Talk:Windows 10 version history/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Capitalization of title

@ViperSnake151: I have no idea how to capitalize the title, but should you or someone with the knowledge do that? Does that require another move? The Professor123 (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Why does the title have to be capitalized? It is improper formatting, and is consistent with Android version history. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't have to be. I just thought all titles were supposed to be capitalized. The Professor123 (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Major Windows 10 updates

What is a "major" update is an opinion; two articles are not needed for Windows 10 updates. That page should be merged into this one. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: Codenames

Personally, I think at least mentioning the branch name for each release would work better (i.e. "rs1_release"). That's an actual piece of data used to designate each release series. ViperSnake151  Talk  13:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. —Codename Lisa (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

close paraphrasing

So, what part of this article is the "close paraphrasing"-message actually for. I'm willing to take a look at it, but I can't find anything wrong... --YannickFran (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

It means it is copied from or worded too closely to how it is worded in the source (which would be plagarism and copyright infringement) ViperSnake151  Talk  00:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware what it means, I just need to know which part of the article it applies to, because I can't find it...--YannickFran (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The close paraphrasing may be on the tables. The descriptions of new features, improvements, and bug fixes might resemble the bullet points Microsoft provides on their blog posts announcing those updates. I will contribute where I can, if I find any resemblance. To see how closely an update description resembles the original blog post, simply compare it to the source cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NazmusLabs (talk • contribs) 20:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Discuss: Should this article include Cumulative Updates?

Windows 10 is Divided by branches. After a branch reaches RTM, The major build number for that branch is fixed. Any further updates to Windows 10 on that particular branch typically includes little to no new feature; rather, they only include fixes, security updates, and quality improvements. An update to a Windows 10 branch that has reached RTM increments the OS's build's minor version number. For example:

Branch: Windows 10 Codename X Build 12345 Build 12346 build 12347 build 12348 (RTM) Build 12348.123 Build 12348.456 Build 12348.789 ... Build 12348.n

Given that adding these post RTM updates can end up causing the tables to be very long, and given that these updates do not include significant new features, do you think this article should cover the minor build versions (cumulative updates). Note that for branches that are supported by LTSB, such as TH1 branch, those branches will be supported for 10 years. This means, there will be 10 years of monthly cumulative updates. You can imagine how long the table will get with only cumulative updates.

Please discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NazmusLabs (talk • contribs) 06:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we should definitely include the build revision/cumulative updates, this will be consistent with Android and iOS version history pages on Wikipedia. For build branches that are not the Current Branch or Insider release branch, the table can be collapsed.Tony0517 (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge Windows 10 Mobile#Version history into this article

We're currently keeping track of Windows 10 Mobile's version history in the Windows 10 Mobile article itself, and just like how we've split of Windows 10's version history from the Windows 10-page, I think it is reasonable to split Windows 10 Mobile's version history from that article. However, I would suggest it is being merged into this article as Mobile - theoretically - is just another edition of Windows 10 and put it under its own subsection, like "Version history: Mobile" and rename the current "Version history" to "Version history: desktop and tablet". --YannickFran (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Support, It would be more consistent, and it would follow iOS version history which separates Apple TV from the iPhone, iPad, and iPod Touch.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Table not collapsable in mobile

Anyone know how to make the table collapsable in the moble site? NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTCHANGELOG and the importance of 3rd party sources

According to the WP:NOTCHANGELOG set of rules we may only add new changes to a changelog if they can be backed up by secondary and tertiary sources due to both WP:NOTABILITY and WP:SOURCE and since my time is very little and very precious I can't search for the right sources for all entries, but I'll try to find as many as possible and I advise other editors to do so as well otherwise we'll end up with another Xbox One System Software on our hands where the entire version history/changelog was completely deleted due to only/exclusively Microsoft being used as a source. I am not saying that we should remove any references and links to the original Microsoft sources, only complementary links to other tech sites and newspapers that have also reported on these builds.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Tip while searching for non-Microsoft sources just search "Windows 10 build [number]" in Bing News and you'll probably find the right old article.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

The "See also" list

@Guy Harris: All other operating system version history articles already link to others.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Exampli gratia Android version history#See also and iOS version history#See also, "See also" doesn't just mean Microsoft-related articles, it could be any similar article or related subject.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Ubuntu's bash?

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't it Unix's bash or at very least Debain's bash? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkLight748 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@DarkLight748: Well, the sources name Ubuntu by source, and Canonical, Ltd. is one of the co-developers of the Windows subsystem for Linux, but if you can find any sources that specifically name Debian or just general UNIX as the "Bash" that Windows 10 runs then feel free to correct the text.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Bug fixes are not prohibited.

Here is the text from WP:NOTCHANGELOG "Exhaustive logs of software updates. Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources in articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article. Common sense must be applied with regard to the level of detail to be included." Bug fixes are a part of software updates, and the list above only prohibits bugs and excessive details, also copyright infringement.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@The Professor123: Please state the Wiki policy that says that bug fixes shouldn't be in the change log.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@86.81.201.94: I didn't say/mean the Wiki policy. I'm saying someone put in the Windows 10 Version History itself, quote:

"** Please do not list bugs or technical issues with builds, they are inevitable in beta releases and may be patched at any time! **"

You can Ctrl + F that. I myself believe they should be included, but that text has been in the source code of this article since it was created, and no one has said anything since. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ The Professor123 (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

@The Professor123: The author means bugs, not bug fixes which are indeed parts of updates that are usually mentioned with change logs, I've read it, everyone who edits here has, and it's very specific to new bugs, let me show you an example below...

New features

Bug fixes

Known issues (now this is prohibited as it means new "listing bugs".)

I hope that I've clarified it for you.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@86.81.201.94: Ah. That makes sense. I apologize for my mistakes then. Thank you for clarifying. The Professor123 (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Highlighting major features for each major release

Each release brings significant changes that should be noted. These changes are more important than a small UI change or a new option in the settings menu. Such changes can be updates to the developer environment and APIs, major visual changes, new features and applications, and other things that Microsoft and the press highlights as new features of a release. The table of versions highlight every little changes, and, thus, the big changes get buried. Furthermore, different changes appear at different builds, making it hard to know what changes have been made for each new release.

Currently, it's hard to know what each new release brings without looking at every single builds in the table. This is why the major changes will be highlighted for each release to make it easier for readers to get an idea of each release at a glance.

I look forward to your contributions! --NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 11:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@NazmusLabs: Thank you, that's a great idea and would actually make the page more as if it's a part of an encyclopedia as opposed to a "bare change log", I think that we could do the same for the earlier versions, I'll attempt to emulate your edits above at a later date.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

No support: This is just cluttering the page. Feature descriptions have nothing to do with a version history. Like how it is done for iOS and Android, this belongs more in the main Windows 10 article or in List of features in Windows 10. --YannickFran (talk) 08:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I think its time we have a discussion on merging this and the page Features new to Windows 10 or limiting the amount of text that goes into the "Features new to" section

I propose the first one as I believe both the articles have/can have the same info; But this article, with proper modifications, can be better than the other one as this one has features organized in different branches. Chandradeep Dey (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Removing feature lists

Alright, I think this is getting way out of hand here. 2 sections up came the request if features should be added to every release. Kind of odd to ask when you go ahead right away, though. Anyway, not my point. I've removed all of this information for a number of reasons:

• As mentioned 1 section up, there already is an article on Features new to Windows 10, this content should belong there, not here.
• It is highly inconsistent with other history pages like Androids and iOSs that do not do this.
• It is cluttering the article with information that's outside its subject.
• It is (especially the lists) just repeating the information in the version history tables, just sorted in a different way (by feature instead of by build).
• Features new to a release have nothing to do with a version history itself. This would be like putting massive sections on Android in the Linux article because Android runs on Linux: it is connected but just not relevant to the article.
• Parts of these texts are copied from Features new to Windows 10

So, for the purpose these sections served, the info should be added to Features new to Windows 10, where this information belongs. --YannickFran (talk) 07:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Support, the reasons stated above are perfectly acceptable for the deletion of content Chandradeep Dey (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Need more discussion: The reasons stated above arte not fully applicable. I will address each bulls points individually.

* Windows 10 is the last version of Windows. 10 years from now, the "Features New to Windows 10" page will be huge, full of features added over a 10 year span. This will make the article very ambiguous, as it will be impossible to tell which feature was new to Windows 10 at launch versus which features came years down the line.

