Talk:Firefox/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Abbreviation

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)

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)

Done. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Why has this been taken away?--Eikern (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Version Update: What's New in Firefox 2.0.0.11

Release Date: November 30, 2007 Stability Update: This release corrects a compatibility issue with some websites and extensions discovered in Firefox 2.0.0.10.

Resume support

If I were a Internet Explorer user searching for an alternative browser with reliable downloads I will like to see resume support reflected on the main Wikipedia page of every browser. Therefore, lack of resume support by Firefox should be reflected also here. This is one of his biggest drawbacks of every Windows browser. If you don't like the phrase reword it, but don't simply revert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.103.34.167 (talk • contribs)

As far as I can tell from the Firefox site, and from Firefox 2.0.0.4 on Mac OS X, pausing and resuming downloads works fine. You need to provide a source the download issue, and you need to write your additions in a well-written, encyclopedic manner. Perardi 06:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Reworded the phrase, added info and included sources. I hope you are more happy. And please, don't revert as vandalism what it isn't, but essential info (at least for me as a Windows user). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.103.34.167 (talk • contribs)

I have re-removed it now, as the sources are unreliable and drawing conclusions from them would be synthesis. Please either find a reliable source covering this issue or stop posting it. Note that if you revert again you will have broken the 3 revert rule, and are likely to be blocked.-Localzuk^(talk) 15:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have made *the* point. Synthesis of published sources is original research and against one of Wikipedia policies. Since I have got my ration of tantrum for this entire month, I will not do more research to test the state of the art of Internet technology; the capability of Wikipedia to ban a user with IP variable without having to ban the entire ISP range of IPs. And maybe without having to contact an ISP administrator at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.103.34.163 (talk • contribs)

Firefox 3 is getting download resume support, it's already in beta 1. http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.0b1/releasenotes/ --Arnos78 (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

edit in features 18 july

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)

That would be original research. (→O - RLY?) 19:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Since this article is currently protected...

{{editprotected}} 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. <ref>{{cite web | title = Top Browser Market Share Trend | publisher = Net Applications | url = http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=3 | accessdate = 2007-07-10 }}</ref>

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. <ref>{{cite web | title = Top Browser Market Share Trend | publisher = Net Applications | url = http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=3 | accessdate = 2007-07-10 }}</ref>

and

{| class="wikitable" align="right" style="font-size: 85%; text-align: center; style="margin-left:15px;" |- ! style="background-color:#DEC7C7;" colspan=2| Firefox market share </br> by version </br> June, 2007<ref>http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=6</ref> |- | style="background-color:#FFF8DC;" | Firefox Betas | style="background-color:#FFF8DC;" align=right | 0.03 % |- | style="background-color:#FFEBCD;" | Firefox 1.0 | style="background-color:#FFEBCD;" align=right | 0.60 % |- | style="background-color:#FFE4C4;" |Firefox 1.5 | style="background-color:#FFE4C4;" align=right| 2.85 % |- | style="background-color:#FFDEAD;" | Firefox 2 | style="background-color:#FFDEAD;" align=right | 11.07 % |- ! style="background-color:#F5DEB3;" | Total ! style="background-color:#F5DEB3;" align=right | 14.55 % |- |}

with

{| class="wikitable" align="right" style="font-size: 85%; text-align: center; style="margin-left:15px;" |- ! style="background-color:#DEC7C7;" colspan=2| Firefox market share </br> by version </br> June, 2007<ref>http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=6</ref> |- | style="background-color:#FFF8DC;" | Firefox Betas | style="background-color:#FFF8DC;" align=right | 0.02 % |- | style="background-color:#FFEBCD;" | Firefox 1.0 | style="background-color:#FFEBCD;" align=right | 0.53 % |- | style="background-color:#FFE4C4;" |Firefox 1.5 | style="background-color:#FFE4C4;" align=right| 1.43 % |- | style="background-color:#FFDEAD;" | Firefox 2 | style="background-color:#FFDEAD;" align=right | 12.38 % |- ! style="background-color:#F5DEB3;" | Total ! style="background-color:#F5DEB3;" align=right | 14.36 % |- |}

---

{{editprotected}} 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)

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)

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)

---

{{editprotected}} Also please replace

The current stable release of Firefox is version 2.0.0.5, released on [[July 17]], [[2007]].<ref>{{cite web | title = Firefox 2.0.0.5 Release Notes | publisher = Mozilla | url = http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/2.0.0.5/releasenotes/ | accessdate = 2007-07-17 }}</ref>

with

The current stable release of Firefox is version 2.0.0.6, released on [[July 30]], [[2007]].<ref>{{cite web | title = Firefox 2.0.0.6 Release Notes | publisher = Mozilla | url = http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/2.0.0.6/releasenotes/ | accessdate = 2007-07-30 }}</ref>

--Spoon! 01:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

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

---

{{editprotected}} And please change:

[http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=21543 Users are urged to update to the latest stable version, currently 2.0.0.5, as soon as possible.]

to:

[http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=21543 Users are urged to update to the latest stable version, currently 2.0.0.6, as soon as possible.] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.75.143.162 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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

--- {{editprotected}} Please change

In 2005 Mozilla agreed to allow Microsoft to use its RSS logo in the interest of common graphical representation of the RSS feature

to

In 2005 Mozilla agreed to allow Microsoft to use its [[Web feed]] logo in the interest of common graphical representation of the Web feeds feature.

 Done Neil ☎ 09:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ping

The page was protected, apparently due to the war over including "On the other hand, LWN also notes that this feature will turn Firefox into spyware.". Can we deal with this so that we can get the page unprotected?

I think that the line, as above, is incorrect and does not adequately reflect the source. If it said 'On the other hand, LWN says that adding the Ping feature will by some accounts, this feature will turn Firefox into spyware. Calling it "spyware" is probably overstating the case a little, but this feature is still worth some thought. ' Then I may agree, but it is a piece of conjecture by the article, and shouldn't really be included due to this. They don't say that it turns it into spyware, they say that some people think it does - which is completely different.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Localzuk. Badly Bradley 23:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with Localzuk... Chipotlehero 19:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Based on the arguments given here I think this would work, minus my cruddy MediaWiki HTML hacks:

LWN.net notes that "ping" has advantages over current click-tracking techniques because it can more reliably get the user to their intended destination and the user has the option of turning the "ping" feature off. On the other hand, some, including LWN.net itself, have complained that the Ping feature would turn Firefox into spyware, because it relays browsing habits to the owners of the website. Proponents of the system point out that the Ping feature can easily be disabled by the user, and say that calling the feature spyware would be an overstatement.

The development team was asking users to submit feature requests that they wish to be included in Firefox 3.

--Dandaman32 16:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

"(...) the Ping feature can easily be disabled by the user (...)". This is not true. The only way to disable this will be via about:config. This is not "easy" way for most users. It should be part of the GUI in Options window or sth, but it will be not. You can check GranParadiso (support for ping is implemented AND enabled by default in testing builds of FF3; it will be also implemented and enabled by default in final version of the browser). Moreover, user will not be able to easily differentiate between link "with spying" (with "ping" attr.) and without it -- see bug 324642.

Perhpas you wonder why Mozilla Corporation implements such privacy-invasive feature... The answer is simple -- it will help making more money by Google (and check article who is the main donor of money for MoFo/MoCo). Google wants to track users on pages with search results. Without ping attr. in <a> it is hard to achieve that. They can try to implement it either via redirects or using JS hacks. Both solutions are not "clear" from technical point of view, so Google is trying to push new "standards" via WHATWG. Mozilla Corporation helps them, because Google gives them money. This whole situation makes me really sick... 64.22.92.56 22:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Section Order

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)

PhyrePhox

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)

Unprotected

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)

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))

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)

Screenshot

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)

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)

@ 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)

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)

Biased in favor of Mozilla Firefox?

There's not even a "Criticism of Mozilla Firefox" paragraph let alone a whole article dedicated to it, like how there is for Internet Explorer. Wikipedia cannot hold the view that one is better than the other. A criticism section is needed to balance things out. --Tocino 01:59 (UTC), 10 August 2007

Do you have any sources that you could cite? As far as I know, there's been quite a bit more criticism of Internet Explorer than Firefox. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems we are dealing with this on a monthly basis... If someone can properly structure a criticism section with sources, while keeping it neutral and encyclopedic, and gain a general consensus, it might be applicable. So far that has yet to happen. And before it even goes there, forums, blogs, bulliten board systems, irc logs, and other public discussion mediums are not reputable sources unless maybe if the post in question was made verifiably by an authoritative party to the subject. So far all the credible claims are located within sections that deal with that particular topic.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 15:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Stuff like number of bugs / security vulnerabilities would be perfectly acceptable but someone ranting and being a fanboy for one of the other sure isn't. I don't know if IE's criticism is mostly due to it's market share rather than the nature of the program so it might be hard to compare on that front -- Tawker 15:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Just an FYI, citing a number of bugs or vulnerabilities in an article would not constitute citing criticism. It would simply constitute possible flaws in the program. In order for it to be criticism some authoritative party would have to make a claim as to why this degrades the value or quality of the browser.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 16:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A criticism section is not strictly required- it's usually better form to merge criticism throughout the article. This results in a better flow and a more neutral overall presentation.-Wafulz 15:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually find it somewhat amusing when someone makes an accusation with regard to neutrality and immediately seques into asking for a section specifically devoted to criticism.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 17:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

One of my biggest pet peeves on Wikipedia is when editors follow the word of the rules but not the spirit. Just because something doesn't have a reliable source doesn't mean it isn't true or doesn't exist. This is especially true for article in which reliable sources are hard to find (articles on poorer nations, or on urban culture, e.g.). This isn't the case with web browsers such as Firefox. Like it or not, there are real issues with the browser—security, usability, and otherwise—that need to at least be mentioned in this article. The memory leaks for instance (right now, Firefox is taking 300,000k of my memory—that's right, I'm using Firefox) are a huge issue, as are the crashes, and issues when playing media (when I have a Flash video playing, I can't switch tabs until I pause it or it finishes). And before you say this is just me, ask anyone who uses it. We're still mostly intermediate to advanced users; the usability level is not even close to WinIE or Safari's, despite claims to the contrary. So yes, I'm a proud Firefox user and evangelist, but I'm also a Wikipedian editor, who frowns upon this completely biased and unreasonable article that quickly justifies any minor missteps the dev team may make. I was under the impression that the Criticisms article was no longer needed because "everything is covered in the main article". It seems that has all been removed, and replaced by pseudo-criticism, which is truly just proselytizing in disguise. In all seriousness, if no one else will step up to the plate, I will. These issues have been documented and described in great detail. There is no reason we should plug our fingers in our ears and ignore the bad things said about Our Glorious Browser just because we think we might hurt its feelings. -Mysekurity 07:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I can tell you I've never noticed any memory leaks, except for pretty rare fill-ups by Firefox trunk builds or Java programs. Maybe FIXED/ASSIGNED bugs or NEW bugs with good comments in Bugzilla are a source reliable enough?

--AVRS 08:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

As someone who has spent lots of time on the MozillaZine forums trying to find problems that people are having and reporting them as bugs, I can honestly tell you Firefox 2 is an extremely stable browser. I have not had anyone point out any bug in Firefox 2 whatsoever. That includes any memory problem at all, including a memory leak, any crash, and any problems playing videos, or anything. I guess that means, according to your rules, that I should be able to go in and edit the article to say that. Of course, there are actual bugs in Firefox, including some that I can notice, but most problems that people think are bugs in Firefox are some kind of fluke problem with a rogue extension or a corrupted profile or something else that can be easily remedied.

I propose that none of us make the edits we would make according to Mysekurity's rules, and that we first go to the Firefox Bugs forums at MozillaZine to discuss any problems. If it turns out that someone can point out any specific problem in the latest official release of Firefox, and you get people in those forums to agree that it's a problem in Firefox itself, please post a link to the thread here, and we can discuss the matter further.

As for a bug report being a reliable source, I suppose it could be, if handled correctly. If someone wants to do that, they should probably also discuss doing it first. -- Schapel 12:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The memory leak issue used to be discussed but is no longer a current issue as far as I know. I have had firefox open on this machine for 4 days, have 2 windows open and a total of 40 tabs with memory usage being 111Mb. The problem with things like that is that they are only minor blips in the overall browser - and are not really notable enough to be included without it becoming undue weight. I said this on another open source article, but I'll say it here too. As Firefox is free, and you do not have to use it, you specifically have to go and get it yourself (unlike MS IE which is dby default installed on every Windows computer), people complaining about it are a minority of a minority - and as such I would see their arguments as being fringe at best. If a reliable source can be found for something key - such as the discussion of the ping attribute's inclusion in FF3 or the links with Google then ok they could be included, but only very briefly. Discussing them in any length is not neutral as far as I can see.

Also, the criticism article had only 4 or 5 valid, well sourced, items in it - all of which are still present in this and the sub articles.-Localzuk^(talk) 13:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Right. But that still doesn't address the usability quotient. And saying that you "have not had anyone point out any bug in Firefox 2 whatsoever" is either a gross overstatement or blatantly false. It is software, and as such, has bugs. They wouldn't need to release patches or issue updates if this were the case. We would all be living in browser harmony, skipping along the lemonade river and eating from candy trees. Unfortunately, it still isn't perfect. I don't see why we can't discuss how ugly the interface is (as compared to WinIE/Safari, though by FS standards it's beautiful), and why many web designers still prefer IE for its more forgiving quirks mode. -Mysekurity 18:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no point in having a conversion if you will not listen to what I'm saying. Of course Firefox does have bugs. What I'm saying is that I spent months in the Firefox Bugs forums going through supposed bugs people were reporting. I can't remember a single one that turned out to actually be a bug in Firefox. There are problems in Firefox, and there are annoyances that people complain about when using Firefox, but there is almost no overlap between the two. The main annoyances users face seem to be problems with extensions, or plugins, or problems with their computer's configuration, not bugs in Firefox itself.

If you can find widespread agreement that Firefox 2 has any serious bugs that are commonly complained about, together with a bug report with dozens of votes to verify that it really is a bug in Firefox and not a problem with an extension or something else, I would agree that we could add one sentence to the article such as "Among the problems that remain in Firefox are that it smells bad (bug 314159265) and that it hangs when you look at it funny (bug 2718281828)." That doesn't seem to be giving undue weight, as long as there is considerable evidence that there are many complains about the problems and we give only one sentence to explain them. If there are bugs actually commonly complained about, we can certainly make a short mention of them somewhere.

As for memory leaks, the only information about a commonly experienced serious memory problem I've been able to find was back in early builds of Firefox 1.5. Unless someone can point to a reliable source that indicates that memory leaks continue to be a serious problem in more recent builds, discussion of memory problems should probably be relegated to the History of Mozilla Firefox article. From all the discussion I've seen about memory problems within the past year, I can't find one where someone has pointed out an actual memory problem in Firefox. Surely if there's a memory problem, someone can demonstrate it?

I think the next step is to discuss some specific problems, together with some sources. Is there a specific problem you'd like to mention? If so, where are all the complaints about it? -- Schapel 19:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Comparing 1.5 to IE 6 is old hat - what about 2.0.0.6 to IE7? - a level playing-field. Any sources yet? - Korsowan 20:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Korsowan (talk • contribs).

Where are Firefox 1.5 and IE 6 compared in the article? One of the few places in the article Firefox and IE are compared, the security section, had old information biased in favor of Internet Explorer, although it does compare Firefox 2 to IE 7. Thanks for pointing that out. We all want to make sure there's a level playing field and the information is presented in a neutral, non-biased way, don't we? -- Schapel 02:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Below Tests performed by PC World and Zimbra indicate that Firefox 2 uses less memory than Internet Explorer 7.[58][65] the text reverts to a comparison with IE6 - it seems out of place. - Korsowan 12:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korsowan (talk • contribs)

I've removed the Opera vulnerability information again. It's a statement about Opera that has nothing to do with Firefox. The IE stuff is fine because we have several reliable sources cited that compare IE and Firefox security. If you can find a reliable source that compares the security of Firefox and Opera, that would be appropriate in an article on Firefox. Otherwise, it's a statement about Opera alone, which doesn't seem to have a place in an article on Firefox. -- Schapel 15:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

whyfirefoxisblocked.com

perhaps this could be discussed the site criticizes the use of adblock and labels it as theft and attacks Mozilla Foundation over supposed support of said Firefox Extension the said site was popularized on digg.com in a negative tone Atomic1fire 05:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to have become famous (except for being posted on digg and slashdot). If it's even a bit notable, that'd probably because of http://www.whyisfirefoxblocked.com and http://whyinternetexplorerisblocked.com. Are there any joke mentions in the article yet? If not, should there be any? See also this: [1]

--AVRS 08:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

wow! enough citations?

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)

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)

Logo?

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)

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)

Codenames

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)

Add Jargon template?

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)

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)

The last FAR seems to have come about as a result of a POV and edit war. I'm not really coming at the article from that angle. My general conern is that this article is written from a tech point of view rather than a consumer pov. Such that the features of the software should prevail over technical standards. Specificis:

• Lead has no mention of valuable features such as tabbed browsing or addons. But does mention minority operating systems.
• Feaures section has 1 paragraph, then 1 paragraph about standards support which mentions XML, XHTML, CSS, ECMAScript (JavaScript). Then 3 paragraphs about security which include SSL/TLS to protect communications with web servers using strong cryptography when using the HTTPS protocol. It uses a sandbox security model.
• Licensing. 3 paragraphs to describe what a consumer would see simply as free software.
• Minefield. I used it for several weeks and there are improvements, the download manager, plugins, bookmarks are better. Also it renders webpages noticeably faster. But the article mentions microformats, SQLite backend. Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group or WHATWG specification. "ping"[100] attribute in <a> and <area> HTML elements is implemented and enabled by default. LWN.net.

This all looks like WP:Jargon. It will be hard to delete or move cited data without a template or possibly another FAR. Operating 22:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, both about the excessive jargon, and, probably as a consequence, that the article is no longer at the Featured Article level. Frankly, it reads like a B class at the moment. I actually think another FAR is in order, but I will wait and monitor it for a couple of weeks to try to get a sense of the what's going on here. I'll try to post some proposed changes here for consensus over the next couple of days. Xymmax 14:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

The Relationship with Google is Obvious

The "Relationship with Google" section seems to have some incorrect information. The section says that "The user cannot change the data provider within the GUI,[74] and is not informed who the default data provider is." The second clause is incorrect since the part of the GUI that allows the user to enable or disabling the "safebrowsing" feature clearly shows the "Google" name.

I'm referring to Firefox 2.0.0.6, under the UI: Tools->Options->Security.

Mumia-w-18 15:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The threshold of inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If a reliable secondary source is cited that states those untruths, then that information may be included in the article, even if original research demonstrates otherwise. What we would need to show to remove those statements is one of: a) the source cited is unreliable, or b) the information in the article does not correctly portray what is stated in the source, or c) another (possibly more) reliable source refutes those statements. -- Schapel 19:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You have taken these sentences out of context. The article says earlier: "Enabled by default, anti-phishing protection is based on a list that is updated about twice per hour and downloaded to the user's computer[73] from Google's server."

It refers to option "Check using a downloaded list of suspected sites" which is indeed enabled by default and indeed works as described in the article. Sentence mentioned by you ("The user cannot change the data provider within the GUI,[74] and is not informed who the default data provider is.") is fully correct -- there is no option to change it and there is no indication that this option ALSO connects with Google. HTH. 22:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

And BTW -- feel free to browse extensive archives of talk page of this article (it could be a little bit tedious because of some "creative" archiving, but it if you want to get some useful info you can do it. Start eg. here.) 22:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.230.247.13 (talk)

On the other hand, as I said before, it doesn't matter if it is correct or incorrect or what the talk pages say, making all your points moot. All that matters is that it is verifiable by citing a reliable source. -- Schapel 23:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

After re-reading the article section, I see that the original text is correct. -- Mumia-w-18 09:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for lad screenshot caption renaming

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) --Kushal^t 04:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC) (Oops, forgot to sign, my bad)

• I’d say “GNOME” if it was a recognizable default GNOME theme. I recognize it as an Ubuntu GNOME theme (“Human” or whatever). But maybe it’s just me, since I have mostly seen Debian‐based distributions with GNOME configured by default… --AVRS 22:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
• Relax guys, it's Ubuntu running GNOME —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 14:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Awards section

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)

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)

Market Share

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)

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 Alfador^Talk|@ 09:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Usage data picture, misleading graph

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.

Usage share of Mozilla Firefox over time

Lyml (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Usage share of Mozilla Firefox over time, please note that the scale is not up to 100%.

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)

Schapel, have you ever read "How to Lie with Statistics"? I'm just curious... Iofur Raknison (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

The proposed additional text, added to the graph descriptive text, is aesthetically excessive/ugly. Instead, the scale axes label fonts should be made much bigger, so that they are clearly legible. At least twice as big. In particular, 10% should be so big and clear that everyone sees it at a glance. It wouldn't hurt if the 10% line were drawn somewhat boldly across the graph itself. -69.87.202.60 (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

removing {{editprotected}} since there is no consensus. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

New version

{{editprotected}} 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)

{{editprotected}}

please change the version number from 2.0.0.10 to 2.0.0.11

Y Already done. Sandstein 06:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

The version has been updated in the article's infobox, but not in the information paragraph.

Please change the following:

"Firefox is cross-platform, providing support for various versions of Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X and Linux. The current stable release of Firefox is version 2.0.0.10, released on 26 November 2007."

to this:

"Firefox is cross-platform, providing support for various versions of Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X and Linux. The current stable release of Firefox is version 2.0.0.11, released on November 30 2007. This was only 4 days after the previous version, 2.0.0.10, was released."

Thanks! —S3BST3R 11:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

Change Marketshare for Firefox from October 2007 to November 2007

{{editprotected}}

Change

Firefox market share
by version

Firefox 1.0	0.39 %
Firefox 1.5	0.69 %
Firefox 2	13.75 %
Total	14.83 %

With

Firefox market share by version (November 2007)

Firefox 1.0	0.37 %
Firefox 1.5	0.63 %
Firefox 2	14.97 %
Total	16.01 %1

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)

Also, this page is not currently fully protected. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Why is this page protected? Can someone explain the dispute? —Random832 14:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The dispute that led to it being protected involved a paragraph about the ping attribute. See #Weasel words (regarding <a ping>). —Jruderman (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Crop circle of firefox? I dont know....

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)

Flurry of reverts about the acid2 test

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)

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)

Programming languages in infobox

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)

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)

Layout engine in info box, please

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)

Done. I also got around to updating {{infobox software2}} to use the same syntax and attributes as {{infobox Software}}. I should get these merged some time. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)