Talk:Internet Explorer

message: Can someone write about the little known address bar search prefixes feature of IE? (Not to be confused with simply address bar search which nearly every browser offers) - xpclient Talk 11:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I found something interesting on it: https://blogs.bing.com/search/2005/03/28/ie-search-prefixes --RezonansowyakaRezy (talk | contribs) 11:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Address bar search 

message: This  http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/12/05/1452951/visited-porn-web-browser-flaw.html contains information that should be included in this wiki article.
Question  is where should it be inserted - thanks for any suggestions or actions. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: that has nothing to do with internet explorer exclusive. if you want to add this, then add this in the a) web browser or b) in javascript or in one article that i can't remember at the moment. This "security flaw" is nothing new. I could show more secondary sources that are really older with links to the initial primary sources. mabdul 21:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Web browser flaw secretly bares all

message: The Internet Explorer 9 section is written in this weird speculative/previewing way. It starts with its standards support rather than its release date and development for instance. I think the section needs to be cleaned and updated. Perhaps an entire rewrite would help. I'll go ahead and whip up a draft. Captain Stack (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Draft posted below. Please read/edit and tell me what you think. I'll post when I add the refs and feel it is up to snuff. I think it flows a lot better than the current section.Captain Stack (talk) 10:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Wow! I though I'm not going to hear about anything called IE10 for the next five years. Looks like Microsoft is really in a hurry. Actually, I somehow feel IE9 passed its Beta and RC stage fast. Fleet Command (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Of potential interest is WP:Articles for deletion/Internet Explorer 10, where the IE10 article is going to be deleted, mainly due to MOS, notability, and CRYSTALBALL violations.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The IE 9 section needs updating. 

message: Does anybody else feel like the History section should merely link the History of Internet Explorer and have all of the short clippings deleted? DanielDPeterson (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section. 

message: The study purporting to show that IE users have low IQ is a hoax. Please stop adding it to the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes it is, but that news only came up today and I still do not agree with the reasoning behind the reverts of my edits yesterday. I must admit that they were not so NPOV because I was having a good time with it (I'm still smiling about it :-), but that should have been dealt with by editing, not reverting. WP:UNDUE is not for scientific research supported content, examples given make that very clear (flat earth is not based on scientific research and thus would be WP:UNDUE when included on article about Earth). The reverts were clearly based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Now that it has turned out to be a hoax, the discussion should be if that hoax is notable enough to be included in the article. The reporting by the big names in the press like BBC News, CNN etc. indicate that it is. It should be labelled as being a hoax of course and NPOV. Thoughts? --DeVerm (talk) 13:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

text: **The hoax is not notable, it's purpose is propaganda.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.107.188.5 (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: * with SineBot LOL - WP:N is what determines notable from not notable... not our personal views --DeVerm (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: * This is simply a silly season publicity stunt that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia whether its a hoax or not. And what basis do you have for claim that the research claimed to support this was in any way scientific? I read the story on the BBC site before it was revealed as a hoax and there was no claim that this survey was in any way validated by any scientific authority such as a university research team or a peer-reviewed journal: just an attribution to a press release and web site of unknown provenance. The only possible story here is nothing to do with Internet Explorer, but as an example of the gullibility of the news media and Wikipedia editors who were taken in by such obviously absurd claims. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: * Wow Phil, please WP:RELAX. I take it that you are not amused by this hoax but that doesn't mean you have to be so confrontational towards me... I did not mastermind this hoax, I only enjoyed it. I understand that you do -not- claim WP:UNDUE so what exactly do you claim then? Just that a hoax does not belong in WP or WP:NOT#NEWS ? I will have to bring your attention to List of hoaxes which shows that there is WP community consensus that hoaxes actually do belong in WP... as long as they are notable, like this hoax. --DeVerm (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *This hoax, if it's notable, is only worth like two sentences.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: * I claim WP:UNDUE. This story would have disappeared after a few days even if it wasn't a hoax. Now that it has been proven to be a hoax, the only responsible way we can include this is if we start the section with "In a story that was later proven to be a hoax, ...", to which readers should respond "then why am I reading about it?" –CWenger (^ • @) 17:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

text:  This hoax is not notable. 12.107.188.5 (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

