Talk:Features new to Windows 10

Should this article only be about the RTM version of Windows 10?

Windows 10 is being updated continuously with major new features being introduced even before the first year since release has passed. If Windows 10 is the last major version of Windows, this means new features will keep rolling in, making this article become ambiguous. It will be hard to determine which feature was actually new to Windows 10. I suggest we limit this article for only the RTM version of Windows 10. We have another article for subsequent releases of Windows 10 in the Windows 10 version history page.

What are your thoughts? --NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I think a better way of organising it is to structure this article to contain information of features new to each build in order (TH1, TH2, Redstone 1, etc.) and then remove that information from the version history article so that the version history article can be focus on individual builds (10240, 10586, etc.). 115.188.97.88 (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

That's a good idea. We need more input form other users before taking definitive action NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. It is too soon discuss stuff like this. This article is tiny; 8938 bytes of readable prose size only. (See WP:SIZERULE.) And it is missing a whole lot of info too. (See the tag on top of it.) So, no! Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I suppose you're right, this is kind of a small article with a lot of missing info tbat should be tackled before any major reorganisation. Just putting an idea out there! 115.188.119.161 (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Personally I was rather searching for a Windows 10 features article (I know, it would be very generic dropping the "new", nevertheless ... maybe keep reading). I wouldn't mind to see what features were added/changed in which release/update, yet when I wonder about features, whether working or "in development" (buggy, etc.), I think the inception date is of secondary usefulness to me, hence I would maybe switch the structuring, if not completely changing it to a customary sortable list. I do understand, from a techie's (editor's) point of view, this structuring might be easier (to maintain), but from a reader's point of view the other one might be more useful (to me at least). --Alien4 (talk) 08:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Proper Section Headings

@Codename Lisa: Currently, section headings use codenames to identify each upgrade. For example, Windows 10 version history uses the easily identifiable common name with the OS version number, which tells the average person the month and date that build was launched to the general public. As much as the codenames are "fun", they are for technical purposes and Microsoft was very careful as to not call the Anniversary Update "Redstone 1" publicly around its release. Finally, you're concern over breaking backlinks is not warranted, because Wikipedia is constantly changing anyways and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a great answer. WikIan -(talk) 18:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, hello there. :) Your attempt to first downgrade my concern and then reject the downgraded version is mostly funny, but also arrogant. Anyway, insulting both Microsoft and me, and then saying "it will break anyway", is not a persuasive reason for your proposed change. Instead, focus on answering this question: What is the problem you are trying to solve? Then, together, we will look for a solution.

Also, Wikipedia constantly changes, but in the four years of my services here, you've been the only person who deliberately made breaking changes. (Remember the row you started with User:FleetCommand over Microsoft email services?) It is time you figured out why you are here: To help or to pretend helping?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: I may make Bold edits, mostly because these Microsoft articles are in such disarray and as contributing members to Wikipedia, it is our job to improve them. In the past years it is only you and Fleet Command who have vehemently reverted any edits that I have made. I clearly stated why I believe that we should unify the names, because the common name is Anniversary Update and not the codename "Redstone 1". With your philosophy, Wikipedia would never change because you are so resistant to change. Have you ever figured out Outlook Mail yet? That Outlook Mail is a component of Outlook.com and that the Outlook.com article should be greatly shortened? Also, can you please clarify: I'm not sure how I "insulted Microsoft", but ok... WikIan -(talk) 03:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

A change for the sake of change is not an improvement. "Redstone 1" and "Anniversary Update" are synonyms and both have been commonly used by the mainstream media. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not saying a change is totally out of question. Naturally, if you obtain a consensus, it has force. Hopefully, you know how, right? (Hint: WP:DR.) —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: I had just *independently* changed the headings to "Windows 10 UPDATE NAME (VERSION NUMBER)" format for the headings but immediately undid my revision after noticing this was done before and undone by you. You requested that we come to consensus. So to start, I will say the reason I wanted to change this, and then you can put forth your opinions. I changed it to be consistant with the "Windows 10 Version History" page that labels the headings in the "Windows 10 UPDATE NAME (VERSION NUMBER)" format. But more importantly, The version number is how the OS actually identifies itself in the winver page. The version number is also how Microsoft's KB articles identifies each releases and how patches are categorized. The version number is also how technical support identifies the releases (i.e. Are you running version 1511? If so, do this and that, etc). This would be like naming Windows XP's Wikipedia article as "Windows Whistler". I originally wrote the headings "Redstone 1" because we didn't have an official name for that yet. This is similar to how future versions of Windows's pages were titled by their code name and renamed after a name were announced. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks! --NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

First thing, do you know that {{ping}} does not work if you don't sign your message?

Second, let's assume what you say is right. Would you go fix all the incoming links too? The easier way is the mention the version number in the body of each section.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: Sorry, I didn't know this, plus I forgot to sign and also forgot that I wasn't logged in. When I wrote this article, (th2, and RS1 parts), I made those headlines via codenames because that's how it was written in Windows 10 Version History page. I literally copy and pasted the Windows 10 version history page's template to form this article. I had no particular reasons to write the headline by code names. It's just how it was on the other page, so I thought nothing of it. Even now, what we call the headline is not really important. It doesn't add or remove from the value of this article. It doesn't change its purpose. So it really doesn't matter what the headlines are. It's just, frankly, my OCD like feelings about having an inconsistant headline. Someone changed the version history page's headlines, now this article and the other one is inconsistant. Nothing really wrong with that, but it bothers me...in a nail on a chalkboard kind of way. :) --NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Codename Lisa (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Material for making this article better

I recently added four external link that can deepen the knowledge of the reader on this subject. Long story short, a registered user reverted them without even giving a reason. (But no need to go into that; I believe everyone knows now that registered users simply despise guest contributors.)

Here are the links:

• What's new in Windows 10 v1803 for consumers
• What's new in Windows 10 v1803 for IT professionals
• What's new in Windows 10 v1803 for software developers
• What's new in Windows 10 v1803 for hardware makers

Enjoy. 😉

5.219.77.174 (talk) 08:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Page "Features new to Windows 10" needs version 1903

Windows 19H1 v1903 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.123.115.195 (talk) 11:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Cut down the fluff

Is this supposed to be a changelog or a list of new features? "Kernel version numbers will now be consistent with Windows 10 Mobile" - that is not a feature. "Windows Defender can now scan offline" - that is not new, etc. 93.142.93.39 (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)