Talk:Windows 10 Mobile/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Different introduction lines

"that succeeds Windows Phone 8.1" Vs. "Although not branded as such, it is generally considered a successor to Windows Phone 8.1." As Microsoft and other sources always list Windows 10 Mobile as an update to Windows Phone 8.1 the reference to the branding would be redundant as that's already discussed in "naming", also I have never seen a single source claim that Microsoft or anyone else claimed that it didn't succeed Windows Phone 8.1, so saying that it's "generally considered a successor" would basically say that it's an unofficial successor despite it being presented as the official update, thus would be redundant.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source?

I have been wanting to use WMPowerUser as a source to quote the latest build, my only problem is that some editors will immediately revert it as it would not be considered a reliable source, it's not a blog because it has various editors and contributors, does interviews regularly, and the most common complaint I hear about it is that it's too closely associated with the subject hence removed but that would be like saying that no medical articles may contain links to medical journals as they're primary cover is medicine, this argument is flawed because when a corporation is as big as Microsoft there are sure to be hundreds if not thousands of independent news sites and papers that will dedicate themselves 100% to the conglomerate and WMPowerUser isn't a first party source and I would argue that their coverage would be more reliable than a plethora of other sites that often even misname the operating system as "Windows Phone 10" and sometimes the content or "reliable" sources such as the Verge and Ars Technica read more like opinion pieces and blogs than WMPowerUser, so I'm going to insert them into the link, and if an editor would revert this because it's not a reliable source please list your reasons as to why the Verge or PC Magazine would be better. --42.113.73.178 (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Can I see the source you would like to use? WMPowerUser does seem to be used on wiki already, and I don't really see a reason for rejection. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 08:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Device List

I wasn't able to find a wiki entry for List of Windows 10 Mobile devices, although Microsoft does have an official list of current phones that will support the developer preview (and almost certainly the release) version of Windows 10 Mobile. An entry may be out there and I just couldn't find it, but it should be tied to this page; yes? Circ (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The list should be what is built specifically for 10, which as of this moment isn't anything since we haven't gotten to RTM yet. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The image

For the past few weeks several people have removed the screenshot of Windows 10 Mobile and replaced it with another one that inevitably gets deleted within a few days because Wikimedia Commons doesn't allow that, and someone is forced to revert this careless act, can we just please talk this through? --Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 07:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

"Unreleased build" lists all announced (and unimplemented) features, leading to confusion

At this time, it list Continuum, OTG, Offline charging, etc as features upcoming at build 10532, wich is not true.

Even FLAC support is listed in this, and it was added long ago (i'm not sure in wich build exactly, because i'm using the preview since 10136)

I suggest adding a new section with upcoming features, and in the "upcoming build" show only the actual features announced or confirmed for that build.

---thebit.link | Talk 06:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a list of upcoming features that have been announced and are well sourced (well referenced) future additions to Microsoft's Windows 10 operating system for mobile devices, but due to the way it was implemented into the list many editors constantly simply replaced "unannounced" with "build xxxxxx", this is the main reason why people tend to incorrectly list the wrong features, though lately an editor has assigned a new colour to this list so this issue should no longer repeat itself.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Matching the Mobile Article to the Windows 10 Desktop Version

The colors of the "versions" table should probably match the format/color of the "versions" table in the main Windows 10 article. The table for some reason has different code, and I spend about an hour trying to figure out how to change it, to no avail. Even the legend for the graph doesn't show up in the edit code.

The Professor123 (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi.

There is no cross-article consistency mandate in Wikipedia, which means you should give a good reason as to why. I switched to {{version}} template because of the damage to the table that had been left unnoticed for quite some times. Personally, I like the convenience of the {{version}} and its basis on the colors' theory. Someone has put a lot of work in it.

That said, by now, it has become clear that Windows 10 Mobile is just as related to Windows 10 as Windows 10 Server is. Yes, yes, I have definitely heard about Microsoft "One Windows" advertisement; it is just an advertisement. Windows 10 is not the main article.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 05:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Strange version numbers

Hello, people

Today, I reverted an edit by YannickFran for several reasons (c.f. my edit summary); but one of them was the appearance of two duplicate version numbers and the absence of one. But then I noticed this version number table is strange. For example, in one column we have "10.0.12534.59 (Build 10052)". Okay, this is seemingly giving two build numbers: 12534 and 10052. (Please observe Microsoft version numbering.) And service pack 5? I wonder if there is a source.

I believe I should invite the most active editors of this article to participate: ViperSnake151, User931, NeoGeneric and Some Gadget Geek.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

No, you have got this completely wrong. Microsoft released the build number through the web/press release etc but the version number for each build, found under settings/about was always different until version 10166. Please read up before you do any changes like this. UserUs456879 19:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Us456879 (talk • contribs)

WP:BURDEN —Codename Lisa (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Us456879, when I first came to this page, it was in a vandalized state, with table color guide completely messed up. So, I hope you understand that I cannot trust any single thing that you say unless you show me a source. The Professor123 was kind enough to find a lot of them. But in revision #687003557, you added stuff that do not have a source and fail to verify against existing ones. So, for the time being, I have tagged them as unreferenced.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Old threads and Desktop OS

@The Professor123: Please refrain from deleting old sections simply because you deem them "irrelevant" if issues get resolved the entries in the article's related talk pages often pay tribute to the edits made on the page, deleting your own comments is allowed but if someone else's comments are relevant they should not be removed from a talk page, please read WP:TALK thoroughly.

I don't see how Windows 10 Mobile doesn't qualify as a desktop client as Continuum can allow it to be used with a mouse, keyboard, monitor, and other accessories used for desktop computing, so I don't see why this automatically makes it ineligible for being listed among Windows 10 while Windows R.T. gets a different treatment.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Windows 10 Mobile is not technically a desktop OS. It's capable of rendering a desktop under certain circumstances, but it's still designed as primarily a mobile OS. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Correct. And unless it supports a full DirectX suite, traditional desktop apps, multiple instances of the same app, UPS, massive storage, optical drives, RAID and distributed computing, it won't be a desktop OS. If you manage to make look like one, all you have accomplished is creating a counterfeit.