text: *(@DeVerm) I'm perfectly relaxed, thanks. I was also amused by the hoax, but I'm even more amused by the fact the news media and Wikipedia editors were taken in by a claim that IE users had such an incredibly low IQ. Don't you get the fact that your addition of this claim to the article says much more about your IQ than that of any IE users? And, just for the avoidance of doubt, I am certainly no fan of IE and wouldn't let it anywhere near any computer of mine. You asked what I claim: the main answer to that is already in my comments above (WP:NOT#NEWS), but WP:UNDUE also clearly applies. A whole paragraph about one ephemeral publicilty stunt in an article about a product that's been ultra-notable for umpteen years? That's pretty much the definition of undue weight. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  "amused by the fact the news media and Wikipedia editors were taken in"  Have you read the blarring NegPOV on ~100% of MS-related articles?  Wikipedia is a hostbead of anti-MS FUD. 12.107.188.5 (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey, I'm a Microsoft fan, and I actually have to disagree with that. I see no POV problems on MS-related articles.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

text:   @Jasper: agree, I had only put 1 or 2 sentences in but did create a section for it... @CWenger: If this would not have been a hoax, it would not have disappeared from the news of course... it would've put the world in motion. Also, you could start a section like: Internet Explorer has been used for an IQ test hoax in 2011[...] which is perfectly okay. @Phil: nobody noticed that my way of quoting that Cambridge professor was very funny, check the diffs and compare with BBC News article that I linked as ref. Yes, I agree the separate section was a bit much but I wouldn't be surprised if we get a separate article about it and that it will survive any AfD thrown at it... more sources will come up I think and @Jasper again: I agree, the M$ articles on WP are pretty decent but some people get really worked up when "their" OS is criticized. --DeVerm (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe we should be writing one-or-two sentence sections. This belongs into a Controversy section, which I'm proposing to include the hoax and the existing Security and Removal sections.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  As CWenger says, I agree that it is undue WP:UNDUE.  It came as quickly as it went.  It's just not noteable.  No mention necessary.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.107.188.5 (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

text: DeVerm, I did notice the way that you quoted "that Cambridge professor" out of context, but thought it so silly that it wasn't worth a comment. Please rely on others to tell you whether jokes that you make are "very funny", rather than try to evaluate them yourself. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

text: * Well Phil, I don't need you to have my fun... I wouldn't dare to try to make you laugh, sorry if I gave you that impression. But please do remember that editors here (well most of us) do not get paid for this and just do this because they like it... so pls. take the knife from the table and enjoy editing WP! --DeVerm (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

text: The hoax is WP:Recentism and it should be added back to this article ONLY IF it is still in news after say couple of months. Abhishikt (talk)  18:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligence 

message: IE 8 does not download easily in Korea.  I don't have any citable sources -- just a lot of horrible experience with crashing systems, frozen pages, and goofy messages from MS.  If anybody knows any good tech articles documenting these problems (not necessarily just in Korea), please use them to add to the article. 211.225.34.176 (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  IE 8 

message: In the very first section of the article it is stated that IE is a [...] graphical web browsers developed by Microsoft
This is factually wrong. Microsoft was caught on the wrong foot when the Internet took off and Bill Gates famously dismissed it as a 'fad'. Once the error of this assessment became obvious, Microsoft scrambled to offer it's users a browser and licensed the Mosaic browser for Spyglass (in a controversial deal) and included it for free in an update for Win95. Claiming that Microsoft developed IE is not true. A claim could perhaps be made that Microsoft re-developed or refined the Mosaic code base.
83.249.105.199 (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microsoft did not develop their browser 

message: I am interested to start Good Article review of this article, but I have noticed the editor who has nominated the article is not one of the primary contributors of the article. In some similar GA review discussions, where the article was not nominated by a primary contributor, after starting review I found no one, neither the nominator nor the editors.
So, before I start reviewing, I want to ask editors can they provide some time to participate in GA review discussion? --Tito Dutta ✉  02:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Before Good Article Review! 

message: Will Internet Explorer 10 be available for Windows 7? --98.183.199.31 (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! Microsoft: IE10 coming to Windows 7 /PatrikN (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet Explorer 10 for Windows 7? 

