BetaWiki:Community portal/Archive 3
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)
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)
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)
- AlphaBeta (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2018 (GMT)
- Ovctvct (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2018 (GMT)
- LilShootDawg (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2018 (GMT)
- TCB also does this too, so we might as well have it like that. BF10 (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2018 (GMT)
- TipzTeam (talk) 06:22, 3 July 2020 (HKT)
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.
- ToMi and I made infoboxes for NeXTSTEP, Android, and MS-DOS.--
MCpillager (talk) (Sandbox) 1004065811 bytes of data14:19, 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? 126.96.36.199 19:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
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. 188.8.131.52 17:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. --184.108.40.206 14:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
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
- 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
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.
Stop talking about MCpillager
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.
- 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.220.127.116.11 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.
- 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)