Talk:Firefox/Archive 12

message: The intro paragraph claims that Firefox is officially abbreviated Fx, but I cannot find this in the referenced page and I've never heard of it before.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.245.235.82 (talk) 19:52, August 23, 2007 (UTC) 
:Apparently, it's been decided that it's not a frequently asked question:
:*the FAQ edit history
:*The edit diff
:--AVRS 20:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This Internet Archive link may be used instead, though I don't know immediately how those are used (except in the Template:dead link context).--AVRS 20:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why has this been taken away?--Eikern (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may have fallen through the cracks during recent edits. If so, I've re-added the information and source. -- Schapel (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it from the article's first sentence a few weeks ago because I thought it cluttered that sentence and wasn't especially important.  Looks like Schapel re-added it to a point later in the article, where it bothers me less :) --Jruderman (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbreviation 

message: What is important are the features that people use, or, put another way, the features that made people stay with firefox as opposed to their previous browser. I don't know if survey data is important; for me personally, the tabs, increase text size withj cntrl+, bookmark all tabs to a folder and privacy settings were important.
Is there a way to gather survey data here in wikipedia - say a survey of all logged in posters ? Cinnamon colbert 14:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be original research. ([ →]O - RLY?) 19:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: edit in features 18 july

message: Replace these two:
According to Market Share by Net Applications, 14.55% of the world's Web browsers used Firefox in June 2007, with 13.92% using version 1.5 or higher. 
with 
According to Market Share by Net Applications, 14.37% of the world's Web browsers used Firefox in July 2007, with 13.81% using version 1.5 or higher. 
and 

Firefox market share </br> by version </br> June, 2007http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=6	Firefox market share </br> by version </br> June, 2007http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=6
Firefox Betas                                                                                            	0.03 %
Firefox 1.0                                                                                              	0.60 %
Firefox 1.5                                                                                              	2.85 %
Firefox 2                                                                                                	11.07 %
Total                                                                                                    	14.55 %

with

Firefox market share </br> by version </br> June, 2007http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=6	Firefox market share </br> by version </br> June, 2007http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=6
Firefox Betas                                                                                            	0.02 %
Firefox 1.0                                                                                              	0.53 %
Firefox 1.5                                                                                              	1.43 %
Firefox 2                                                                                                	12.38 %
Total                                                                                                    	14.36 %

----
Please add to "See also" the following line:
*SeaMonkey - another, currently actively developed, spin-off of the original Mozilla Suite
Badly Bradley 17:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SeaMonkey is not a spin-off; it is the continuation of the Mozilla Suite under a different name. But I definitely agree that SeaMonkey should be mentioned. --Spoon! 01:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is linked to in the Mozilla template at the bottom. Could probably be mentioned in the article body. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I've removed that statement altogether as it dates quickly and is quite prescriptive IMHO. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Neil ☎ 09:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Since this article is currently protected... 

message: Should History really come before Features? Features seem to be the most relevant section to most people coming to read the article. Foolswisdom 00:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section Order 

message: Just finished reading Neal Stephenson's "The Diamond Age", which features a hacker character with long red hair called PhyrePhox.. Is this where Firefox gets its name?
:No. See History of Mozilla Firefox#Naming. --FOo 01:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PhyrePhox 

message: As there seems to be some progress on the talk page, I've unprotected the article in response to a request on WP:RFPP as a trial. Please proceed slowly. MastCell Talk 19:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to request protection to this page again since earlier today, someone completely vandalisied this page with " THERE ARE LIES AND WIKIPEDIA " by user Man in a Crowd (ReshenKusaga 21:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Semi-protection is usually reserved for articles receiving a lot more vandalism; right now, not the case here. If it becomes more serious, feel free to request it at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotected 

message: I think there should be a screenshot of Firefox running on Windows, to show that open source software is not just for Linux. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.179.101.250 (talk) 12:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that Windows screenshots might not be free as in freedom because of copyrighted Windows user interface elements. To entirely avoid copyright problems, we'd rather show a Linux screenshot and then give a list of all the operating systems, free or not, that it works on. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: @ 1st comment: There is a Windows-screenshot further down in the section about gran paradiso. @2nd comment: How come then that there is the aforementioned screenshot?--Asdirk 15:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are lots of screenshots that are “fair use” (and lots of supporters for them, who do not recognize that Wikipedia is not free while they are present), and lots of screenshots that are considered free either by mistake, or because there are so many of them and nobody has heard of Microsoft’s content use policy. --AVRS 15:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshot 