message: The info box is correct and Internet Explorer 10 is mentioned on several places on the page, but the fourth section of the intro text stills says: "The latest stable release is Internet Explorer 9". This should be updated of course and the rest of the section with info about the browser option screen should be moved to the subsection about IE9. I don't have time to do that right now, so is there anyone else...? :-) /PatrikN (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done that, but would appreciate if someone would be able to flesh out the lead with v10 info. At the moment, I've just added a placeholder statement. drewmunn (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text should be updated that the latest release is Internet Explorer 10 

message: Hi, I still feel that I'm a bit of a newbie at Wikipedia, so I'm wondering if the latest edit/addition conforms to the general Wikipedia guidelines. It seems a bit non-objective and I'm not sure that it makes the article better. In other articles, I've seen sections named "Critics" (or something like that) and maybe this text new should be put in a section like that. What do you more experienced users say? /PatrikN (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It was WP:Soapbox, lacking WP:RS which is a frequent issue with this topic. Looking at the IP's history, there's been nothing usable so far TEDickey (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks TEDickey, just was I supposed, and your answer was also with links to sources, so that was just perfectly! And I have also noticed, and am clearly aware, that this article is a big target for vandals. Thanks again! /PatrikN (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

text: No problem TEDickey (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last edit by anonymous user (16:02, 9 February 2013) 

message: Sorry if I'm missing something, but could anyone explain why this exists at the beginning of the article?

I see no reason for it to exist, and after a quick check back, I can't find when it was added. I also did a net-wide search, which returned nothing of much interest, except sites copying the Wikipedia article. Can it be deleted, or does it mean something? Thanks in advance. drewmunn talk 16:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick Question 

message: I've just blanked the recently added section on IE11. The only evidence of its existence is the leak of Blue, and I don't think we should cover it just yet. Things change massively from each prerelease to the next, and this wasn't even an official release. For now, I think it's best we don't cover it at all. When an announcement is made, then we could look into it. drewmunn talk 08:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  IE11 

message: Nobody's gonna add the new article "Internet Explorer 11"? Internet Explorer – Windows Dev Center has clearly suggested that IE 11 preview has come :) Why not start that article? I'm expecting to see it. Sky6t (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  IE 11 again 

message: Ok to move IE6/7 to Internet Explorer versions? Note IE6 came with XP, XP is still supported, but as XP SP3, right? XP SP3 doesn't update from IE6. Note also that people can be running pre-XP, pre-IE6.. and no information would be lost only moved to the other page so this one can consentrate on non-discontinued versions. comp.arch (talk) 11:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  IE6 is NOT supported(?) Neither is IE7(?) 

message: Support for Windows XP ends this April (2014). Given that IE 8 is the highest version that XP runs, and given that the IE update option (in the Safety menu)is called "Windows Update", this strongly suggests that there will be no more security updates for IE 8 after April, 2014. I came here to find out whether that is true or not, and this article should contain a clarification about that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.122.14 (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support? 

message: See [here]. I tried to be as neutral as I could. A formality, not content, was the reason given for the revert. See my edit history for geting this in other pages too. And []. comp.arch (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Security announcement - reverted 

message: this edit links to a blog entry which provides all of its own facts, putting their own words into someone else's mouth.  Probably not useful for this topic TEDickey (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Thanks for the notice. Looks like a case of lack of compliance with WP:CRYSTAL and WP:UNDUE. Even if it is completely true and not a rumor, it is a product announcement. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "hint" on open source 

message: Would it be appropriate to have a mention of the fact that IE 13 doesn't exist (yet)? There's a thing going around on the internet about this supposed version that's fooling a lot of people. 192.170.137.10 (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be alright with the latest version as IE11 in the infobox. George8211 / T 18:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Is there evidence of due weight for such a mention? Also, is such mention any more important than mentioning IE 15, IE 17, IE 31, IE 242 or IE 65535? Best regard, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

text: Is that a typo? "IE 13"? Not 12? Anyway, Wikipedia is not a rumor-defusal agency. The best way to defuse a rumor is to not to talk about it. Fleet Command (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "IE 13" 