* Android and iOS has individual articles dedicated to each version. For instance, there's an article on iOS 8 and Android 5. Windows 10 versions don't have dedicated articles for each versions. There is no article for TH2 or Redstone. Therefore, we need a place for features new to each of the releases of Windows 10. If you want to dump all future features to the "Features new to Windows 10" article, it would be like dumping all iOS 8, and 9 content to the iOS 7 article.

* It's not outside the subject. These are summers of what's new in each version of Windows 10. For instance, TH2, RS1, these releases have significant changes from the RTM and previous release. They have to be highlighted. This article is version history. So we need a place for the changelog for major versions of Windows 10. It might be inconsistent with the iOS/Android version history page, but it is NOT off topic.

* Android is BASED on Linux. Windows 10 is not based on Windows. It IS Windows. Windows 10 version history page is similar to Linux version history page. Android version history page is similar to Windows 10 MOBILE version history page.

* Features new to Windows 10 is only about the RTM (TH1) release of Windows 10, which is almost a year old. This article includes what's new in TH2 and RS1, most of which are NOT IN "Features new to Windows 10"--NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

P.S. The "parts that are copied from the other article", I originally wrote those parts in that article. When new features were announced for redstone, I immediately started adding content to the "Features new to Windows 10" article. Then, weeks later I had a second thought. It was becoming hard to know what feature was for what version. So I decided to write all future features in this article. And the parts that I copied from that article, I originally wrote them in the other article. I intended to delete those from the other article. But until we come to a consensus, I will not delete it.--NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 05:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand any of my points...

* You claim that putting everything in "Features net to Windows 10" would make the page huge, so your solution is to put everything in this article with other content, because that would not be a huge article?

* There is nothing keeping you from making individual articles for the November Update and Anniversary Update, go ahead.

* Features new to an OS are out of the subject of version history. This is about the history, not about what changed in each version individually. You're completely missing the point and completely misinterpreting my example. That wasn't what this is about. Again, features new to a release are off topic in a subject about the release history.

* What ever stated that "Features new to Windows 10" should be about TH1? No one ever said that. Heck, the title clearly states "Windows 10", and guess what, Threshold 2 and Redstone 1 and any future version are as much Windows 10 as is Threshold 1. And if putting everything together is not good enough - on which I would agree - just divide that article into each version too. Besides, you're one to speak, you just said yourself you've been adding features that aren't part of TH1 to the very same article, what are you complaining about?

The whole point comes down to this: there already is an article for the off topic content you're putting in here, being Features new to Windows 10. The only thing you're doing now is making this page inconsistent with others, duplicating information on the same page and making it absurdly large and most of that size doesn't even come from content that belongs here. --YannickFran (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I labeled it as needs discussion for a reason. I can't go and start deleting stuff, or rearrange the entire Features article or start creating individual articles for every Win10 releases without having the community's input. Let me address each bullet points individually.

* I said huge and ambigious, making it hard to determine which features came on which release. 10 years from now, if we don't organize that article by version, it will be a big mess. I'll get back to this point in a bit.

* I know I can create new articles. That's why I said needs discussion. I didn't say Disagree or No support. I said we need to reach a consensus on whether to create articles or make them a subsection of an existing article.

* Okay

* No one stated that Features article should be about Th1. We have to decide on that. There is already a discussion in that article on whether to make that article for all Windows version or only the RTM version. In fact, before I added content to that article about the Bash command line, that article only did include features from TH1.

Final Thoughts There are several things we can do:

1) Divide "Features New to Windows 10" into subsections like in this article and put new features to appropriate section. We would need to rename the article along the line of "Features new to Windows 10 by Release".

2) Create new article for each Windows 10 release. There is a problem. It will create a lot of confusion. There would be an article called "Windows 10", an article called "Windows 10 Version 1511", and yet another article called "Windows 10 Anniversary Update". Doing this will surely mark those article as redundant and will be put up for deletion.

3) Restrict "Features New to Windows 10" to only Th1, and create a new article called about major version releases of Windows 10.

4) Keep things as is.

--NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

4 is not an option. 1 is the obvious solution, however there is no need to add "by release" to its title, Windows 10 is Windows 10, no matter what update it is. For 2, this can still coexists and should coexists besides solution 1. If you consider those titles confusing, that's just ridiculous, there is now also an article about Windows and each subversion and Mac OS and each of its subversions and for OS X there are even articles about the sub-subversion to Mac OS. 3 isn't an solution because - again - Windows 10 is Windows 10, no matter what update you've got. --YannickFran (talk) 06:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Support Solution 1, but I don't think renaming is necessary either. Chandradeep Dey (talk) 09:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Support Option 1

Unsure about option 2

--NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Check my edit to Features new to Windows 10 Chandradeep Dey (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Article Going Outside of Website Border

I've noticed the entire article goes outside the blue outlined border of Wikipedia. From the "Pre-release versions of Windows 10 codename "Threshold 2"" chart and below. I tried looking at the code to see what the problem was, and I was not able to fix it. This isn't really a major issue, but I thought I'd point it out so someone can figure out what happened. I'm on Windows 7, Google Chrome. And yes, I've cleared my cache/cookies, have the latest drivers, ran virus scans, CCleaner, re-installed everything, etc. I've also tried it on several other computers, with the same issue each time, so I know its not me. Might just be the site itself, but I haven't yet found the issue on any other article. The Professor123 (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

It was to do with template:Version. It's fixed now. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 22:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Gray Area Between Bug Fix and New Feature

When Microsoft lists "improved consistency/reliability/stability of X", should that be included under a new feature, or a bug fix? I've been including those as fixes, but someone has been moving them to features. The Professor123 (talk) 07:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, it isn't a bug fix. --YannickFran (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Build 10240 is NOT an "RTM"

This is ridiculous. The article now says itself that 10240 is not the RTM, yet it insists on calling it an RTM because some journos are calling it like that. So what, if people started calling Windows "Doors", we'll be renaming this article "Doors 10 version history"? The term "RTM" was dropped after Windows 8.1. Not to mention that you'll also find plenty of people calling 10586 a RTM and whatever the stable Anniversary Update will be is also called out as RTM. Because many people call it that, doesn't make it its official name. Additionally, this has NOTHING to do with a Neutral Point of View. Well... it has now, because you're putting in journos subjective PoV as a trueth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YannickFran (talk • contribs) 07:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your opinion contradicts the neutral point of view; Wikipedia articles must account for all prominent opinions discussed by reliable secondary sources. While it is encyclopedic to state why Microsoft does not call 10240 an "RTM", it is just as important to acknowledge that reliable secondary sources still considered the build to be "RTM" because it was the first build designated as stable. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Split up table

Shouldn't we better split up the table into "Threshold 1", "Threshold 2" and "Redstone 1". That way we have a clear place to add some information about every update as we do with iOS and Android's pages on this matter and we don't end up with a way to long table. --YannickFran (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Hi. That's an excellent idea. This is already in place in Windows Phone version history, Android version history, and History of iTunes, so I think we have a lot of lead to help us judge whether it is a good or bad idea. We expect the table to grow very huge. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I've added some small changes like collapsing older versions (like the initial release's table) and headings to all 3 tables like the previously mentioned pages have too. Anyway, maybe we should also put in the Windows 10 Mobile version history here (like how we also put all iOS and tvOS versions together)? Perhaps also put server in here if we're going for that so all Windows 10 editions have a comprehensive article. Perhaps also kick out these long titles "First release (Codename "Threshold 1")" and instead say "Initial release" for the first Threshold 1 release and "Version 1511", etc. for following releases. Releases that do not yet carry a version can still be referred to by their official codename. If the Mobile and Server changelogs get put in here, I would also suggest to put these under their own subheading as "Desktop/Tablet", "Mobile", "Server" and "IoT" (does Wikipedia have an article on that?) (and in the future even "HoloLens"). And finally, maybe a nice intro to each version like on the other pages. :) --YannickFran (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • My thoughts on the table split: Firstly, the legend looks strange being there 3 times. Secondly, I don't think the detailed change history needs to be kept under each public release section. The tables would be better kept together under a "detailed change history" section (but keep the releases as separate tables to allow collapsing, etc). Just my thoughts. Others may disagree (so I won't change anything). Supertin (talk) 05:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Release Preview = Public Release?

