Talk:Firefox/Archive 6

message: This article seems to me to be too large for Wikipedia. Is all the information necessary in the Features section when we have a perfectly complete (27kb) article on the features by themselves? --T. Moitie [talk] 15:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided to be bold and do a major rewrite to the whole features section. I understand this is a featured article, but I think that since the complete features article is referenced, the summary I placed is *more* than enough. In fact, the article size is still 44K, so the it still needs work! As least it is down from 57K. --Unixguy 11:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is the technical aspect of it being too much data for some browsers, but if only the readability/organization were to be taken into account, WP:SIZE says "only the main body of prose (excluding links, see also, reference and footnote sections, and lists/tables) should be counted toward an article's total size, since the point is to limit the size of the main body of prose." Consdering the large amount of such text this would make a significant difference. --Kamasutra 12:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Featured Articles generally have a length of 30kb-50kb. In addition, I don't think the Features section should be a list: we should include prose explanations for at least the most important features. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say that the list looks awful and many of the things in it would completely confuse non-techy readers. We should maybe do a brief intro for the section, expand a couple of the main features, create a 'standards supported' subsection, a 'platforms supported' subsection and leave the rest to go on the main article for this section.-Localzuk (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the list does look awful. I moved the images and it slightly improved the look of things. The list should be formed into prose, even if the prose contains an embedded list. It should even bring down the size slightly. I'll have a go now. --T. Moitie [talk] 13:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just done a re-write. I've also incorporated the security section into my re-write, as the section was to small on its own to give itself good reason to exist. The prose of the section increases the total page size by 1kb. Not bad considering how large it was before. --T. Moitie [talk] 14:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: JDG - Sorry about the quick and undiscussed change. I didn't take into account that this was a large change. I did preserve the original article in its entirety in my sandbox. I still believe that the features section was *too* long - even for an FA. Plus the Features of Mozilla Firefox does have its own article. In my opinion, the prose that the other editors changed my initial list (which I *do* agree was ugly)  looks much better now. --Unixguy 18:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of article 

message: Version 2 of Firefox is coming out in 2 months time, so should we start thinking about how we are going to organise the new information into the History section of the article? Features of Firefox will need reviewing, as will Criticism. All in all, some sections are going to require a re-write that could compromise the integrity of the featured article, and I'm writing here to ask if we should set up a sandbox to prepare for the changes to the articles we are about to have to put in? Is someone already working on this? 
Many thanks, T. Moitie [talk] 00:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version 2 

message: Let's add a section for Firefox in popular media! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AStaralfur (talk • contribs) 
:Now if that isn't a reason to switch i don't kno what is! Only problem with your proposal is that there are so many places Firefox pops up in tv shows,films etc, it'd make for a very long article! Though a seperate article on this topic might work... Benbread 23:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lou Carpenter from Neighbours uses Firefox! 

message: The article claims that Germany has the highest percentage of Firefox users, at 39.02% in July 2006. Finland had market share 38.4% already in January so I'm positive it is higher than Germany. Finland was not included in that onestat.com study
:Is it verifiable? -- Schapel 18:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. The article should probably mention the source of that number and the 12% inline. The citation is good, but an "According to blah,..." would help. -- Steven Fisher 21:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highest usage 

message: The current article contains an assertion that OK/Cancel have been dropped from Preferences in favor of Close. This doesn't seem to be the case. Is it perhaps a distribution-specific thing? Either way, that sentence wants fixing. -- Steven Fisher 17:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK/Cancel or Close? 

message: What are people's thoughts on creating a Firefox disambiguation page, instead of having Firefox redirect to Mozilla Firefox? --NEMT 22:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why it wasn't there, but I added a redirect template so that your problem doesn't occur again. --Kamasutra 21:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambig for [Firefox]]

message: You know, I think this article makes Firefox look like something holy. You know, It's not the best thing ever. I tried to put some facts of Firefox not being in this article, but they got removed immediatly.
:Did you ensure your "facts" were verifiable by citing reliable sources? -- Schapel 13:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Beat me to the post :). Anyway I too think they were reverted because they were kinda bias POV comments. While the issue itself is a point of view, it is written in a way that makes it NPOV (adding sources to prove the point etc). We at Wikipedia have a policy of writing articles in a in a neutral tone, and your comments kinda violated that policy. Harryboyles 13:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If anything, it seems to "fanboy" the mozilla project and the creators of firefox more than the browser itself.  The criticisms section seems to balance out a lot of the firefox love fest contained in the rest of the article.  It essentially read "firefox is great, but it's not." --NEMT 14:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read it as "Firefox is great" then either there is POV in there that you may want to make neutral, or that is your own interpretation of the facts and there's not much anyone can do about that. --Kamasutra 21:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Overfanboyed" 

message: The  Wikipedia guideline on splitting articles says when split, a several paragraph summary should be left in its place. The section on History, Features, and Criticisms in this article seem a bit too long to me. The Criticisms section also seems to me to be selectively listing criticisms rather than summarizing all the criticisms present on the child page.--Nonpareility 19:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've summary-styled the History section.--Nonpareility 18:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting of the article 

message: What do "Portable versions of Firefox" have to do with market adoption?--Nonpareility 19:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing. Today this was vandalism. When you saw it before I did not check, but is probably the sign of the same vandal. Widefox 11:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Market adoption 

message: As most people involved with Debian know, the Mozilla Corporation is now actively enforcing the trademark on Firefox and is threatening Debian over the version of Firefox the include. While verifiable, I'm not convinced that this issue is currently notable enough to be included, as nothing substantive to end users has happened yet - there has only been considerable discussion among those interested in the development of Debian and Ubuntu. Does anyone think this should be mentioned now? When, as  currently expected, Debian actually forks Firefox and changes the name? If Ubuntu also changes the name? --Constantine Evans 07:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Firefox trademark issues have been discussed in Criticisms of Firefox for quite some time now. -- Schapel 11:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where? The only mention I can see is that "the official Firefox binaries ... have trademark restrictions". The non-theoretical trademark issues have only surfaced in recent weeks. Also, part of the question is if and when this issue will become important enough to note in the main article. --Constantine Evans 06:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When will trademark issues become notable enough, if ever? 

