Active discussions
Cortana was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
October 8, 2016Good article nomineeListed
May 13, 2020Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

I'm not good at writing Wikipedia articles...Edit

And as I don't want to leave a mess I want to request a more experienced writer to make a background or history section for Microsoft's Cortana based on ( from Microsoft Research telling about the creation of Cortana dating back in 2009. -- (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)



Just a notice. Whois results indicate that this website is not owned by Microsoft. Please exercise caution.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes I said that it's fine to put that link even if it's not owned by Microsoft. The download is not malware it's coming from official Microsoft download page to the user.--Corti45 (talk) 12:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
The download is genuine from Microsoft . I don't see any problem with that. --Corti45 (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
No, it is not fine. If it is not the official website, per Wikipedia:External link policy, we are not interested in it. Besides, the web site and the IP address advertising it are both from Istanbul, Turkey, according to whois. And I did detect malware in it.
You are engaged in edit warring. I had warned you once. The prudent thing to do was to stick with WP:BRD until a third person check the website. But I do think you are affiliated with the IP address.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


I believe the word Siri should appear in this article, as Cortana is clearly influenced by it and is competing with it.

I wrote "Some people see it as Microsoft's alternative to Siri" and gave a reference. This was reverted. I agree "Some people" is not the best phrasing, I do not want to start an edit war, and I'd support any phrasing, but I believe ignoring Siri is wrong.

What do you think?

עמיר רהט (talk) 08:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@עמיר רהט: Is there any sound reference directly supporting this viewpoint? I think we should, at least, have a "See also" at the end of this article, listing several other related products. As for the edit reversion you're encountering, I guess Codename Lisa would like to join the discussion. :D --Kou Dou 09:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi. When I said "weasel word", I wasn't nitpicking on some word. (It's not worth the trouble in Wikipedia; the benevolent way of just fixing it works for the best.) Weasel words give the impression of a source being in existence while there is none. Mary Jo Foley mentions the word "Siri" twice and it the second instance, she uses it as a synecdoche for personal digital assistant; there is no evidence that any person or people believe such thing, let alone their opinion have due weight.
As for being influenced by Siri, that's the old child's quarrel of who stole an idea from who, in which a Wikipedian must not partake. We do know that Siri did not influence Cortana for sure because the original Cortana of Halo predates Siri; before that, there is an entire fleet of fictional digital assistants in literature and fiction, like HAL 9000 and Jarvis. Even the synthesized speech technology of Siri didn't have any influence because Microsoft have been integrating it into Windows since Windows 2000. And there was an experimental personal digital assistant for MSN Messenger too.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Corrections to the articleEdit

I fixed two things in the article: 1) the use of "NBL" instead of "NBA" 2) The use of "metres" instead of "meters" (the latter one is correct because we're talking about a product developed by Microsoft, an American, not British, company, based in Redmond, WA, USA). I hope my corrections do not make editors angry. I just think that if a company like Microsoft is American the article should avoid Briticisms like writing "metres" instead of "meters". --Marce 10:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fandelasketchup (talkcontribs)

I added those mistakes there, I'm not quite familiar with U.S. American sports culture so I accidentally mistyped it, thank you for correcting it. As for the the latter I'd state that Microsoft though originally an American company is quite an international company, in fact ovrt 50% of its employees are European (especially since the addition of the Finnish Microsoft Mobile Oy), so my European English is not as misplaced as you'd think, but your chauvinism isn't completely misplaced either as Wikipedia was also founded by an American. :-P
Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 01:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Cortana is not available in Australia, proven by this article. I don't want to change the page because I'm not good at it, but if someone could, that'd be great :) TheScottymo (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Need a footnoteEdit

Hello editors,

Please help me add a footnote to several sentences, beginning with "Users in certain countries in Europe can also choose to opt-in to the alpha for the French, German, Italian, and Spanish versions of Cortana as of August 2014." What I tried to add was the following code:

Users in certain countries in Europe can also choose to opt-in to the alpha for the French, German, Italian, and Spanish versions of Cortana as of August 2014.<ref group=note>Cortana in non-English versions are only available through the [[Preview for Developers]] program at this time.</ref>
Cortana has been released in several countries since its launch including the United States, the United Kingdom, China, Canada, Australia, India, France, Germany, Spain, and Italy and is expected to come to more countries over time.<ref group=note />

And the result should be the following:

Users in certain countries in Europe can also choose to opt-in to the alpha for the French, German, Italian, and Spanish versions of Cortana as of August 2014.[note 1]
Cortana has been released in several countries since its launch including the United States, the United Kingdom, China, Canada, Australia, India, France, Germany, Spain, and Italy and is expected to come to more countries over time.Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page).

Under Notes and References should be

  1. ^ Cortana in non-English versions are only available through the Preview for Developers program at this time.

I do not know why the note did not appear after the second sentence. I plan to apply the footnote to several other places within the article, but if I can't do so here, I'm sure I can't do so there. Can anyone please help?

Thank you! <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, Some Gadget Geek, do you have sources for the information that you'd like to put in notes?
By the way, there's another way to do notes {{efn| }} for the note and {{notelist}} under the Notes section - as an option that's a little easier to work with.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Carole, and thank you for your response. My source for the footnote is as follows:[1]
  1. ^ "Cortana alpha for Windows Phone 8.1". Windows Phone How-to. Microsoft. 5 December 2014. Retrieved 18 March 2015.
Code for the source if you need it is as follows:
<ref name=AlphaInfo>{{cite news|title=Cortana alpha for Windows Phone 8.1|url=|accessdate=18 March 2015|work=Windows Phone How-to|agency=Microsoft|date=5 December 2014}}</ref>
Your help is much appreciated! <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Some Gadget Geek, I'm   Done and closing the request. This page is still on my watchlist, though, so if there's something that needs tweaked, leave me a note and I'll be back.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Windows 10Edit

When Windows 10 launches I want to add the template "Microsoft Windows Components" underneath the article, but I was wondering if I should wait until the official R.T.M. or could do it right now, anyhow Microsoft Cortana is a built-in component of Windows 10 so eventually Microsoft Cortana will be mentioned in the template, but I wonder if it's best to wait for later as product announcements don't translate to reality, but as Windows Holographic is mentioned I wondered if moving it in a little early would fall under WP:CRYSTAL or not. Sincerely, -- (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC) (Alternatively Namlong618)

Requested move 11 August 2015Edit

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator. Clearly there won't be consensus for this move yet, though I still think it's worth considering in the future. Cúchullain t/c 12:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

– It seems clear that Microsoft's Cortana personal assistant has emerged as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the name Cortana. It receives several times the page views of all potentially ambiguous articles combined: it was viewed 156,286 times in the last 90 days under its old name, and 26k in less than two weeks under the name Cortana (intelligent personal assistant). In comparison, there were 45015 for Cortana (Halo) and 1037 for Cortana (gastropod), as well as 13517 for Curtana (which is sometimes spelled "Cortana", but much less frequently than "Curtana"). It seems pretty clear this article is what a large majority of our readers are looking for. Cúchullain t/c 19:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Given that this just came out it may very well be a blip in views, rather than a lasting thing. I think it's premature to make that call right now, especially since Cortana (Halo) has over twice the page views in the past 60 days, compared to this article, 44687 compared to only 26064. Per day views seem to be a bit larger for this article but again, this is a brand new software and it's too soon to see if that's a lasting thing. - Aoidh (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - long-term significance is questionable. Blank Space, another article which got moved while still recent, has its page views significantly higher than any other topic with the name, and currently still is the primary topic. This page lacks the large difference that would defy WP:RECENTISM. If anything, a release of a new Halo game may also create a short-term bump in views of Cortana (Halo). I would suggest the nom to maybe wait a few months to see if the software remains the primary topic. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 02:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Chinese is not a languageEdit

Dialects need to be mutually intelligible for them to be considered the same language, also "European Spanish" is a better term to adhere than "Castilian Spanish" as "Castilian" is also the WP:COMMONNAME for Argentino Spanish, the list could be alright, but I'd change "dialects" to "regional variants" and replace "Chinese" with "Mandarin Chinese" and since Mainland Chinese (see: Standard Mainland Mandarin) is different from Taiwanese Mandarin the latter could be added separately if Microsoft would ever implement it there (note that I'm not pleading on the basis of WP:CRYSTAL but on the fact that these are in fact different dialects of the same Mandarin Chinese language and not a mythical Chinese language as by the same logic French, Castilian, Catalan, Italian, and Portuguese are all "dialects" of the same Latin language (romance)).