Of course, I know people who re-purposed decommissioned Windows Server machines with valid licenses into desktops. Windows Server 2003 made a great replacement for XP, owing to its superior kernel. Finding device drivers for it was a problem but don't let us go that way. There are also people who converted decommissioned Windows XP Embedded into Windows XP desktops, even though it was an embedded OS. I don't know much about them though. Still, Windows Server is a server OS, Windows Embedded is an embedded OS and Windows Mobile/Phone/10 Mobile is a mobile OS, because possibility alone cannot defy purpose.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've been told already by Viper, and have noted not to delete talk page messages. Thanks. Still finding my way around the Wiki. The Professor123 (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

No, Codename Lisa? Only a recycle bin is required (and a mouse/WIMP etc.) :) What you are describing is a traditional – by now Windows. Say optical drives, came and went on a Mac.., predated desktop OSes (same with 3D graphics/DirextX). The first desktop metaphor popularized by Apple, didn't require a desktop, that was implicit (what you see), and ironically, the trashcan was on the desktop (with Microsoft a recycle bin). I'm just saying "desktop"/"mobile" division is getting blurred, and the WIMP is probably the best dividing line (while disputed.. that it doesn't apply to "mobile"). comp.arch (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@Comp.arch: Let's make it tangible with an example. To have a Windows 10 desktop, all you have to do is to either buy a desktop with Windows 10, or buy a desktop PC (or build one, which is easy) and install a Windows 10 on it. To have a Windows 10 Mobile desktop, you have to either buy a mobile phone or build one (which is immensely less easy) and pirate a copy of Windows 10 Mobile and crack its licensing subsystem to run it on your custom-made hardware. Then you have to add a keyboard, a mouse and a monitor. When all is done, you have a machine that looks like a desktop PC but you cannot run a copy of StarCraft II: Legacy of the Void on it.

So, no! What I am describing is a big picture, including not just what you could do, but also what you can do, should do, and is legal to do. I am talking about an operating system that does not even have a GA date. I don't simply look at whether it is easily possible to make the two look the same; I care whether the two are by default the same, work the same, the consequences of making the two look the same and the real-world feasibility of doing all this. Because, that's all there is to definition of a "desktop OS" and a "mobile OS".

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTCHANGELOG and the Version History

@The Professor123: First of all thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, they're most welcome, but I'd like to point out that barebone citations (only links) are not desirable (please read WP:REFERENCES) as many websites tend to be renamed, link rot can occur, or links can be revised and/or redirected to new pages placing the author name and article title will not only improve the links and quality of the article, it will also help trace the articles after they may be archived or moved on their respective site, this message is not solely to the Professor123 but to all whom it may concern.

@Everyone Per WP:NOTCHANGELOG the WP:NOTABILITY of changelogs and their changes are based on third party coverage, though I've noted that a lot of additions may fall under WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH I often back these up by finding the related sources to these edits, but this should not be my job this should be done by the original editor, though I myself have recently done this before adding the source later this is because both Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge keep crashing on me. I've noticed that the build numbers were referenced with Microsoft's own reporting on them, I suggest probably renaming "version number" with "Build number" (as was previously used on the old template) as the names of the build numbers tend to be universally reported on by a plethora of third party sources while finding the specific operating system number might lead to more cases of original research.

Please refrain from using Microsoft themselves as a source in anything that concerns this subject to help improve the quality of this article, thank you

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi.

I am afraid I have to ask this: Did you actually read the links you used here? Wikipedia:Notability has absolutely nothing relevant here. That said, there is nothing wrong with using Microsoft sources, other than the fact that they die rapidly. It is falls into primary sources.

What must definitely not be used is thurrott.com because it is a self-published source. We treated WinSupersite with caution when he published there because Penton had oversight, but now, it is not.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Noted. I'm still "new" (only 60 or so edits made) to the Wikipedia world, so I'm still learning how to reference correctly. I don't believe link rot would occur for linking to Microsoft's blog website, since they never delete posts there (there are still posts there from when they started the site), but if it goes against Wikipedia's terms, then I will refrain from doing referencing in the future, and allow someone who actually knows what they're doing to link sources for me. I was always taught linking primary sources was the best way to source, but again, if it goes against Wiki, I'll refrain. Thanks for letting me know. The Professor123 (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi again. Yes, they do delete posts and entire blogs. Example: Windows Live blog no longer exists. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

¿why did you remove Skype and Cortana in Indian English?

@Us456879: You reverted my edits in the version history without any justifications, I saw you also did a few edits concerning the version numbers but if you're going to change that you shouldn't simply revert it to the last time you edited something, I would expect this stupid behavior from Codename Lisa or Vipersnake but you should watch it more, also I have put references next to the edits I made so it's not as if my edits were baseless, the next time you do this I won't pay respect to your edits and will revert it to the last edit I made. Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Us456879: Concerning the line "The introductory text no longer states "Windows Phone" or "Windows 10 Mobile" but instead "Windows 10" " is actually mentioned in Allison, Michael (21 October 2015). "Other undocumented changes in Windows 10 Mobile build 10572.". Windows Mobile PowerUser. See it here please don't remove text if it's actually referenced, ¿why do you keep doing that? So please stop reverting edits that are actually referenced, and don't revert entire pages to older versions because other fixes could be reverted. Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Cortana is an online service; services can be updated separately from the OS itself, hence that is covered better in the main Cortana article. Also, your remark may be constituted as a personal attack because it contains comments against other editors. Please refrain from doing so. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

No personal attacks were made

@ViperSnake151: I was simply making an observation about careless reversions by some editors, if they want to take this as a personal attack it's up to them, and as I've been insulted by these editors before I fail to see why a warning would suffice as these people practically practice WP:OWN on every page they edit, I was simply stating that the edits I made in the version history were backed by sources yet a novice editor gets barnstars for removing referenced content, if you revert someone's edit at least go over them and check the sources before carelessly reverting them, the reason I made this comment on Vipersnake was because on this very page this editor removed the template Microsoft Windows when this page was first created in the order of first reverting my edit and then placing it back, it seems like a childish move to do and I alerted the user on this and they subsequently ignored my comment on this, in other words it would be like someone would write something in the body of the article, I would revert it and then add the exact same content, it seems petty and this wasn't a personal attack and to report me on this as a personal attack further proves my original statement, again I did not insult anyone. Well excuse my language then, but I was referring to their styles of editing, especially on this article.