message: Oppose As Internet Explorer Mobile (formerly Pocket Internet Explorer) is a different browser with a different history and up until Internet Explorer 11 and Internet Explorer Mobile 11 didn't synchronize nor shared most of their cores, I oppose the merger, though the I.E. Mobile article is to be improved the browser for Windows C.E. and A.R.M. based Windows N.T. operating system is different from the desktop version and has enough notability to be its own Wikipedia article. Also I wrote this here as I can't find the relevant discussion regarding the merger of the 2 pages.
Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 11:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger with Internet Explorer Mobile 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Internet Explorer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.im-infected.com/hijacker/internet-explorer-emergency-mode.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Under history, all versions are given a short paragraph except IE11, which has random blobs of information in no particular order. I hesitate to rearrange this since I don't understand one of the lines, which reads:
Windows 8.1 only: cryptography (WebCrypto), adaptive bitrate streaming (Media Source Extensions), Encrypted Media Extensions.
What sort of cryptography is this talking about? It is very vague, as all major browsers, IE included, support and have supported encryption for years. The source only seems to include this line:
The big one is cryptography and adaptive bitrate support, which enables such things as Netflix without a plug-in. This technology will ship in IE 11 for Windows 8.1, but not on Windows 7.
...which is also pretty vague. Any ideas?
TubbyCat (talk) 12:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broad line about Cryptography (IE11) 

message: Just came here to look for some info and found that the article lede stretches off the bottom of my screen (using a conventional 4:3 desktop monitor). That is way too long. Now IE is 'history' (thank goodness) it should be possible to prune down what's in there.
Sorry for this drive-by comment. I am not knowledgeable about IE (I avoid it whenever possible) and I do not have the time to do a proper job of the editing; however, I would suggest that to start with the second half of para 1, the second half of para 2, and all of para 3 could be removed. (I am assuming that the information IS present later in the article!)
Hymek (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Lede Too Long 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Internet Explorer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101231022205/http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2009/1217/1224260837999.html to http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2009/1217/1224260837999.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The Internet Archive URL is no good. We might need an alternative. —Codename Lisa (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Recently I tagged I tagged article's Market adoption and usage share section with . I also tagged :File:Internet-explorer-usage-data.svg with , as I think we should reproduce these graphs using mw:Extension:Graph which is enabled on Wikimedia projects. The we could create a separate templates containing the <graph> markup and maintain them in much easier way, than for now. I ask you for help with creation of the markup. 
I made a first draft on , here's how it looks for now:
{
    "version": 2,
    "width": 650,
    "height": 290,
    "data": [
        {
            "name": "table",
            "values": [
                {"x": 1994.50, "y": 0.0000},
                {"x": 1995.00, "y": 0.0000},
                {"x": 1995.50, "y": 0.0290},
                {"x": 1996.00, "y": 0.1150},
                {"x": 1996.50, "y": 0.1378},
                {"x": 1997.00, "y": 0.2172},
                {"x": 1997.50, "y": 0.2810},
                {"x": 1998.00, "y": 0.3362},
                {"x": 1998.50, "y": 0.4089},
                {"x": 1999.00, "y": 0.5608},
