Talk:List of free and recommended Mozilla WebExtensions

message: How can this page be made easier to use?
Should the "download" / "more info" links be moved to the end of each extension blurb?
Or, should those links not exist, and instead should the name of each extension be a clickable external link?
Would the page be more useful if the extensions were sorted in categories like they are at addons.mozilla.org? 
Finally, is this page even necessary? There's a similar list at [addons.mozilla.org Most Popular] even if the descriptions there are a tad long-winded. Ideally addons.mozilla.org would be made into a wiki. The Mozilla community is big into wikis anyway; they have http://wiki.mozilla.org , http://kb.mozillazine.org , and Devmo.
--unforgettableid
:Yes, this is an encyclopedia. It doesn't matter if other organizations have the info, this encyclopedia should have everything.
:Uh, no, encyclopedias should "have everything", and this isn't everything, it's an arbitrary unauthoritative partial list, is contrary to WP standards, and is quite pointless. -- 71.102.194.130 07:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On a side note, the descriptions are ridiculously self-promoting. And IE View criticizes IE Tab! I'll do some fixing. --76.64.190.236 21:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making page easier to use 

message: Extensions by Categ
I think we have added enough of extentison. So anymore of edit should be stopped.
: Then what is the use of having a list in the first place? --Bruce 22:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query 

message: It would be nice to have some categories for the long list of FF extensions:
# Firefox Tabs
# Website Links
# File Downloads
# Behaviour & Navigation 
# Privacy / Security
# Searches
# Music / Video
# Email
# Bookmarks
# Other
I think this would be a great idea. This article should also link to the extension's homepage next to the extension.
Moronicles 20:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extensions by Categories 

message: Should there be a standard criteria for something to appear on this page? There are thousands of extensions now and with sites like conduit (formerly Effective Brand) anyone can put together a toolbar extension in 10 minutes Aldaden 21:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noticed the existence of this page (via google).  Normally I just search the mozilla addon site. However, lately, that site has been more difficult to use due to -- for lack of a better term (is there a term? maybe astroturfing?) -- a sort of "spamming" with knock-off spyware extensions (or of course the useless half-baked implementations that are a waste of time to install).  For example, "toobar" this and "toolbar" that (commonly w/ the same version, 1.0.1.20).  This page in wikipedia however could remain useful if sticking to the normal criteria for what makes a valid entry into wikipedia:  if something exists out there that is popular and cited in multiple places (or, is notoriously unpopular and cited in multiple places).  For instance, there is a book about Greasemonkey.  There is already another article about (and a number of internet references to) ChatZilla, a reasonable implementation of a very common protocol, IRC.  Probably 99% (ummm... citation needed?) of users have TabMixPlus installed (or would want to know about it if they didn't).   So, that's three examples that (arguably) should be included.  Until an extension is "well known" (either for good reasons or bad) it shouldn't be included.  (imho).  - Michael (talk|contrib) 22:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria 

message: The 'More Info' links are a bit of a mess. You never know wher it's going to take you.
The problem is that some extensions have a page on addons.mozilla.org, Some have a page at mozdev.org, some have a separate homepage, and some extensions have all three.
It might bring some consistency if one of these was always favoured. e.g. if an extension has a page on addons.mozilla.org that's the preferred link to list under 'More Info', or perhaps the homepage should always be favoured? Aldaden 17:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Info 

message: Why is this list any less appropriate for Wikipedia than any of the other numerous lists on Wikipedia?  Just as this is a "software directory," the List of martial arts is a "martial arts directory," and so forth.  And there are plenty of other articles, portals, projects, etc that essentially boil down to being "software directories," such as Portal:Free software, List of web browsers, Comparison of FTP clients, and so forth.  In the time that I've been active on Wikipedia, none of those have been proposed for deletion.  It's also a list of Wikipedia articles, given that a large number of the entries on this list link to articles about individual extensions.  I'd like to see a more substantive reason for deleting this article and not deleting the countless other articles that are comparable in function.  Since the template suggests that deletion will automatically happen in five days, if I don't see a response to this question in a few days, I'll remove the template. -Erik Harris 20:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not automatic, not at all. Prod is a process where a deletion is proposed, without the full impact of an AfD.  A testing of the waters to so speak.  Since you bring it up though, there are a lot of List's proposed for deletion.  Just recently, List of video games published by Nintendo was under afd.  I thought that was silly myself, but compared to that, this list is mostly a bunch of links to other sites.  You may also wish to look at WP:NOT (Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files and Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. among others.  Now while Martial arts are an encyclopedic topic, are all of these extensions really encyclopedic, or has this list just become a directory for anybody with an extension to add? Whether or not any of those other pages qualify, I don't know, but they might well not.  FrozenPurpleCube 00:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion? 

