Talk:Internet Explorer 7/Archive 1

message: I disagree with the pop up blocker comparison of IE6 and 7. When I navigated to the site IE7 blocked all popups from there (tests 1 and 2, I didnt do others). So, I would suggest it be looked into. --soumসৌমোyasch 09:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, those are not good comparisons and it needs to be improved.  Digita 17:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pop-up blocker

message: some websites including wikipedia pages are not stored  support forum. But, pertaining to your answer, I believe that PHP articles may not work correctly.Rmsuperstar99 00:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has absolutely no relationship to this article. It should be asked in a tech support forum. anyway, I believe that PHP generated files may not sync correctly. Rmsuperstar99 00:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IE problem 

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support - The division of an internet suite between different versions does not exist with any other of the internet suites available on Wikipedia, in addition to (already said) the information on the page is predominately on other pages and just copied onto this one (see History of Internet Explorer for example) Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 14:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Some critics say the majority of the new functions is blatantly stolen from Mozilla Firefox. Not having them was a criticism, now having them is also a criticism? Make up your mind, please! --soum (0_o) 17:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's what some critics say. I can slightly understand it, because IE7 has very few functions that FF does not have. Salaskan 15:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: True that only some critics say this, but only in IE7 does this occur. But, the RSS feeds icon in IE7 is virtually identical to that of Firefox, so, in ways, it is true.Rmsuperstar99 00:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course the RSS icon will be identical. It has been licensed from Mozilla foundation by Microsoft and then by Opera to create a consistent identity for feeds. --soum (0_o) 16:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: It seems to me that the AfD initiator wanted the article deleted, by using the verbage "Merge and Delete". "Merge" seems to be a valid outcome of AfD according to the first paragraph on the WP:AFD page.
:Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. Articles listed here are debated for up to five days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus. The page is then either kept, merged and/or redirected, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, or another language's Wikipedia, and then redirected or deleted—...
Merging is a logical step to be taken before deleting an article (rather than deleting and not saving anything "with prejudice").Two questions:
1) Was deletion of this article shot down due to the polite wording of the initiator?
2) What are the GFDL licensing issues brought up by -wwwwolf?
The first AfD entry:
:Merge and Delete:First of all,besides that no other version specific internet explorer page exists,If there is a page for Internet explorer 7,why not Firefox 2 then,its as well known, and even more critically acclaimed Rodrigue 14:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RESULT The result was speedy close. "Merge and delete" can't be done due to GFDL licencing issues, and no in this AfD seems to be asking this article to be deleted. Please discuss merge on the article talk page. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: -Close No valid nomination reason given, nomination isn't even asking for an actual deletion. If you're having problems getting the discussion organized, try WP:PM. FrozenPurpleCube 16:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: -Speedy close. Afd is not for merge suggestions. "Merge and delete" is not a possible outcome. It doesn't even make sense to delete — this would be useful as a redirect whether or not their was a history under it. --- RockMFR 21:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  14 March 2007 AFD result 

message: I remove the sentence from the criticism section which said that many bugs were found, because:
*it reffed a site that talked about the beta release. Beta release is to find bugs, so no surprises here. Criticism pertaining to the versions in development is not suited here. History of Internet Explorer, perhaps.
*it does not apply to final release. IE7 and FF2 had comparable vulnerability count. So, this is not a valid point of criticism.
Please dont just revert, without a valid reference claiming how this is actually criticism. Discuss it here first. --soum talk 14:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: this page should be moved or renamed to Windows Internet Explorer 7 because of the new name--AFUSCO (talk  contributions) 00:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have had this discussion long before, and it was decided per policies that since referring to it as Internet Explorer (or IE) is more common than Microsoft Internet Explorer (or MSIE) or Windows Internet Explorer (or WIE), it be kept here. See the talk archives. You will see the discussions. --soum talk 09:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  move 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
Internet Explorer 7 → Features new to Internet Explorer 7 — The only unique content in this article relates to new features of Windows Internet Explorer 7. —Themodernizer 20:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Oppose this article is about a version of Internet Explorer not only its features, an article about the features can be created with more details if you think it is importantAFUSCO 23:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Any additional comments:
*Comment: Although this article does contain other information about IE7, the only unique information relates to new features of IE7. The other information is duplicated from related articles. Themodernizer 01:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: In current form, yes. But IE7 was different from other versions was that other versions were viewed as upgrades to the platform, but IE7 as coming back to life for a platform abandoned to die.  As such market expectations and reactions have been different for this specific version. And there is potential for this to be moulded into a great write up. --soum talk 07:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Separate article is not needed unless this blows out of proportion. --soum talk 06:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 06:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Oppose this article is about a version of Internet Explorer not only its features, an article about the features can be created with more details if you think it is importantAFUSCO 23:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments:
*Comment: Although this article does contain other information about IE7, the only unique information relates to new features of IE7. The other information is duplicated from related articles. Themodernizer 01:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In current form, yes. But IE7 was different from other versions was that other versions were viewed as upgrades to the platform, but IE7 as coming back to life for a platform abandoned to die.  As such market expectations and reactions have been different for this specific version. And there is potential for this to be moulded into a great write up. --soum talk 07:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Separate article is not needed unless this blows out of proportion. --soum talk 06:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 06:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion