Talk:Windows Phone version history

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 May 2013. The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator.

Microsoft Windows: Computing High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft Windows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Microsoft WindowsWikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsTemplate:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsMicrosoft Windows articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Mango version# confusion!

Is it 7.10.7720.68 or 7.1.7720.6? I am downloading it at the moment and Zune shows me 7.10.7720.68! Can anyone confirm please? --Pak1standby (talk) 04:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely 7.10.7720.68 aka Windows Phone 7.5. Just see: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsphone/en-us/howto/wp7/basics/update-history.aspx --Hfrmobile (talk) 18:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Phone 8.0.8000

Who put this version number here? Are there any proofs for the existence of this build?

Even if there are, it's not Tango, but rumored to be Apollo.

So, unless someone brings proofs to the existence of such build, I think it should be removed, to not confuse users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeinanXP (talk • contribs) 12:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content

While you claim my edits have "removed" content, your reversions of edits have also, in fact, removed content as well, including a ton of new and correctly formatted references, and the complete removal of properly cited material about Windows Phone 8.

Why can't you just re-incorporate information on the minor patches instead of just wholesale reverting it because it, in your opinion, "deletes content." ViperSnake151 Talk 15:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits without incorporating the useful parts of them (as I said in the edit summary I agree with some of your changes), because I saw in the edit history that another editor has already made you aware that such drastic changes need discussion, but you pushed trough again, without opening a proposed changes thread here.

So, please, either make a proper changes proposal, or incorporate your changes without deleting content (and don't be surprised if your changes are again reverted - see WP:BRD). Ianteraf (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be the article in sync with MS's update-history page?

See http://www.microsoft.com/windowsphone/en-us/howto/wp7/basics/update-history.aspx! This is the official update-history of Windows Phone. But the article also claims that there is a 7.10.8779 but the provided URL refers to an article with a screen-shot of the well known 7.10.8773! --Hfrmobile (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Windows Phone 8.1 section until it's officially announced?

In order to meet Wikipedia standards I propose the removal of Windows Phone 8.1 section from the Windows Phone version history page until this update is officially announced, because most of the information there are based on "leaks", unconfirmed speculation or early SDK, which doesn't present all features in their final form. Or at least the entry for WP8.1 should be clarified that none of the information below are confirmed, as opposed what is currently noted in the description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.113.79.26 (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:CRYSTALBALL. pcuser42 (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Windows ce/ppc/mobile/phone/series/whatever

Windows phone version history starts with version 7. Although this is a sub-article, i'd propose a brief explanation that this was to synchronize the version number with Windows 7 and that it was preceded by Windows Mobile (so it made sense not to start at 1.0). PizzaMan (♨♨) 22:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 10

As much as I like being able to read the gathered version history of Windows Phone, adding features for Windows 10 here does not make sense. Windows 10 for devices under 8" will not be branded "Phone" and will be used by tablets as well. We will have to create a new version history for Windows 10 for up to 8" devices. User:User931 19:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you are coming from, but I feel that this page is best served as an accumulation of changes to the Windows *mobile* OS during it's history (starting from WP7). Much like Android_version history. I think the confusion here is from Microsoft's changes in branding where we have gone from Windows Mobile -> Windows Phone -> Windows 10 (for smartphones and small tablets). A new page name may be an appropriate compromise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeoGeneric (talk • contribs) 02:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I consider it a NPOV violation to consider Windows 10 for phone a distinct product than the previous Windows Phone products, because it unduly supports Microsoft's position that Windows 10 for PC and Windows 10 for mobile are the same products, when in fact, they still contain numerous differences in their overall platform (including, most importantly, no desktop or ability to run Win32 software [only can use apps from Microsoft's walled garden]). Sources have acknowledged that Windows 10 for phone/tablet is essentially Windows Phone 10, and per NPOV this must be recognized. This is merely an emulation of the strategy employed by iOS and Android [adapt phone operating system for use on larger-screen devices as a compromise towards a PC operating system, i.e. Windows 10 for PC] ViperSnake151 Talk 15:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well I would strongly say that Windows 10 and Windows Phone are not the same product either as this article in its current form imply (content listing "Windows 10" in an article named Windows Phone version history) since the Windows Phone branding is practically dead and this article is about Windows Phone version history and not Microsofts mobile efforts version history. And Microsofts goal is undeniably a complete unification of the Windows 10 products, albeit with some obvious UI differences and lack of desktop functionality due to small screen size (as there are already 7" Intel devices with W8.1 and desktop that would not have desktop if they were on W10). Also changes to Windows 10 on smartphones and small tablets apply for Windows 10 on desktops and vice versa, such as synced notifications, unified messaging, universal apps with Office for Windows 10 and the new photos app, and likely a lot more to be revealed in the future. A new article name that Neogeneric suggests yes but that would have a really bad impact on discoverability.User:User931 17:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Idea that WP and Win10 for mobile are the same OS is ridiculous. That's like saying Windows 7 is some version of Windows Vista, which is in turn some version of Windows XP. Microsoft announced that it has killed off Windows Phone-- that's it. They've even merged the Facebook and YouTube pages for Windows and WP. If there will be no more "Windows Phones" produced after the release of Win10, it is ridiculous for us to keep thinking of WIn10 for phones as a version of a defunct operating system family. I would support, however, a link to the version history table on the Windows 10 page. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 10 succeeds Windows Phone 8.1 and Windows 8.1. It's more akin to Windows XP succeeding both Windows 2000 and Windows ME - two platforms merged into one release. pcuser42 (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, Microsoft did not announce that they "killed" Windows Phone. They are re-branding it so they can market it alongside the PC version easier because of the new universal apps. This is the position that reliable sources support, and what we must adhere to per NPOV. ViperSnake151 Talk 17:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a section for Windows 10, however its purpose is to educate that Windows Phone (8.x) devices can be upgraded to Windows 10 and that it is replacement the Windows Phone brand (i.e. Windows Phone brand is being phased out by Microsoft). I think omitting Windows 10 altogether from this page is not a good idea. It does not link to the version history but the main article for Windows 10 Mobile. NeoGeneric (talk) 07:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of article

