Talk:Internet Explorer/Archive 4

message: Most sites that are only viewable in IE are either incompatible with non-Trident rendering engines or the site itself locks out non-IE browsers. This has nothing to do with proprietary extensions, so I deleted the citeneeded statement that said IE's proprietary extensions make a "number of web pages that can only be viewed properly using Internet Explorer".
Plus there's no empirical evidence of IE-only sites being commonplace. (From personal experience using non-IE browsers, few sites are IE-only, and even the few ones that are can be viewed using IE Tab, but this should not be included in the article because my web browsing experience is not encyclopedic content.) SteveSims 22:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proprietary extensions make Websites only viewable in IE?

message: I moved this extension to the List of Internet Explorer extensions article.SteveSims 01:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in support of moving IE Dev Toolbar and IEAK to their own articles. Add-ins like Fiddler have their own article, these deserve too. And formatting the List of IE extensions articles to on the lines of List of Microsoft Windows components. I am being bold and doing it. Feel free to comment, or revert if absoultely appalling. --soum (0_o) 03:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Developer toolbar

message: Compared to other browsers, such as Mozilla Firefox and Opera (Internet suite), Internet Explorer is divided into two general pages, the official page and the subpage about version 7, not to mention the basic groups of history/features pages. Anyway, my question is why exactly is IE divided between both the IE general (6 and below) and then the IE 7 versions? Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 05:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same (new) user that did that is also making all kinds of god-awful changes to the lead section in this article.   I'm reverting all these changes because there's no way I'd want to lose our Good Article status because some new user wants to muddle.   -/- Warren 06:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might take note of Microsoft Office and Microsoft Office 2007, Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Windows 98, Windows CE and Windows CE 3.0, etc. Digita 07:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comparing apples to carrots, in all respects, in that those are a whole different category of products compared to the Internet Explorer line, and each is completely different than the previous version. The general setup for Internet Explorer should be like Firefox, Opera (Internet suite), or Safari (web browser) in that the one page covers the general product, usually updated for the latest version, not a new page for the newest versions. We don't have an article on Mozilla Firefox 2.0 or Opera 9.0, do we? Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 15:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The softwares that you are mentioning are actually a suite of applications (in a broad sense of the term) and as such has lots of changes between versions, whereas Internet Explorer focusses on a single usage (well, almost). So, there is much less to talk about within different versions. And that does not merit separate articles for versions. In case there comes a version the discussion of which cannot fit in the confines of this article, it would make sense to fork it. --soumসৌমোyasch 16:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: IE has changed a lot between the current and historical versions. Also, the amount of content for IE has already merited many IE related pages.Digita 17:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, IE has changed a lot but what new features are there that you cannot state here? (Its not about IE, but all browsers in general). The different articles pertaining to Internet Explorer draw a general trend in IE, not discuss the different versions individually (except for this one, which makes it explicit which features are to be expected in the latest version. Even other applications like Windows Media Player do not have individual articles for each version. Nor do APIs like ADO.NET, .NET Framework or DirectX. --soumসৌমোyasch 17:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, Visual Studio, Microsoft SQL Server etc do not have different articles for each version. What they have is different articles for different applications in the suite (some of them). Windows Server 2003 does not have articles for different editions even. But its better not to follow articles of other applications categories, but keep stylistic consistency with other browser articles. Like Clindhartsen said, take a look at Firefox, Opera, Konqueror and Safari articles to see how the IE article should pan out. --soumসৌমোyasch 17:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, we both agree IE has changed a lot, but you seem skeptical that IE7 has enough content for its own article. However, the IE7 article is quite long and would not fit on the IE page. Digita 17:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not saying IE7 does not have enough changes to have its own article (sure, IE7 does have a lot many (and in many cases long-overdue and absolutely necessary, thats my POV) changes), I am saying whatever changes IE7 has can be fitted in line with the generalization of the IE features and the new features and changes can be fitted in this article without making its length go out of control. On that basis, new article just for IE7 is not needed. --soumসৌমোyasch 17:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The IE page has already branched out over several sub-pages, yet is still over 36kb. Trying to merge more would only make its length go further out of control Digita 18:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 36KB is not difficult to work with. I have worked with article over 100 KB in length (the Features new to Windows Vista article) on the course of which we realized what a pain in the *** the large size can be. But 45-50 KB is pretty okay. --soumসৌমোyasch 21:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Creating a single large page may be possible, but it would be unnecessary. The relative stylistic consistency compared to other MS pages like Microsoft Office and Microsoft Office 2007 is clear.  Digita 21:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you paying attention to the past few comments here? The general point that has been made already is that Internet Explorer does not warrant the same treatment as other products of which have drastic changes between newer and past versions. With that, the IE 7 article should be remerged into this article and possibly reworded or reduced considering that a good amount of the information on the IE 7 page is actually copied from the History of Internet Explorer page. Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 02:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I have been paying attention, however, that was a wrong conclusion- IE7 warrants the same treatment as other MS products that have significant changes. Just like those other products, it has enough unique content to warrant its own dedicated page. Digita 03:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As you point out Chris- that much of the content does not come from this article- its not possible to 'remerge' because it was not 'unmerged' in the first place, but a new article. Digita 03:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate Articles for Separate Versions?! 

message: Consensus on whether the Internet Explorer 7 article be merged into Internet Explorer is being sought at IE7 Talk Page. --soumসৌমোyasch 06:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus on merging IE7 article 

message: Somebody added in this entry statistics from the W3CSchool website and as you may know, since that website is frequented mostly by webmasters (great part of which prefers firefox) the percentuals are not real.
This is a more accurate source: http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=3 (those stats are gathered and generated from hundred of websites). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.6.64.161 (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the W3CSchool statistics informations because they are not accurate 

message: User:91.19.234.159 has been changing Windows Internet Explorer (previously known as Microsoft Internet Explorer) to Microsoft Internet Explorer. But I feel that the previous version should be kept as that IS the current name. We are using the more common name as the article title (WP:Name) but we should identify it, at least in the lead, with the current official name. --soum (0_o) 07:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WIE/MIE 

message: Anyone has any idea who the heck this blog belongs to? --soum (0_o) 06:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea, but they're probably just making stuff up. :)  -/- Warren 23:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems so :) That my browser semantically analyzes what I am doing and queries around is the last thing I would want my browser to do!!! --soum (0_o) 01:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Plus Firefox/Safari have continued to gain marketshare since the release of IE7. IE7 is replacing IE6, but not at a faster rate than Firefox/Safari are.SteveSims 20:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone? 

message: The OS support table has been changed to state Windows Vista supports IE 3.0, however I couldnt find a reference stating so. As such, I think it constitutes as OR (if not incorrect) and, failing a ref, should be removed. --soum (0_o) 20:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  While one can undoubtedly run IE 3.0 on Windows Vista, I doubt they bothered testing it, and if they did I doubt they bothered advertising the fact. ¦ Reisio 00:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In current state, its definitely OR. --soum (0_o) 05:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way, it's an edgecase, and I don't think that makes it a particularly encyclopedic fact to include, unless heavily qualified. Maybe as trivia.. njan 09:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trivia? I am not particularly fond of it; and it is frowned upon by many others as well. Also, there ia serious question on the legality of that MultipleIE (or whatever) thingy as well. I am removing it. --soum (0_o) 09:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me. njan 09:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vista and IE 3.0