And my other responds to FleetCommand was because they use name-calling, and Codename Lisa was because of mocking the way I use dots and both are against WP:CIVIL yet these editors are somehow "untouchable", I will ignore the warning as it's evident that there's a clique on this article and the Windows 10 article that basically WP:OWN these articles, and what I dislike most about the edits made is not just the language that goes against WP:GOOD FAITH and WP:CIVIL but also how none of their edits ever have any justifications in them, often large removal of well-sourced text that's relevant in the context of the article without any given reason, a good example would be the template in the Windows 10 article regarding the upgrade path (and was eventually moved to Windows 10 editions, and from the warning it's clear that these editors aren't open to having a round table discussion with other editors.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello.

If I remember correctly, our little misunderstanding was a year or two ago, and when I did that, two editors besides me informed you that I didn't mean ill. And yet you've held grudge over that!? It speaks volume. I am afraid my friend, your problem lies within yourself.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

References in the Version History table

@Us456879: Please improve references by not only using barebone references, to improve the quality of a reference please provide the date, source name and others as listed in WP:REFERENCES where extra details are encouraged, the reason that this is preferred is because sometimes links can expire or websites could move articles to other U.R.L.'s and this would make bare bone references less reliable compared to a citation that also includes the author name, date of publishing, access date, article title, and citation names for later referencing, don't get me wrong thank you for adding sources to previously unreferenced material.

Also when removing sources next to the version numbers be sure that you don't accidently remove the original third party source that was also responsible for the content of the changes attributed to that specific build as under WP:NOTCHANGELOG these entries would then be subject to speedy removal.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 23:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The image (2)

@Red marquis: Excuse for interrupting you but let me explain why I've replaced your image with the original one, several users (both registered users and "anonymous" I.P. users) have uploaded several versions of the Windows 10 Mobile start-screen/start-menu that were inevitably deleted, in my comment I accidently wrote that you should've used the Upload Wizard (which you did) so please excuse me for that wrong judgement, anyhow the problem with the image you uploaded is that it contained some personal information of (possibly) real people such as their full names, profile pictures, as well as various third party software, to remain neutral most Wikipedia images often only show first party applications on the start screen (though this is not a rule or something, but I've seen several heavily personalised Windows 10 Mobile screens being deleted several times ago), if you'd look in the history of this page you'd notice that a lot of images were uploaded over the course of the last few months and most of them were deleted which lead to this page having no visual representation of the operating at all, I'm not saying that the quality was bad or that it was your or people you know their information, only that I've seen various other images being deleted, if you feel that my edit was hasted and that I shouldn't have removed the image feel free to revert me, but if the image gets speedy deleted I'll try to reinsert the old image. Sincerely. --86.81.201.94 (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

All good points and all are valid. However, I feel there is a need to update the image since the development of Windows 10 Mobile has now progressed to such a point that the current image is no longer correctly representative of Windows 10 Mobile's start screen interface. From a user standpoint, this may lead to confusion. None of the first party apps in the current image like XBox Music, XBox Video and Maps, for example, reflect the first party apps used by the OS (such as Groove, Movies & TV and Maps, respectively). They also have different icons. Further, the spacing between each live tile has been reduced significantly. I think the best compromise would be to either find an image that better reflects Windows 10 Mobile's current state or for me to simply create a new image by carefully removing third party apps as well as personal information. What do you think? -Red marquis (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Red marquis

Actually, I find your image suitable but I am looking at the image talk page right now and things look awful there: You have uploaded a non-free image, but at the same time you have claimed to be the license owner of the image! Windows is an intellectual property of Microsoft corporation, not you. You do not become the image license owner just because you pressed the screenshot button. Any screenshots of Windows need to meet Wikipedia's non-free content criteria requirements.

You need to edit the image description page and change the {{Information}} to {{Non-free use rationale 2}} and fill inappropriate fields. In doing so, credit Microsoft as the author of the work. Also replace {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-3.0|migration=redundant}} with {{Non-free Microsoft screenshot|Screenshots of Microsoft Windows}}. Sure, I can do all these myself, but I feel if you do it yourself once, you'd learn something extremely valuable.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I have edited the description page with the appropriate information. I have also uploaded a new image which omits any third party applications and personal information. Please review [[File:Windows 10 Mobile OS.png]] for approval. PS: I based inclusion of apps on the image currently used for the article. I see Twitter and Flipboard's apps were used. Based on that, it'd be fair to say major non-Microsoft apps are ok to use. -Red marquis (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Red marquis: If you wish to link to a file, put a ":" before "File". Like this: [[:File:Windows 10 Mobile OS.png]]. It gives: File:Windows 10 Mobile OS.png. 46.62.138.127 (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Please adhere WP:NOTCHANGELOG

A user has added a new build and for people who would like to contribute to this page in the future, per WP:NOTCHANGELOG please use secondary and tertiary sources as opposed to first party as the current references for the latest build are exclusively made by Microsoft itself, furthermore I'd like to add that we need to re word it to be able to meet Wikipedia's standards, every new addition should 1) only contain relevant information, 2) be 100% verifiable by 2nd and 3rd party sources, if Microsoft is the only one claiming the new feature and no one else has quoted them then no matter how factual it is it doesn't meet the standards, per se. 3) be worded so the list won't appear to be written by Microsoft itself and it should be reworded to avoid any copyright claims by other parties.