message: :The second release candidate is scheduled to be released on October 6 2006, and may become the final release if there are no major bugs found.
Hi, where did that info come from? Could someone add a source, please? If one isn't added soon, I'm going to tag it with "citation needed." --Kjoonlee 02:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Source added. --Kjoonlee 02:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RC2 release date 

message: I'm disappointed with this Firefox browser. Whenever I try to get playback from say, Amazon.com I recieve a box that says I need a add on or a plug in or whatever to get music samples. I let them run a search for what I guess is required, and it comes back and says it can't find any suitable add ons. I'm running Windows 98 and if I can't get this browser to cooperate, I'm going to have to take it off.209.179.168.54 04:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't use this page as a place to air your personal grief's. It is supposed to be a place to discuss improvement of the article.-Localzuk(talk) 13:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plug ins 

message: The history section is way to EXTREMELY short.  It must be lengthened a lot.  The old history section was better.  I understand that you want to make more room for FF2, but it doesn't need that much room -KingpinE7
:History has its own article, so anything we write here should be in  summary style. It could be lengthened, but it should not be the entire text of the history article as it was before.--Nonpareility 05:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read the response about this from another user? There is a 'history of mozilla firefox' article and as such we only summarise it here. -Localzuk(talk) 17:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section 

message: The article states However, recent studies show that Firefox has surpassed Internet Explorer in the amount of vulnerabilities in the year 2006 (through September 2006). This implies that there are exploitable vulnerabilities in Firefox. However, these vulnerabilities were generally (if not always) fixed before they became publicly known, and thus could never be exploited; none of the vulnerabilities discovered this year remain unpatched. I'm not sure how to point this out without sounding confusing and while staying NPOV. -- Schapel 02:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like this has now been clarified without sacrificing NPOV. -- Schapel 13:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vulnerabilities 

message: According to the frontpage under recent events, Mozilla Firefox 2.0 has been released. However, unless something has changed, the release date is tommorow not today. - Damicatz 17:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been removed from In The News now. -- Schapel 18:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will readd when Mozilla finally updats their page, but from the timestamp on the file 23-Oct-2006 10:42 there is no way this is anything but a final, is Mozilla seriously going to release a RC for a day? I doubt it -- Tawker 18:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt they'd make a change and still release Firefox 2 tomorrow. More likely would be that they would delay the release if they need to make a change. -- Schapel 18:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But why would they put it in the release folder of the files list if it wasn't the release build.  Timestamped less than 4 hours before the official live date in a release folder - add up the clues -- Tawker 18:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the current plan is to release that build as the final build. However, if they find a bug in it, they could still change their minds. -- Schapel 18:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But then the firefox version will be called "2.0.1" or "2.0.0.1"! --84.156.117.203 19:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. So far, they have released three different versions, all called 2.0 (see the user agent article for confirmation). They were release candidates. Until the release is official, there could be a fourth release candidate, also called 2.0. -- Schapel 21:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now a word from Mozilla's build engineer, for those who are still not quite convinced that Firefox 2 has not been released yet. -- Schapel 00:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone wants to mention Monday's premature release announcements, the link above is probably a good reference to use. Remember not to link to any builds before release, and let's not simply say the build was made available and let people find it on their own, as that's nearly as bad a providing a direct link. We should at least clearly state that the builds are not ready for download because the release is not yet complete. -- Schapel 11:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You can also compare it with this wiki: If you save a page, the page is online and public. It does not matter in which namespace you saved your page, you have released it by clicking on "Save page". The announcement (by a link) would come after that. Maybe on the Main Page or wherever. Only if it's a potential article (the potential "release") that actually belongs to the main namespace, and you created it in your user namespace, you didn't release it as an "article" but just as a "page" (in development). But Mozilla released their "article" in the "main namespace"! --- Greetings, Melancholie 00:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're missing one important point. Releasing one file is not the same as releasing an application that works on multiple operating systems, with multiple locales, onto many servers worldwide, available in both standalone and update versions. When they released one file, it was accurate to say that one file had been released, or that the release process had begun, but it was not accurate to say that the release process was over. Anyway, we need the announcement that the release is complete before we can say so in an article to adhere to the policy of verifiability. -- Schapel 00:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Front Page Note is premature 

message: I'm pretty sure Firefox 2.0 was released at 3 PM PDT, not PST.--168.254.226.35 14:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 PM PST? 

message: I removed that little part from the first sentence of the section on "Current Version", seeing as 1. I found it unnecessary, and 2. Unless UK users are seeing a different site than I am, I saw Mozilla.Com updated at when I checked it at 6:30 PM EDT.--XMBRIAN 20:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm from the UK, and am getting the standard 2.0 download info. English (British) is avaliable for download from the "other systems + languages" link. I see no problems. for the UK. --h2g2bob 00:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK users not noticing updated page 

message: Someone should add a picture of the cake from the IE team to this section: http://fredericiana.com/
:I don't even think the cake is notable enough to mention, let alone provide an image.--Nonpareility 22:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response from competition section

message: I fixed some vandalism (someone had put "FIREFOX IS BETTER THAN EXPLORER!!!!! above the picture). Let's try and keep this page nice and NPOV, thanks.
ManicParroT 04:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Removed spam link to spoof site. We are not an advertising platform for your pet project.-Localzuk(talk) 12:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microsoft buys Firefox