Talk:Firefox/Archive 7

message: I loved the info box that is in this article and i was trying to test it on an article I am making and accidently changed the screenshot.  I got my tabs mixed up.  It was an honest mistake.  Sorry. Charlie Da Tuna 15:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow So sorry 

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: 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)
replies: text: And the point is, why aren't criticism spread throughout the articles of Internet Explorer and Opera? iamthebob(talk|contribs) 05:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because many people complained about the criticisms being lumped together in one section, which made the rest of the article look like Firefox was perfect. No one has made similar complaints about the other articles you mention, as far as I know, so they have not been changed. Of course, now that the original complaints about this article have been addressed, new complaints are emerging. It just goes to show that you can't please everyone. -- Schapel 05:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms of Firefox section 

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)
replies: text: Because these are the only tags needed and every tag necessary to have correct license labeling. -KingpinE7 02:16, 14 March 2007 (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: 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: 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: "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: 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: 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