Thank you for taking your time to read this, I shall notify the user who made these edits on their talk page.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

No 64-bit ["ARMv8" support as implied in infobox?]: "Windows Mobile 10 without aarch64 support?"

http://forums.windowscentral.com/windows-10-mobile/384980-windows-mobile-10-without-aarch64-support.html "It just came to my attention, that even in the latest version of Visual Studio, there is no support for aarch64. When thinking about it, there is also no way to submit aarch64 apps to the app-store. Conclusion would be, that Windows Mobile 10 (and all apps in the store) will be 32 bit even on Lumia 950, even though they contain 64 bit processors. Likewise, Lumia 950 phones will be much slower than Android phones with the same Qualcomm SoC."

Windows 10 IoT Core supports ARMv8 (only IoT version?), and maybe to a limited extent. I believe 64-bit ARM kernel is needed, as ARMv8 will not boot 32-bit code. It however fully supports 64-bit ["AArch64"] and 32-bit userland code. GIVEN that the OS also support 64-bit.. To me, ARMv8 imples 64-bit.. Should it be taken out of the infobox? There is no source, either way should be clarified.

https://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2015/03/18 "We are thrilled to demo DragonBoard 410c running Windows 10 IoT at WinHEC. DragonBoard 410c is an ARMv8-based development platform"

https://developer.qualcomm.com/hardware/dragonboard-410c "OS Support: Android 5.1 (Lollipop) on Linux Kernel 3.10, Linux based on Ubuntu, and Windows 10 IoT Core
CPU: Quad-core ARM® Cortex® A53 at up to 1.2 GHz per core with both 32-bit and 64-bit support" comp.arch (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Wi-Fi Direct

I heard windows 10 will support Wi-Fi Direct? why its not listed here?? Mohammadsdtmnd (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Are you aware that you are not in Windows 10 article?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

then whats it? at least we must can see that in Features section. Mohammadsdtmnd (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Windows 10 Mobile is not a "Version of Windows Phone"

Who got that idea in the first place? Take a look here and here the sources mentioned do not even say anything about it being a "version" of Windows Phone. That brand is dead and it is absolutely closer to Windows 10 than Windows Phone. WikIan -(talk) 06:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we do not follow Microsoft's opinion that Windows 10 Mobile is an edition of Windows 10 and completely separate from Windows Phone. We have discussed this numerous times. In fact, even the Microsoft Edge user agent still calls it "Windows Phone 10". ViperSnake151  Talk  06:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I follow reliable sources, not sure what you follow. A user agent string? How is that supposed to say anything about the OS itself? User Agent strings are changed all the time for compatibility reasons. WikIan -(talk) 07:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

As many of the sources in the "naming" section say, Windows 10 is the name being used. It is not a version of WP, but a successor to Windows Phone. Just like how Windows Phone 7 was a successor to Windows Mobile 6 NOT a version of "Windows Mobile 7" though it could have been referred to like that internally WikIan -(talk) 08:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Suddenly, I'm actually agreeing with WikIan. Everything on Wikipedia must be explicitly attributable to a reliable source; combining sources to make a particular claim not directly stated by the sources is original research. Sources used describe W10M as being a "successor" to Windows Phone 8.1, and do not explicitly say it is a version of Windows Phone, hence making such a claim is OR. The infobox sources for this claim were a primary source (unreliable) that only lists a user agent referencing Windows Phone (officially disputed claim), and a site that is essentially a blog. The PC World source only acknowledged that it iterated from WP8.1 in its initial form, did not explicitly say it was a new version, and even opened with the sentence "Windows Phone is dead". ViperSnake151  Talk  15:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

If you want more proof, try looking up what Continuum does. Its insane stuff. [1] and [2]. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@ViperSnake151: WikIan ridiculed the user agent string. But do you know that all the stats we get from StatCounter, NetApplication and GS come exactly from this string? For two years now, Windows 10 Mobile beta's Internet traffic has been an integral part of stat reports on cumulative Windows Phone traffic. Not counting Windows 10 Mobile as a version of Windows Phone is a super-dangerous violation of WP:NPOV and serious act of forgery. Accept it as an arbitrary convention, but a convention nonetheless: What is the successor of what has a lot to do with (1) version string (2) user agent string. (As for the version number Windows 10 Mobile does not have "NT" in its version number. Windows 10 does.)

Do not let the name fool you: e.g. Visual Basic 2005 is an edition of Visual Basic.NET not Visual Basic. Windows 10 itself is a version of Windows NT, not the successor of Windows 3.1, despite not having "NT" in its name. ("NT" appears in the version string though.) Try the duck test: If it acts like a Windows Phone, works like a Windows Phone, runs on the same devices as Windows Phone, and licensed just like Windows Phone, then it is a version of Windows Phone.

Microsoft initially advertised Windows 10 Mobile as an edition of Windows 10 but it has stopped. Microsoft, and pretty much every other company, never admit defeat or turning back unless doing so has a benefit. And the majority of sources out there treat Windows 10 Mobile as a successor of Windows Phone, if not a version of it.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk)

• Oppose WikIan's proposal. Here, three separate different things are said that need three different sets of sources:

1. Windows 10 Mobile is (or is not) a version of Windows Phone

2. Windows 10 Mobile is (or is not) a successor of Windows Phone

3. Windows 10 Mobile is (or is not) an edition of Windows 10, hence a version of Windows NT

Now, WP:NPOV says all aspects and angles must be represented fairly, with due weight and without bias. Name alone and version number alone are not enough. One must look collectively at all evidences:

1. For what kind of platform it is designed?

2. For what kind of platform it is licensed?

3. What old OS can upgrade to it?

4. Who can purchase a license to it?

5. To which OS does its functionality most resemble?

Also see Template talk:Mobile operating systems § Windows 8 a mobile OS?

Something in the WikIan's PC World source everyone must notice: "Windows 10 for phones: A change in name, but not in core features". Also WikIan says "User Agent strings are changed all the time for compatibility reasons." That is False with a capital F! (1) User agent scheme is highly stable. Only twice did Microsoft changed its tokens. (2) The device token in the user agent string has always been stable.

