Talk:Firefox/Archive 8

message: It's time to do some fall cleaning!  Guess what that means!  We've got to clean up the article, make it a little more coherent, get a screenshot of FFX2 running Windows Vista, for which the current theme was designed, and more flow to the article.  More pictures would be nice also, and I like the idea of a gallery at the bottom.  But changes must be made.  See you soon when it's time for spring cleaning (FFX3) Kingy 01:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, according to the designers of the FFX2 UI, they kept an XP look and decided to hold off on using a Windows Vista look until FFX3. You can listen to the interview with them at TWiT.tv---> http://www.twit.tv/itn38 --Phnx2ashes 21:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not aware of that.  However, I am aware that most people think it looks a lot better in Vista than it does in XP Kingy 05:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know very well that that statement contains "weasel Words" :). I like the way any application looks in Vista, but FFX2's UI was made for XP, Linux, and Mac OS X "Tiger". --Phnx2ashes 19:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fall Cleaning... 

message: I tried to make a separate article but that got deleted. It doesn't seem like a good idea to put it in this article but,I still think we should included it somewhere. Does anyone have any ideas?
Mike92591 23:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How should we include other builds? 

message: Just to make people aware that List of Firefox extensions has been placed for proposed deletion. Dunno what impact this will have. --tgheretford (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It'll have no impact if the deletion template is removed.  I've requested further justification of the deletion on the talk page.  The deletion template specifically says that anyone who objects should remove it, and if the requester can't fully justify deleting the article, I'll remove the proposed deletion template (if someone else doesn't do it first).  It may be a legitimate concern, it may be a misunderstanding, or it may just be creative vandalism.  If it really doesn't belong on Wikipedia, I'm certainly not going to stand in the way of its deletion, but judging from all of the other articles that fit the requester's objection, I kind of doubt the article should really be removed. -Erik Harris 20:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have de-prodded it as the article has some value. It does need work to get rid of the non-notable and unimportant ones.-Localzuk(talk) 20:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of Firefox extensions]] [[WP:PROD|prod]] 

message: It looks they are finishing Firefox 3.0 Alpha 1, it appears in several FTP-folders like this --Denniss 15:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are just nightly builds, the same as have been available for about a year. -- Schapel 16:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firefox 3.0 

message: To the anon who de-archived the entire talk page - why did you do this? The topics on this page were (and once again, are) stale - adding a random comment to a section that was started 2 months ago is likely to be ignored. Instead, why not bring up what you wish to discuss as a new section?
Also, why is this article not NPOV? There hasn't been any reasons given as such. I am going to remove the tag. Please only re-add it if you can explain why it is POV. (BTW, take a look through the archives to see where criticism is).-Localzuk(talk) 18:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thread "Criticism - prefetching" was started 2 weeks ago, not 2 months ago, and it is still active. Article is very NPOV POV, see my reply for Schapel above and all my comments on this page. 193.219.28.146 18:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So why did you de-archive the entire 73kb of this page? Rather than just that section? Also, as I state above - the missing out of a single fact about a product does not make an article POV.-Localzuk(talk) 18:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not "single fact", as I've explained above. But OK, you're probably right that reverting whole page was not that smart... Anyway, if you are going to archive it, please leave all threads related with criticism. I believe it is important, because it seems that article needs some work... 193.219.28.146 00:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why de-archive the entire thing?