Please discuss at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Windows_Phone_version_history_(2nd_nomination) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeoGeneric (talk • contribs) 05:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator 07:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeoGeneric (talk • contribs)

Inverse order

Is there a consensus for the recent change to inverse order of this article? I find it really annoying and it deviates from how the Android and iOS version history looks. The point of a version history is to follow the development, not just see the most recent. I suggest the order is changed back to as it was before. User:User931 15:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, this order would make sense if the platform was still readily being developed on, but the anti-chronological order just seems odd for one reason, personally I would also like to see it restored to its "former glory", in fact both the iOS and Google Android versions have it chronologically, hopefully we can reach consensus on the Windows 10 page it was restored to its normal order, I do like it on pages like Microsoft Lumia as the Lumia updates are still happening, but this is a historic operating system (well it's no longer being actively developed as it's development has been superseded by Windows 10 Mobile).

Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The historical order does make more sense. Apologies for not consulting first, I was trying to make the page more "functional" as the reverse order change was roughly based off the console software history pages, which are in reverse order. Regards, NeoGeneric (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edits and bringing major changes

Hello everyone, this part is largely directed at users User931 and NeoGeneric, first off I'll just state the off-topic discussion I (kind of) had but them immedi-deleted from NeoGeneric's talk-page regarding a major re-organization in Microsoft Lumia, it took me literally hours of looking for (Binging), reading through, and placing valid and reliable secondary and tertiary sources and references for that article, and I had to manually place them back in the Wikitable you made for the list of Nokia & Microsoft Lumia devices, don't get me wrong I really like the wikitable, I just would've rather had it that you kept the sources, but I placed them back so it ended well, the same goes here @User931 when you reverted NeoGeneric's edits you also removed the information regarding individual updates, availability, and their historic value to their respective operating systems, I restored them now (so it ended well) but please, please try to "undo the damage" after reverting something or making large (and sometimes hasty) changes, I've placed them back and both stories ended well, but if there is a lesson to be learned here is that reaching consensus should come before major actions, and that we should also look at "collateral damage". Also I kept the Windows 10 bit at the end so people won't barge in this page and place Windows 10's wikitable in this article. Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Namlong618 Thank you taking the time to fix my mistake(s)! I'm sort of new to Wikipedia and have made a few major changes without considering/consulting other editors' works. And thanks for re-adding my material to the Win Phone version history page as well. @anyone If you have any issues with my edits, just give me a shout on my talk page - use caps if necessary! (I've noticed that I have missed out some of the conversations which have gone-on on the article talk pages). Cheers NeoGeneric (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NeoGeneric Mistakes are a part of the learning experience, your contributions have added a lot to the content and context of this page, but some users (such as myself) prefer a more Google Android and Apple way of updating, while you took a cue from the Sony and Xbox school of version histories, personally I would like to see this page modelled more after the other mobile operating systems, but tastes are tastes and there will always be a disagreement.

Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 10:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 10

According to FleetCommand Windows 10 is Windows Phone so why is it excluded? --Lumia930uploader (talk) 12:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simple. The same OS is used by both phones and tablets so we don't want to confuse readers in believing that tablet PCs which clearly are not smartphones are using a smartphone OS. Windows Phone OS was and will never be found on anything other than smartphones. Windows 10 will and that alone is why it needs its own version history. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never said such a thing. Fleet Command (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where the heck are the actual Windows 10 Mobile version releases?

There used to be a massive article that had all of the Windows 10 Mobile version releases, where is that one now?

Has all that content been deleted because of a page merge? If yes, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.16.3.243 (talk) 14:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Things don't get deleted in a merger. They go elsewhere.

But this time, they got deleted because of copyright violation. In layman's language, they were stolen contents, copied and pasted by some good-for-nothing asshole. Such people must go to jail.

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 15:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:IOS version history which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]