Talk:Firefox: Difference between revisions
Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
*It's so in the Linux version, don't know anything about the Windows one. - [[User:Sikon|Sikon]] 00:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC) |
*It's so in the Linux version, don't know anything about the Windows one. - [[User:Sikon|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. - [[User:Sikon|Sikon]] 03:12, 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. - [[User:Sikon|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.--[[User:Edjackiel|Edjackiel]] 03:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Disambig for [Firefox]]== |
==Disambig for [Firefox]]== |
Revision as of 03:35, 29 September 2006
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Firefox article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 |
Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date
![]() | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
![]() | Software: Computing Unassessed | ||||||||||||
|
As of 08/09/13[update], the Firefox article requires the following to be completed:
|
Attention. This is not a firefox helpdesk. Please limit all questions and comments to those regarding the article itself. Non-relevant comments are likely to be removed.
![]() Archives |
---|
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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
Criticisms of Firefox section
To whom it may concern -the section and the page are being kept seperate due to size constraints. The Firefox article is already too large by Wikipedia's standards, and merging the two would be impractical. The idea is that the Criticisms fall under the Firefox article, but is an article on its own. Thanks, T. Moitie [talk] 13:14, 17 August 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)
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)
Memory use
I reverted the discussion about heap fragmentation because it is not specific to Firefox and no sources at all were cited. There is some discussion about memory use criticisms in the Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox article; perhaps that's the best place to discuss the issue. -- Schapel 15:03, 4 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)
Mizilla Firefox and Word Web Pages
Do you know that Mozilla Firefox doesn't show properly web pages, created with Microsoft Word? Example: [http:elianostamatov.hit.bg]
- On the contrary, it is Microsoft Word that does not create proper web pages. See [1]. --Ali@gwc.org.uk 10:12, 14 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) [TC][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)
- It's Moh-zilla (or Moe-zilla). Trust me, I know. - Kingy
- 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)
- Is there a definitive pronunciation? Or is that just your pronunciation. Gronky 22:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Mozilla Images
All screen shots of Mozilla software products should displsy the following License tags {{mozilla}} {{free screenshot}} {{GPL}}
All screenshots of Mozilla browsers displaying a web page should display the site en.wikipedia.org/Main_Page and display the additional License tag {{wikipedia-screenshot}}
Also, it would be greatly appreciated if all screenshots were taken while the OS was using one of the default themes (for example Luna (default blue/silver/green) or Classic on Windows XP), and that Firefox was using the default theme, unless the screenshot was taken to illustrate how themes work in Firefox.
Fx 3 and Acid2 Test
Firefox 3.0 passes the Acid2 Test! 70.111.224.252 15:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- Then why is it that when I tried today's build of Firefox 3 it doesn't pass Acid2? -- Schapel 16:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- [2] Scroll down to firefox and the respective Fx 3 picture. 70.111.224.252 22:42, 23 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)