If a build is released to the Release Preview ring, but not released to outsiders, should they still be placed under the "public release" charts? I would think they wouldn't be, but previous builds under that description have been being added under the "public releases" graphs. The Professor123 (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Version 'Redstone 2'

See Windows 10 Latest Preview: Isn't the version supposed to be 1703? Why isn't the page updated? Can you update the page? 220.255.100.134 (talk) 13:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Microsoft has never confirmed that Redstone 2 will be 1703, that number is just speculation. Until Microsoft specifies that builds are no longer part of 1603, it will stay that number on the page.The Professor123 (talk) 04:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

DO NOT copy-paste bullet points for cumulative updates from Microsoft's Support KB page!!!

The cumulative updates for Windows 10 are blatant copy-paste of the KB articles' descriptions of these updates. They need to be rewritten in original manner and properly summarized. We do not need to list every single bug fixes. Just highlights for each cumulative updates is sufficient. Wikipedia is not meant to be a detailed log of software updates. It is designed to give readers a summery. --NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 06:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

And this is why the article has been blanked. It is just a gigantic copyvio because it is copying or closely paraphrasing Microsoft's copyrighted descriptions. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Anyone know whats going on with this? Why does wiki think it's a copy right violation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gh0sti100 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Gh0sti100

In almost all cases, you may not copy text from other sources into Wikipedia. Doing so is a copyright violation and may constitute plagiarism. A large part of this article is copied from Microsoft blog posts.

Right now, the copyright violating section is hidden until someone removes the violating text.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 09:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Strong oppose to deletion. This page has notable and encyclopedic information on it. The offending text should simply be removed. Deleting by proding is simply not the correct procedure. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I've removed much of the text, and I very much doubt there are copyright concerns still present. If anyone wants to revert me please discuss here beforehand. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 13:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's also deletion. So,...

Also there is no such thing as reverting copyright violation. Administrators have the power to block the repeat offenders.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 14:00, 4 November 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

394 revisions were removed. Nuking it and starting over would have been more merciful. —Codename Lisa (talk) 07:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I can't understand why. Some of the text was saved, surely that's a good thing? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I would like to point out that other version histories do the exact same thing. Why is this one being singled out? In addition, development versions listed in this article are NOT taken directly from Microsoft blog posts, only cumulative updates to released versions are. For the infringing parts, surely re-wording and/or more thorough citations would solve the issue? I don't believe removing all of the tables on this page was in any way necessary. (Please do not delete this anonymous comment, this situation is infuriating me.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19A:4101:DD42:35C9:BBAC:2E72:3B59 (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Well I can only speak from my perspective. I came across this article, which had been blanked as a copyright violation, and marked for deletion via WP:PROD, but not by myself. I did some checks and realized that it very probably did violate copyright, as the text I checked had been straight out copy-pasted from sources. I didn't check all the text but I did check some sections. I realised that the article would probably be deleted as a copy-vio, so I deleted the text I thought was probably a copy-vio and opposed the deletion above. By doing this I think I've managed to save at least some of the text from deletion. Sorry about the loss of text but copyright is copyright, and there is no way around this.

You're right, the text could probably be reworded from the sources to comply with the copyright problems. Unfortunately that is a massive amount of work, and there was only limited time until it would be deleted. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 01:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Definitely better now. The lead section still needs to be written as it has been copied from elsewhere too (I can't get the copyvio detector to load now), but when I checked earlier, there was a match with other sources in the lead. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Title names

Let's clear up 2 things here: Why is "Version 1511, November Update" 'too long'? Every other OS is getting these kind of titles, take a look at MacOS version history and Ubuntu version history, they all include version and name in the titles that are often longer. Second, 1507 is an official version and Microsoft has been referencing to the first version of Windows 10 with 1507 ever since 1511 was released.

• https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/itpro/windows/whats-new/whats-new-windows-10-version-1507-and-1511
• https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/whats-new/windows-10-version-1507

Since these version numbers are the only thing that actually resemble something you can put in chronological order, it makes no sense to leave the mout of the titles. --YannickFran (talk) 11:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi

I checked the Windows About dialog box (winver) and didn't see 1507 there. I believe the "official" criteria is appearing in the software itself.

But I digress. I am okay with unofficial. But it is really long. Why not just "1511"? It is four letters long.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 11:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I have User:FleetCommand on IM who says I should do everyone a favor and let this go. Fine. Consider this issue dropped. Do whatever you want.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 11:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: Regarding your comment on version 1507, if you read this wikipedia article, it states that Microsoft retroactively renamed the original release as 1507. But, as you will notice, winver for all subsequent versions are labeled in winver: 1511, and 1607. :) P.S. Thanks for dropping this. I'm finally free to change the Features New to Windows 10 Article! It's about time! :P --NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2016

The anniversary update came out for LTSB in 2016. 66.69.252.169 (talk) 10:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Nothing to do: This is a statement without sources, not an edit request. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

We are going to do this. And we are going do this right.

Thanks SO MUCH to the admin who deleted everything for the sake of the article! I am genuinely thankful. While it is a shame that a lot of the non-copyrighted work got deleted, the outcome has been better than the risk of the entire article getting deleted and stuck behind a autocracy of appeal for restoration.

I, and many others, have spent hours writing dozens and dozens of bullet points in completely original format, making sure to not violate copyright. And while it pains me to see all that work go to waste, I acknowledge that hundreds of other bullet points were, indeed, copy and pasted from Microsoft blog posts. And trying to find what was stolen work versus what was not was going to be a massive pain and a waste of time, with a huge risk of having the article deleted.

Aso, again, I think the admin who saved the article. :)

Now, here's what we are going to do. We don't give up. We are going to do this correctly. From now on, we are going to err on the side of caution. It is better to have less, but originally written, information, rather than full breadth of information but copy-pasted or too closely paraphrased information from another source.

So, here's the guideline: List the released builds on the tables, with citation from non-Microsoft sources (adding MS sources in addition, if desired), BUT DO NOT ADD NOTES unless you have the time to write them yourselves. It's better to leave the notes section blank than plagiarizing. --NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@NazmusLabs: would it be possible to avoid bulleted points? I think what would be best for notes is to have non-bulleted information only, written in an encyclopedic style, which is obviously not copy-pasted bullet points from web-sites. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mrjulesd: That's a good idea. Thanks for the suggestion. Best, Nazmus --NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Too bad all the information got removed! I am sure I am not the only one who enjoyed this clear summary of Windows history, even if it's copied/pasted from some MS blog or KB article. Thanks to all contributors that made this table possible! Such a table does NOT exist at Microsoft unfortunately. And for all of the folks getting auto update of their windows 10 device, this page used to be the easiest and fastest way to understand a little bit what got changed. Before fearing copyright infringement or plagiat, did anybody though about just asking some Microsoft officials? IMHO, Microsoft folks would much probably see the list at it used to be positively instead of complaining for copyright! And for all moderator of this topic, did you have a look at iOS/Android history article? It seems to me they are very similar to what used to be here!

(PS: sorry, I don't even know how talk works here on wikipedia, sorry for editing the chapter, I hope this comment will be better formatted and still considered by the moderators)

* Wikipedia has a strict rule against copyright in order to be protected under DMCA. Until the copyright laws change, there is nothing that can be done here. And even if Microsoft gave written permission to copy the blog posts' contents, it would still violate other Wikipedia rules such as posting original content, advertising by first party, and possible others. So, there is no way around this.

* Secondly, if you want a full list of changelogs, there is another site that will help you. It lists all builds, including cumulative updates, with all features and bug fixes, including those not publically announced by Microsoft. It is even more comprehensive than the list this wikipedia article had. Visite the page here: http://changewindows.org/

* Finally, wikipedia articles aren't supposed to be a list of hundreds of minor details. The purpose of the articles are to be a summery with only information that are significant and notable in a larger scale. As such, I have modified the table to only list "notable" changes in each build. It makes the writers' jobs easier, it makes the important information be seen by readers, and it doesn't run the risk of copyright violations.

Thanks for using Wikipedia and participating in the discussion!

--NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

If you guys are going to try to bring back some of the text with boxes and show changes please format it under the correct release version right now it's a mess and needs to be cleaned up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gh0sti100 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's start with clearing something else up, though. Why are Mobile builds - randomly (because not ALL builds are mentioned) - noted in this version history? Windows 10 Mobile has its own version history here, and this is in fact quiet confusing, and that's a big thing coming from the guy that got it into his mind to track every single build of every single edition of every single variation of Windows 10 including patches. If you'd ask me, the content that is now here that applies to Mobile should be moved to Windows 10 Mobile's version history section as it has the very same issues as this article used to have. Or better yet, as said above in my proposal, merge that version history into this article under its own section as we do on iOS. --YannickFran (talk) 11:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hear, hear! —Codename Lisa (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The arguments makes perfect sense until now. With RS1, RS2, Microsoft has done significant code refactoring and onecore updates. The biggest changes with this is that unlike in other editions of Windows 10 (Xbox, IOT, Hololens), Windows 10 PC and mobile are becoming nearly identical. Notice that in TH1, TH2, and parts of RS1, the PC and mobile builds were not in line. However, with later stages of RS1, and in RS2, the build releases are mostly identical, with some mobile builds not being released due to a showstopper bug. Also, and this is MORE important, the changes logs, with cumulative updates and improvements with major builds are nearly identical with mobile and PC. Microsoft is quickly removing mobile exclusive features (such as the silverlight based Wi-Fi settings page) and replacing it with IDENTICAL code from the PC builds. Very soon, the changes will be identical to PC and mobile. I spent a lot of time thinking about this. If we were to write the mobile history table (which is currently with major copyright violations and needs to be rewritten anyway), we will have a lot of redundant information. I thought perhaps if there were differences with a mobile build, I would put them under the heading in the build notes. I don't know. Essentially, Windows 10 Mobile is Windows 10 Desktop running on ARM processors and missing some (not all) components of the Win32 stack. That OS is almost identical to the desktop OS. This is essentially Windows RT. --NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 09:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely not. It isn't that simple at all. These are still 2 distinct platforms and Mobile doesn't come nearly close to Windows RT in comparison to the other desktop editions. You're over simplyfing things here. Having the same build number doesn't make them have the same feature sets. Except for the apps, that don't even belong to these builds, the whole UI and behavior between desktop and Mobile is still distinct (hence why these are 2 editions). If you really going with that argument than Team, Holographic, Server, IoT and Xbox can be merged in here aswell. After all, the only difference is the shell and development platform (the lack off Win32) between all these platforms. Further, this structure is messing around with release dates by ocmbining more platforms. Not all builds where released on the same day for desktop and Mobile or moved to the same rings for both platforms, yet the tables claim they are for those builds that do not have that consistency. There is a reason why Windows 10 and Windows 10 Mobile are 2 distinct articles. --YannickFran (talk) 11:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@YannickFran: So what do you suggest we do? We can create a new article like this for mobile or amend the information here to the existing article, deleting the copyrighted content. Or, we can put all mobile information here, as I was doing now. What will make the most sense? This is up to the community. --NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Like I've said earlier on this Talk page, I think a structure similar to the iOS version history article would make much more sense where each individual platform has it's now section in the article. There is the exact same "issue" for 1 OS for multiple platforms being from each other. --YannickFran (talk) 10:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Fine, we can move the mobile parts to the Windows 10 Mobile version history table. I'll do it when I have time. So, I think we can agree we can all agree that we can have separate tables for mobile and PC, but I do have one request. If anyone plans to help me out by doing this, I want to thank you in advance. We need to remove the copyrighted content from the mobile table and rewrite them. We can move what I wrote about the mobile on this table and put it there, along with all the citations. And also, if anyone deletes the mobile content from this page, please at least take the time to move it to the other table. By just deleting stuff, you are not contributing much and taking the easy way out. Thanks! --NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 08:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Notice that on the latest build that I added information to, the information applies to both PC and Mobile. In fact, as I fill up most of the table, you will notice that the majority of the information applies to PC and Mobile, with virtually all updates in the cumulative updates applying to both PC and Mobile.--NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 10:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

So you are saying we should merge that section into this article and then nuke the copyvio?

—Codename Lisa (talk) 06:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: Yes, although that other table needs to be nuked anyway due to blatant copy and pasting from Microsoft blogs. --NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: It seems that others seem to disagree. So we can create a new article for mobile version history, amend the existing Mobile article subheading, or merge the tables. What will make most sense? --NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I've updated the release history for version 1507, I made sure to follow WP:PLOT guidelines, I'm looking forward for your feddback Wiki layes (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Update : an hour after I made the update, it was deleted for copyright infringement, I tried to avoid this and I used my one words, I didn't really copy-paste but it happened againt my will, I hope someone else will be more lucky than i was Wiki layes (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Where has the list of Versions 1607 gone?

Candid question: since recently I can no longer see the list of Version 1607 build numbers. Why is this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacques.999 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi.

It was deleted.

This article was deleted and re-written (so to speak) due to plagiarism and copyright violation. So the section you are looking for is not added back yet.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 09:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Our intention is to have the missing info returned without copyright violations. We're working on it; feel free to pitch in (without copy & pasting, of course)! :) --NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violation, why?

Why keeping 1607 update are copyright violation. I think micro. will become happy if we keep they're update history? why not?At Last ... (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

More than a defense of copyright violations, it looks like a boycott on MS. This page used to be the best source to keep track of the improvements on Windows 10 Pc and Mobile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judiospi (talk • contribs) 18:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

No. It's only because the version history was literally copied right from Microsoft's version. Rewrite it in your own words/Wikipedia style, and you can put it back. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I do understand the copy paste problem. But the previous tables were entirely deleted. Where can I find them to edit them? I looked through the history and they can't be accessed. The information was carelessly removed, making it more difficult to get this page to the usability it had before.--Judiospi (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Not carelessly. Deliberately. Wikipedia has no respect for stolen contents. —Codename Lisa (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

In what way does the page as of 30 January 2017 violate copyright? I fail to see how it does. Can someone please explain, and provide an example of how changelog entries should look in bullet-point format, because let's be honest, it's easier to read. Calvin Hogg (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Version 1607 (Anniversary Update)

Is this correct?

Version 1607 (Anniversary Update)

Latest Version 10.0.14393 is marked as Old and not as Current stable version. --MTimann (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@MTimann: It's correct, those are preview versions. If you look closely at the headline, it says "Preview versions of Windows 10 Redstone 1". 14393 is an expired preview version for the Windows Insider Program. Hayman30 (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

New additions

It took me quite a lot of time to look for the right sources and references and regarding early cumulative updates are harder to attain and are often "hid" in articles about more than one update (often still including Microsoft Windows Vista, Microsoft Windows 7, Microsoft Windows 8, and Microsoft Windows 8.1 updates in the same articles), anyhow I've tried to add as much as possible containing the changes mentioned in the changelog so as of now this article fully fits what's permitted within WP:NOTCHANGELOG (although the way it's written needs to fit a more encyclopedic style).

To any new additions to the changelog please add non-Microsoft sources complementary to the original source, on the day an update is released finding news articles relating to the update are relatively easy to find, but if you wait too long they'll drown in various blogs and fora discussing the update at hand, so please work swift, and work in accordance to WP:SOURCE.

Thank you for taking the time to read this, and thank you in advance for adding secondary and tertiary sources to your contributions to this page.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we just shouldn't cover the updates unless there is something to say about them besides a brief description of what they do. See WP:NOTCHANGELOG. See also WP:NOTNEWS. Jeh (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Windows Central source

@111.123.144.58: Could you please explain why you keep removing the Windows Central source? It is not an invalid source. Thank you. Hayman30 (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Build 15063.2

@88.196.91.6: You changed the slow ring date from March 29, 2017 to April 11, 2017, but that is wrong. Please see the original source, "UPDATE 3/29: We have released Windows 10 Insider Preview Build 15063.2 for Mobile to Windows Insiders in the Slow ring.", the build for mobile was released to insiders on March 29. Your source simply verifies that it will be rolling out to the public on April 11, but the tabel you are changing is Preview versions of Windows 10 Redstone 2, you made a mistake. Hayman30 (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

App Updates

The app updates included in the builds were actually bundled with the said builds and should be included. The fact that an update or an app is ported to an older release is not a reason to not include that update in the release of the build in which it originates. It's like saying Internet Explorer 7 should not be included with Windows Vista release notes because it was later brought to Windows XP. Same with IE8, IE10, and IE11. Furthermore, some app updates do not get ported back to older versions due to technology limitations (for instance the UWP skype app which is exclusive to RS1 and not TH2 release, Paint 3D which is exclusive to RS2, and updated Windows Store in RS1). So even if we did agree to remove app updates that eventually gets ported (which I wholeheartedly disagree with), you would have to find individual updates and see if they were ported or not.

