Talk:List of Firefox extensions
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This page was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
- 1 Making page easier to use
- 2 Query
- 3 Extensions by Categories
- 4 Criteria
- 5 More Info
- 6 Deletion?
- 7 Deprodded but...
- 8 Sage
- 9 Plugins vs. Extensions
- 10 The big cull
- 11 Microsoft
- 12 Ways to clean this up
- 13 Circular References?
- 14 Simple Mail
- 15 Fair use rationale for Image:Puzzlr.png
- 16 Bias?
- 17 Notability guidelines?
- 18 FireGPG
- 19 Section ordering of extensions
- 20 What actually makes an extension eligible for this list?
Making page easier to use
How can this page be made easier to use?
Should the "download" / "more info" links be moved to the end of each extension blurb?
Or, should those links not exist, and instead should the name of each extension be a clickable external link?
Would the page be more useful if the extensions were sorted in categories like they are at addons.mozilla.org?
Finally, is this page even necessary? There's a similar list at [addons.mozilla.org Most Popular] even if the descriptions there are a tad long-winded. Ideally addons.mozilla.org would be made into a wiki. The Mozilla community is big into wikis anyway; they have http://wiki.mozilla.org , http://kb.mozillazine.org , and Devmo. --unforgettableid
- Yes, this is an encyclopedia. It doesn't matter if other organizations have the info, this encyclopedia should have everything.
- Uh, no, encyclopedias should "have everything", and this isn't everything, it's an arbitrary unauthoritative partial list, is contrary to WP standards, and is quite pointless. -- 220.127.116.11 07:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- On a side note, the descriptions are ridiculously self-promoting. And IE View criticizes IE Tab! I'll do some fixing. --18.104.22.168 21:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
i think the addition of a table of contents would allow for more intuitive perusal. -Nod 04:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I do think this page has a use if it just listed Opensource extensions. I am slowly trying to find this out so that I can hack them for Flock, but need a nice list to reference. Putting in a table with a License column would be very useful
Extensions by Categ I think we have added enough of extentison. So anymore of edit should be stopped.
- Then what is the use of having a list in the first place? --Bruce 22:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Extensions by Categories
It would be nice to have some categories for the long list of FF extensions:
- Firefox Tabs
- Website Links
- File Downloads
- Behaviour & Navigation
- Privacy / Security
- Music / Video
I think this would be a great idea. This article should also link to the extension's homepage next to the extension. Moronicles 20:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
this page definently needs to be categorized. also, a link for each extension is a must- Noclips 15:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Should there be a standard criteria for something to appear on this page? There are thousands of extensions now and with sites like conduit (formerly Effective Brand) anyone can put together a toolbar extension in 10 minutes Aldaden 21:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Just noticed the existence of this page (via google). Normally I just search the mozilla addon site. However, lately, that site has been more difficult to use due to -- for lack of a better term (is there a term? maybe astroturfing?) -- a sort of "spamming" with knock-off spyware extensions (or of course the useless half-baked implementations that are a waste of time to install). For example, "toobar" this and "toolbar" that (commonly w/ the same version, 22.214.171.124). This page in wikipedia however could remain useful if sticking to the normal criteria for what makes a valid entry into wikipedia: if something exists out there that is popular and cited in multiple places (or, is notoriously unpopular and cited in multiple places). For instance, there is a book about Greasemonkey. There is already another article about (and a number of internet references to) ChatZilla, a reasonable implementation of a very common protocol, IRC. Probably 99% (ummm... citation needed?) of users have TabMixPlus installed (or would want to know about it if they didn't). So, that's three examples that (arguably) should be included. Until an extension is "well known" (either for good reasons or bad) it shouldn't be included. (imho). - Michael (talk|contrib) 22:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Few days ago, my seed of an article about DownThemAll! got deleted. I'd love to know why articles about other extensions are allowed and this one is not. No i'm not a DownThemAll! developer... Jancikotuc 14:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The 'More Info' links are a bit of a mess. You never know wher it's going to take you.
The problem is that some extensions have a page on addons.mozilla.org, Some have a page at mozdev.org, some have a separate homepage, and some extensions have all three.
