY, other adapters causes setup to freeze. And download this to enable the superbar and other locked stuff: http://static.squarespace.com/static/514e2905e4b023ca28fd2047/514e2ad8e4b0d528d07c0c96/514e2ae0e4b0d528d07c13b4/1323212437000/BlueBadge_rev3_x64.zip?format=original Wil provid ISO ASAP.--85.122.4.49 06:16, 17 August 2015 (BST) (ovctvct)
OK. Tau Ceti (talk) 06:52, 17 August 2015 (BST)
Great. If you have any other NT6.x builds, I'd appreciate it if you could upload them. Finding leaked builds, especially in the 6.1-6.3 range, is tricky, and I'm pretty sure we can all agree that torrent sites stink for older leaks, because hardly any of those older builds have any seeders. This is a BIG job. callum90ish (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2015 (NZDT)
Currently I'm using VBox, which makes any pre-2296 Whistler builds hang at setup :'{ Tau Ceti (talk) 07:07, 17 August 2015 (BST)
How about I do those ones? callum90ish (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2015 (NZDT)
Here's that 6936 ISO : https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2CQR48oiPa5eUU1aTgzZ01RZ0U/view?usp=sharing Please tell here when you finished download as it must be removed or some [censored] will DMCA me. --94.176.152.6 11:55, 17 August 2015 (BST)
Finished now callum90ish (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2015 (NZD)
OK, link is now down. --94.176.159.71 16:37, 18 August 2015 (BST)
@callum90ish - No offence, but it seems that you didn't contribute to the 6936 article yet, even though I given you the ISO. Also, you said you have 6801&7000 ISOs, but you didn't even touch the respective pages....Hope you aren't just asking for the ISO's just to play with them and nothing else, if so I will never upload such ISOs again. --94.176.152.83 16:54, 19 August 2015 (BST)
I'm not. It simply takes a while to find good information and collate it. Plus, to find interesting differences in a build, a certain amount of "playing with it" is necessary. - callum90ish (talk) - 08:02, 20 August 2015 (NZDT)
Plus, I've had issues getting 6936 to install. Keeps stalling at "Setup is starting services...". I've started improving the existing article, but can't do much more until I get the build installed. It's been taking up a fair bit of my time trying to get it running, plus I'm really busy at the moment with work. There's not enough time in the day. callum90ish (talk) - 09:47, 20 August 2015 (NZDT)
Read what I wrote above. Use LSI Logic adapter ONLY, NOT LSI Logic SAS. That way it must work, at least it did for me. Use Windows 7 x64 as guest OS setting. Also, what VMware version do you use? I use 7.1.4 and it works if I select that adapter when making the VM. So, delete the VM and select LSI logic when creating the new one.--85.122.7.11 10:24, 20 August 2015 (BST)
Thanks octvt. I've fleshed out the article a bit. Do you have any other 7/8 era ISO's? Builds for those versions are pretty hard to come by. - callum90ish (talk) - 13:09, 2nd September 2015 (NZDT)
ATM I don't have any other build, but I can download one just in case. --85.122.6.120 07:04, 2 September 2015 (BST) (ovctvct)
Thanks, that would be great. ATM I've only got 7850 from the NT6.2 era, plus the CP... - callum90ish (talk) - 19:31, 2 September 2015 (NZDT)
Would you like 7989? (In case you wonder, I am currenly using an ipv4 to ipv6 tunnel, explaining my IP) --2001:470:6E:794:0:0:0:2 18:39, 3 September 2015 (BST)
7989 would be fantastic. That's one of the builds I've wanted to get my mitts on for a LONG time! - callum90ish (talk) - 07:17, 3rd September 2015 (NZDT)
Sorry for bloating the page, but three new Windows 8 builds (7973.fbl_core1, 7973.fbl_core2 and 8056.fbl_grfx) have leaked at OSBetaarchive recently. You might want to to check them out as they'e freely available. --Recycle.bin (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2015 (BST)
Yeah, I saw that. I'm waiting till I head off to school, because they've got fibre, versus cruddy ADSL2+ here at home. Callum90ish (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2015 (BST)

Improvement II[edit]

Because it was becoming painful to post from there, I'll make this one. Also Callum you can do anything pre-2296 thanks for your help. I'm actually installing them right now, so yes. Tau Ceti (talk) 08:03, 17 August 2015 (BST)

Okay, then. Downloading 2250 at the moment. Do you know anyone who might have some Windows 7/8 ISO's? I don't have many of those, thanks to S. Sinofsky and his obsession with plugging leaks. Thank heavens they fired him! callum90ish (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2015 (NZDT)
Ha. I don't know, but I'll upload the images tomorrow. Tau Ceti (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2015 (BST)
Here's a good collection of NT 6.0 builds for you to start with: [1] --Recycle.bin (talk) 11:46, 17 August 2015 (BST)
I am currently improving some NT builds, and one build (5.0.1965) includes an NFO. How do I format and add it properly (like the one in the Windows 8 Build 8888 article)?--Recycle.bin (talk) 13:14, 17 August 2015 (BST)
I don't know. Tau Ceti (talk) 06:55, 18 August 2015 (BST)
I will be updating less frequently in the coming days. I have to clear out my downloads queue and upgrade to 10514 on my main. I also want to upgrade to 10525 on my secondary.--Recycle.bin (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2015 (BST)
Good on you. Everybody needs a break sometimes. callum90ish (talk) - 08:37, 20 August 2015 (NZDT)
I'm going to upgrade to 10514 very soon (think 20-30 minutes or so). I will be a bit more active after a few hours. --Recycle.bin (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2015 (BST)
Things are done here, but I'll need some time to install my apps/drivers. --Recycle.bin --182.74.246.202 16:26, 3 September 2015 (BST)

The images[edit]

I must say, we are getting to reasonable levels of activity here. Tau Ceti (talk) 07:23, 21 August 2015 (BST)

Featured article[edit]

I was thinking of an idea to BetaWiki that I've seen at other wikis. The idea is that one of our best article, gets displayed on the main page. It could be an initiative for users to improve articles to FA status. there should be an 'Article of the month', that is well-written and provides a large amount of information. Tau Ceti (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2015 (BST)

I doubt it will work anyways, considering how "much" people care about some(actually most) articles. If you post a specific article on the main page that's too neglected it will do nothing but waste time. No chance, people seem to lose interest in betas nowadays. No matter what you do, they don't get interested anyway. So it's pretty much hopeless.--2001:470:1F1A:292:0:0:0:2 08:44, 8 September 2015 (BST)
That's like saying this wiki is pointless because the beta community in Sept. 2015, is near to nonexistent. Tau Ceti (talk) 06:58, 10 September 2015 (BST)
In progress Tau Ceti ~ Windows 10 in 640K! 09:25, 5 March 2017 (GMT)

Votes for deletion[edit]

I'm proposing an idea for BetaWiki: Add a 'votes for deletion' (VfD) process which discusses whether or not a page should be deleted based on community consensus, but not for pages which should be quickly deleted (such as spam/promotion, vandalism, etc.) VfD nominations may be placed in the BetaWiki:Delete requests page, and tagged with this template: User:InfinityPlus1/VfD. --InfinityPlus1 (talk) 05:20, 8 September 2015 (BST)

Good idea. Tau Ceti (talk) 06:57, 10 September 2015 (BST)

Protection policy (and other protection-related proposals)[edit]

Here is my proposed protection policy:
User:InfinityPlus1/Protection_policy
I am proposing the following along with the policy here:

  • Admin only protection should be called "full protection".
  • Edit-trust only protection should be called "quasi-protection".
  • Registered user only protection should be called "semi-protection".
  • Differently colored lock icons for each protection type:
  • The notice that appears when editing/moving a quasi-protected page should be changed to the following:

Note: This page has been protected so that only trusted users can edit it. The latest log entry is provided below for reference:
Note: Add support votes under "===Support===" but above "===Oppose===". Add oppose votes under "===Oppose===" but above "===Discussion===". Add general discussion/comments under "===Discussion===". --InfinityPlus1 (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2015 (BST)

Support[edit]

  1. I'm pro. Tau Ceti (talk) 06:01, 18 September 2015 (BST)

Oppose[edit]

  1. I'm con. User99672 (talk) 00:55, 16 October 2015 (BST)
  2. I'm con too. We're not Wikipedia, we don't need those.--Ovctvct (talk) 07:08, 17 October 2015 (BST)
  3. Con aswell. AlphaBeta (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2015 (BST)
  4. Frankly, I think that this system is unnecessary, and so I'm voting for 'con'. --Recycle.bin (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2015 (BST)

Discussion[edit]

I thought there was an issue for a while, in that this wiki concentrates, let's just say 10% on the management of the wiki and 90% on the information contained within. Tau Ceti (talk) 06:02, 18 September 2015 (BST)

User99672, what's the issue? You might want to explain why you're contra. Tau Ceti (talk) 05:46, 16 October 2015 (BST)
I would've responded to this earlier had there been some form of notification system. Oh well, my apologies. I find it blatantly un-necessary. The amount of traffic and frequency of spammings here just doesn't *warrant* it. User99672 (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2015 (GMT)

Management and voting templates[edit]

At the moment I'm working on a series of templates to use in various community discussions, for instance to vote on important matters, or for admin use. Tau Ceti (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2015 (BST)

Database error?[edit]

Yesterday I tried to access the site, but there was an issue with the database. Now it is fixed, of course. I wonder if it was actually a client-side issue, because it appears (RecentChanges) other users were correctly able to edit. Tau Ceti (talk) 05:46, 16 October 2015 (BST)

I got that too, it could be because the mediawiki is quite outdated(1.23.0),latest is 1.25.--Ovctvct (talk) 07:08, 17 October 2015 (BST)
Perhaps that's the case. Tau Ceti (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2015 (BST)
It's not really outdated. If you bothered to check, you'd find that 1.23.0 is a LTS release. --AlphaBeta (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2015 (GMT)

Protection[edit]

It used to come across to me that this wiki is rather censorship-happy due to protecting pages all over the place. Why don't we have some sort of template which says, 'This page is protected'? Also, for one-off vandalism, temporary protection is better. Tau Ceti (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2015 (GMT)

Civil[edit]

Is this a rule yet? Be civil to other users, and don't make directly criticising edits. Also don't back-seat sysop. Tau Ceti (talk) 09:05, 25 November 2015 (GMT)

Boxes![edit]

I have put some effort and made Wikipedia-alike administration info "boxes". You can check out them there. If there are no objections, I will replace the actual templates with ones using the new Template:Box. --AlphaBeta (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2015 (GMT)

This is nice. Tau Ceti (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2015 (GMT)

Flow[edit]

Just will leave the following link here and let me know what do you think of it and whether should I get it running on BetaWiki... https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Flow --AlphaBeta (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2015 (GMT)

I Symbol oppose vote.png Oppose this. I've used Flow on another wiki and it's glitchy and just makes it confusing to navigate. We should however implement DPLforum. Tau Ceti (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2015 (GMT)
I briefly checked DPLforum, and I've got to object. This is a wiki and not a forum board. --AlphaBeta (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2015 (GMT)

-Info templates[edit]

I am renaming -Info templates (BuildInfo, StorePackageInfo, VersionInfo, etc.) to InfoBox Something to conform with the wiki standards (VersionInfo will get an infobox soon). Redirects are going to stay as long as there are still articles referring to the old names. --AlphaBeta (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2015 (GMT)

This is indeed a good system. Tau Ceti (talk) 02:59, 29 November 2015 (GMT)

On Windows CE[edit]

We don't have any CE-related articles yet, but when we do, is Windows Mobile to be given a separate page? I personally say no. However, Windows Phone should have its own page as it's an altogether-different platform, whereas Windows Mobile is based on CE. Tau Ceti (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2015 (GMT)

What about Windows 10 Mobile, considering the new OneCore strategy? --89.29.80.194 13:57, 23 December 2015 (GMT)
Is that really a separate OS base? 120.144.40.84 22:25, 30 December 2015 (GMT)
That's the point... --AlphaBeta (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2016 (BST)
Windows 10 Mobile should still be on the Windows Phone page, at least until further information. Tau Ceti (talk) 05:33, 3 April 2016 (BST)

A link[edit]

Is this useful??? Tau Ceti (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2016 (GMT)

How do we list periodical releases?[edit]

Because, as we know, Microsoft will now release Windows versions in a gradual system, but now the Threshold Wave 2 and Redstone builds are listed on the Windows 10 page. Should we do like BA and make separate pages for Windows:10:TH2 and Windows:10:RS1? Tau Ceti ~ Windows 10 in 640K! 01:05, 13 June 2016 (BST)

A poll for the above[edit]

Support[edit]

  1. Symbol support vote.png Support
Tau Ceti ~ Windows 10 in 640K! 04:15, 7 August 2016 (BST)

Oppose[edit]

Discussion[edit]

PASSED

Fork[edit]

It appears there is a fork of BetaWiki made at Wikia, because here there are apparently 'too many spammers'. Essentially, all the pages are copied from BetaWiki. I don't like this idea, as it just spreads everyone out and leads to less activity here. Tau Ceti ~ Windows 10 in 640K! 09:27, 5 March 2017 (GMT)

UPDATE: Also, BillyHatcher2012 is the head admin. (Tau Ceti)

Yeah, but don't bother with it, keep editing here instead. There are many pages missing on that "fork" also. Also, I don't think staff members here would agree with it(don't ask, but hounsell promoted me to an admin again), nor do I. --Ovctvct (talk) 12:03, 5 March 2017 (GMT)

I'm not surprised if this is Billy's work. He's probably going to use it for all the fake builds he made. Tau Ceti ~ Windows 10 in 640K! 09:45, 6 March 2017 (GMT)
Idle hands are the devil's playgrou­nd. Just let them operate their cheap wiki. --AlphaBeta (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2017 (GMT)

"BetaWiki hub"[edit]

We should probably make a new main page that would link people to the various topics covered on BetaWiki.

My initial concept is the following:

Mainpage-con1.png

I am putting this concept there so we can discuss making BetaWiki great again. Would love to hear your opinion and suggestions. --AlphaBeta (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2017 (GMT)

Excellent. First featured article: Windows:1:DR5. Tau Ceti ~ Windows 10 in 640K! 23:25, 24 March 2017 (GMT)
I plan to start with featuring a beta for a month, as the wiki doesn't really have a lot of articles that we could show off. When that improves, I have no problem with weekly featured betas. --89.29.80.194 08:55, 25 March 2017 (GMT)

Revamping the article naming system[edit]

In the last weeks I've been thinking a lot about radically revamping the article naming guidelines, which currently use semicolons to delimitate the operating system name, its version and the build. This system worked great for Windows when there was a major release every 2 years, i.e.: Windows:8.1:9431:winmain bluemp.

This system does not adapt well to the constant updates to Windows 10 flowing from Microsoft in the last two years. Do we consider each update as a separate OS version? Or do we treat them as Service Packs? What about these special server releases that have an NT buildtag as well as a build number of their own? Which one do we use?

The current Infoboxes partially depend on the current naming system. Meanwhile it is nice to have an automatic system, it doesn't save the editor an enormous amount of time as compared to filling the basic information to the template manually, not mentioning the fact the system always struggled with strange names like Windows:HomeServer.

What replacement do I propose? I propose getting rid of the semicolons and relax the naming guidelines a little bit, but still keep a system. Let me first present my suggestion of how would my new system work with the 9431 I mentioned above:

1. Windows 8.1 build 9431
2. Windows 8.1 build 9431 (winmain_bluemp)


Windows 8.1 Preview
6.3.9431.0.winmain_bluemp.130615-1214
9431.0.winmain_bluemp.130615-1214
Windows:8.1:9431:winmain_bluemp

Let's take a look at the first two lines and ignore the rest for now. The basic idea is that the final name that's displayed within the OS gets combined with the magic word "build" and the build number + the revision number if it's not equal to 0 (#1). Obviously that would work as long as there aren't several known builds sharing the same build number. This is where we need to specify the build lab and the suggested way is to mention it in a bracket (#2). Of course, there can even become a situation when we cover two builds with the same number, from the same lab, but with a different build time, which we should solve on an individual basis. I think can count such cases using the fingers of my hand.

Well and how does that fix the Windows 10 problem? We would call them all Windows 10. After all, they're not really different from the original July 2015 RTW. The build article would mention the update it belongs to. By removing the semicolon system it won't look so much out of order. Another issue that this new system would fix is early OS/2, which has different Microsoft and IBM editions. Currently the vendor is mentioned in the middle of a build article name, I believe it should get the prominent place in the front of the article name. We are going to solve that later.

The Proposal[edit]

  1. As long as BetaWiki knows about just one build with a said build number + revision, the article would receive a name according to example #1 above. To maintain some degree of consistency, example #2 should redirect to example #1.
  2. If BetaWiki knows about two builds with a said build number but from differing labs, the individual build articles would receive their names in accordance with example #2. A disambiguation will reside on a name formed according to example #1.
  3. If the build has got an official name, we should redirect it to the main article. Windows 10 Insider Preview redirects to main Windows 10 article.
  4. The full buildtag, both including and not including the major and minor version must redirect to the main article. 1175.1's schizophrenia is solved by 1175.1 redirecting to 4.0.1175.1 which would be a disambiguation. Buildtag conflicts between NT and 9x should be solved by disambiguations.
  5. The old-fashioned name should redirect to the new article name for compatibility reasons for already existing articles.
  6. Windows 1.x, 2.x and early NT 3.1 should be solved on an individual basis. We can't use build numbers when they don't have any.

Some guidelines that would govern codenames should be probably added as well, would be nice to search for Chicago 40e and land instantly on Windows 95 build 40e. Currently the preferred article comes last in the results.

I hope I expressed my mind well enough, now it's your turn to hate me for this. --AlphaBeta (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2017 (BST)

Support[edit]

  1. I agree with this. --Ovctvct (talk)
  2. This is actually a very sane proposal, and I agree with this as well. I did have a few doubts about post-RTM builds, but these were cleared up elsewhere. Recycle.bin (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2017 (BST)
  3. Done. Tau Ceti ~ Windows 10 in 640K! 01:26, 25 April 2017 (BST)

Oppose[edit]

Discussion[edit]