Ready go!
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Windows 1.0 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | Windows 1.0 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassessit. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org
|
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 5 May 2024. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
 | On 23 January 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Windows 1.0xtoWindows 1.0. The result of the discussion was moved. |
The Windows logo used in this article is dubious. I've tried Windows 10.1 myself and I never saw this logo (I used virtual machines). The only thing similar to a logo in Windows 1.01 is when you go to the About tab and it shows a 5.25" floppy disc on the far left side of the window. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason for the exclusion of Windows 1.02 from the system requirements section? FusionSub (talk) 08:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus. – robertsky (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
– Verbatim search result hits for "Windows 1.0(x)":
– Verbatim search hits for "Windows 2.0(x)":
– Verbatim search hits for "Windows 2.1(x)":
– Verbatim search hits for "Windows 3.1(x)":
Per WP:CRITERIA: "The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects."
Suffixing x to the ends of the version numbers to denote that subversion exist is unnecessary when the vast, vast majority of reliable sources refer to the releases by their common, concise release name, without causing confusion to the reader. Windows 3.11/Windows for Workgroups 3.11, while notable upgrades, are minor revisions compared to the major leaps from 2.1 to 3.0 and from 3.0 to 3.1, and until they have their own articles, Windows 3.1 is a sufficient synecdoche to refer to them. The differences between 1.01–1.04, 2.01–2.03, and 2.1–2.11 are, as far as I can tell, totally minute and not worth the annotation.
Per WP:CRITERIA: "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles."
These three articles are the only ones that adhere to this practice of suffixing the version number with x to denote subversions. Other version-specific software articles, like Mac OS 9orFirefox 4, do not adhere to this practice. If I'm wrong, please let me know, but I'm pretty sure this is the case.
Per WP:CRITERIA: "The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles."
I can only speak anecdotally, but I have only ever heard "Windows 3.1" uttered in natural conversation; I have never heard "Windows 3.1 ecks". While readers have no problem finding these articles as they stand now, I think the x is an ugly, unnecessary blemish that only serves to hint that updates to the base release exist, when I think that's implicit to just about anyone who has ever used software—then or now. It might have been relevant to add the x for the periods of time where these operating systems were still supported by Microsoft and other vendors, but this is no longer the case. DigitalIceAge (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
