Talk:Firefox

The Performance section feels incredibly cherry-picked

The Performance section almost exclusively includes tests where Firefox came out on top. Contrast this to 2006:

...The performance section contains only criticisms of Firefox...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Firefox/Archive_7#Performance_section

It would appear that subsequent edits have caused the section to be cherry-picked in the opposite way.

I'm about to add a NPOV tag to the section.

2601:142:100:DDF5:D953:1D5D:1D76:8E4F (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Infobox image

@LABcrabs, Walter Görlitz, and 82.177.120.60: I see there's been an edit war over the lead image in {{Infobox web browser}}. I'd like there to be some sort of agreement or consensus on what gets represented in the lead image, so I'm starting a discussion on this topic here. I personally want to see Firefox represented at full functionality, to be as familiar to the personalised Firefox experiences as possible, rather than an "out-of-the-box" look that a majority of Firefox users won't find that familiar to how they use Firefox. I'd like there to be a window drop shadow effect as well to make it even more familiar to how Firefox would look running in the vast majority of operating systems such as Windows 10 and macOS. I'd also like the screenshot to be in English, since this is, after all, the English Wikipedia, en.wikipedia.org to be exact. As for what version should be represented, I really don't mind as long as it matches the look and feel of the current version. I concur with the sentiment that 57.0 doesn't look discernibly different to 61.0. For reference, here's the two screenshots I've uploaded for 57 and 61. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 08:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect. Wikipedia:Software screenshots says the following

Wikipedia's Manual of Style for images reads that images displayed in the lead of an article should be "natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic; they not only should be illustrating the topic specifically, but should also be the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see." To reflect this guideline, the main screenshot should portray the software in its most common form by using its default settings.

While an "initial" state is desired (i.e. one with a blank document, or showing a "welcome" menu), it may also be desirable to load generic data or filler text into the depicted software (especially if it is graphics software or part of an office suite) in screenshots to show the software in "normal" use. It is preferable that the demonstration content itself is self-made, freely licensed or in the public domain to prevent the accidental inclusion of non-free content if it can be avoided. It has been a common practice for web browser screenshots to use images of Wikipedia's front page. There have been concerns over the practice by some, however, as it is a self-reference, and because Wikimedia Foundation logos were previously non-free (although this is no longer the case). Most major web browsers now have their own dedicated "start" pages built-in, which typically display recently visited or bookmarked sites, that can serve as an alternative.

This passage was written by me based on common consensus and practices. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@ViperSnake151: Don't see how I'm "incorrect" about an opinion, especially as I don't see how the WP:SCREENSHOT guidelines are being broken here. I'm advocating to "show the software in "normal" use", rather than the ""initial" state". The guideline appears to state that either one is okay, so this is even more so not tangible evidence to prove I'm "incorrect" about any of the things I'd like to see in the screenshot. It also doesn't say anything about which version of a screenshotted software should be displayed as a lead image, which is something I'd really appreciate an opinion on. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 14:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem with normal use is that we have to more vigilant for copyright violations. The start state appears to be immune from this. However, a multi-tab view where other tabs were only showing titles should not violate copyright. And Wikipedia's front page should also avoid the problem, but the editor taking that screen shot should be careful to avoid any copyrighted content on that page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Yeah, and that's exactly the reason why the tabs and bookmarks have been decked out with various Wikimedia projects in lieu of other copyrighted websites, if you haven't noticed. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 04:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

For variety, US government sites are typically in the public domain. Other sites that are public domain, CC-BY or CC-BY-SA would be fine as well. Have fun with the tabs! --LABcrabs (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Criticism

For several years now, Firefox users have criticised the developers for removing features and diminishing the customizibility of Firefox. It seems that they are trying to mimick the Chrome interface, leading to the response that people preferring Chrome, would use that program. Because this criticism is a theme recurring on many discussion pages all over the web for many years, I think it should be mentioned in the article. Also I don't understand this removal of useful information added by another user. Bever (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If you can find a reliable source that discusses these things, such as from Wired, or a computing magazine, it might be worth discussing. We don't post news about every product. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Firefox version history merge

Pursuant to the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firefox version history, I have merged Firefox version history into that section of this article. Since this substantially increases the size of this page, editors here might want to think about breaking out other sections into freestanding articles. The merged-in content is also subject to reasonable pruning. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

This is completely untenable. The largest section has 406,000 bytes, which regards Firefox's version histories. The only section of the article that can be split out is what has been merged into it. We should probably move this somewhere off main before it can be reduced to an acceptable size, or RfC it for deletion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted the merged content and it should not be in this article until such time as we know what to do with that content. There is no need for haste and the deletion discussion did not provide any detail on how a merge should be conducted. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this is not the best situation. Nevertheless, that was the outcome of the discussion. I will move the section to template space and transclude it for now, but a separate consensus must be developed to produce a different outcome. bd2412 T 13:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Please see my comment at Talk:Firefox version history#Runs afoul of WP:NOTCHANGELOG for my idea of what to do with this information. Seems to me, it belongs in the History of Firefox article (assuming we're keeping that one) rather than this one. - dcljr (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I have no objection to that resolution to the problem. I would keep it as a template (now Template:Firefox version history), which frankly makes it easier to change the host page. Perhaps the template can be split into multiple smaller templates according to its current component subsections. bd2412 T 02:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure using multiple templates to transclude the tables into the "History…" article is actually a viable option. Using templates to store normal article content (which, I believe, these tables would qualify as) would seem to run afoul of WP:TG. - dcljr (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I think we should just delete it entirely, until someone objects to removing it. BD2412, I believe you restored it only because that was the conclusion of the AfD, not because you think it should be included. I have no problem with you merging it as a result of the AfD, but once it is content in another article than anybody can reasonably remove it per WP:BOLD and WP:BRD. It's just far too big a table to be useful, I don't believe anybody would read it from start to finish. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

My issue with that is that there was a discussion on the previous article, and a clear absence of consensus in that discussion for the complete removal of this content from the encyclopedia. The discussion would have been closed as kept, but for all the SPA involvement on that side. I would suggest as an alternative going through the table and picking out significant developments, and retaining, say, the most pertinent 10-15%. bd2412 T 03:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but it doesn't take a discussion or a consensus to remove content from Wikipedia. I don't know which developments are particularly important, but I don't think something as long as that should be on the article in the meanwhile. There doesn't seem to be anybody against removing that table from this article. The absence of a discussion to remove it from Wikipedia entirely is secondary. We have it saved on a template, alternatively I could keep it on my user page, but I don't see anybody who thinks it belongs in this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, two of the !votes in the AfD were specifically to merge into this article. A third was to merge to the "history of..." article, and a fourth was to merge it between the two. From the standpoint of evaluating that discussion, I would have no objection to moving the content to the "history of..." article pending further discussion or refinement. bd2412 T 04:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I would remove it from that article as well, if it was there. Again it's not so much that I think it should be removed from somewhere, it's that nobody thinks it should be retained there, at least enough to actually revert me removing it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Come, now, Onetwothreeip. The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firefox version history clearly does not support the idea that "nobody thinks it should be retained" at History of Firefox, as bd2412 just explained (not to mention my own opinion, expressed above in this thread). - dcljr (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

at least enough to actually revert me removing it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm saying someone would revert you. - dcljr (talk) 09:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Let's find out? Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Let's not. - dcljr (talk) 10:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

More importantly, though, I think the process by which we got to this point has been fundamentally flawed. While I appreciate that this was a "complicated close", nevertheless, I believe it was done improperly. According to Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Closure, "A decision is either to 'keep' or 'delete' the article. Discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to 'keep'. The decision may also include a strong recommendation for an additional action such as a 'merge' or 'redirect'." Based on the lack of consensus to merge it specifically to here (I agree with Onetwothreeip about this), and the admitted "absence of consensus […] for the complete removal" of the content (I agree with bd2412 about this), it seems to me that closing the discussion as "no consensus to delete, but possible emerging consensus to merge elsewhere, therefore a merge discussion should be undertaken on an appropriate talk page" would have been more appropriate — especially given that the discussion for deletion had already been relisted twice for further comments (because of a lack of consensus) while no proper merge discussion, including notification of the watchers of the potential target page(s), had taken place. I therefore ask bd2412 to reconsider his closure on this basis. I also object to the way the content was moved into the template. I don't think there's any accepted precedent for copy-and-pasting article content into a template simply to get it out of its own stand-alone article, whether with the intent to transclude it into another article (as I mentioned above) or to hold it while waiting for it to be properly merged into another article. Therefore, I (also) ask that Firefox version history be temporarily restored, the template be deleted, and a proper merge discussion take place at Talk:Firefox version history, with notifications given at both Firefox and History of Firefox. - dcljr (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree completely, but reducing that article is as appropriate (if not more) than merging it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I've decided to discuss it at Talk:History of Firefox#Merge version-history tables back to here instead, since that's actually where the content originated before being moved to this article (and where I hope it will end up). - dcljr (talk) 10:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

In practice it is not the case that the result of AfD discussions must always be a binary keep/delete. Merge/redirect outcomes are an occasional result, and are carried out as such. In some cases, the closing admin will leave it to the disputants to carry out the merge, while in others the closing admin will carry out the merge directly. I like to do it myself because otherwise an article with consensus for that outcome can linger for months while the details of the merge are worked out. However, the discussion here is persuasive, so I have restored Firefox version history pending the outcome of such discussion. I will remove the templated version from this article and delete the template. bd2412 T 13:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I should clarify that I didn't mean to imply that deletion discussions must end in a simple Keep or Delete, only that a Merge conclusion should only follow a consensus to merge content to a particular place, which I don't believe was achieved in this case. Anyway, we'll see what happens with the merge discussion... - dcljr (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Light Web Browser - Should It Be Merged To This Wiki Page?

The title says it all; you can also discuss merging here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Light_(web_browser) --NinLEGWho 23:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)