Fleet Command (talk) 09:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The Continuum fallacy by Zero Serenity is already discussed in § Old threads and Desktop OS above: Windows Server and Windows Embedded can also be made to look like a desktop OS. It does not mean their family connection is changed. At the end of the day, all that you get with Windows 10 Mobile is something close to Windows RT; you can't run Notepad++ or Splinter Cell: Blacklist in it. I call it forgery. Fleet Command (talk) 09:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

FC, I don't get where you are getting "Windows 10 Mobile is a version of Windows Phone" from. You have no sources to back *that* up, so you are not taking a WP:NPOV. This here is a good read and you can look [here for more information]. The fact of the matter is:

1 Windows Phone in terms of branding is dead. Microsoft never marketed Windows 10 Mobile as a "version of Windows Phone"

2 Reliable sources state Windows 10 Mobile is a *successor* to Windows Phone 8.1

3 Windows 10 Mobile is an edition of Windows 10 according to here

4 Windows 10 Mobile is using the same UWP (Universal Windows Platform) for development as Windows 10 is

5 They are developed by the same team

6 W10M utilizes WinRT and has the same "core" as Windows 10

The ability to have Continuum run desktop apps is a possibility *this is WP:CRYSTAL so it doesn't count just yet

As a user of WP or someone who has been living in the Microsoft world, you have become confused by branding and are not taking a WP:NPROV

CL, the fact that all those counter websites use UA string is exactly my point. UA strings can be manipulated to be "like Gecko" and other things just to make websites render Edge as compatible and to appear to boost W10M traffic, who knows? The UA string is certainly not a "reliable source" and definitely part of Microsoft Edge not just Windows 10 Mobile WikIan -(talk) 06:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, WikIan

First and foremost, please don't be so impatient; maybe, after we discussed, you proved your point.

2 Reliable sources state Windows 10 Mobile is a *successor* to Windows Phone 8.1 Agreed. Moving on.

3 Windows 10 Mobile is an edition of Windows 10 according to https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/WindowsForBusiness/Compare. Again, agreed. (I might have disagreed with this in the past; never mind the past.) In the past, Windows 2000 had descended into Windows XP and Windows Server. The reverse can happen. But never for a single moment I take that to mean Windows 10 Mobile is a version of Windows NT. (More below.)

4 Windows 10 Mobile is using the same UWP (Universal Windows Platform) for development as Windows 10 is

You argument is analogous to some claiming that tea is a variation of coffee because both of have milk and water in them. The historical and functional similarities between Windows 10 and other Windows NT versions, as well as those of Windows 10 Mobile and Windows Phone in general cannot be overlooked. Also, ... (read below).

5 They are developed by the same team

And the same company too. Also, I have made both tea and coffee; doesn't mean they are the same thing.

6 W10M utilizes WinRT and has the same "core" as Windows 10

All Windows Phones do. Windows Phone switched over to Windows NT kernel. (Maybe WP7 didn't; must check.) But again, this applies to Windows Embedded and Windows Server as well.

1 Windows Phone in terms of branding is dead. Sure. Nobody denies that. But you are reading too much into what is said and written. Not only "Microsoft never marketed Windows 10 Mobile as a version of Windows Phone", it does not even have an official designation for its family of mobile operating systems! Microsoft does not concern itself with looking at the past and categorizing its product versions into families. That's what we do. We take our designations by WP:COMMONNAME. Microsoft Sale department concerns itself with branding; Wikipedia concerns itself with family traits, the way MSDN does (although, we do it strictly and MSDN does it on an as-needed respect-the sale-strategies basis.)

UA strings can be manipulated

(a) When you say manipulated, you are acknowledging that is not genuine. We are discussing what's genuine here.

(b) The goal of the UA string is to help put the device into the correct category, so it receives service corresponding to its nature. When previous Windows Phone versions and Windows 10 Mobile have the same device token, it means they are birds of the same feather.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 09:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

WikIan, looks like we have an opportunity for a compromise here. It seems you, CL and I all agree that Windows 10 Mobile is the successor to Windows Phone 8.1. Great. I also concede that Windows 10 Mobile is an edition of Windows 10, just like Windows XP Embedded was an edition of Windows XP and Windows RT was an edition of Windows 8. (Both have NT kernel too; although XP Embedded is from Windows Embedded family, not NT client.) Based on all this, what change to the article do you exactly propose? Fleet Command (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The only change I propose is to not call Windows 10 Mobile "a version of Windows Phone" anywhere on the page WikIan -(talk) 00:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Reasonable. Fleet Command (talk) 03:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

So we have consensus? WikIan -(talk) 04:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Fleet Command (talk) 04:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Image... again...

Don't get me wrong I don't have any issues with whichever image there is at the top of the article, ¿just/but why do people keep removing whichever image was there before and replacing it with their own? I haven't seen these troubles emerge at iO.S. or Android articles as much as here, and several times already were some of these images removed and they had to be replaced with another one, ¿can we just please have a standard image that isn't personalised to the uploader's taste or something? Don't get me wrong, I'm all pro-having an image to represent the operating system on this page, but the fact that they keep getting whimsically replaced with others is something that shouldn't happen. Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

What do you not like about the image? Do you want to see something specifically? Do you not like the purple? (I don't either, but I don't know the basis for changing this) WikIan -(talk) 06:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

No GA dates

Codename Lisa removed GA date in this edit (693065326). But do you people know that there is not gonna be a GA date at all? Mobile OSes have never been sold in retail outlets before. Or maybe there is a source that says Microsoft is about to break tradition this time? Fleet Command (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Another image (yes, I know, again)

For some reason I keep seeing the main image being replaced for often no reason, this time the reason was because a random user basically vandalised the infobox and the next user instead of reverting it just added empty parameters back, I understand that another image was uploaded but it would be better to use a standard and official (thus neutral) image for the operating system. Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Official site