                {"x": 1999.50, "y": 0.7353},
                {"x": 2000.00, "y": 0.7945},
                {"x": 2000.50, "y": 0.8386},
                {"x": 2001.00, "y": 0.8639},
                {"x": 2001.50, "y": 0.8786},
                {"x": 2002.00, "y": 0.9163},
                {"x": 2002.50, "y": 0.9408},
                {"x": 2003.00, "y": 0.9456},
                {"x": 2003.50, "y": 0.9489},
                {"x": 2004.00, "y": 0.9458},
                {"x": 2004.50, "y": 0.9339},
                {"x": 2005.00, "y": 0.8976},
                {"x": 2005.50, "y": 0.8747},
                {"x": 2005.00, "y": 0.8976},
                {"x": 2005.50, "y": 0.8747},
                {"x": 2005.00, "y": 0.8976},
                {"x": 2005.50, "y": 0.8747},
                {"x": 2006.00, "y": 0.8662},
                {"x": 2006.50, "y": 0.8412},
                {"x": 2007.00, "y": 0.8320},
                {"x": 2007.50, "y": 0.8192},
                {"x": 2008.00, "y": 0.8061},
                {"x": 2008.50, "y": 0.7301},
                {"x": 2009.00, "y": 0.6977},
                {"x": 2009.50, "y": 0.6680},
                {"x": 2010.00, "y": 0.6210},
                {"x": 2010.50, "y": 0.5115},
                {"x": 2011.00, "y": 0.4380},
                {"x": 2011.50, "y": 0.3678},
                {"x": 2012.00, "y": 0.2951},
                {"x": 2012.50, "y": 0.2370},
                {"x": 2013.00, "y": 0.1868},
                {"x": 2013.50, "y": 0.1565},
                {"x": 2014.00, "y": 0.1178},
                {"x": 2014.50, "y": 0.0761},
                {"x": 2015.00, "y": 0.1054},
                {"x": 2015.50, "y": 0.1093},
                {"x": 2016.00, "y": 0.105},
                {"x": 2016.25, "y": 0.103},
                {"x": 2016.50, "y": 0.098},
                {"x": 2016.75, "y": 0.094},
                {"x": 2017.00, "y": 0.089},
                {"x": 2017.25, "y": 0.093},
                {"x": 2017.50, "y": 0.091},
                {"x": 2017.75, "y": 0.081},
                {"x": 2018.00, "y": 0.080},
                {"x": 2018.25, "y": 0.069},
                {"x": 2018.50, "y": 0.071},
                {"x": 2018.75, "y": 0.067},
                {"x": 2019.00, "y": 0.066},
                {"x": 2019.25, "y": 0.059},
                {"x": 2019.50, "y": 0.056}
            ]
        }
    ],
    "scales": [
        {
            "name": "x",
            "type": "linear",
            "range": "width",
            "zero": false,
            "domain": {
                "data": "table",
                "field": "x"
            }
        },
        {
            "name": "y",
            "type": "linear",
            "range": "height",
            "nice": true,
            "domain": {
                "data": "table",
                "field": "y"
            }
        }
    ],
    "axes": [
        {
            "type": "x",
            "scale": "x"
        },
        {
            "type": "y",
            "scale": "y",
            "format": "%"
        }
    ],
    "marks": [
        {
            "type": "area",
            "from": {
                "data": "table"
            },
            "properties": {
                "enter": {
                    "x": {
                        "scale": "x",
                        "field": "x"
                    },
                    "y": {
                        "scale": "y",
                        "field": "y"
                    },
                    "y2": {
                        "scale": "y",
                        "value": 0
                    },
                    "fill": {
                        "value": "#555"
                    },
                    "interpolate": {"value": "monotone"}
                }
            }
        }
    ]
}
Cheers! --RezonansowyakaRezy (talk | contribs) 12:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess one axis is years (shouldn't have a comma, and why is the last year 2003?), but not clear what the other is. comp.arch (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  IE's usage share is outdated 