The same is true for extensions. Some extensions, such as Turn off the Lights on Edge, is ONLY available in RS2 builds because the developer stated that it requires new technology in the browser not present in RS1 (which can be heard in The Sam's Report podcast).

This also applies to updates. Some updates, such as Windows Update Cleanup from Windows 8, are ported to older Windows Releases. That doesn't mean we don't include the update in the release notes of the build it originates from.

Thank you. --NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Except of course that they are not. Fresh installing these builds won't give you the new versions of the apps, you'll still have to update them through the store to get this new build, not to mention that they are first released to older builds as these announcements are always about past releases, not what is new that day. Last time I checked even the latest photos refresh wasn't part of these builds yet and still delivered the old version. App updates don't belong in these changelogs, they aren't connected to these specific builds. --YannickFran (talk) 10:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

So, does a person who installs from an RS1 image get the same Photos or Edge app as the person who installs from a TH1 image?

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Edge is part of the builds themselves, so that's an app this doesn't go up for. Anyway, to answer your question for the Photos app: no, they don't. The versions of the apps that are in-box do get updated through the development of Windows, but not in the builds Microsoft announces them in. If I'm not mistaken, only a handfull of apps actually got updated between the default TH1 and TH2 build, not all of them, despite these apps getting updates even from before the TH1 release. In fact, many of the apps in a clean 10240 where already vastly out-of-date on release. Yes, the images of these apps get updated over time for fresh installs but this doesn't happen on the builds Microsoft announces these updates for. They don't update the image in Windows every time the app gets updated, especially not when apps are in full feature development.--YannickFran (talk) 15:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

That is correct in that the build doesn't always come with the announced versions of the app in the image itself. Periodically the future builds will be updated to include the latest versions of the app. In fact, thanks to code refactoring and structural changes, the app updates do get integrated quickly. Okay, so I guess we can agree to leave out the app updates for ONLY those that doesn't come with the build. But we can't take the easy way out and just delete the content. That's not helping anyone. We have articles for the system apps, like Paint and calculator, and should create articles for built in apps that are missing. We should put the change logs for these apps on the respective articles instead. I do plan on doing this when I have time, but I don't mind a little help. Thanks! --NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 08:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

P.S. How is one supposed to know exactly in which build the apps are getting integrated to the install image? We can't expect the community to clean install each build and check. If we want to be technically accurate, then we should, by definition, add app update info to the exact build they get integrated in. And I am not willing to be that technical. Just a though. --NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 09:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I would argue that there is no point in having the build numbers of the Windows version if the article of the individual apps are going to contain the version overview. After all, app updates aren't linked to builds. I think only the app version matters in such cases.--YannickFran (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so I thought for some time and have come to this conclusion. These app updates ARE integrated in the base image, usually within the following public builds with Redstone 2. This means these ARE OS features; just not on the build that they are announced with. So, rather than deleting the information, I'll make a note about app updates announced on the date of build release, saying that these are available as separate downloads and will be integrated in a future build. --NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

This isn't correct either. With the Creators Update, Microsoft gave a perfect example of why this doesn't work. The Fast Ring got stuck for months with the same apps that where already out-of-date once they became part of the base image, because these would become the inbox apps, while the actual apps a fresh install would have (because Windows updates them automatically after an upgrade if allowed) where months ahead of what Microsoft announced. These apps aren't part of these builds themselves. This is happening again with the Story Remix app today, which got announced as part of 16193 but isn't anywhere to see.--YannickFran (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Version 1507

Alright folks, version 1507 isn't EOL. It is no longer supported in the Semi Annual Pilot and Sime Annual Broad channels (the CB and CBB, for those on the old naming) but it is still supported on the Long-Term Support Channel for years to come. Support for version 1507 isn't expected to end until 2025. Another update for it will be released this tuesday... --YannickFran (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

So, now the argument has come up that LTSB "does not apply here" because "It's basically ended for consumers". Why? LTSB is a branch as much as any others are. Since when has Wikipedia ever made a difference between consumer-facing branches and non-consumer-facing branches? Not to mention that the Fast Ring, Slow Ring, Release Preview Ring and Semi Annual Broad Channel - branches that are all included in this page - aren't for consumers either. This is a wiki, not a consumers information guide. Nobody is removing information about Enterprise editions of Windows because they aren't for consumers either, this isn't any different. On June 13th, Microsoft will release another update for 10240 just like they've done every month. Are we now intentionally going to be incomplete and leave these builds out, ignoring about 8 years of version history for 1507 (and future LTSC releases like 1607)?--YannickFran (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2017

111.123.159.25 (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Hayman30 (talk) 12:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2017

Request to remove bad quality edits by @Hayman30: that doesn't seem to help the article, primarily fails WP:SOURCE as these edits were heavily based on Microsoft's own websites and uses plagiarized content from Microsoft. 42.112.154.124 (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2017

117.135.235.17 (talk) 08:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Hayman30 (talk) 09:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Version 1709 status

User:Hayman30 I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve here. 1709 is not the current version of Windows 10, it is still in active development and there for the current preview release, just like the 1803 builds that are rolling out as well. 2 versions can be in development at the same time, that doesn't make the first one that is set to be released an "Old version, still supported", it's still the "Latest preview version" of Redstone 3. Having said that, stop complaining about "Taking it to talk", you're the one not doing that, this discussion is already going on Template_talk:Windows_10_versions, at this point, you're just trying to escalate this into an edit war. --YannickFran (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@YannickFran: You're not making sense with your statement, as 1803 is clearly ahead of 1709, in terms of build number and development stage. Both versions are still in development doesn't mean they're both the latest preview version. Yes, 16288 is the latest preview version of 1709, but is apparently not the latest preview version of Windows 10, which is the topic of both the article and the template. There's no discussion going on right now on the template's talk page, there hasn't been a response to your comment. Lack of comments doesn't mean it's okay for you to make changes according to your personal believes. Also pinging @Codename Lisa: in case they might be interested, regarding this edit. Hayman30 (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

That 16362 is ahead of 16288 doesn't make it not the latest preview. That's how development with a cycle like this works. Having said that, so anytime anyone makes a change and you revert it and tell them to discuss it on talk you just ignore any conversation and say that if it isn't discussed your edit is the one that has to stay? Besides, these are your edits that are being disputed, not mine. How exactly is it that your edits are just fine to stay then? Kinda hypocritical, don't you think? In the end, it doesn't even matter, what you continue to revert to is just plain incorrect information.--YannickFran (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It's odd to have two latest version. Also, Version 1709 is still in final development and still not yet released to Release Preview Ring. I think it should be categorized into latest preview version. Hakurei Phomu (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hakurei Phomu: Yes, 1709 is still in final development, but that doesn't make it the latest preview version of Windows 10. It's merely the latest preview version of 1709. Hayman30 (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Windows 10 Fall Creators Update will be Autumn Creators Update for the UK or International

Windows 10 Fall Creators Update is actually Autumn Creators Update for the UK

https://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft-will-call-windows-10s-next-update-autumn-creators-update-uk

Microsoft will regionally adjust the name of the Windows 10 Fall Creators Update in the UK, calling it the "Autumn Creators Update" instead — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan McEvoy (talk • contribs) 13:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2017

Change Description

spelling "Creaters" -> "Creators"

Original

Version 1709 (Fall Creators Update)

.... The Fall Creaters Update (Version 1709, 10.0.16299) was officially release on October 17, 2017.

Update

Version 1709 (Fall Creators Update)

.... The Fall Creators Update (Version 1709, 10.0.16299) was officially release on October 17, 2017.

108.235.242.4 (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for pointing it out. Hayman30 (talk) 04:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Version 1709 on Mobile (Fall Creators Update)

.... The Fall Creators Update on Mobile (Version 1709, 10.0.15254.1) was available to Release Preview, and probably official release on October 17, 2017. 1000mm (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

2018 Update

Is this a reliable source for saying that the next update of Windows 10 is called the 2018 Update?? If not, please explain:

https://theleaker.com/windows-10-2018-update-preview-is-redstone-4/

Georgia guy (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Windows 10 version history. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150712081511/http://dev.modern.ie/platform/changelog/10166-pc-tablet/ to http://dev.modern.ie/platform/changelog/10166-pc-tablet/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Updating end of support SAC dates

Microsoft updated the final dates of support for the Windows 10 Semi-Annual Channel (SAC): https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/13853/windows-lifecycle-fact-sheet#update

This page is already properly footnoted. Simply requesting that the dates listed in the table are updated to match. Here are the specific changes to the final dates of support for SAC:

• 1607 is now April 10, 2018
• 1703 is now October 9th, 2018
• 1709 is now April 9, 2019

Hope I'm raising this properly, this is my first Wikipedia edit suggestion. Thanks.

--Ericalanwhitney (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ericalanwhitney:  Done Hayman30 (talk) 14:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Changes to Office and Windows servicing and support

Table should get new column at "support until" isn't it ?

Suggestion:

Support until
SAC (Home/Pro)	SAC (Ent/Edu)	LTSC

https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/windowsitpro/2018/02/01/changes-to-office-and-windows-servicing-and-support/

--83.135.150.160 (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe also another Column for Mobile ?

--83.135.150.160 (talk) 12:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Redstone 4 is the Spring Creators Update

https://thewincentral.com/windows-10-redstone-4-spring-creators-update-version-1803/

Georgia guy (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Feature update for 15254.248

Can we please add a feature for version 15254.248 that it breaks the ability to open pdf files in Edge (only default app possible) which results in any pdf from an app which doesn't give you the option to download being unopenable. 103.217.166.220 (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Windows Server Semi-Annual Channel

In the past, Windows Server was not included in the list becasue it wasn't updated as a continuous release as was Windows 10 & Windows 10 mobile.

There was only Windows Server 2016, and it was akin to Windows 7, Windows Vista, Server 2008 RT, etc. But now, it's different.

Server has now adopted the Software as a service model and has aligned itself with Windows 10 client. There's now RS3, RS4, and RS5 releases either public or scheduled.

There needs to be a consensus on whether server should be included.

There's mobile version history. Why not server.

Thoughts, please.

NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Windows Server 2016 version history is where people would expect to find information about Windows Server 2016, not here. — Warren. ‘ talk , 02:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding. This is NOT for Windows Server 2016. This is the semi annual branch that include Server 2019 as well as server 1709, 1803, and 1809, plus future versions. You are mistaking this with a completely different product. Let me phrase it it another way. Let me phrase it another way. Windows Server 2016 is a server release that's forever stuck on the Redstone 1 development branch. Whereas Windows Server Semi-Annual release is a rolling release like Windows 10 client, meaning it goes to Redstone 3, then redstone 4, redstone 5, and so on. These server releases cannot be activated with Server 2016 product keys. The OS is not labeled as Server 2016 but rather Windows Server YYMM

Best

NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I've been editing Windows articles on Wikipedia for 12 years, I don't need the basics of Windows explained to me. Thanks.

We organize Wikipedia articles by product name, not by Microsoft's internal development processes, or by whether or not the release dates of cumulative updates line up. If someone is looking for information about updates to Windows Server 2016, 2019, or SAC, they would expect to find that information in Windows Server 2016 or Windows Server 2019, or a sub-article thereof, not an article titled "Windows 10 version history". Now that we know that Microsoft has announced the roadmap for the next Windows Server release, we need a new article titled something like Windows Server Semi-Annual Channel to distinguish it from Server 2016 and 2019. — Warren. ‘ talk , 02:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Having an article for Semi-Annual Channel is a nice suggestion. That was my motivation for bringing up this discussion point initially. I wanted to see what others think about this. Whether to have the server version history here or on a separate article.

P.S. No one needs to get defensive. I wasn't explaining the basics of Wikipedia editing. I was explaining the difference between Server 2016 and Server 1709, 1803, etc. Secondly, I am not paid by Microsoft. I wasn't referring to these products by their internal names. Windows Server 1709 is ACTUAL RETAIL product name and NOT internal names. I do not understand why you were assuming I was going by internal names. Furthermore, these are not cumulative updates. Cumulative updates are added to Server 2016 and would fall under server 2016 version history. These are different, standalone, operating systems and not "updates" to an existing OS. You misunderstood what I meant by aligning with Windows 10. I was referring to the the client OS that the server is based on. For instance, Win Server 2008 R2 is based on Windows 7. Win Server 2016 is based on Win10 Anniversary Update. Win Server 1709 is based on Win10 v1709, etc.

Best,

NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 03:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Creating a new article for Windows Server Version History

I like the idea of creating a new article for Server Semi-Annual channel @Warren suggested. That article can have a Version History heading that can list the builds for the server, using the tables following the template of this page. This will work like how Xbox OS version history, or iOS version history does.

Although these releases are essentially Windows 10 builds with the server stack added in on it and some client features removed, they are not labeled as Windows 10, and I have come around to the fact. Perhaps my idea initial idea of adding a server section to this article, although server is an edition of Windows 10 behind the scenes, might not be the best. Plus, adding server here will only substantially increase the length of this already long article, with new build releases only adding to the problem.

So, any objections? Ideas?

Mobile version history

Current latest mobile version for public and insider ring is 10.0.15254.490 updated on 11 july 2018 Shubdragon (talk) 13:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Overview table...

Wiki-editors,

I think " release date (s)" attribute should be displayed in detail in "Overview Table", as follows:

Skip ahead [date] could figure as SAD and Fast ring, as FRD ...

For current version: SAD: —; and FRD = 2018.07.11, instead of "Late 2018" only, or side by side with or below it.

It seems to be more useful to those accompanying Windows 10 versions.

Thanks. Aainitio (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

windows 1809 has been recalled so currently has no release date the latest release candidate was 30th October (https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4464619)

Version 1903 (codename 19H1) is available on Skip Ahead; Requesting template edit

On July 25, 2018, Microsoft officially released the first preview build of version 1903 (codename 19H1) to Insiders in the exclusive Skip Ahead ring (such as myself). The template for the Overview chart should be edited as such to reflect the changes, as well as updating the version 1809 build to 17723, as it has also been released to Insiders in the Fast ring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTwoEyedMan (talk • contribs) 23:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Best nomenclature and notation...

Dear wiki-editors,

I suggest some changes (corrections?), in the main text and in the "overview table".

Yes, because in both the main text and the "overview table" there is some confusion.

There, the concepts of version and construction are incorrectly employed.

I remember the importance of distinguishing "code name", "version" and "build".

• To set ideas, consider the latest MsWindows product advertised (Insider Preview):
• We are talking about MsWindows 10 code name = 19H1, version = 1903, build = 18204, SAD = 2018.07.25, FRD = –.

Yes ... Forgive me, but by the opportunity, I reinforce the practical utility of adopting "SAD" (Skip Ahead Date) and "FRD" (Fast Ring Date).

Aainitio (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you. Although your idea would work just fine and actually benefit the article in theory, the problem is that the editors of this article would have to go back to the Overview table and change the date *every time* a new build appears on either PC or Mobile versions of Windows 10. Adding ring-based release dates for the Overview table would not only add more work and pressure the editors, but it would also make the table way too large for mobile users (the majority of Wikipedia users) to read in a single swipeable picture *and* force the entire article to follow the Overview table’s rules via continuity.

You may be saying that the article already does not have continuity from the Overview table, to which you are correct. However, the article still takes all of the details from the Overview table and expands upon them. What you’re suggesting would require a complete rewrite of the article, which is a hassle of its own to even add information to.

I’m not to judge though. I am new to Wikipedia and its fundamentals, so this discussion deserves the attention of more experienced and confirmed editors. NotYourAbnormalJoe 20:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTwoEyedMan (talk • contribs)

• Dear colleagues,

Right. It may be that my idea greatly increases the editing work.

I do not think it increases that much, to the point of making the suggestion unfeasible.

Anyway, my intention is to help give a more immediate and better feature in terms of consultation.

It is quite true that all detailing is expressed in the body of the article.

However, it is also true that a simple query to the "Overview table" says a lot.

In fact, I would say that the query made to the "Overview table" tells EVERYTHING essential.

Still, if senior editors think this idea is not viable, that's fine with me. After all, as I said, I just want to help.

Thanks. Aainitio (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Forgive me dear wiki-editors...

But, the suggested changes (corrections?), in the main text and in the "overview table", will be much usefull.

Yes, because in both the main text and the "overview table" — as they are — some confusion maybe occurs.

There, the concepts of version and construction are incorrectly employed, as I think, certainly...

I remember the importance of distinguishing "code name", "version" and "build".

• To set ideas, consider the latest MsWindows product advertised (Insider Preview):
• We are talking about MsWindows 10 code name = 19H1, version = 1903, build = 18214, SAD = 2018.08.10, FRD = –.

Yes ... Forgive me, but by the opportunity, I reinforce the practical utility of adopting "SAD" (Skip Ahead Date) and "FRD" (Fast Ring Date).

Thanks! Aainitio (talk) 09:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

MsWindows 10 1803 build 17134.228: what about it?

Dear wiki-editors,

About Microsoft Windows 10 1803, build 17133.73 released on 2018 april 10...

Well, I have currently running at my PC, version Microsoft Windows 10 1803, build 17134.228.

But it is not listed... Why?

Thanks. Aainitio (talk) 16:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

This build is listed under "Public versions of Windows 10 version 1803". I think you're looking under preview versions. - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Josh, you are right. Thanks! Aainitio (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2018

Under section Version 1809, please add version 10.0.17763 (Fast ring on September 18, 2018 at the bottom of the table. Here's the source: [1] 86.22.8.235 (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Already done 86.22.8.235 (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Will current article be splitted?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was splitted. Mobile version history has been moved to Windows 10 Mobile version history. Hayman30 (talk) 04:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

---

Dear wiki-editors,
Why — after the recent AfD proposal — the suggested splitting of this article has not yet been made?
It seems to be a very good solution. Current article needs to contain only summary information, such as the introductory part with a "overview table" (both already present).
Complementary and detailed data can effectively, without any prejudice, be directed to specific articles, created with an appropriate argument (year, edition / version, etc.).
Aainitio (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I propose that the mobile version history be split into Windows 10 Mobile version history for the time being, especially since Microsoft has paused development for Windows 10 mobile. PC version history will stay on this page and we can deal with it later. Pining editors who proposed a split in the AfD dicussion: @Aainitio, Samboy, Nosebagbear, and RafaelS1979: Hayman30 (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Hayman30: I think current article needs to contain only summary information, such as the introductory part with a "overview table" (both already present), as above said.

Complementary and detailed data can effectively, without any prejudice, be directed to specific articles, created with an appropriate argument (year, edition / version, etc.).

Aainitio (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

So there seem to a few bases suggested under which it could be broken down to reduce it to a suitable length. Platform (mobile etc); year groupings; edition/version. Some level of agreement on which one(s) to use would be worth deciding before we jumped in. I'm unsure about the "primary" break method to use, but I would suggest separating off Mobile version, as suggested by Hayman30 Nosebagbear (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

As mentioned in the bogus AfD, I have created Windows 10 updates from 2015-2019 and Windows 10 updates from 2020-2024. I will now make Windows 10 Mobile version history a redirect here, and support that having the Mobile version information. Samboy (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Great! Good news, peformed by the best ones. Aainitio (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adding build history numbers to old versions (1607, 1703 1709...)

Any plan to add build history numbers to old versions (1607, 1703 1709...) This would be a great addition to keep everything in one place.Witkoskijp (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Unclear what you mean here -- seems to me like build numbers are already included for all releases? — Warren. ‘ talk , 16:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I did some on 1607. However, I question the value of recopying and reformatting this when it already appears on the KB article. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4000825. Group29 (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest to add the full build number at least for the old versions (out of support), e.g. 10586.1540 and 14393.2551 for Mobile, in the "latest build" column of the overview table. This would clearly specify the "Lastest build". — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricBl-wiki (talk • contribs) 18:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect bold in opening sentence

The opening sentence of this article currently reads "Windows 10 is an operating system developed by Microsoft." This obviously does not conform with the manual of style. The article title is "Windows 10 version history", not "Windows 10", so "Windows 10" should not be in bold. And even if it was correct for it to be in bold, it should not contain a link according to MOS:BOLDAVOID. It's depressing to note that the article has contained this error since it was created almost three years ago. 37.152.231.45 (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Jdee4 (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Rings

The Windows 10 rings is not really clear. They says build 1607 is still supported, but the consumer version isn't supported anymore. I think is is a idea to split the support in consumer and business. In "Latest build" seperate collums for consumer and business. Maybe it is possible to add the collors in the support dates instead of in "Latest build" The current design is really confusing. (195.35.231.195 (talk) 10:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.35.231.195 (talk) 10:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Article should be deleted

Wikipedia has a clear policy on this category of articles, and whether is should be deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Chrome OS version history for an example of a past discussion. --Kaledomo (talk) 05:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Split arcticle

I'm request to split this page as a separate pages, because the page becoming heavier for every new information of new Windows versions. But probably we need choose between 2 ways.

1. New arcticle for every major update, like ..."Windows 10 Fall Creators Update", "Windows 10 April 2018 Update", "Windows 10 October 2018 Update", "Windows 10 19H1"...

2. New arcticle every 3 years (or less or more), like "Windows 10 version history (2015-2017)", "Windows 10 version history (2018-2020)", "Windows 10 version history (2021-2023)"... We already made simular of these as on Timeline of the Syrian Civil War or something like that.

So, what do you think? --81.200.16.229 (talk) 11:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Cancelled 180.244.248.130 (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Fast Ring moved to 20H1

Windows 20H1 is now available for Fast Ring users

Source: https://twitter.com/windowsinsider/status/1116024531947147265 Selman N. Tabet AKA Chaos The Slayer 19:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SelmanTabet97 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

 Already done Article says "Skip ahead and fast ring: April 10, 2019" NiciVampireHeart 03:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Create Windows 10 version articles?

Windows 10 has been dubbed as a service by Microsoft for almost five years now, with major updates building off of previous updates. Which is the reason why I am suggesting something that Mac articles have done: add articles about each Windows version, along with added features, removed features, reception, etc. Here are a few examples of what I am talking about: macOS Sierra, macOS High Sierra, macOS Mojave, OS X Mavericks.

Before Windows 10, the Windows OS only received paid upgrades, including Windows 8.1 to 10, Windows 7 to 8/8.1, Windows Vista to 7, and Windows XP to Vista. Windows 10 as a service removes the payments for these upgrades dubbed "feature updates". In fact, Windows 10 has significantly changed since the initial launch.

Given the information I provided, does Windows 10 deserve its own version articles? (Feel free to copy to WP:RFC or such) Awesome Aasim 03:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

What the- Version 2003 (20H1) is already public?!

Previously thought to be a 19H2 build, Microsoft surprised us by releasing a build for an update scheduled to launch in 2020. They claim that some features in the update need additional testing.

https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2019/02/14/announcing-windows-10-insider-preview-build-18836

What are we going to do in this situation? Microsoft hasn’t even released a build of 1909 (19H2) yet. Any ideas? NotYourAbnormalJoe (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I saw a new at origo.hu, that there could be only 1 version in '19. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2019

Error in KB number for: Version 1809 (October 2018 Update) / Public patches of Windows 10 version 1809 Currently reads: 10.0.17763.503 [619] / KB4495667 / Public release: May 14, 2019 Should read: 10.0.17763.503 [619] / KB4494441 / Public release: May 14, 2019 stu Bigstu2019 (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Windows 10 version Template

Shouldn't said template be moved from Windows 10 version history#Rings down to Windows 10 version history#PC version history since said template relates more to the latter than the former? --Some-username-here1 (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2019

Version 1903 (May 2019 Update) The Windows 10 May 2019 Update[651] (also known as version 1903[652] and codenamed "19H1"[606]) is the seventh major update to Windows 10 and the first to use a more descriptive codename (including the year and the order released) instead of the "Redstone"[653] or "Threshold" codename. The first preview was released to Insiders who opted in to the exclusive Skip Ahead ring on July 25, 2018. The update began rolling out on May 21, 2019.[654] Notable changes in the May 2019 Update include:[655][656]

• A new "light theme"
• Separation of Search and Cortana in the taskbar
• Windows Sandbox (not available in Windows 10 Home)
• Updates can be paused (for 7 days or more)
• Speed Improvements
• Less Cluttered Start Menu
• New Search Setting in Windows Settings

The latest OS Build version is 18362.207 [June 27, 2019]

Edit request reason: The above paragraph is edited to add some more new features of Windows 10 1903 May 2019 update. Also the latest OS build version citing the sources. This is to keep Windows 10 users informed about a more vast set of changes made in the new version update. Palla Sridhar 16:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shreen2008 (talk • contribs)

 Not done: I don't think your additions are particularly notable. Speed improvements? That's standard for every new software update surely? NiciVampireHeart 21:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit 2: If you go through this link here. https://www.howtogeek.com/402569/everything-new-in-windows-10s-april-2019-update/, the notable changes include Windows Update settings and also Speed improvements. Spectre changes have slowed down Windows 10 PC in the earlier updates, which have been rectified in the 1903 version. So this is not a standard improvement. It reflects the exact cause for which speed improvements happened. Also the list of features is very less, compared to the total number of features released in 1903 version.

--Palla Sridhar 02:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

References

 Not done The edit request has already been declined. Please do not change it back to "answered=no" until you have achieved consensus. --kingboyk (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Latest current versions are 10.0.18362.356 and 10.0.18363.356

The latest current versions are 10.0.18362.356 and 10.0.18363.356 as of September 10, 2019. [2] ---- 194.207.146.167 (talk) 07:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

 Already done Sceptre (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2019

Version 1903 is 18362.385 for release preview and version 1909 is 18363.385 for release preview. Harshmoney (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

 Already done Sceptre (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2019

Public patches of Windows 10 version 1809 10.0.17763.806[705] KB4519338 Public release: October 8, 2019 change to: 10.0.17763.805 192.33.238.48 (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 14:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

1909 preview bar color

1909 preview (the one with 18362 builds) bar below section "PC version history" should be red (no support) instead of yellow, since 1909 is released, isn't it?--2001:16B8:201:4400:C54F:A300:E187:E9F2 (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

XXHY

As in the article also 20H1 is in there, is there any official source - i know, it's only a code name, nevertheless - what the H stands for ... "heat"? Thank you. --Alien4 (talk) 12:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Q = Quarter of a year ( 1~4 ) and H = Half of year ( 1~2)
so in case of 20H1 = in 1st half of the year 2020. XX03 and XX09 was for the months March and September, but this often do not fit with released date. --2001:16B8:201:4400:C54F:A300:E187:E9F2 (talk) 08:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

20H2 Codname: Manganese 19541 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:8E80:3338:DC3C:4A0B:AD80:12E9 (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2020

Adding 20H2 row with link to article in Rings head Nikhilpal2705 (talk) 07:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

This page uses too many templates

Recently this page has crossed the 2048000 "Post-expand include size" limit enforced by the web server's software. See Help:Template#Template_limits and Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded for details.

The result is that templates that are at the bottom of the page will not display correctly.

I recommend splitting off another page identical to this one to cover "PC version history" versions 1507 through 1703. Why those dates? Except for LTSC (formerly named LTSB), those versions are not supported at all. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is what a copy of the page with just 1507, 1511, 1607, and 1703 included might look like. Notice how everything except the actual versions is WP:Transcluded from the main article, so changes to the main article automatically affect this one. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Project names

[[3]] Please add -- 2A02:8071:8199:FC00:61E2:ACB6:3BB9:53C1 (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Codename (20H1)

Hi

Is it possible to change the codename for 20H1 to 'Vibranium'? See https://www.thurrott.com/windows/windows-10/190138/windows-10s-next-major-updates-will-be-codenamed-vanadium-vibranium. Also, 19H1 & 19H2 were still named Redstone (possibly 6 & 7), they still had 'rs' in the build strings. Wagnerp16 (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Split

People are looking for information on particular versions; they do not want the entire article to be loaded. They want to know how a particular version was received by the general public. They do not want very general information like that in Windows 10 or here. Aasim 01:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Possibly divide the article into 15xx, 16xx, 17xx, etc. e.g. in pairs of two versions rather than each version separately as that would kind of be too much articles as there is not particularly much to say/difference between each version. LukaAndjelkovic (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the versions could be paired, especially with the new major-minor cadence that Microsoft is using. I don't think splitting the article would be wise, though. It's useful to have a single page with the whole release history. Herbfur (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I would like to see the 'windows 10 versions' table kept intact Choman2 (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm keeping to search Windows 10 version 2004 and a fast ring version. Clearly not everyone want to see an 1703 version anymore. The Windows 10 arcticle are now paying attention only at RTM and 1909 version. --91.207.170.92 (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I would also like to see the table kept intact. I use it as reference on a regular basis because it is succinct (and easily bookmarked) in a way that Microsoft's own documentation is not.--Jasebaese (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC) Wiki-Friends,
I understand the concern with the size of the article Windows 10 version history in its current form [2020.05.18].
The suggestion for partitioning subsets can be useful in this case.
However, I recommend that redirection from Windows 10 version history is present in all sub-articles.
Even more: I recommend that the table contained in Windows_10_version_history # Rings be present in all sub-articles.
For... Viewing THE WHOLE... can be very important and useful. Wiki-Success!
Aainitio (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• We can use excerpts feature, in order to have a way to overview all versions on one page, and the tables and rest information on the actual page from where excerpt is taken from. Maybe, as @Aainitio: suggests to have a reference page, we can excerpt whole tables. However, even though the actual data won't be on this page, the excerpts would still be rendered and over time due to its size it would become unresponsive on lower-end devices, and unreadable. LukaAndjelkovic (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• You may update that split template due to new version release. --91.207.170.131 (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

   Done Aasim 00:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Build 2004 permanent lockout?

Currently, any machine using an older graphics card based on Nvidia Tesla architecture is compatibility locked out of installing 2004, and it is unclear whether that will ever change. The issue is Stop codes (BSODs) with drivers older than 358.00 due to an incompatibility, and Tesla architecture cannot install drivers newer than version 342.01. I'm just browsing this article for the first time so am wondering if this would be an appropriate add anywhere and if so, where. (This is the only potentially permanent lockout I see on the list, but there may be others I missed.) Jtrevor99 (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

And more generally, some information on what hardware/platforms are no longer supported by a given build of Windows 10 might be helpful. For example, I understand that starting with 2004, only 64 bit chipsets are supported...but may have read that incorrectly. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020

2001:16B8:27B:C800:D500:746C:4AA3:7A1E (talk) 11:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I suggest to fwd to latest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_10_version_history_(2019%E2%80%932020) not to oldest--2001:16B8:27B:C800:D500:746C:4AA3:7A1E (talk) 11:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. What exactly to you want to change??? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Currently, if you open https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_10_version_history you will be forwarded to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_10_version_history_(2015%E2%80%932016)

IMHO the forward target should changed from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_10_version_history_(2015%E2%80%932016) to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_10_version_history_(2019%E2%80%932020)

Cause the older history should be less important so the latest should have the priority. --2001:16B8:27B:C800:F4CE:FC31:15AD:1 (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Oh, in that case, since the other page is only a redirect with no other history... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Split Successful

After a long discussion, I have taken action at last and split the article into three, one for updates released from 2015 to 2016, one for 2017 to 2018, and one for 2019 to 2020 (which also includes rolling Fast Ring builds). I have also updated the templates to reflect the split. The original link redirects to the 2015 to 2016 updates. Harshmoney (talk • contribs) 17:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Really? Year is vague way to split. Not happy with it. How is year important? Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 18:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell this so-called split resulted in three exact duplicates of the original article, only one of which has full multi-language support. If the intention is to complete the split, it looks like a lot of cleanup work remains to be done -- but I would argue that the benefits discussed above really don't outweigh the hassle associated with proceeding with the split. 2601:18C:4201:99B0:9974:6893:9967:9EB8 (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)technosopher

I'll be honest, I didn't see the discussion on the split above until after it was completed. Personally, I would prefer it be kept all on one page. It helps one to see the evolution and complete history of Windows 10. If the article ever becomes overlong, then some of it could be moved to an archive page, but otherwise I, too, would prefer not to see it split. It's just unfortunate we're discussing this now that someone went to all the effort. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

References

As of 08:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC), there are 950 references in the article. This is rather long, so is it possible someone build a collapsible around the references section? Thanks --SlitherioFan2016 (^Talk/_Contribs) 08:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Done, there are information below that need to be accessed without too much scroll. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 21:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2020

Hi, i want to edit some typos in this page, there are too much typos there! Chris Ducker (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

. Chris Ducker (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Jack Frost (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, for what it's worth, "there are too much typos" is not a compelling argument. Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Add version nos. to build table?

This is a very good and helpful article, but I'd like to have "build X = version Y" dependency in the chart; I think it would make nailing down disparate identifiers much easier than parsing the detailed writeups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.91.22.118 (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

ETA: NVM; I guess I was blind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.91.22.118 (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)