Recently I added "http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/phones" instead of "http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/mobile/" but for some reason @Codename Lisa: reverted this edit and called it a "bad edit" without justifying as to why the former www.nokia.com site is a better site, "http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/phones" used to be wwww.windowsphone.com and is a part of the software portal (belonging to the larger Microsoft Windows collection of websites) and contains all the relevant information regarding how-to and tips of Windows 10 Mobile and older versions of Windows Phone, meanwhile "http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/mobile/" as Codename Lisa proposes represents the hardware division and sells (historic) Nokia products such as Nokia Lumia, Nokia Asha, Nokia X, Nokia S30, Nokia S30+, Nokia S40, Nokia S60, Etc. devices and Nokia-designed accessories and represents absolutely no other Windows mobile devices (including those manufactured by Samsung and others), I fail to see how adding the software site as opposed to the hardware site counts as a "bad edit". In fact several sources have reported on this being the official site of Windows 10 Mobile such as the All About Symbian spin-off site, All About Windows Phone here

If no one objects to me reverting the official site back to the software site as opposed to the hardware site I'll put it back.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I am looking at the websites right now and it appears microsoft.com/en-us/windows/phones is the home page of Lumia 950 and 950 XL. There is nothing about Windows 10 Mobile in it. microsoft.com/en-us/mobile/ also talks about Lumia 950 but covers other ranges of devices as well, so it is more general. But it does not have any of those historic models that you said. And it has a section about Windows 10 Mobile, and a link to ... surprise, surprise! ... microsoft.com/en-us/mobile/windows10/!

It seems you didn't look before complaining. Fleet Command (talk) 15:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Wrong, the part on the Microsoft Lumia 950 page on microsoft.com/en-us/mobile/ links to microsoft.com/en-us/mobile/windows10/ because it's only about Lumia's, in the source above it is clearly stated that microsoft.com/en-us/windows/phones is the successor of windowsphone.com, but even if you'd say that microsoft.com/en-us/windows/phones is exclusively a way to promote the new Microsoft Lumia devices it would still make more sense to link this as it comes from the official Windows site and the Mobile Devices site is a part of Microsoft Mobile Oy and microsoft.com/en-us/mobile/windows10/ clearly only talks about Lumia devices while the same isn't true for microsoft.com/en-us/windows/phones which contains a link for microsoft.com/en-us/windows/view-all?type=phones as well as windowsphone.com/en-us/how-to/wp8 none of which are present in the Lumia-centric microsoft.com/en-us/mobile/windows10/.

--42.114.33.55 (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi.

You use the word "successor" as if links are human and can have legacy. But the fact is that a company is at full liberty to re-purpose their link however they wish. Content is all that matters. I am afraid this ancestry talk couldn't be any more implausible.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Include Windows Bridge in the article? Under "Development"

"Development"-heading is about the development on the OS. I'm not sure Windows Bridge for iOS belong there or in the article, as it's about a porting tool, and none of the other OS article's include a tool this prominently. I could be persuaded maybe, if it would "just work", but isn't unproven?

About Windows Bridge for Android, it seems not just a tool, but a runtime environment. I'm guessing it's Dalvik ported to run under Windows [kernel], not Linux kernel. If it would work and be included it should be in the article. Even if it didn't work for all apps. But if it was just a failed project, then I have my doubts.. comp.arch (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Erm... I think none of this has anything to with the "Development" heading, but rather with its section. Headings needs to be short. They need to hint only, although they must not mislead. MOS:LAYOUT has more on this.

But as for the "Development" section, Project Islandwood and Astoria must be mentioned because they are directly related to the subject as they illustrate Microsoft's strategy regarding this OS. I don't really bother with other such stuff not existing. Maybe we have an article on Windows Bridge in the future; I don't know. (WP:NOTABILITY and WP:SIZERULE are the blocking issues.) Then, we can link it using {{Main}}. We can focus on its strategic value only and keep on not saying anything about its latest release date, version number and such.

Fleet Command (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: I liked "Android and iOS application support" better. I was thinking about making it "Android and iOS app support" for brevity. Fleet Command (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

"Develpment"-heading is about the development of Windows 10 [Mobile]? What I'm referring to is a sub-heading of that. I'm not sure Microsoft's strategy should go there under, then you could include Office under the OS? Yes, this is a little more related. Maybe a compromize under it's own section? Anyway, if they have a (failed?) strategy (why would Steve Ballmer ("a large investor"..) be asking for Android support, if there already is Android support?), it seems advertorial, to say "app support", when there isn't any? Is there any? comp.arch (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Version history needs references

According to WP:NOTCHANGELOG change logs need reliable third party sources, for some reason the last 3 entries of the version history (all exclusively about bug fixes) don't have any references whatsoever, will the user or users who added these contributions please source their additions. Thank you. --58.187.161.153 (talk) 09:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Order of content

Shouldn't naming come before the Android iOS software bridge, I'm not sure why it's at the bottom as the naming/branding was revealed long before the announcement of the application porting features. --42.114.35.42 (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you publish Android/APK files?

The article says: "Android apps for Windows 10 could be published to Windows Store in APK files."

I googled it, and just can't confirm. It needs a source if it is possible (or was possible at some point). I didn't look to closely at Microsoft's app submission pages, could have just missed it. The closest I found is in C# for Android (and as cross-platform could be submitted to Windows, presumably as non-APK-files).[3]

If you can't run APK-files an Windows Mobile, it is NOT Android compatible. Since with walled gardens you might not be able to run programs anyway, without going through a store first, I might be ok with if you can submit an APK there (and Microsoft would convert). If you can't do that either, then the whole section should be dropped. If you can only (possibly) port, it's not news, you can do that with any operating system (in theory). [This article doesn't include info on Microsoft Visual Studio, on it's development or use, as programming/porting information is out of the scope of an OS article.] comp.arch (talk) 10:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Generic image for Windows 10 Mobile

Like Windows 10, the image on the Windows 10 Mobile page should be a generic image without users personal information with the current image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12Danny123 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi.

I have a question: Why?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I have a better question. How does the current image not fit that description? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 20:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The case of 14267

This is a special build, because this is the first build where not all phones eligible for Windows Insiders are eligible for the latest build. Also we should note that this build is the first build of W10M Redstone. WikIan -(talk) 06:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Mentioning the data bug

There has been a dispute over the inclusion of information regarding a "data use even on Wi-Fi" bug, which an anonymous editor asserts is pertinent information which must be included. It is a bug in a pre-release build. We tend to not list "known issues" like this in an article, but some IP editor is continuing to insist, now arguing under neutral point of view, that we have to mention it.