message: I know in other articles editors try to reduce the number of citations for aesthetic reasons. Citations, especially in the "Firefox 3.0" section, seem too numerous. I will remove a number of them, especially those not needed (for example, the 6 citations for "With the release of version 3.0 alpha 1 on December 8, 2006, it adopted the "Gran Paradiso" codename."
:Be careful, many, if not all, of those citations are needed. Definitely don't remove any regarding te 'ping' thing, as it is a contentious issue.-Localzuk(talk) 10:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In relation to one of the citations, I saw something in newscientist in october that said that Firefox had 33% of the share, not 14.85. I haven't got a citation, but it was in the technology section of the Newscientist.172.207.227.71 00:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wow! enough citations? 

message: Is it just me, or does the PNG preview of the logo have the shadow in the wrong corner? -goffrie 13:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It shows up on the wrong side of the article but shows up properly if you view the image page. Strange. —TRAiNER4 (talk • contrib) 16:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo? 

message: They are named after parks not just places/cites
Mitchell Baker: Speaking of branding, the code names, as you may know, are park names and so Firefox 3.0 is codenamed Gran Paradiso, and there's a Gran Paradiso Park. Recently when we were looking at the code names and for some reason we went to the site of the Gran Paradiso Park, there at the bottom of the site was a ‘get Firefox button', I went "yes! that's the right code name!"
http://apcmag.com/6070/mozilla_ceo_speaks_out_on_the_future_of_firefox_the_complete_8_000_wor
http://codeclimber.net.nz/archive/2007/06/19/Gran-Paradiso-marketing-material-spot-the-difference.aspx  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.94.169 (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Codenames 

message: The article contains too much jargon. Because its a featured article i'm wary of adding the template without discussion but in my opinion its necessary. I use FF and it is a better browser than this article. At some point the article needs to describe the software so it can be accessible to the general public, and not read like software coding. The article was featured in 2004 and i dont even think it is worthy of FA class any longer. Operating 18:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It fairly recently went through a WP:FAR, see Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Mozilla_Firefox/archive1.  Rather than add a jargon template, are there specific sections of concern or terms that you think you should be explained?  If you list specific concerns here on the talk page, I suspect they'll be addressed.  -- Rick Block (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I actually pulled up the version of the page that survived the last FAR and while there are differences, I don't see that it was significantly better.  Clearly this is a tougher subject to write about than I had thought. I'll still try to offer suggestions over the next few days. Xymmax 15:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Jargon template?

message: This is an informal straw poll 
The caption should be renamed to say Gnome instead of Ubuntu, Linux, or GNU/Linux. Please voice your support or opposition below:—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushal one (talk • contribs) 21:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for lad screenshot caption renaming 

message: The awards section has come and gone a couple of times now, so I think it's time for a discussion.  It wasn't in the article at the point is was promoted to FA.  The current version basically replicates http://www.mozilla.org/press/awardshttp://www.mozilla.org/press/awards, which is pretty clearly promotional in nature.  Including a few of the major awards seems reasonable to me, but which and how many?  The alternative view may be that including a few is simply a slippery slope.  I'd rather we resolve this here, on the talk page, rather than by adding/deleting/adding etc. the section in the article.  Further discussion invited.  -- Rick Block (talk) 03:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see someone has claimed that the Awards section is POV. I would agree it would be POV if there were negative reviews of Firefox that were not given as much weight as the awards. We should correct the problem by noting negative and positive reviews without giving undue weight to one side or the other. Note that this does not mean giving an equal number of positive and negative reviews, but giving a representative sample of reviews. That is, if there's one negative review for every five awards, then that should be about the ratio in the article. Are there such negative reviews being left out? If so, which ones? -- Schapel 19:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards section 