message: I have deprodded the article but it needs a fair amount of work to get rid of the non-notable and unimportant items in the list. How can we go about this?-Localzuk(talk) 20:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could look at how many times it has been downloaded at addons.mozilla.org (take the top however many from the list or set some minimum limit). There's not many that aren't listed on mozilla addons, but those that aren't there we can just guess or something. --h2g2bob 21:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I should put a disclosure here that I wrote the UnPlug extension, so someone else should decide if that is notable or not. I'll have a quick glance down the list and get rid of any that are obviously not notable. --h2g2bob 21:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd say a lot of hard work.  I'll check for a template, see if there's something appropriate.  FrozenPurpleCube 00:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: h2g2bob, thanks for cleaning up the top list. I'm renaming it back to "Open source extensions" though. It seems to me that open source extensions tend to be more likely to be useful and notable than the rest, but if it is just called "Notable extensions" then it will start to pick up cruft again. I bet everyone who adds extensions to the page thinks the extension they're adding is notable. :-) Makes sense? Cheers, --unforgettableid | how's my driving? 03:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be honest, I don't really get how some of these are open source while others aren't. The source is easy to get to from the .xpi (for any extension, unless it's a wrapper to some executable, I guess). Some of those listed in Other Extensions are probably open source - like CuteMenus Crystal SVG and NoScript. I'd be for merging the two lists. --h2g2bob 18:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe we should keep the lists separate because the bottom list keeps accumulating entries for non-notable extensions like cheesy toolbars. Note: Open source does not mean "anyone can see the source code if they want". It refers to a number of characteristics, all of which must be met for the software to be open source. See www.opensource.org for more info. Cheers, --unforgettableid | how's my driving? 22:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deprodded but... 

message: Should the Wikipedia link to the extension Sage be removed? It just redirects to the extension list, anyways. Moronicles 01:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted! I've removed the link. --h2g2bob 22:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sage 

message: "Extensions" and "Plugins" are terms Mozilla uses for different kinds of Add-ons.  They are similar for the user, and might as well both be included in this article.  And somewhere we need to have an article section that explains the differences. 69.87.203.136 15:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At least within the Firefox software (Tools->Add-ons), Mozila uses "Add-ons" to refer to extensions and themes, not extensions and plug-ins.  Plug-ins are a different animal, and work differently with the software.  And if we renamed this article to "List of Firefox add-ons," we'd also have to expand it to include a list of themes (and even then, plug-ins might be questionable). —Erik Harris 16:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mozilla uses the term "Add-ons" to refer to the dialog in which both extensions and themes are managed, which are both referred to by their separate name.  (And if you dig in the source code, something about plugins is in there too, but it doesn't seem to be for current/public versions.) Arantius 04:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plugins vs. Extensions 

message: Due to the Afd, I have rearranged the article to give prominence to the more notable extensions, and then deleted the remainder that didn't immediately look notable to me.  If I have trimmed a widely used extension that you think would be considered notable, consider creating an article about the extension (or website it integrates with) and be sure to have sources on the new article to demonstrate notability before adding the extension into this list again. John Vandenberg 06:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The big cull 

message: I expected some opposition to listing Microsoft Firefox extensions :-)
* photosynth : http://media.labs.live.com/all/ps/_code_/photosynth.xpi  (see live.com)
* CardSpace : http://www.perpetual-motion.com/IdentitySelector.xpi.zip, but its not an official extension as Kevin Miller (not a radio host) doesnt work for Microsoft (see  and )
* WMP, while a plugin, really should be mentioned on this page IMO, as the new plugin has been designed specifically for Firefox 2 (Internet Explorer doesnt require the NN4 plugin infrastructure).
Since Microsoft is writing FF extensions, NPOV suggests we need to welcome them to the fold them.  But, of those three, the WMP plugin is the most important to include on this article; the others are not as they are still in beta atm. John Vandenberg 23:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microsoft 

message: I was looking for more information about the NoScript extension.  NoScript redirects to this page (List of Firefox extensions).  This page has a link to NoScript... which redirects to this page.  Is NoScript noteworthy enough to have it's own page?  Failing that should we just remove the link, or have an external link to the noscript site itself?  This circular linking stuff has to go. --66.227.132.25 15:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circular References? 