Personally, this information is trivia and contradicts the intent of this article. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

This is not trivia. It is an important issue. And there are references about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.86.75 (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Important in your opinion, but does this have a long-term interest and impact? ViperSnake151  Talk  21:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

It is not my opinion. Please, see the references. Yes, it has a long-term interest and impact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.86.75 (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. How would mentioning a bug in a past build years after its fixed, have "long-term interest and impact"? It is only an example of things that go wrong in pre-release software. We are not a Microsoft support database. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

You are speculating that Microsoft is going to "fix" this issue. We do not even know if Microsoft considers it a bug or a feature. This software is not pre-release, there are phones that already have this software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.86.75 (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello

I don't think this bug is trivial. It is definitely worth covering, especially if there is build and fix information available.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 11:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

GA date

The GA date is shown as TBA. The software was available long time ago. See Microsoft Lumia 950. I will change the GA date if no one disagrees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.164.31 (talk) 19:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi.

"GA date" stands for "general availability date" and refers to date of the product launch. The launch has unfortunately been delayed several times and there is no set date for it now. The important thing about GA date is that Microsoft traditionally sells its OS licenses to OEM between the RTM and GA dates. So, there is no surprise that Lumia 950 has Windows 10 Mobile on it. (It has always been like this with PCs.)

If you want to change it, please make sure you have a good source for the new date.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 22:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Separate page for version history

The version history part is getting really big now, I think it should now be on a separate page just like a page we have for the desktop version. Chandradeepdey01 (talk) 07:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I would actually support this, as we already have one for Windows 10, Google Android, Etc. But we should probably merge it with the already established Windows 10 P.C. article

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone have anything to say about this? otherwise I will make the new page. And IP above - see all the discussion here, you will find out what Windows 10 Mobile is not (hint- Windows 10), so NO to merging with Windows 10 Version History page Chandradeepdey01 (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Image violations (AGAIN)

For some reason someone replaced the image unopposed, again, I know that I could revert it but the only real "neutral" image was deleted a long time ago, but the current one is even worse than the other one, first of all it's an advertisement by Microsoft (thus it's copyrighted by either the Microsoft Corporation or Microsoft Mobile Oy), and second of all it features hardware in a software article, anyhow if anyone reads this please replace the image. Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello

I reinstated the image because copyright infringement and marked the new image for speedy deletion.

You could revert. And you shouldn't hesitate when it comes to copyright violation.

Also, Microsoft Mobile Oy does not exist anymore. Microsoft wrote it off. They now have a hardware unit.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa Excuse me for not immediately reverting the image, when I found the new copyrighted image I hadn't browsed this page for a while and assumed that a Wikibot might've deleted the image as images that contain copyrighted material usually get deleted after a certain time of not being used, and it has occurred in the past several times that random users would replace the image and then the previous image was deleted even if the new image was less "suited for an online encyclopedia", anyhow the moment I see the next I'll immediately revert it, but again thank you for reinserting the original image.

Post-script, though Microsoft has written off the Nokia acquisition's costs, they have never formally abolished Microsoft Mobile Oy as a corporate and legal entity, in fact it still exists. Microsoft Mobile Oy not only still lists all former Nokia telephones and user-contracts, trademarks, and copyrights on the official Microsoft.com site, they still list Microsoft Mobile Oy as having their main address in Nokia's old headquarters, and if one would purchase for example a Microsoft Lumia 950 today they would still find a user agreement and guide stating that it's produced and supported by Microsoft Mobile Oy, anyhow this isn't really relevant for the article and inserting it would be both WP:OR and fail to meet WP:SOURCE (as it's first party), but what I mean to say here is that the copyright is often listed as being either by "the Microsoft Corporation" or "Microsoft Mobile Oy" whimsically for some reason.

So in short I can't find it anywhere that Microsoft Mobile Oy doesn't exist, and it also doesn't mean that Microsoft can't merge teams, the Skype and Lync teams are also merged and though the copyright of Skype for Business exclusively lists "the Microsoft Corporation", the copyright for the consumer version of Skype nearly exclusively lists "Skype Technologies S.A." or how Microsoft's Skype's GroupMe still lists "GroupMe, Inc." so companies almost never disappear even if their products merge.

@Everyone Please refrain from inserting a copyrighted image into the article, and if you're unsure if the image you want to upload is permitted please read the copyright of the image and Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you, and have a fun time editing.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 11:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Version history Vs. References

Kudos to the people who edited Threshold and Threshold 2 as there are usually multiple sources, but for some reason the people that add new Redstone builds keep neglecting secondary and tertiary sources, so please via WP:NOTCHANGELOG (which says that change logs are allowed here on Wikipedia as long as there are non-first party websites and/or books reporting on it) make sure that you add first and second and third party references, I'll try to find more references now but please follow this guideline. I can't believe I'm starting a section on something I've brought up multiple times here before. Any new editors please read the guidelines, specifically WP:SOURCE.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

At the time that I wrote this I failed to see all the first party sources in the older version, I shall now attempt to find older articles on these builds (as there is plenty of coverage), so it will take some time. Also before anyone deletes anything please try to find 2nd and 3rd party sources and references first, have a nice time editing. ;-)

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Fixed I've added sources I could find via Bing News, but not all of these are of the same quality, but at least this page won't suffer from what Xbox One system software suffered from. Anyhow anyone reading this please add non-Microsoft sources when making new additions to the changelog as WP:NOTCHANGELOG specifies that secondary and tertiary sources are obligated.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Rumours regarding the general availability of Windows 10 Mobile for Windows Phone 8.1 Update 1/2 devices.