message: Stating the market share to 2 decimal points is ridiculous, as the margin of error is much, much higher.  Not to mention that the result of one market share analysis shouldn't be represented as a fact but put in context.  It isn't verifiable.
:I agree. When I mention the usage share of a browser, I try to use one value that agrees with all (or at least most) of the reliable sources. More specifically, I try to use the value that is the median and arithmetic mean (if not also the mode) or sources that agree closely with each other. For example, I would say that Firefox currently has about 14% usage share, which agrees well with the 13.49%, 12.72%, 15.5%, and 14.60% values given in Usage share of web browsers. Those four numbers really all are "about 14%", plus or minus about 1%. -- Schapel (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like a fair assessment to me.  If that exact method or something similar is used though, I think it should be made though that it is the average reported usage share based on multiple sourcces.  Of course you may want to word that much less clumsily than I have in the actual article.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 09:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need to actually say it's the average, as long as the statement is consistent with the sources. The statement "Firefox's usage share is about 14%" can be verified by multiple sources, so that statement along with at least one source should be enough. Of course, multiple sources could be used to ensure that we're not picking the source with the lowest or highest value, which would be endorsing a particular point of view. -- Schapel (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Market Share 

message: I removed the following image. It's a bad usage of statistics, it gives the impression that Mozilla Firefox marketshare is much higher than it actually is. The scale should go up to 100% to stop it from being missleading.
Lyml (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All you need to do is read the scale on the edge of the graph. Perhaps it should be made larger? In any case, please discuss before deleting material from the article. -- Schapel (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't even need to read the scale on the edge of the graph. Images are supposed to contribute to the article- as it is we mention a estimate of current market share in the first paragraph. The graph is useful in that it illustrates changes in Firefox's market share over time without requiring a large table. A graph scaled to 100% usage would not be useful for illustrative purposes in the article, as it would need to be very large to show the change in market share. That's not to say the graph couldn't be improved- a version that split the usage share into major versions could provide extra information, while still being useful for purpose it is utilized for in the article. John Nevard (talk) 07:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing important information these days seems to have become a fashion in Wikipedia! I agree that having 100% as the scale is a better way of presenting facts, but that is by no means a reason to remove a chart from a page. Anybody who is competent enough will be able to read the graph as it has the axis clearly marked. Only someone extremely lazy (because he just skims through the picture) and ignorant (because he will have to be gullible enough to believe Firefox makes up 100% of market) will be 'mislead' by this graph - and that too is doubtable. We have to be careful before we just remove some information from Wikipedia even though we know it is correct, just because of reasons like we feel other people will not follow it. Just voicing my opinion. -- Hirak 99 (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The article is protected, or I'd have added "(scale is not up to 100%)" in the caption of the picture. -- Hirak 99 (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a good solution changing it to the following on the right, that way it displays the same information without being overly big. But also is not as misleading by casual interpretators (boldness perhaps optional). The reason I think this is a big deal is becouse this behaviour of not having full scales is generally frowned upon in the academic society as a way of twisting data through visual stimulation. Lyml (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you give a reference to your claim that in academic circles (or any circle or any other shape) the use of graphs that do not go to 100% is discouraged? I think what you're referring to is when graphs do not start at zero, thereby greatly exaggerating differences. The bottom of this graph indicates 0% usage share, so does not suffer from this problem. -- Schapel (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Schapel, have you ever read "How to Lie with Statistics"? I'm just curious... Iofur Raknison (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I haven't. I took two calculus-based statistics and probability courses at the university I attended. I can see how you might think I read that book, because it seems to say a lot of the same things I do. I have a good grasp of the basics of statistics, that's all. -- Schapel (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree 100%. I made the fonts bigger. I didn't create the graph originally, but I have been updating it. I should have made the text larger so it was easily readable in the thumbnail view before. Let me know if the current size still isn't big enough, and I can make it larger. Note that sometimes caching can cause the old version to appear, so be sure to shift-reload if you cannot read the text. Thanks. -- Schapel 13:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: removing  since there is no consensus. -- lucasbfr talk 14:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is there any real reason behind changing the font size back to illegible? Could we have a concensus on that the scale needs to be made legible in the thumbnail format?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyml (talk • contribs) 15:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I know of. Someone else reverted my changes in the Wikimedia Commons. Now you know the frustration I regularly experience. ;-) -- Schapel 15:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The graph is useful for illustrating the growth in Firefox use over time. We already state market shares in the first paragraph, and break it down by version above the graph. Increasing the text to a size that renders it ugly and improperly aligned when viewed in detail makes the image less useful. As it is, the text size on the graph is in line with other browser usage graphs on Wikipedia, such as the Internet Explorer one. John Nevard 09:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage data picture, misleading graph 

