Talk:History of Firefox

message: The article's introductory paragraph consists almost entirely of chronological information.   This type of data is best presented as a table, not as prose.   Currently, it feels pedantic and tiresome.   I propose to shorten the paragraph to contain only 1-2 dates, followed by a table that contains the full information.   Any objections?
--Black Walnut (talk).  —Preceding undated comment added 18:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to change introductory paragraph 

message: Well, the decision to split the version-history tables off into their own article has resulted in a deletion discussion leading (somehow) to that content being dumped ("merged") into the Firefox article (actually, now into a template that is being transcluded into that article [horrors!]). I don't think this was the intent when Rukario-sama moved the information out of this article back in 2017. Therefore, I'm asking Rukario-sama and whomever else is watching this page whether the version-history tables should be merged back into this article, preferably (IMO) in the manner that I discussed at Talk:Firefox version history#Runs afoul of WP:NOTCHANGELOG. (I thought about posting also on this talk page back at that time, but I never got around to it.) In particular, I'm suggesting that we split the info into separate tables in each appropriate (level-3) subsection by version number/range (those shown in the TOC: "Phoenix 0.1 to Firebird 0.7", "Version 1.0", "Version 1.5", … "Version 60–65"), as seen for versions up to 4.0 in this "test" version of the article from 24 September 2018 (diff). Once that is done, we can pare down the information to only major versions, to non-test versions, or whatever, if/as desired. I would just BEBOLD and start doing it, but it will be somewhat time-consuming, so I don't want to start doing it (again) if there will be massive immediate objections. Comments? - dcljr (talk) 10:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, I guess the version-history tables were actually originally split off from this article by Op47 way back in February 2012. Rukario-sama just "finished the job", as it were. Whatever. [grin] - dcljr (talk) 10:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

text: Another clarification: For those coming from Firefox#Version history, I am only suggesting moving the table portion of that section into this article, not the Firefox#CPU architectures subsection onward. - dcljr (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note: Pursuant to the discussion at Talk:Firefox#Firefox version history merge I have deleted the template and restored the article, Firefox version history, pending the outcome of this discussion. bd2412 T 13:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Correction to what I said before: I didn't remember that the content recently at "Firefox#CPU architectures" onwards was actually part of Firefox version history before the recent changes, so, yes, I am suggesting that those sections be part of the merge into this article. Thank you to bd2412 for allowing a possible alternative resolution to this situation. Now, people should actually participate in this merge discussion, since it should not be assumed that the status quo can remain indefinitely. - dcljr (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's no reason to convert that page into template. If it's to "show up" in another article I'd suggest doing a merger only. Templates have benefit but I don't see one for this. So on the merger thing, I think they looked fine separated. Though if merger was still "necessary" then I want to follow Dcljr's idea you can read more at Talk:Firefox version history#Runs afoul of WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Also hasn't anyone occur that they can be merged the other way around (History of Firefox into Firefox version history)? Seeing that History of Firefox is obsessed with versions, why not, and it'll become like iOS version history. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 01:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't say it's disruptive. The history of Firefox will look thin once version history was subtracted from there and then there's Firefox#History that would already got it covered. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 03:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   Are you arguing that "History of Firefox" should or should not be its own article after your suggested merge (of "History of Firefox" into "Firefox version history")? I'm not clear on what you are actually saying here. But either way, it could be accomplished by simply moving the content (all or some) out after the merge has happened (assuming there is consensus to do that). The key, as I see it, is to get the information into one article so it can be worked on to reduce redundancy. The reason I said merging "Firefox version history" to "History of Firefox" is less "disruptive" is that for almost a full month now there have been notices posted at three different places (and briefy at a fourth) that users should discuss merging "Firefox version history" into "History of Firefox". No one has actually objected to that suggestion. Even you agreed that "if merger was still 'necessary' then I want to follow Dcljr's idea". So, I am prepared to (at some point in the near future) start actually doing the merge that I originally suggested. I believe that would be what an outside observer would expect to happen in this situation. Furthermore, "History of Firefox" is the older of the two articles, and, as you know, is actually the source of much of the information at "Firefox version history" (not counting when it was part of the "Mozilla Firefox" article, before 2005, because, let's face it, this info is never going back into the "Firefox" article), so this merge would simply be returning the info to where it came from originally. (Finally, regarding your earlier remark, "I think they looked fine separated": they cannot remain separated, because an article consisting only of the version-history tables will inevitably get AFD'd again.) - dcljr (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have performed the merge. Details are at #Merge done, below. - dcljr (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   I hope you do not think I have overstepped my bounds in "closing" this merge discussion and performing the merge. The discussion above did not seem to me to present a "blocking" objection. Since Rukario-sama did not reply to my last request for clarification (immediately above), I felt justified in doing the merge the way I originally proposed. - dcljr (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nevermind. I've undone the changes I made because I could not "finalize" the merge. - dcljr (talk) 09:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

text:  BTW, I've left the merge notices in place, since the issue hasn't actually been resolved. - dcljr (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge version-history tables back to here 

message: The recent stable version (as of 29 March 2019) is 66.0.2, not 66.0 as the article suggests. Do you need up to date information? Firefox itself will tell you the truth. Just go to Help -> About Firefox. Vikom talk 21:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated version number