Dear editors, several users have inserted rumoured dates of general availability into the infobox, please refrain from such things as rumours fall under WP:CRYSTAL and unless something is officially confirmed even adding sources that propagate these speculations violate WP:SOURCE, so please wait for an official announcement by Microsoft, and then insert a 3rd party source that verifies this, thank you for your contributions to this site. Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 11:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Remove the GA date

The title is self explanatory. Microsoft is not going to sell Windows 10 Mobile in boxes in their stores so the GA date should be removed. Because update for five phones and GA, these are two entirely different concepts. Chandradeepdey01 (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Because of the private nature of distribution and that it is only distributed as pre-loaded software or upgrades, there is no de facto RTM date to begin with. The closest thing we have to general avaliability is when the first device to run Windows 10 Mobile was publicly released. Thus, I think we should list the November date as a "general avaliability". ViperSnake151  Talk  04:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, please remove the GA date. The GA date is only used for software available to install in any device. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.185.110 (talk) 09:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Chandradeepdey01, you seem to have confused GA with retail sale. These two are not the same. RTM date is the date when a company starts distributing software to distribution channels. GA date is the date in which the efforts started at RTM date end. In that date, the software product is said to have been launched. I believe 17 March 2016 is a valid launch date because on this date, all distribution channels have reached distributing status.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 12:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I guess I am going to leave this GA date discussion to you seniors then, I'm still new here. Tagged - Codename Lisa ViperSnake151

Chandradeepdey01 (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Update to older devices.

Maybe it would be better that the update to older devices should be mentioned independently of the G.A. date and R.T.M. dates, and that it shouldn't be placed in the history section and not mention any devices specifically and maybe note that some devices with lesser processors won't get the upgrade, not everything should be mentioned in the infobox but it could be added to the history section or any other body of text. Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 12:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

First party references in the version history

I know that I've already mentioned this before, but to all new editors please read WP:NOTCHANGELOG before adding more entries into the version history, only non-Microsoft sources are required and first party sources can only be complimentary to secondary and tertiary sources. Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Release dates of .164

@Spityu85hun: First I would like to state the msg you have sent me on my talk page
hy dear! please read a fresh new from windows 10 mobile! here some site:HIGH RECOMMENDED READ! https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2016/03/17/upgrading-existing-windows-phone-8-1-devices-to-windows-10-mobile/ http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/17/11218994/microsoft-windows-10-mobile-update http://wccftech.com/microsoft-has-finally-started-rolling-out-windows-10-mobile/ windows 10 mobile rolled out official not all lumia device, this not insider release! this windows phone 8.1 based device received officialy update on 17.03.2016: http://wccftech.com/list-of-windows-10-mobile-eligible-devices/

I guess you have a confusion regarding insider releases. Well if you read this [4] you would clearly see that it is stated that the update is being released to both insiders and retail users (which are the users of Lumia 550, 950, 950XL and some third party devices) on 8th March and not on 17th March.

Next, you are considering .164 as the update build whereas the actual update build is .107 from which a second update is given to .164.

Finally, The article has a separate "Upgrade Release" section for explaining "Not for all Lumia".

I hope I was able to clear your confusion and you will revert the edits on your own. If I was unable to do so, please explain the part you still have confusion about. If you think I am wrong, then tell me where I did not get it right and also wait for other editors join the discussion before making further changes.

Thanks, Chandradeepdey01 (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Tagging @ViperSnake151:

Please post on this page and not on my talk page.

Your post - relesed build is non-insider version! th2 insider program is end! very please read fresh news! your information is very very old! i received windows 10 mobile without insider applications!http://www.gsmarena.com/microsoft_officially_starts_windows_10_mobile_rollout_for_older_devices-news-17284.php

@Spityu85hun: - I guess you do not know. But the build that was provided on 8th March to newer devices was a insider as well as non-insider build, it was provided to "retail users" as well. And the insider releases for TH2 have not ended, there will be newer cumulative updates of TH2 which will be tested by insiders before public launch. Thanks, Chandradeepdey01 (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't we just wait until secondary and tertiary news sources report on new rollouts of T.H.2 builds before adding any speculations as per WP:CRYSTAL because if Microsoft has officially stopped rolling them out and we'd add that this is not the case we'd be spreading false information, the same applies vice versa and since Wikipedia is not news there really isn't any reason to hurry this up.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, this post is not about new rollouts of TH2 builds. It was about the user Spityu85hun changing the release date of build .164 from 8th March to 17th March. Thanks, Chandradeepdey01 (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2016

Change update method to over-the-air updates, the protocol used by Windows 10 Mobile isn't the same as Windows Update. I could be wrong and Microsoft may have rebranded it, but as far as I can tell on my telephone (yes, I know WP:OR) the name of the update part is called "Phone update". If I missed any announcement referenced somewhere else in the text that Microsoft did in fact rename it to Windows Update then feel free to ignore this request.

86.81.201.94 (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

•  Not done Please provide reliable sources to back up this information. ~ Rob^Talk 15:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I equally can't find any sources that Windows update supports Windows 10 Mobile, if you'd go to Windows Update#Windows 10 there's absolutely no mention of either Windows 10 Mobile or Windows Phone.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Also by searching for it there are no results, and the official Windows Update website also has no mention of Windows 10 Mobile or Windows Phone, and in other articles about Windows Phone there are also no mention of Windows Update, it seems to be a relic of when users tried to merge Windows 10 Mobile with Windows 10 proper, at least at "Citation Needed" to Windows Update as I can't find any evidence of it in the body of the text.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I have added "citation needed" to the update model info. Chandradeepdey01 (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2016

A source I added to the latest build by PC World was missing its parent company IDG which I apparently should've added as when revising other references have noticed that a lot of sources place both the reporting website and their parent companies, if anyone would please add it that would be swell. If the editor who added the parent companies to older sources was wrong then excuse me for wasting your (everyone's) time.

In case I'm not clear enough, the source is #182 "^ Hachman, Mark (18 March 2016). "Windows 10 Preview Build 14291 is major, with Edge extensions, new Maps, more.". PC World." on the list, and it's at Windows 10 Mobile#Redstone on the Windows 10 Mobile Windows Insider build number 10.0.14291.1000.

86.81.201.94 (talk) 12:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Done Codename Lisa (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3