It might bring some consistency if one of these was always favoured. e.g. if an extension has a page on addons.mozilla.org that's the preferred link to list under 'More Info', or perhaps the homepage should always be favoured? Aldaden 17:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Why is this list any less appropriate for Wikipedia than any of the other numerous lists on Wikipedia? Just as this is a "software directory," the List of martial arts is a "martial arts directory," and so forth. And there are plenty of other articles, portals, projects, etc that essentially boil down to being "software directories," such as Portal:Free software, List of web browsers, Comparison of FTP clients, and so forth. In the time that I've been active on Wikipedia, none of those have been proposed for deletion. It's also a list of Wikipedia articles, given that a large number of the entries on this list link to articles about individual extensions. I'd like to see a more substantive reason for deleting this article and not deleting the countless other articles that are comparable in function. Since the template suggests that deletion will automatically happen in five days, if I don't see a response to this question in a few days, I'll remove the template. -Erik Harris 20:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's not automatic, not at all. Prod is a process where a deletion is proposed, without the full impact of an AfD. A testing of the waters to so speak. Since you bring it up though, there are a lot of List's proposed for deletion. Just recently, List of video games published by Nintendo was under afd. I thought that was silly myself, but compared to that, this list is mostly a bunch of links to other sites. You may also wish to look at WP:NOT (Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files and Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. among others. Now while Martial arts are an encyclopedic topic, are all of these extensions really encyclopedic, or has this list just become a directory for anybody with an extension to add? Whether or not any of those other pages qualify, I don't know, but they might well not. FrozenPurpleCube 00:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- We could look at how many times it has been downloaded at addons.mozilla.org (take the top however many from the list or set some minimum limit). There's not many that aren't listed on mozilla addons, but those that aren't there we can just guess or something. --h2g2bob 21:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I've zapped some which were under "Open source extensions" and renamed the section "Notable extensions". The list below I haven't checked yet. --h2g2bob 22:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'd say a lot of hard work. I'll check for a template, see if there's something appropriate. FrozenPurpleCube 00:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- h2g2bob, thanks for cleaning up the top list. I'm renaming it back to "Open source extensions" though. It seems to me that open source extensions tend to be more likely to be useful and notable than the rest, but if it is just called "Notable extensions" then it will start to pick up cruft again. I bet everyone who adds extensions to the page thinks the extension they're adding is notable. :-) Makes sense? Cheers, --unforgettableid | how's my driving? 03:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- To be honest, I don't really get how some of these are open source while others aren't. The source is easy to get to from the .xpi (for any extension, unless it's a wrapper to some executable, I guess). Some of those listed in Other Extensions are probably open source - like CuteMenus Crystal SVG and NoScript. I'd be for merging the two lists. --h2g2bob 18:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- I believe we should keep the lists separate because the bottom list keeps accumulating entries for non-notable extensions like cheesy toolbars. Note: Open source does not mean "anyone can see the source code if they want". It refers to a number of characteristics, all of which must be met for the software to be open source. See www.opensource.org for more info. Cheers, --unforgettableid | how's my driving? 22:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Should the Wikipedia link to the extension Sage be removed? It just redirects to the extension list, anyways. Moronicles 01:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well spotted! I've removed the link. --h2g2bob 22:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Plugins vs. Extensions
"Extensions" and "Plugins" are terms Mozilla uses for different kinds of Add-ons. They are similar for the user, and might as well both be included in this article. And somewhere we need to have an article section that explains the differences. 126.96.36.199 15:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- At least within the Firefox software (Tools->Add-ons), Mozila uses "Add-ons" to refer to extensions and themes, not extensions and plug-ins. Plug-ins are a different animal, and work differently with the software. And if we renamed this article to "List of Firefox add-ons," we'd also have to expand it to include a list of themes (and even then, plug-ins might be questionable). —Erik Harris 16:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Mozilla uses the term "Add-ons" to refer to the dialog in which both extensions and themes are managed, which are both referred to by their separate name. (And if you dig in the source code, something about plugins is in there too, but it doesn't seem to be for current/public versions.) Arantius 04:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The big cull
Due to the Afd, I have rearranged the article to give prominence to the more notable extensions, and then deleted the remainder that didn't immediately look notable to me. If I have trimmed a widely used extension that you think would be considered notable, consider creating an article about the extension (or website it integrates with) and be sure to have sources on the new article to demonstrate notability before adding the extension into this list again. John Vandenberg 06:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I expected some opposition to listing Microsoft Firefox extensions :-)
- photosynth : http://media.labs.live.com/all/ps/_code_/photosynth.xpi (see live.com)
- CardSpace : http://www.perpetual-motion.com/IdentitySelector.xpi.zip, but its not an official extension as Kevin Miller (not a radio host) doesnt work for Microsoft (see  and )
- WMP, while a plugin, really should be mentioned on this page IMO, as the new plugin has been designed specifically for Firefox 2 (Internet Explorer doesnt require the NN4 plugin infrastructure).
Since Microsoft is writing FF extensions, NPOV suggests we need to welcome them to the fold them. But, of those three, the WMP plugin is the most important to include on this article; the others are not as they are still in beta atm. John Vandenberg 23:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Ways to clean this up
So, we need to clean this article up as it is currently suffering from a bit of fluff. How can we do this?
I propose we remove any extensions that do not have articles themselves and remove the competition section - as this section is entirely made up of redlinks it seems.
- I've just closed an AfD discusson on this. Cleanup, or mergeto Extension (Mozilla) was suggested there. As an editor I'm opening that discussion.
- I would start with a cleanup and only then, if it gets small enough for that, consider the merger.
- To cleanup I suggest: 1)Keep only entries that have their own articles to make this a grouping of articles for organazation purposes, not a directory of software. If the article stands for itself then an entry here is justified 2)Remove most external links, as they, if any, should be in the article. - Nabla 20:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I made a - fairly ruthless - start
; I haven't touched "Extend Firefox Contest"; some good entries there need to be merged into the rest of the article, perhaps with a note that they won an award, then the section should be deleted.Andy Mabbett 20:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I made a - fairly ruthless - start
- All done, I think. Andy Mabbett 20:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have gone through and done a bit more. I have removed an image which was cluttered and didn't show anything specific, removed links to sites that fail WP:EL, removed the bit about Plugins, as that is discussed on the other Extension related article, added hyphens to all list items to provide uniformity and made some minor changes to language, citation style and dates.-Localzuk(talk) 21:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- All done, I think. Andy Mabbett 20:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Just removed a few more. Many were recent additions probably. Also shortened some of the descriptions. - Nabla 01:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I was looking for more information about the NoScript extension. NoScript redirects to this page (List of Firefox extensions). This page has a link to NoScript... which redirects to this page. Is NoScript noteworthy enough to have it's own page? Failing that should we just remove the link, or have an external link to the noscript site itself? This circular linking stuff has to go. --188.8.131.52 15:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
shouldn't it be included as its the only firefox extension I know of that is is a email client its different from thunderbird because instead of being a full program its an extension its reletively new considering its only a month old http://telega.phpnet.us/simplemail/ Atomic1fire 21:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Puzzlr.png
Image:Puzzlr.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. This article should include all extensions, or none at all. If this list only mentions "popular" extensions they should be backed up by some numbers. There seems to be no criteria on what can be included on this list at present.DemonCleanerUK (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This article is definetly being manipulate by someone w/ a 24 hour staff. Edits to page are being removed almost immeditley 24 hours a day. - TxS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- FireGPG was removed from this article. There was a bit of internal policy that didn't get introduced into the AfD, where this page is a list of extensions that follows the WP:WTAF policy. Only extensions that are notable enough to have their own article pages are noted here, otherwise there would be thousands. Rurik (talk) 02:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Section ordering of extensions
- I agree. The current divisions, and ordering, seems arbitrary. --ZimZalaBim talk 16:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- They are separated from normal third-party extensions because of the development force behind them. This lends to them a certain amount of notability. The "Official" are the ones created by Mozilla themselves for their own browser. "Firefox Companions" are made by the same developers for other sites. "Google" is a bit of a stretch, but it is the single site that has the most extensions written extensively just for it, so they are easier categorized by themselves instead of mixed in with the general population of extensions. Rurik (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- You shouldn't organize this list by notability, readers will most likely look for extensions by how they affect the browser. e.g. DOM Inspector belongs in development tools, eBay companion belongs in website integration, Google Toolbar belongs in browser features. --Nezek (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
What actually makes an extension eligible for this list?
There are thousands of addons for firefox available now, in all kinds of categories. some are largely used, others of small cult followings but have large revenue income. What determines if one addon should be on this list but not another? There is no way to catalog all the addons here, I continue to suggest deletion. Perhaps listing the 10 MOST DOWNLOADED ADDONS depending on version number (only major updates) would be more useful.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtf612 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 25 September 2009
- The eligibility requirements are laid out in the article source. An extension has to have its own dedicated article to be included here. Therefore, it must meet the notability requirements of an article. That keeps the thousands of addons from being listed here. I'm not sure why you would suggest deleting the article over this? Rurik (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)