message: Hello
As can be inferred from the edit diff, I have deployed a new stacked layout for version number information. They now occupy the full width of the infobox. This capability has been part of the  since April 2014. I thought after two years, I might as well push a little harder and bolder for both feedback and bug fixing.
Looking forward for feedback.
Best regards,Codename Lisa (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is everyone cool with the new stacked layout? 

message: For current Windows 10 it looks like MSIE is having different second component value (=51) for the four component serial number than used for e.g. Windows 7 (et.al.) (=0). I can see this on the German version of the Wikipedia article:
 Windows 10 version 1607: 11.51.14393.0 Updateversion 11.0.34 (KB3175443)
 Windows 7 et.al.: 11.0.9600.18524 Updateversion 11.0.37 (MS16-142/KB3197655 et.al.)
PS: I have no hands on Win10 at the moment. The current version might be already a bit higher. --Alexander.stohr (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  alternate numbering sheme for windows 10 

message: The Internet explorer 1 - Internet Explorer 8 section seems to be underdevelopped and only discusses the beginnigs of IE, appearantly this section was reduced after moving it's content to other articles, yet it seems this section could benefit from some expansion and a brief description for IE's evolution between version 1 till 8. Wiki layes (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet explorer 1 - Internet Explorer 8 section is under-developped 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Internet Explorer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19970629174318/http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/january/new0122d.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/january/new0122d.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090801120753/http://idreamincode.co.uk/ie8-bugs to http://idreamincode.co.uk/ie8-bugs
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20000816032353/http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9810/08/browser.idg/ to http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9810/08/browser.idg/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I worked on a white paper that does a very in depth analysis of browser security for Chrome, Edge and MSIE, which we released this week. It is similar to the 2011 Accuvant paper mentioned in the article. Our team found that MSIE is lagging behind Chrome and Edge when it comes to security. I believe it is a relevant source of information for this article and should probably be mentioned in the "Security" section. Since I am one of its authors, I am reluctant to add this information myself. If you are not familar with the paper, you can download it for free here. — SkyLined (talk) 08:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  2017 x41 Browser Security Whitepaper 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Internet Explorer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081003033505/http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2002/December/browser.php to http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2002/December/browser.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081002055109/http://www.thecounter.com/stats/1999/December/browser.php to http://www.thecounter.com/stats/1999/December/browser.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080420103123/http://www.omniture.com/home?cms_site_lang=1&s_cid=1493&s_cid=1493 to http://www.omniture.com/home?cms_site_lang=1&s_cid=1493&s_cid=1493
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The information on the deal between Microsoft and Mosaic seems to be inaccurate. According to a WSJ article at the time, Spyglass alleged that Microsoft couldn't properly account for all the copies of IE it had distributed and was not paying the per-copy royalty like it was supposed to.
Leaving this hear with the hope that I can come back and fix it when I have time.
Source: Microsoft, Spyglass Are Tangled In a Web Over Royalty Fees
--The Extremist (User, Talk) 23:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  History: Spyglass Mosaic deal 

message: None of the given sources appear to mention when the Internet Jumpstart Kit was made available; in particular it was something after August 16, 1995 TEDickey (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: IE 1 was released in Aug. 1994 - a full year before Windows 95 was released. It was included as a free-insert paper CD in PC Magazine. I installed it on an 80386 PC running Windows 3.1. 2603:6081:1503:CE00:39EC:A562:6F13:1D9B (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

text: See reliable sources guideline, if you want to look for a suitable source TEDickey (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial release date 

message: The guideline for Template:Infobox software says "Code for a small image to be displayed as software product's logo or computer icon".  There's no provision for a collection of icons (or a gallery).  TEDickey (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  icon-spam 

message: I changed "is a discontinued" to "was" awhile ago, but was reverted. The website already discontinued, other sentences are in past tense except the first line. Will we change it to past tense or remain "is a discontinued"? Goodvibes500 (talk) 12:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Past tense at the beginning 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect Internet exploiter and it has been listed for discussion. Readers of this page are welcome to participate at  until a consensus is reached.  -- Tavix (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Internet exploiter]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Internet Explorer isn't available for regular users anymore as of February 2023, it has been redirected to Edge and the icons for Internet Explorer are to be removed in the June 2023 Windows 10 update. This leaves the small minority of LTSC and IE mode users which isn't normal usage. Also Cloudflare reports that most "Internet Explorer" traffic is bots with an IE user agent. Nearly all websites don't support Internet Explorer any more, either outright rejecting it or providing a broken page. With all this in mind Internet Explorer market share reports are completely unreliable and should be removed as there is virtually no actual use. 195.188.176.215 (talk) 09:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Internet Explorer is used by 0.21 % as of May 2023, per https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share 2A02:2378:11A4:5D06:0:0:0:1 (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Those numbers are inaccurate, 0.21% is low enough to be considered a rounding error at this point, and the fact that most of it is bot traffic and misconfigured outdated computers who haven't been redirected to Edge yet means it is a complete illusion of Internet Explorer actually being used by real people. Basically no one is using Internet Explorer as their main browser anymore due to the fact that the vast majority of sites don't work anymore. It is highly misleading to suggest that Internet Explorer has any place on the main internet at all, even specialist web applications are being migrated to Chromium based solutions. Microsoft is already aggressively updating old computers using "Microsoft Update Health Tools" and even Microsoft's own site doesn't properly work in IE anymore. Overall the figures should be removed. 2A00:23C6:4587:4F01:8D64:DF6C:1469:19C6 (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they should be restored, as IE is still supported on some Windows versions (Windows Server, Windows Embedded and Windows IoT). 2A02:2378:103E:D94F:0:0:0:1 (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Use on embedded systems tends to be on private kiosks and intranets, which don't get recorded as general use, also web browsing is rarely done on servers as ssh and remote administration tools are used instead. Intranet web apps also don't tend to have external analytics like Statcounter either, which makes IE's true usage too difficult to meaningly estimate anymore. Ponyguy (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose removing Internet Explorer market share figures.