BetaWiki talk:Guidelines
Hello, I'm sorry but can you please make some VersionInfo templates for Mac OS? I am making articles on each version. Tau Ceti (talk) 08:05, 3 November 2014 (GMT)
- I can, that's for sure, however there is a problem with the naming, because Mac OS X. We can't include it in the MacOS namespace, but we also can't make it a namespace on its own. Have you got something on mind by chance? --AlphaBeta (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2014 (GMT)
- No I can't, that really seems black-or-white. What would YOU say? Tau Ceti (talk) 06:54, 5 November 2014 (GMT)
- On the links I have added it's a sub-namespace: Mac:OS:X Tau Ceti (talk) 06:47, 7 November 2014 (GMT)
I think we should replace the standard list syntax with </br> with bulleted lists. I have started using them in my articles. Tau Ceti (talk) 11:03, 5 July 2015 (BST)
Transferred from the old Rules page[edit source]
Stating that the sky is blue[edit source]
Seriously, why are we mentioning Tor and what not, we're just giving script kiddies ideas. Frankly, I think the ruleset is very pedantic and can be simplified by stating that topics such as banning are subject to admin discretion. User99672 (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2015 (GMT)
- Absolutely wrong. BA's rules also mention you mustn't use proxies, BTW, and no, it will be too late for them when they want to vandalise BetaWiki. --Ovctvct (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2015 (GMT)
- That was not what I was suggesting. Furthermore, that is a base rate fallacy, to assume what their capabilities are. BA's rules are not BetaWiki's rules. BA's rules are also not a golden standard; and it doesn't mean it's right. I'm not suggesting any particular site is right, but BA is not the gospel. User99672 (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2015 (GMT)
- BetaArchive, though, is not a wiki. The point of a wiki is that everyone can edit, as long as it doesn't go to vandalism. If people edit over a proxy, it's their own thing. They don't want the admins (and the whole world if they're not registered) to see their IP address, so why should we force them to show it? --AlphaBeta (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2015 (GMT)
- Let me also remind you that just because you disagree with my opinion does not invalidate mine. Nothing we are discussing in this thread is based in factual knowledge, and therefore should not be dismissed as 'wrong', but rather acknowledged as a difference of opinion. I expect better from the staff than to be shut out for not having the same viewpoint. After all, this is a collaborative effort, and does not revolve around any single person. User99672 (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2015 (GMT)
- I realize it's been a while, but I wanted to point this out: [[1]] Administrators from other sites have come to understand the reality of telling people how to misbehave. I was right all along and Wikipedia has vindicated me. I'm glad we don't have spam-artists for administrators here any more. User99672 (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2015 (BST)
Distributing software [betas], keys, and cracks via BetaWiki[edit source]
In re. to this page: [[2]]; there really should be a policy about this. This is a wiki and not a distribution point...as well, someone (namely rightsholders or trolls) could very easily endanger the wiki by reporting this...I would strongly recommend not allowing such content here... User99672 (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2015 (GMT)
- Indeed, wikis are intended to be an information source, not a download tracker. Keys though should be allowed, as long as they are not for final versions in which case it'd be warez. --AlphaBeta (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2015 (GMT)
- Incidentally, the links aren't for trying to find warez, it's just the lists, not the actual CDs. The point was to find unleaked Windows builds. Tau Ceti ~ Windows 10 in 640K! 09:46, 6 March 2017 (GMT)
Emulator Headers[edit source]
Can you add a template of the emulator infobox, please? LilShootDawg (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2017 (GMT)
A Guide To Taking Proper Screenshots[edit source]
I've noticed recently that people are taking a mix of screenshots of different qualities, or with mistakes in the picture. In light of this, here are some recommendations I suggest (and that I've established on articles I've edited). The easiest way to see them is by screenshots themselves. Note that these guidelines only apply in the case that a build is documentable (you have the real build, and not using shots from a third-party source outside your control). -Foxlet (talk)
In General[edit source]
Screenshots should be "clean" (no extraneous borders outside the video area) and scaled to their true size. If possible, use the Windows screenshot feature (Print Src, Snipping Tool) to take pictures of the desktop, or use the screenshot feature if using a hypervisor/emulator. For "Full Screen" shots, if a cursor is present, it should be isolated in a corner of the background if possible (to show unique features of the cursor). All screenshots should be lossless (JPEG is not acceptable).
Good Shot: Clean area at true scale
Good Shoot: 1024x768 in True Color
Good Shot: Pixels are 1:1, even at lower resolution
Good Shot: True scale and with transparency/shadow effects
Good Shot: Additional graphics are seen as the intended subject is the hypervisor, and the window is properly cropped
Bad Shot: Not at true size, low quality, graphics outside the real desktop are visible
- Windows NT 5.0 Build 1888 Logon Screen.jpg
Bad Shot: Pixels are stretched, a scaling filter had been applied
- FAKE photo of Windows Longhorn Build 5001.jpg
Bad Shot: Image is smaller than true scale
Bad Shot: Image has additional graphics and is not properly cropped, although it meets all other criteria
Article Screenshots[edit source]
Each main article usually requires three components: the Desktop, the About window, and (sometimes) the Logo. In most cases, a Windows article only needs the first two. "Full Screen" shots (such as for the Desktop and Start Menu) should be 1024x768 in 16-bit color at minimum, unless the subject in question does not support such a video mode (for example, 1024x768 in 256 colors is fine for Windows 3.1 and Microsoft Chicago).
Desktop shots should be void of any extra windows, it should represent the state of the system when it is completely idle without any running programs. In the case that the OS shows a tool or special graphic (such as a welcome screen), that is known as a "First Boot" shot, and is separate from the Desktop shot.
Each article also contains a Gallery, where other associated shots are contained. Additional full screen shots belong here, such as the "Demo" (which shows off particularly unique features of a build). The remaining shots are usually those of programs unique to a build. Those shots should be cropped to the size of the program's window (including transparency and window shadows if such effects are present).
Setup Shot
Boot Shot
Shutdown Shot
Logon Shot
First Boot Shot
Desktop Shot
Desktop Shot
Start Menu Shot
Demo Shot
Full Screen Program Shot
Program Shot
About Shot
About Shot
Widescreen.[edit source]
I suggest that there should be a rule for screenshots for that if widescreen didn't exist back then, you shouldn't take screens in widescreen. (That's 16:9, 16:10, etc., etc., etc.) --LilShootDawg (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2019 (GMT)
- Why? --Yue Ling (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- At what point was widescreen nonexistent though? John Carmack coded Quake on a 16:9 monitor back in 1995. And not just any widescreen monitor, it was a 1920x1080 running at 85 Hz, which is still better than what most people use today. <ref> And this, of course, wasn't the first widescreen CRT ever made. They weren't a commodity but they existed. And since you mentioned widescreen in general, I'd like to mention that the first movie shot in widescreen was made in 1897, which is decades before the first commercially available microprocessor. Also it is already recommended to take all screenshots in 1024x768 whenever possible. --Cvolton (talk | contribs) 16:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Suggestion for new rule[edit source]
How about a new guideline/rule? --109.180.145.38 13:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Try to avoid edit warring.
- If you are engaged in a dispute in content in an article's content, mark it with the Dispute template. This will indicate that the content of the page has been disputed and that users should see the appropriate talk page to help resolve the dispute.
- That sounds like a good rule.--MCpillager (talk) (Sandbox) 1004065811 bytes of data
new rule[edit source]
How about this new rule? --MCpillager (talk) (Sandbox) Me discover fire, invent wheel, build server. 11:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Do not swear on this website.
- We have minors who browse this site.
- Minors will see bad words on the internet either way, we can't really protect their innocent souls by banning swearing here. While there's no need for excesive swearing, I also don't think there's much sense in prosecuting it vigorously.--Overdoze (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Date formats[edit source]
Since we've switched to full dates within the article text itself, why don't we change it for tables and infoboxes for unification? Yue Ling (talk) 10:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- What's wrong with having a preferred numeric date format for cases where brevity is helpful? --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 10:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Another new rule[edit source]
How about this one? No using alternatives for accounts. BGRComputers.co (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Oh sorry. I thought I didn’t know that. BGRComputers.co (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Also, I’ve read all this wiki’s guidelines before and I know it. BGRComputers.co (talk) 12:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Question about the rule[edit source]
Is covering update builds against the rules? I really think it is. --BGRComputers.co (talk | contribs) 12:20, 14, July 2021 (UTC)
- Only update RTM builds are generally not allowed unless it's significantly special such as being a post-RTM/having a timebomb or build 6003. BF10 (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- and i think windows 10 post rtm/ga as well (you know like post ga 19042/19043) should stay imo. I mean some of them have ms official blog posts on the windows insider blog (latest with such a thing is 19042/19043.1081) Norman 13:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- That's right. Nara Insider (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- and i think windows 10 post rtm/ga as well (you know like post ga 19042/19043) should stay imo. I mean some of them have ms official blog posts on the windows insider blog (latest with such a thing is 19042/19043.1081) Norman 13:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
About impersonation[edit source]
Is impersonating against the wiki’s rules? I really think it is. I’ve noticed something back in July 18. BGRComputers.co (talk) 03:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Also could you please add a abuse filter to prevent impersonating and vandalizing this wiki that a user named “Bill Gates” done it before? BGRComputers.co (talk) 03:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
- Most of the discussion relating to these vandal/impersonation accounts have been taking place on the Discord^^.Xeno (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Rule for gibberish articles[edit source]
Is inserting/nonsense gibberish into articles against the rules? I really think it is. BGRComputers.co (talk) 11:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Obviously? What sort of question is that? "Please note that these rules are not exhaustive, so do not assume that not forbidden automatically means allowed." --93.126.192.11 11:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Oh, the question is about vandalism/spam. BGRComputers.co (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Edit request[edit source]
Please replace "ban" with "block". --105.111.118.75 16:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Should no gaming autoconfirmed be added?[edit source]
There should be a rule about not making userspace or sandbox edits to get autoconfirmed. Username.php (talk) 08:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Autoconfirmed is managed by the wiki software, I am not sure if I can exclude namespaces from counting towards autoconfirmed. There is little point in doing that anyway since it is a pretty low threshold that is intended to prevent edits from spambots and anonymous users. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 01:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- You might be intrested in this. Username.php (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
What are the requirements for extended confirmed?[edit source]
I can't seem to find it so what are the requirements? Username.php (talk) 08:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- 500 edits and 1 month age if I remember correctly. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 01:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Six months seems weird[edit source]
Six months seems weird because it can be 181 days, 182 days, 183 days or 184 days (from MediaWiki block durations). This is unfair for changing username wait time. Username.php (talk) 08:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)