Sincerely, -- (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Undid revision 696922021 by

Hi guys! The reason I undid the edit is due to Cortana fitting the description of an intelligent personal assistant. Also, Apple's Siri and Amazon's Alexa do not have so-called in front. If you have any objections, please include them below and make sure to ping me. I will reply when I have a change (which could be up to 48 hours). Happy Holidays!

Daylen (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Map errorEdit

The map contained in this article of supported regions includes the Chinese Republic which is not true, only Mainland Mandarin (Putonghua - Official language) is supported, Taiwanese Mandarin (Guoyü - National language) is still unavailable as one is unable to set their region to "Traditional Chinese (Taiwan)" and get Cortana(, yet). -- (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


why its doesent work Cortana in my window 10 pc pls cam n u help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

This isn't the place to ask. WP:NOTFORUM Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 09:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Region boxEdit

As per WP:SOURCE please add sources to every addition regarding new languages and/or language variants and/or platform availability of Cortana in that region otherwise the unsourced material may be removed or marked with "Citation needed". Thank you.

Sincerely, -- (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Add mention that microsoft made it impossible for many users to disable cortana?Edit

Shouldn't this article include mention of the win 10 anniversary edition removing almost all users ability to disable cortana?TeeTylerToe (talk) 04:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

GA ReviewEdit

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cortana (software)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Falcon Kirtaran (talk · contribs) 05:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:  
    More wikilinks would improve things. Otherwise, the article is very well-written and clear.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:  
    • The section "Cortana in other services" has numerous problems:
    • Some of the material here is similar in character to "Expansion to other platforms" - consider whether the two sections can be merged. Much of the material here is related to development history.   Done
    • Consider citing "This differs from the Google mobile app, which by default presents all available browsers installed on the device, unless the user has opted one to always open." Removed   Done
    • "Cortana works with the Cortana Analytics Suite to enable businesses to get things done in more helpful, proactive, and natural ways" is heavily laden and uncited. I would just drop it.   Done
    • Avoid terms like "enable" and superlatives when discussing the function of a commercial product. It must not be our intention to endorse things.   Done
    • Avoid laden superlatives in "Technology"; "extensive" jumps out.   Done
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:  
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:  
    • Quora is not a WP:RS: Karan, Rekhi (June 26, 2015). "What programming language(s) was/were used to program Microsoft's personal assistant Cortana?". Quora. Retrieved June 26, 2015. Removed, note added   Done
    • Some references are deadlinks, and have questionable claims of being WP:RS; see "Microsoft's Digital Assistant, Cortana, Is Now on Android, iOS; - GUC". Retrieved 2016-07-25. Please recheck references (there is a link to a great tool for that on this page).   Done
    C. It contains no original research:  
    • "On PCs and tablets running build 9926 or later, Cortana is accessed through the search button in the taskbar, while on smartphones Cortana is brought up using the search key on the device, and is very similar in design and functionality to its Windows Phone equivalent." needs a citation, and has a citation needed tag already.   Done
    • The section "Cortana in other services" needs substantial cleanup and is already tagged. Inter alia, there remains a citation needed tag.   Done
    • The section "Regions and languages" has several valid citation needed tags (and other cleanup tags).   Done
    • The section "Technology" requires a citation for its last sentence, which is already tagged.   Done
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:  
    The sentence "The Cortana integration lets drivers make restaurant reservations on their windshield, or see their favorite locations thanks to a virtual map." is copied verbatim from The language is also somewhat loaded - I'm torn on the use of the term "concept" to describe a feature, but certainly "favorite" and "thanks" are unnecessary. This sentence should be rewritten.   Done, hope what I did is fine
    • Absolutely! I wonder if the following sentence can be updated? FalconK (talk) 08:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I simply removed it. I could not find any references stating specifically that it is integrated, although it could be easily inferred. There were some passing mentions in guides which include Foursquare and Windows 10, but nothing that will satisft the guidelines. I believed that it was not that useful, so I removed the sentence in it's entirety. Hope that's fine by you. Dat GuyTalkContribs 08:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:  
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):  
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:  
    See above for examples of laden terms and superlatives; these introduce editorial bias.   Done hopefully
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:  
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    • File:Cortana Interesting Answer.png is tagged incorrectly, and should bear the screenshot of a Microsoft product non-free rationale out of an abundance of caution.   Done -- it was deleted by commons, but isn't really needed anyway
    • Actually, it meets the Commons CSD {{screenshot}} and so I'm going to go ahead and transwiki it to here where it is allowed. FalconK (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
