Let's take a look at the first
three 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 [[Windows:Longhorn:4015:main|the]] [[Windows:Longhorn:4015:Lab06_n|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 [[Windows:8.1:9600.16384:winblue rtm|a]] [[Windows:8.1:9600.16384:winblue_rtm:130822|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.