message: shouldn't it be included as its the only firefox extension I know of that is is a email client
its different from thunderbird because instead of being a full program its an extension its reletively new considering its only a month old
http://telega.phpnet.us/simplemail/
Atomic1fire 21:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple Mail 

message: :Image:Puzzlr.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Puzzlr.png 

message: isn't it biased to prefer some extensions for inclusion in this list over others?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.224.19 (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This article should include all extensions, or none at all. If this list only mentions "popular" extensions they should be backed up by some numbers. There seems to be no criteria on what can be included on this list at present.DemonCleanerUK (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias? 

message: What are the accepted notability guidelines for which Firefox extensions deserve articles? --ZimZalaBim talk 18:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability guidelines? 

message: So apparently FireGPG redirects here. The AfD for it was closed as a merge to this article. Where did it go? --Gwern  (contribs) 23:19 25 December 2008 (GMT)
:FireGPG was removed from this article.  There was a bit of internal policy that didn't get introduced into the AfD, where this page is a list of extensions that follows the WP:WTAF policy.  Only extensions that are notable enough to have their own article pages are noted here, otherwise there would be thousands. Rurik (talk) 02:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FireGPG 

message: Whats the reason behind the sections "Offical", "Firefox Companions", and "Google"? Those should not be given a special category of their own. --Nezek (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The current divisions, and ordering, seems arbitrary. --ZimZalaBim talk 16:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

text: They are separated from normal third-party extensions because of the development force behind them.  This lends to them a certain amount of notability. The "Official" are the ones created by Mozilla themselves for their own browser. "Firefox Companions" are made by the same developers for other sites.  "Google" is a bit of a stretch, but it is the single site that has the most extensions written extensively just for it, so they are easier categorized by themselves instead of mixed in with the general population of extensions. Rurik (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You shouldn't organize this list by notability, readers will most likely look for extensions by how they affect the browser. e.g. DOM Inspector belongs in development tools, eBay companion belongs in website integration, Google Toolbar belongs in browser features. --Nezek (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section ordering of extensions 

message: There are thousands of addons for firefox available now, in all kinds of categories. some are largely used, others of small cult followings but have large revenue income. What determines if one addon should be on this list but not another? There is no way to catalog all the addons here, I continue to suggest deletion. Perhaps listing the 10 MOST DOWNLOADED ADDONS depending on version number (only major updates) would be more useful.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtf612 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 25 September 2009
:The eligibility requirements are laid out in the article source.  An extension has to have its own dedicated article to be included here. Therefore, it must meet the notability requirements of an article. That keeps the thousands of addons from being listed here.  I'm not sure why you would suggest deleting the article over this? Rurik (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the reason behind the question is that this list looks really weird. On the Firefox catalog one can see ratings and download rates immediately; here it is obviously a 1%-of-all list without a note why exactly these ones were listed. They are "notable" but... how about 100x more other extensions that are also notable? Are they less notable? Why? It's hard to imagine why someone would search for such an article in its current state. Perhaps it would make sense to create a category instead and mark all the qualifying articles with that category. Nikolay Komarov (talk) 07:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  What actually makes an extension eligible for this list? 

message: I added the most useful extensions to the list, including those without an article. Please don't remove these entries because someone will eventually create these articles. We need this because about 50 add-ons are now historical: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Discontinued_Firefox_add-ons. --Bawanio (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for new extensions 

message: I rewrote this page from scratch (please see the history). Would you please like to help me make it a Features list? --Bawanio (talk) 05:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi . As mentioned, I don't have the time to work on a large project like trying to make a featured list at the moment unfortunately. This also isn't a subject I'm familiar with anyway, so I don't think I'd be the best person to work on it. Damien Linnane (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

text: I understand. Well, I just want to learn how to make a Featured List but I'll read more about it. Thanks. --Bawanio (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured list