Talk:Firefox/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Size of article

This article seems to me to be too large for Wikipedia. Is all the information necessary in the Features section when we have a perfectly complete (27kb) article on the features by themselves? --T. Moitie ^[talk] 15:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and do a major rewrite to the whole features section. I understand this is a featured article, but I think that since the complete features article is referenced, the summary I placed is *more* than enough. In fact, the article size is still 44K, so the it still needs work! As least it is down from 57K. --Unixguy 11:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

There is the technical aspect of it being too much data for some browsers, but if only the readability/organization were to be taken into account, WP:SIZE says "only the main body of prose (excluding links, see also, reference and footnote sections, and lists/tables) should be counted toward an article's total size, since the point is to limit the size of the main body of prose." Consdering the large amount of such text this would make a significant difference. --Kamasutra 12:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Featured Articles generally have a length of 30kb-50kb. In addition, I don't think the Features section should be a list: we should include prose explanations for at least the most important features. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that the list looks awful and many of the things in it would completely confuse non-techy readers. We should maybe do a brief intro for the section, expand a couple of the main features, create a 'standards supported' subsection, a 'platforms supported' subsection and leave the rest to go on the main article for this section.-Localzuk ^(talk) 14:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the list does look awful. I moved the images and it slightly improved the look of things. The list should be formed into prose, even if the prose contains an embedded list. It should even bring down the size slightly. I'll have a go now. --T. Moitie ^[talk] 13:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just done a re-write. I've also incorporated the security section into my re-write, as the section was to small on its own to give itself good reason to exist. The prose of the section increases the total page size by 1kb. Not bad considering how large it was before. --T. Moitie ^[talk] 14:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but this re-write to reduce size is just awful. If I can find time I will be bringing back most of the old material without stepping on edits made since Unixguy's ill-advised romp. The Be Bold policy says making huge, undiscussed (beforehand) changes to FA is usually a bad idea, and it's right. WP:SIZE is much disagreed with, and it's only a style guideline, not a guideline, never mind a policy. If wiser heads prevail, size won't be a problem until 90kb. Look at Enc. Brit. articles or Jewish Enc. articles-- they are routinely over 120kb. JDG 00:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

JDG - Sorry about the quick and undiscussed change. I didn't take into account that this was a large change. I did preserve the original article in its entirety in my sandbox[1]. I still believe that the features section was *too* long - even for an FA. Plus the Features of Mozilla Firefox does have its own article. In my opinion, the prose that the other editors changed my initial list (which I *do* agree was ugly) looks much better now. --Unixguy 18:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Version 2

Version 2 of Firefox is coming out in 2 months time, so should we start thinking about how we are going to organise the new information into the History section of the article? Features of Firefox will need reviewing, as will Criticism. All in all, some sections are going to require a re-write that could compromise the integrity of the featured article, and I'm writing here to ask if we should set up a sandbox to prepare for the changes to the articles we are about to have to put in? Is someone already working on this?

Many thanks, T. Moitie ^[talk] 00:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

23/10/06 20:59)Version 2 final is avaible at ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/2.0/

Lou Carpenter from Neighbours uses Firefox!

Let's add a section for Firefox in popular media! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AStaralfur (talk • contribs)

Now if that isn't a reason to switch i don't kno what is! Only problem with your proposal is that there are so many places Firefox pops up in tv shows,films etc, it'd make for a very long article! Though a seperate article on this topic might work... Benbread 23:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Highest usage

The article claims that Germany has the highest percentage of Firefox users, at 39.02% in July 2006. Finland had market share 38.4% already in January so I'm positive it is higher than Germany. Finland was not included in that onestat.com study

Is it verifiable? -- Schapel 18:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. The article should probably mention the source of that number and the 12% inline. The citation is good, but an "According to blah,..." would help. -- Steven Fisher 21:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

How do you say it?

Is it MAW-zilla or MOH-zilla? Or am I starting the pa-TAY-to pa-TAH-to thing again? --172.197.192.11 18:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The 'O' sound is long, thus it is MOH-zilla — JT (TRAiNER4) [^T_C][E] 01:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there a definitive pronunciation? Or is that just your pronunciation. Gronky 22:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I pretty much say with the long 'O'. I'm pretty much going to take a wild stab in the dark and say it's pronounced the same way as Mosaic. Mosaic is pronounced with a long 'O' sound, so most likely, Mozilla is pronounced the same way. — TRAiNER4 00:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It's Moh-zilla (or Moe-zilla). Trust me, I know. - Kingy

Unless you are from Cumbria... :) -Localzuk ^(talk) 16:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

OK/Cancel or Close?

The current article contains an assertion that OK/Cancel have been dropped from Preferences in favor of Close. This doesn't seem to be the case. Is it perhaps a distribution-specific thing? Either way, that sentence wants fixing. -- Steven Fisher 17:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It's so in the Linux version, don't know anything about the Windows one. - Sikon 00:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Just checked the Windows version. Indeed, whether it shows OK/Cancel or Close depends on the platform, just like the placement of the Preferences menu item into the Edit or Tools menu. - Sikon 03:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I have attempted to resolve the issue, by making it clear that it has only been replaced in the Linux version.--Edjackiel 03:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Disambig for [Firefox]]

What are people's thoughts on creating a Firefox disambiguation page, instead of having Firefox redirect to Mozilla Firefox? --NEMT 22:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No. It has been discussed a mozillion times. When people search for "Firefox", they, for the most part, expect to find the browser. - Sikon 03:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of which, I was just now looking for the article on the real animal behind Firefox, the one that wasn't a fox. Was that page deleted or renamed? Where can I get to it? Although I agree, most people are going to be looking for the browser. 67.23.84.125 18:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- It's Red Panda, and it's accessible from Firefox (disambiguation). - Sikon 19:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it wasn't there, but I added a redirect template so that your problem doesn't occur again. --Kamasutra 21:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia screenshots

Is it a policy/guildeline that all browser screenshots should show the Wikipedia main page? Articles are not expected to contain self-references. - Sikon 04:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not an official guideline, but it simplifies/standardizes things, and deals with a lot of copyright issues. It really should be official, though. -Kingpin

"Overfanboyed"
You know, I think this article makes Firefox look like something holy. You know, It's not the best thing ever. I tried to put some facts of Firefox not being in this article, but they got removed immediatly.
Did you ensure your "facts" were verifiable by citing reliable sources? -- Schapel 13:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Beat me to the post :). Anyway I too think they were reverted because they were kinda bias POV comments. While the issue itself is a point of view, it is written in a way that makes it NPOV (adding sources to prove the point etc). We at Wikipedia have a policy of writing articles in a in a neutral tone, and your comments kinda violated that policy. Harryboyles 13:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If anything, it seems to "fanboy" the mozilla project and the creators of firefox more than the browser itself. The criticisms section seems to balance out a lot of the firefox love fest contained in the rest of the article. It essentially read "firefox is great, but it's not." --NEMT 14:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
If you read it as "Firefox is great" then either there is POV in there that you may want to make neutral, or that is your own interpretation of the facts and there's not much anyone can do about that. --Kamasutra 21:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Splitting of the article
The Wikipedia guideline on splitting articles says when split, a several paragraph summary should be left in its place. The section on History, Features, and Criticisms in this article seem a bit too long to me. The Criticisms section also seems to me to be selectively listing criticisms rather than summarizing all the criticisms present on the child page.--Nonpareility 19:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I've summary-styled the History section.--Nonpareility 18:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The article's introduction doesn't read as a summary. In particular the paragraphs 2 and 4 on adoption and usage statistics. --69.54.29.23 19:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Market adoption
What do "Portable versions of Firefox" have to do with market adoption?--Nonpareility 19:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Nothing. Today this was vandalism. When you saw it before I did not check, but is probably the sign of the same vandal. Widefox 11:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
When will trademark issues become notable enough, if ever?
As most people involved with Debian know, the Mozilla Corporation is now actively enforcing the trademark on Firefox and is threatening Debian over the version of Firefox the include. While verifiable, I'm not convinced that this issue is currently notable enough to be included, as nothing substantive to end users has happened yet - there has only been considerable discussion among those interested in the development of Debian and Ubuntu. Does anyone think this should be mentioned now? When, as currently expected, Debian actually forks Firefox and changes the name? If Ubuntu also changes the name? --Constantine Evans 07:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Firefox trademark issues have been discussed in Criticisms of Firefox for quite some time now. -- Schapel 11:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Where? The only mention I can see is that "the official Firefox binaries ... have trademark restrictions". The non-theoretical trademark issues have only surfaced in recent weeks. Also, part of the question is if and when this issue will become important enough to note in the main article. --Constantine Evans 06:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

RC2 release date
The second release candidate is scheduled to be released on October 6 2006, and may become the final release if there are no major bugs found.
Hi, where did that info come from? Could someone add a source, please? If one isn't added soon, I'm going to tag it with "citation needed." --Kjoonlee 02:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Source added. --Kjoonlee 02:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Plug ins
I'm disappointed with this Firefox browser. Whenever I try to get playback from say, Amazon.com I recieve a box that says I need a add on or a plug in or whatever to get music samples. I let them run a search for what I guess is required, and it comes back and says it can't find any suitable add ons. I'm running Windows 98 and if I can't get this browser to cooperate, I'm going to have to take it off.209.179.168.54 04:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)petofkey1@peoplepc.com209.179.168.54 04:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Please don't use this page as a place to air your personal grief's. It is supposed to be a place to discuss improvement of the article.-Localzuk^(talk) 13:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
History Section
The history section is way to EXTREMELY short. It must be lengthened a lot. The old history section was better. I understand that you want to make more room for FF2, but it doesn't need that much room -KingpinE7
History has its own article, so anything we write here should be in summary style. It could be lengthened, but it should not be the entire text of the history article as it was before.--Nonpareility 05:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The History Section must be longer. I cannot stress that enough. The main reason is that the template box is causing some strange formating. In the mean time, I added some extra spaces, which seems to have fixed the problem, but it is only a temporary solution. -KingpinE7
Did you read the response about this from another user? There is a 'history of mozilla firefox' article and as such we only summarise it here. -Localzuk^(talk) 17:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Vulnerabilities
The article states However, recent studies show that Firefox has surpassed Internet Explorer in the amount of vulnerabilities in the year 2006 (through September 2006). This implies that there are exploitable vulnerabilities in Firefox. However, these vulnerabilities were generally (if not always) fixed before they became publicly known, and thus could never be exploited; none of the vulnerabilities discovered this year remain unpatched. I'm not sure how to point this out without sounding confusing and while staying NPOV. -- Schapel 02:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
It looks like this has now been clarified without sacrificing NPOV. -- Schapel 13:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Javascript speed test
I have removed the JS speed test information that has been added a couple of times and people keep re-adding it. Please can we have a look at WP:RS and WP:V. The person in question appears to have no 'reputation for fact-checking and accuracy' as such. The reason I state this is: Did he run these tests in a controlled environment, were other services on the windows machine enabled? Were other programs open on the box at the same time?
We just don't know. I could easily go out there and create a near identical website, create some javascript to run tests and then bog down the testing results by messing with the test environment. As a quick example, on no occasion have I been able to reproduce the low results for opera or the drastically high results for firefox.
For something like this we need a reputable site to do it, such as arstechnica or the like.-Localzuk^(talk) 11:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I think I'll expand on my statement above:
From our verifiability policy:
Self-published sources (online and paper)
Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.
Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.
This means that personal websites are not acceptable.-Localzuk^(talk) 11:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
As for the howtocreate test results. The person who created and ran those tests is a professional expert in the field of web browsers (he works for Opera as a techincal writer for their browser). His testing methods are more substantially documented, although not perfect. -Localzuk^(talk) 11:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
It's Time...
We better start migrating the information on FF2 from the Future Development section to the rest of the article, especially to History and Features. After all, it comes out tomorrow, and we're going to have our work cut out for us...
YAY FIREFOX 2 -Kingy 04:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
It comes out already :) [2] Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 15:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, it's not an official release until it's announced. Anyway, Wikipedia policy states that articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, so we need to wait until a reliable source states that Firefox 2 has been released before we can update the article. -- Schapel 15:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
We can use a mozilla press release for a mozilla article... See the policy on self published sources. But as they haven't made one, we can't write about it.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Copy from Template talk:Latest stable release/Mozilla Firefox:

You can download v2.0 from http://www.mozilla.com/products/download.html?product=firefox-2.0&os=linux&lang=en-US for example (this is the official site!). This means, that version 2.0 has been released (although not yet publicly announced). They call it "2.0", and any! following version will get an other version number (because it is in the "release" folder on every moz-ftp-server now)! --- Best regards, Melancholie 15:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that you can download a version that calls itself Firefox 2.0. I don't dispute that. That build has been available since October 10 and was also called Firefox 2 RC3. However, we don't know that in fact it will be the official release, and even if it will be we cannot verify it. Until then, we should not change Wikipedia articles to say that it is the official release. -- Schapel 15:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

They changed some things in the publicly available "Firefox 2 RC3", so they have to call the changed version differently. Now they call it "Firefox 2.0", and it's public, too. When they change something now, they will have to higher the version number (2.0.1 or 2.0.0.1 for example). You could say: "Maybe they don't". But then they could do so whenever they want. A publicly available software revision is out there within minutes, so you just have to higher a version number when changing something. --- Greetings, Melancholie 16:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No, they did not change anything from Firefox 2 RC3 to the build that is available now. I have Firefox 2 RC3 installed on my computer, and it does not identify itself as Firefox 2 RC3, but as Firefox 2. Because they have not officially released Firefox 2 yet, they could indeed come out with a new build that is different without changing the version number. -- Schapel 16:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Melancholie 16:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they called "Firefox 2 RC3" just "Firefox 2" (generation 2)! They did not call it "Firefox 2.0". ---Melancholie 16:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
When I run Firefox 2 RC3, the About Mozilla Firefox dialog says "Firefox 2.0" and the user agent string is "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1) Gecko/20061010 Firefox/2.0". They did call Firefox 2 RC3 Firefox 2.0. It's a release candidate, so it must be identical to the final release if they choose to make that the final release. -- Schapel 16:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but all of this is conjecture and blatant original research. Unless we have a press release or news report regarding the release it will not be going into the article. It would be a violation of WP:V WP:OR and WP:CITE.
I agree. Unfortunately, now even the news on the Wikipedia front page states that Firefox 2 has been released! -- Schapel 17:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Front Page Note is premature
According to the frontpage under recent events, Mozilla Firefox 2.0 has been released. However, unless something has changed, the release date is tommorow not today. - Damicatz 17:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
It's been removed from In The News now. -- Schapel 18:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Will readd when Mozilla finally updats their page, but from the timestamp on the file 23-Oct-2006 10:42 there is no way this is anything but a final, is Mozilla seriously going to release a RC for a day? I doubt it -- Tawker 18:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I doubt they'd make a change and still release Firefox 2 tomorrow. More likely would be that they would delay the release if they need to make a change. -- Schapel 18:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
But why would they put it in the release folder of the files list if it wasn't the release build. Timestamped less than 4 hours before the official live date in a release folder - add up the clues -- Tawker 18:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the current plan is to release that build as the final build. However, if they find a bug in it, they could still change their minds. -- Schapel 18:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
But then the firefox version will be called "2.0.1" or "2.0.0.1"! --84.156.117.203 19:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
No. So far, they have released three different versions, all called 2.0 (see the user agent article for confirmation). They were release candidates. Until the release is official, there could be a fourth release candidate, also called 2.0. -- Schapel 21:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Now a word from Mozilla's build engineer, for those who are still not quite convinced that Firefox 2 has not been released yet. -- Schapel 00:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
If someone wants to mention Monday's premature release announcements, the link above is probably a good reference to use. Remember not to link to any builds before release, and let's not simply say the build was made available and let people find it on their own, as that's nearly as bad a providing a direct link. We should at least clearly state that the builds are not ready for download because the release is not yet complete. -- Schapel 11:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, even some of Mozilla's build engineers just do not know the difference between the act of releasing something (to release = "to make available to the public") and the act of announcing something! Someone made all the binary (and now also source) files, named "firefox-2.0"..., available for the public on the ftp servers, declaring it as a release version (see folder hierarchy). What's on a ftp server is for the public. It's like putting your book into the public shelfs of booksellers (book shops) without announcing that you have written a book. Did you release your book although telling nobody that your book can be found in book shops? Yes, because everybody can see it and get it and read it and use it! If you just provide those booksellers with your book (only storing it somewhere in a repository) in advance, you do not release your book, of course. But do you consider the link http://www.mozilla.com/products/download.html?product=firefox-2.0&os=linux&lang=en-US pointing to a storage room or to a book shelf? I would say ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/2.0/ is pretty much a book shelf, while ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-mozilla1.8.0/ is like a back room for example. --- Best regards, Melancholie 15:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
You can also compare it with this wiki: If you save a page, the page is online and public. It does not matter in which namespace you saved your page, you have released it by clicking on "Save page". The announcement (by a link) would come after that. Maybe on the Main Page or wherever. Only if it's a potential article (the potential "release") that actually belongs to the main namespace, and you created it in your user namespace, you didn't release it as an "article" but just as a "page" (in development). But Mozilla released their "article" in the "main namespace"! --- Greetings, Melancholie 00:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
You're missing one important point. Releasing one file is not the same as releasing an application that works on multiple operating systems, with multiple locales, onto many servers worldwide, available in both standalone and update versions. When they released one file, it was accurate to say that one file had been released, or that the release process had begun, but it was not accurate to say that the release process was over. Anyway, we need the announcement that the release is complete before we can say so in an article to adhere to the policy of verifiability. -- Schapel 00:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
3 PM PST?
I'm pretty sure Firefox 2.0 was released at 3 PM PDT, not PST.--168.254.226.35 14:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Is the time even important? --72.92.132.225 02:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, as the person who made this annon. talk part at school, I don't think it matters that much. However, if the time is going to be included, the correct time zone should be included. Just what I think. --XMBRIAN 13:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC) (using his home computer this time. ;) )
UK users not noticing updated page
I removed that little part from the first sentence of the section on "Current Version", seeing as 1. I found it unnecessary, and 2. Unless UK users are seeing a different site than I am, I saw Mozilla.Com updated at when I checked it at 6:30 PM EDT.--XMBRIAN 20:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm from the UK, and am getting the standard 2.0 download info. English (British) is avaliable for download from the "other systems + languages" link. I see no problems. for the UK. --h2g2bob 00:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Response from competition section
Someone should add a picture of the cake from the IE team to this section: http://fredericiana.com/
I don't even think the cake is notable enough to mention, let alone provide an image.--Nonpareility 22:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
I fixed some vandalism (someone had put "FIREFOX IS BETTER THAN EXPLORER!!!!! above the picture). Let's try and keep this page nice and NPOV, thanks. ManicParroT 04:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Microsoft buys Firefox
Removed spam link to spoof site. We are not an advertising platform for your pet project.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)