Talk:Firefox/Archive 5

message: *Performance section should be rewrittent. It contains too many FF/IE/Opera comparaisons. You can always use Browser Comparaison and Browser Wars articles to compare these browsers. Cleanup-Rewrite tag added. --seifip 15:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Performance section

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: To whom it may concern -the section and the page are being kept seperate due to size constraints. The Firefox article is already too large by Wikipedia's standards, and merging the two would be impractical. The idea is that the Criticisms fall under the Firefox article, but is an article on its own. Thanks, T. Moitie [talk] 13:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you say, the extra criticism in the separate article is too large to be merged. In light of that, the lack of comments here, and that it is clearly linked in the correct section. I consider the merge banner a distraction at minimum, or FUD. I've checked the article for IE, and although it has a slightly larger criticisms section, it has no dedicated criticism page, so for balancing both articles, the banner will be removed. Widefox 11:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please also check the comments in the page Talk:Criticisms of Mozilla FirefoxWidefox 12:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't worry. No one is trying to say Firefox is perfect. The criticisms have been merged into the article instead of being placed in their own section. Many people claimed before that the article seemed to say that Firefox is perfect, except it's not. Now the article should provide a balanced point of view throughout. -- Schapel 14:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, and simply working the criticisms into the article is almost like hiding them!  Other browsers like IE and Opera have seperate criticism sections, this makes the criticisms easy to find.  Working them in and not having a section for them not only seems sinister, but also makes it difficult for someone looking specificially for criticism to find what they are looking for. Aufs klo 03:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what makes me wonder. We should have consistency within Wikipedia. Having specific criticism sections in IE and Opera and not in the Firefox article does seem odd, yes maybe sinister. Either the criticism section should be restored to this article or removed from IE and Opera or some compromise needs to be reached which keeps things equal and neutral to every article. To apply one thing to Firefox and another to IE and Opera seems unfair to me, maybe even a violation of WP:NPOV. --tgheretford (talk) 08:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course. When the criticisms were separate, it was sinister because they were hidden, and now that they're merged, it's sinister because they're hidden. Look — there was a discussion about merging the articles, and a consensus was reached. Did you not participate in the discussion? -- Schapel 13:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may have misunderstood my point, what I am trying to say is that there needs to be consistency within articles. If the criticisms have been merged within the article here but not in IE or Opera, that isn't totally fair and maybe even a violation of WP:NPOV (I am aware of the discussion that took place by the way). --tgheretford (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may have misunderstood my point. You should have brought up your consistency idea in the planning stages, instead of waiting until the merge was complete, and then claiming that something "sinister" occurred. The discussion of the merger occurred on the Talk:Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox page. If you want to bring back the section called "Criticisms of Firefox" we should probably reach a consensus on this talk page first before doing anything. -- Schapel 18:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I would say that any page which has seperate criticism sections or pages is wrong, not this page. Take a look at the archives and see why the pages were merged - there are very strong reasons to not have such a section. To the user above who said about working criticism into the page is like hiding them: why is it? Why should information be split between 'pro' and 'anti' points? It damages flow in the article and just allows people to persist with their own POV's when they come to the article - ignoring everything else.-Localzuk(talk) 18:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I can't seem to find the Criticism page... it simply fowards to here... Im sure there are plenty of them (I know I gripe with the new look of Firefox 2.0; and yes I know there is a replacement theme) I just find it odd that other pages (Internet Explorer, Opera, etc...) have a section yet Firefox has nothing, what gives? 216.220.15.211 22:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The criticisms are spread throughout the article instead of in a separate section. -- Schapel 00:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms of Firefox section 

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: Do you know that Mozilla Firefox doesn't show properly web pages, created with Microsoft Word? Example: [http:elianostamatov.hit.bg]
:On the contrary, it is Microsoft Word that does not create proper web pages. See . --Ali@gwc.org.uk 10:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Opera can't properly open MS Word pages too. --==User:E-Magination == 16:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mozilla Firefox and Word Web Pages

message: All screen shots of Mozilla software products should displsy the following License tags
All screenshots of Mozilla browsers displaying a web page should display the site en.wikipedia.org/Main_Page and display the additional License tag
Also, it would be greatly appreciated if all screenshots were taken while the OS was using one of the default themes (for example Luna (default blue/silver/green) or Classic on Windows XP), and that Firefox was using the default theme, unless the screenshot was taken to illustrate how themes work in Firefox.
:Why?--Black-Velvet 13:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What for? I don't see any point in these rules. --Eugene2x -- ☺ Nintendo rox! 01:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mozilla Images

message: Firefox 3.0 passes the Acid2 Test! 70.111.224.252 15:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why is it that when I tried today's build of Firefox 3 it doesn't pass Acid2? -- Schapel 16:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   Scroll down to firefox and the respective Fx 3 picture. 70.111.224.252 22:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fx 3 and Acid2 Test 