    It's not immediately clear that we need to include all three logos, but it's not especially problematic either.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
    At its core, this is a good, informative article. Once all the above quibbles are resolved, as I am confident they can be, I'm happy to approve this nomination. It looks like it will be a bit of work, so I'll keep the nomination on hold for a couple weeks or so.
    • Wow, that was fast! All the qualms are gone! FalconK (talk) 10:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for finally starting a review! As for avoiding laden superlatives, do you have an example? Regarding the deadlinks, I found only one deadlink using the tool and removed it. Sorry for edit-conflicting. Dat GuyTalkContribs 07:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Hey, no trouble at all. I'm glad to see these move forward so quickly! The laden language and laden superlatives seem to be all gone now - the article doesn't proclaim Cortana the most advanced or anything like that. I'm re-running the link analyzer now, and maybe I can take a stab at a couple of these as long as it's essentially mechanical. FalconK (talk) 08:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • What tool are you using? I can't find anything using Checklinks. Also, thanks for helping out with the article itself, and not only the review. Dat GuyTalkContribs 08:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm using checklinks. However, I find I have to actually visit all the ones that show up as redirects, because many companies (like Microsoft) have a bad habit of giving you a 302 to some landing page that gives 200, instead of giving an error. Ones that do that, I try to change to go to In this case, all had a suitable archived copy. FalconK (talk) 08:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Final thing is about the files. I have no idea how to proceed with non-free files, since my uploads are always on Commons. I'll try asking around on IRC, but if you know anyone that has good knowledge of it, please ask him to help. Cheers, Dat GuyTalkContribs 08:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Commons blew away the one screenshot that was there, but I'm not entirely convinced it was necessary. Looking at it more, I think a specific rationale for the trademarks might not be required since they are public domain. So, that probably just leaves the busywork of filling in the rationale on the rest of them, no? FalconK (talk) 09:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @DatGuy: Looks like this may be for future reference. If you have a file deleted at Commons that can be used under fair use here, you can ask the deleting Commons admin to temporarily undelete the file so you can transfer it, or you can ask for temporary undeletion at COM:UDEL. As regards how to do anything here, use the monkey-see monkey-do method. Find a GA or FA on the same kind of article you're working on, and copy what the authors of that article did. lNeverCry 20:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Falcon Kirtaran I believe the files are all done. Two of them are PD-textlogo, and therefore aren't non-free. I did the 'paperwork' for one, and WP Cortana China is fine as is. Dat GuyTalkContribs 10:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Looks good! I think the deleted one is definitely nonessential, and the justifications are great for the others (I replaced a couple N/As just now with the obvious justification). I think that was the last blocker! Good luck at FA. FalconK (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Reaction to Cortana from publicEdit

Is there a need to report the negative reaction to this program? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panama1958 (talkcontribs) 16:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

  • As long as it's reported in WP:RS, it improves the article to do so; it adds balance, keeping things to a WP:NPOV, and prevents the page from becoming an unqualified endorsement (which would be inappropriate). FalconK (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, there should be a public reception section. Maybe what percentage use it. Flight Risk (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 6 June 2017Edit

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Cortana. (non-admin closure). Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Cortana (software)Cortana (virtual assistant) – The technology is called a "virtual assistant", and articles for other similar technologies (Facebook's M, Samsung's Bixby) are disambiguated with "virtual assistant". – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 01:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Support, more precise than software, although one might say Halo's Cortana is also a virtual assistant. Brandmeistertalk 19:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Move to Cortana, and move Cortana to Cortana (disambiguation). I think the Microsoft assistant is now a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This is the clear winner on page views - more than all the others combined: [1]. I think it also wins common usage. On long-term significance, the British sword would be a contender, but I don't think that's very commonly called "Cortana". The article is at Curtana and that seems to be the predominant term for this.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Move to Cortana and move the dab page to Cortana (disambiguation). This is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the spelling "Cortana". Amakuru is correct; the British coronation sword Curtana is rarely if ever called "Cortana". "Cortana" is occasionally used for the legendary sword of Ogier the Dane, which is traditionally connected to Curtana, but it is just one of various spellings and Ogier's fictional sword isn't notable outside of him and the Curtana connection. The only reason the "Cortana" spelling is prominent today is that it happened to be the version used by Microsoft for Cortana (Halo) and subsequently the virtual assistant, which page views show is sought more than all other topics combined.--Cúchullain t/c 13:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