message: The current stable release is version 2.0.0.11, released on November 30, 2007 as seen at Mozilla.com. Can this recognized in the article? Thanks. --Michael Greiner 21:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Already done. Sandstein 06:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: While I am disappointed that a Firefox update cannot be incorporated into Wikipedia within a day, or even within a few hours of a request for edit to a locked page, I am not sure that the statement concerning the previous version should be included at this section. While the timeframe is notable, it seems distracting and the reasoning behind the notation is not quite explained. The statement would be better suited with an explanation of the bugs requiring the rapid update, and should be with other information concerning the versioning of Firefox. Either way, please update this locked page quickly (after all, celebrity deaths and arrests are usually noted within minutes, even on protected pages) Freedomlinux 14:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: New version has been fixed. PeaceNT 02:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New version

message: Change
Firefox 1.0	0.39 %
Firefox 1.5	0.69 %
Firefox 2  	13.75 %
Total      	14.83 %
With
Firefox 1.0	0.37 %
Firefox 1.5	0.63 %
Firefox 2  	14.97 %
Total      	16.01 %1
# Firefox 3.0 and Betas respectively contributes 0.04%.
Note: Please change the alignment to left when putting the table into it.
:This sort of routine update isn't urgent and can be postponed until the page is unprotected. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, this page is not currently fully protected. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change Marketshare for Firefox from October 2007 to November 2007 

message: Why is this page protected? Can someone explain the dispute? —Random832 14:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{-}}Protection 

message: I found a interesting video of how some people made a "Crop circle" of the firefox logo.  IF we could benefit from this information, that would be great.  HEres a link to it:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DsHlev5Dg4--71.116.25.134 (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crop circle of firefox?  I dont know.... 

message: I've updated the reference about the acid2 test, which seems to be controversial at the moment.  One or more users have been adding a claim that FF3 Beta 2 fails the test, referencing the test itself (which is WP:OR).  If it really does fail (I don't know from personal observation myself), there should be a reference.  -- Rick Block (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was very confused about this. It turns out that the Acid2 web site is currently or was recently broken, and all browsers will appear to fail the test. A working version of the test can be found here. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flurry of reverts about the acid2 test 

message: XUL and XBL were recently removed from the languages section of the infobox on the grounds that they're markup languages rather than programming languages. This is a rather trivial distinction. Firefox's entire UI is implemented in XUL, and it's a pervasive part of the code; it deserves mention in the infobox on those grounds. That it "can't do calculations" is irrelevant to the question "what language is Firefox written in?", which XUL would be an appropriate answer to. Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting these back in. Were the use of these languages less pervasive it might be a tougher call, but so much of Firefox's code is XUL that it makes sense to refer to it in the infobox. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Programming languages in infobox 

message: I'm surprised the info box doesn't include a link to the layout engine used by a browser, as that's arguably more important to both users and Web developers than the branding and chrome - e.g. it largely determines how standards-compliant and how secure the browser is. For example the Trident engine is used by several browsers (I searched once and got IE, AOL's browser, Avant Browser, Crazy Browser, Maxthon (formerly MyIE2), MSN Explorer, NetCaptor,  NeoPlanet, SlimBrowser; and the latest Netscape version at that time offered the user a choice between Trident and Gecko), and also by Outlook and Outlook express for rendering HTML emails, and under the covers by for example several media players when they search the Web for content or for info about content currently being played; Gecko is also used by K-meleon and Camino browsers and by Thunderbird email (and probably many other products); KHTML started as Konqueror's layout engine and was at least the base for Safari's. Philcha (talk) 12:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I also got around to updating  to use the same syntax and attributes as . I should get these merged some time. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Layout engine in info box, please