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: Previous discussion was here Talk:Criticisms_of_Mozilla_Firefox#Proposed_merging_into_Mozilla_Firefox
The material under the section heading "Criticisms" duplicates the material at Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox.  There has not been an objection to synchronizing this material, and nor a further objection based on file size, since the Mozilla Firefox article is currently shorter than it was when those objections were made.  So the proposal isn't for a merge.  That's already effectively happened.  The proposal is for a redirect so that the section on criticisms in the main article and the sub-article on criticisms don't need to be maintained simultaneously.  This is a proposal for a merge as much as it is a proposal for a redirect (or a proposal for deletion).  Some editors hope to be able to move material that has been put in criticism sections into the less POV commentary parts of the main article.  It is suggested moving material back to the main article may facilitate this process.  Unfortunately, we're required to reach consensus to just get a redirect to both avoid duplication, and move the article forward. --72.92.129.247 17:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox merged 

message: Do we want to merge/what is the a distinction between the industry adoption and the institutional adoption sections? To me, institutional adoption is when an organization deploys Firefox to its employees. The industry adoption section currently talks about many things: web app support, third party extensions/distributions, institutional adoption, and  OEMs.--Nonpareility 21:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Industry vs institutional adoption

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: Hi! There's some talk on Template talk:Firefox TOC regarding the legal issues with inserting the TOC on distribution/forks that I think you'd be interested in participating in. Particularly its insertion in Swiftfox. talk.
Feureau 19:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOC and Legal Issues 

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: "Client-side session and persistent storage" means, in layman's terms (in the "Version 2.0" section)?  --zenohockey 02:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a WHATWG specification. As Mozilla puts it in their release notes, "Client-side session and persistent storage: New support for storing structured data on the client side, to enable better handling of online transactions and improved performance when dealing with large amounts of data, such as documents and mailboxes." --Kamasutra 05:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone explain what... 

message: From the "Institutional support" section:
:Some observers, such as Serdar Yegulalp of TechTarget and Jim Rapooza of eWEEK note that Firefox does not provide tools that make institutional deployment easier, such as a client customization kit (which Mozilla has since released), [______] Microsoft Installer (MSI) packages.
--zenohockey 20:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a word or two missing here? 

message: The page currently lists none for preview release, it should be changed to 3.0a1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Superway25 (talk • contribs) .
:3.0a1 hasn't been released yet; the article links to a nightly build. As a side note, http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/ doesn't carry alpha builds. --Kjoonlee 06:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah.  When you download Minefield, the first thing it says to you when it opens up is "THIS IS NOT A PRE OR FINAL RELEASE!" In big red letters.--168.254.226.35 14:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it does carry alpha builds, but only under their code names. --Kamasutra 15:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preview Release 

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: The built in "Check for Updates..." function in Firefox 1.5.0.7 reports that no new updates are available. Mozilla's official development Wiki seems to indicate that a 1.5.0.8 release of Firefox is in development. If anyone could clear up why updating the Firefox 1.5 branch makes any sense at this point, in addition as to why the 1.5 branch will not update to 2.0, it would be greatly appreciated. In addition, could this post and/or the revised information please be posted in Wikipedia's Firefox entry?  User:Johnhutchenson
:The automatic update to Firefox 2 is still weeks away. One main reason is that there are still problems running Firefox 2 on Vista. Previous branches are updated for about six months after the initial release off a new branch to give security updates to the users who are sticking with the older version. In the future, perhaps a better place to ask these questions would be MozillaZine. -- Schapel 00:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another reason for this is because they're also waiting for extension authors to update their extensions to the Firefox 2.0 version before they get it onto the automatic updater. I have to reference to point you to, but that's what I've heard in Branch discussion over the past months.  — JT (TRAiNER4)  [T·C·E] 14:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Take a look at the roadmap to get a better idea of how a release is handled. --Kamasutra 01:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: This seems off-topic. --71.169.132.97 21:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a relevant question regarding the browser and could have been implemented in the article as a issue in the news. 70.111.218.254 03:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Firefox 1.5 does not Update to 2.0

message: Just to let new Firefox 2 users know that the hotkeys used when editing Wikipedia have changed somewhat from Firefox 1.5:
Access key definitions provided by web pages can now be triggered using Alt+Shift+key on Windows, Ctrl+key on Mac OS X, and Ctrl+Shift+key on Unix.
e.g., previously it was 'Alt+P' to Show preview, etc., on Windows,  it's now 'Alt+Shift+P', and so-on.  Ian Dunster 13:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's the info I was looking for. Do you know of any way to switch it back to ALt+P standard? I got used to it... //Halibutt 13:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, no - I don't know if it can be changed back - I also got used to using 'Alt+P' - I could do a preview with one hand, now I need to use two! - LOL. Ian Dunster 12:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Altered hotkey behaviours for Wikipedia

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: The section, "Current version", is unreadable.  It needs to be written in summary form. --71.169.132.97 21:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the need for a "Current version" section. It contains history and a list of features, so put the information in History and in Features.--Nonpareility 22:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then fix it yourself --Kingy 04:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, and as people they can register for an account and would be able to edit the article in a few days. -- Schapel 13:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on Version 2.0 is unreadable 

message: Be careful with the Firefox usage percent, as I know it's around 12 % and not more, these things should be truthful and relevant. --Emx 16:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage 

message: It's time to do some fall cleaning!  Guess what that means!  We've got to clean up the article, make it a little more coherent, get a screenshot of FFX2 running Windows Vista, for which the current theme was designed, and more flow to the article.  More pictures would be nice also, and I like the idea of a gallery at the bottom.  But changes must be made.  See you soon when it's time for spring cleaning (FFX3) Kingy 01:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, according to the designers of the FFX2 UI, they kept an XP look and decided to hold off on using a Windows Vista look until FFX3. You can listen to the interview with them at TWiT.tv---> http://www.twit.tv/itn38 --Phnx2ashes 21:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not aware of that.  However, I am aware that most people think it looks a lot better in Vista than it does in XP Kingy 05:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know very well that that statement contains "weasel Words" :). I like the way any application looks in Vista, but FFX2's UI was made for XP, Linux, and Mac OS X "Tiger". --Phnx2ashes 19:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fall Cleaning... 

message: I tried to make a separate article but that got deleted. It doesn't seem like a good idea to put it in this article but,I still think we should included it somewhere. Does anyone have any ideas?
Mike92591 23:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How should we include other builds? 

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 

message: I have added this comment on Talk:Link prefetching, but after a while I think it more belongs here.
The following has been recently removed from the article with comment "rvt. link prefetching is explain on own article.":
"Link prefetching involves an optimization technique that utilizes the browser's idle time to download or prefetch documents that the user might visit in the near future.
For example, if you search for "internet explorer", Firefox may connect with Microsoft's server (first link returned by Google), even if you eventually choose a link to Wikipedia."
I think it should be mentioned in this article, because this has obvious privacy implications. (And considering the fact that it is used by Google, it can also falsify referer stats on http servers.)
Standardization body of HTML is w3c.org. Prefetching used in Firefox (and other Gecko-based web browsers) is enabled by default AND is NOT standardized in the same time. (In FF there is even no GUI to disable this feature. Bugs in Mozilla's Bugzilla related to this are closed with WONTFIX; look thread "Criticisms of 2.0" above for more info.)
How does prefetching work in FF? When there is somewhere in the page
<link rel="prefetch" href="http://some.url">
then browser may in idle time "prefetch" http://some.url. But you know what? There is no value "prefetch" for "rel" in HTML standard! See here then click on "rel", you land here, then click on "link-types" and you finally land on "Link types". You see? There is no "prefetch".
Also, standard says (http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/links.html#h-12.3):
(about <link>) "This element defines a link. Unlike A, it may only appear in the HEAD section of a document, although it may appear any number of times."
But Firefox (and other Gecko-based browsers) recognizes <link rel="prefetch"> even in <body>. Another breaking of standard. 193.219.28.146 18:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Implementing a feature not in a standard is not the same as breaking a standard. Does any W3C standard say that a user agent MUST NOT do link prefetching? If not, then link prefetching is allowed by the standards. Also, the W3C standard you are quoting above saying that <link> many appear only in the HEAD section of a document applies to whether the HTML is valid. That means an HTML document with a <link> element in the body does not conform to the standard; it does not mean that a browser that recognizes a <link> element in the body does not conform to the standard. Please read standards documents carefully; they mean only what they say, not other things that you might want to read into them. -- Schapel 18:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: "Authors may wish to define additional link types not described in this specification. If they do so, they should use a profile to cite the conventions used to define the link types. Please see the profile attribute of the HEAD element for more details." "Although LINK has no content, the relationships it defines may be rendered by some user agents." Regardless, this constitutes original research.--Nonpareility 19:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism - prefetching 

message: Just to make people aware that List of Firefox extensions has been placed for proposed deletion. Dunno what impact this will have. --tgheretford (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It'll have no impact if the deletion template is removed.  I've requested further justification of the deletion on the talk page.  The deletion template specifically says that anyone who objects should remove it, and if the requester can't fully justify deleting the article, I'll remove the proposed deletion template (if someone else doesn't do it first).  It may be a legitimate concern, it may be a misunderstanding, or it may just be creative vandalism.  If it really doesn't belong on Wikipedia, I'm certainly not going to stand in the way of its deletion, but judging from all of the other articles that fit the requester's objection, I kind of doubt the article should really be removed. -Erik Harris 20:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have de-prodded it as the article has some value. It does need work to get rid of the non-notable and unimportant ones.-Localzuk(talk) 20:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of Firefox extensions]] [[WP:PROD|prod]]