"Microsoft is killing off its Cortana app for iOS and Android in January" at the Verge. Link to MS notice "Changes to Cortana services". Article says notice is "for Cortana users in the UK, Canada, and Australia that reveals Cortana for iOS and Android is disappearing in at least those markets." So what about the rest of the world? Shenme (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Xbox One updateEdit

Sadly, Microsoft removed Cortana voice assistant from Xbox One:

(I hope they don't remove it from Windows 10.) Therefore, this page should be updated to reflect this change. I might find more links about this and update it myself in the future. --User123o987name (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

"Quiet hours" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Quiet hours. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 13#Quiet hours until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

GA ReassessmentEdit


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result: Delist the lead is inadequate and some of the sourcing is questionable. The biggest (hardest to easily fix) issue is the lack of a reception section. This fails the broadness criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think this article meets the good article criteria. Some sections and paragraphs are only a single sentence long, the article contains some vaguely promotional content (like the "by the numbers" section), the article cites sources which don't seem to be reliable or particularly reputable (KontentPort, Eye on Windows, Ubergizmo, etc.), and even the lead is a bit too short for my liking. This article feels more like a C class to me, not a GA. I've never brought an article to reassessment before, so apologies if I've done something wrong. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment One of the purposes of a GAR is to see if an article can be fixed to return it to GA status. In this case, comparing the article to the Oct. 8, 2016 version that was declared a GA [2], I seem some added material in the current version, but not too many deletions. So I guess the first thing to do is to figure out is if your criticisms come from a degraded article, and potentially fixable without too much effort, or if you would assign 'C' status to the original GA article. If the latter, that is a bigger problem. Could you take a took at the 2016 version? Thanks, --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Hi. I think that that version also fell short of being a GA; it the same problems with sourcing in that version too, and I forgot to mention that there's barely any mention of the reception Cortana received in either versions of the article, thought a Engadgenet reviewer's impression is oddly included in the "Cortana in other services" section. Prose is mediocre in both versions of the article, too. So, I would also say that version was a C. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
      • Thanks for taking a look and clarifying the issues. So it seems as if there would be no quick fixes here. It is too much for me to take on at present. We'll see what others think. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 21:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Image captionEdit

Dear IP editor with IP and Manticore, you seem to be involved in a very slow edit war over the image caption under the first image in this article. I invite you to discuss the caption here.

I believe that IP editor is correct in this case and the caption should not be Cortana on Windows 10 (pre-2014 update) because Windows 10 was not released yet in 2014. In this case, 2004 means Windows 10 update also known as "20H1" and "May 2020" update. This update did change the appearance of Cortana on Windows 10 Task bar by splitting Cortana out of the search bar into a dedicated button with the Cortana logo.[1] This new Cortana button can be seen on this image from Windows 10 article.


  1. ^ Huculak, Mauro (31 May 2020). "What's new with Cortana with Windows 10 May 2020 Update". Retrieved 14 June 2021.

Anton.bersh (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Great, happy for the article to be updated to reflect that. I reverted those edits as they changed the existing content without explanation, and appeared nonsensical as Cortana was developed in 2019 (as I indicated in my edit summary). Thanks for the context. — Manticore 07:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  Done I have changed "pre-2014 update" to "pre-20H1 update" because it can not be confused with the year 2004. Also, I understand you because most of the time unexplained edits by IP editors are just spam. IP editor could definitely avoid this whole confusion by adding an edit summary in at least in their second edit. Long-term, I think the image could be updated to show a modern Windows 10 appearance. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Apparently, there was enough ambiguety in the caption for people to edit it again. Since these edits come from IP editors, there is no real way to discuss these chjanges. I took another screenshot, this time of the newest look of the app. I uploaded it with a non-ambiguous name this time, "File:Cortana.windows10.21H1.png". Anton.bersh (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Return to "Cortana" page.