Talk:Internet Explorer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Internet Explorer was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Brands (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Internet (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Microsoft / Windows (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Microsoft Windows (marked as High-importance).
 
Version 0.5      (Rated B-Class)
Peer review This Engtech article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.


Discussion on this article has been archived. If you wish to comment on an ongoing discussion, you may quote it here or simply refer to it. Post new comments below the list of archives please.

IE Content Advisor[edit]

Should there be a section about the Content Advisor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goheels619 (talkcontribs) 19:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Address bar search[edit]

Can someone write about the little known address bar search prefixes feature of IE? (Not to be confused with simply address bar search which nearly every browser offers) - xpclient Talk 11:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Screenshot of Internet Explorer[edit]

Hello, everyone

Is it just my eyes or every time I visit this article someone has toggled the screenshot of Internet Explorer between one of IE8's or IE9's? (Note for future readers: At this time, IE9 was still in "Public Preview"/Beta-test stage.)

Constant reversion of a part of article without trying to seek consensus is called edit warring and is not acceptable in Wikipedia. Hence, before toggling the screenshot again, please seek consensus here, in talk page.

Fleet Command (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to make the following points:
  1. You haven't given any reason for why the screenshot/logo should be kept, one way or the other.
  2. Edits like this are rude and unproductive, considering that there are no other editors involved and I'm agreeing with you.
--Gyrobo (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I argued neither in favor of keeping nor in favor changing. I'm in favor of talking. You see, there has been a lot of toggling recently.

Oh, and as for the rudeness, I personally think that "DO NOT change" is far less polite than "please visit the article's Talk page... Thanks in advance."

Fleet Command (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
All right everyone, first opinion is in from Gyrobo. Judging from what I read, (please feel free to correct me, dear Gyrobo,) I think Gyrobo in favor keeping the latest version of an RTM/GA copy of Internet Explorer. Is anyone willing to support or oppose? Fleet Command (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I support that. - Josh (talk | contribs) 17:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
RTM/GA support mabdul 16:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Web browser flaw secretly bares all[edit]

This http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/12/05/1452951/visited-porn-web-browser-flaw.html contains information that should be included in this wiki article. Question is where should it be inserted - thanks for any suggestions or actions. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

that has nothing to do with internet explorer exclusive. if you want to add this, then add this in the a) web browser or b) in javascript or in one article that i can't remember at the moment. This "security flaw" is nothing new. I could show more secondary sources that are really older with links to the initial primary sources. mabdul 21:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The IE 9 section needs updating.[edit]

The Internet Explorer 9 section is written in this weird speculative/previewing way. It starts with its standards support rather than its release date and development for instance. I think the section needs to be cleaned and updated. Perhaps an entire rewrite would help. I'll go ahead and whip up a draft. Captain Stack (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Draft posted below. Please read/edit and tell me what you think. I'll post when I add the refs and feel it is up to snuff. I think it flows a lot better than the current section.Captain Stack (talk) 10:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You should also add a section for Internet Explorer 10. The Platform Preview is available for download now. Silvie_rob 198.136.130.179 (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow! I though I'm not going to hear about anything called IE10 for the next five years. Looks like Microsoft is really in a hurry. Actually, I somehow feel IE9 passed its Beta and RC stage fast. Fleet Command (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Of potential interest is WP:Articles for deletion/Internet Explorer 10, where the IE10 article is going to be deleted, mainly due to MOS, notability, and CRYSTALBALL violations.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Draft of improved "Internet Explorer 9" section[edit]

[[File:Windows Internet Explorer 9.png|thumb|right|200px|Internet Explorer 9 running on Windows 7]]

Main article: Internet Explorer 9

Internet Explorer 9 was released on 14 March 2011[1]. Development for Internet Explorer 9 began shortly after the release of Internet Explorer 8 (19 March 2009). Microsoft began taking feedback and suggestions through Microsoft Connect [2]. Microsoft first announced Internet Explorer 9 at PDC 2009 and spoke mainly about how it takes advantage of hardware acceleration in DirectX to improve the performance of web applications and improve the quality of web typography. At MIX 10, Microsoft showed and publically released the first Platform Preview for Internet Explorer 9, a frame for IE9’s engine not containing any UI of the browser. Leading up to the release of the final browser, Microsoft released updated platform previews approximately every 6 weeks which each featured improved JavaScript compiling (32-bit version), improved scores on the Acid3 test, as well as additional HTML5 standards support. Ultimately, 8 platform previews were released. The first public beta was released at a special event in San Francisco, which was themed around “the beauty of the web”. The release candidate was released on 10 February 2011 and featured improved performance, refinements to the UI, and further standards support. The final version was released during the South by Southwest (SXSW) music and film festival in Austin, Texas on 14 March 2011[3].

Internet Explorer 9 only runs on Windows Vista and Windows 7 [4]. It supports several CSS 3 properties (including border-radius, box-shadow, etc.), embedded ICC v2 or v4 color profiles support via Windows Color System, and the 32-bit version has faster JavaScript performance due to a new JavaScript engine called “Chakra” [5]. It also features hardware accelerated graphics rendering using Direct2D, hardware-accelerated text rendering using DirectWrite, hardware-accelerated video rendering using Media Foundation, imaging support provided by Windows Imaging Component, and high fidelity printing powered by the XPS print pipeline[6]. IE9 also supports the HTML5 video and audio tags and the Web Open Font Format [7]. Internet Explorer 9 currently scores 95/100 on the Acid3 test[8].

History Section.[edit]

Does anybody else feel like the History section should merely link the History of Internet Explorer and have all of the short clippings deleted? DanielDPeterson (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Intelligence[edit]

The study purporting to show that IE users have low IQ is a hoax. Please stop adding it to the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Yes it is, but that news only came up today and I still do not agree with the reasoning behind the reverts of my edits yesterday. I must admit that they were not so NPOV because I was having a good time with it (I'm still smiling about it :-), but that should have been dealt with by editing, not reverting. WP:UNDUE is not for scientific research supported content, examples given make that very clear (flat earth is not based on scientific research and thus would be WP:UNDUE when included on article about Earth). The reverts were clearly based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Now that it has turned out to be a hoax, the discussion should be if that hoax is notable enough to be included in the article. The reporting by the big names in the press like BBC News, CNN etc. indicate that it is. It should be labelled as being a hoax of course and NPOV. Thoughts? --DeVerm (talk) 13:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC).
    • The hoax is not notable, it's purpose is propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.107.188.5 (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) with SineBot LOL - WP:N is what determines notable from not notable... not our personal views --DeVerm (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC).
  • This is simply a silly season publicity stunt that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia whether its a hoax or not. And what basis do you have for claim that the research claimed to support this was in any way scientific? I read the story on the BBC site before it was revealed as a hoax and there was no claim that this survey was in any way validated by any scientific authority such as a university research team or a peer-reviewed journal: just an attribution to a press release and web site of unknown provenance. The only possible story here is nothing to do with Internet Explorer, but as an example of the gullibility of the news media and Wikipedia editors who were taken in by such obviously absurd claims. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Wow Phil, please WP:RELAX. I take it that you are not amused by this hoax but that doesn't mean you have to be so confrontational towards me... I did not mastermind this hoax, I only enjoyed it. I understand that you do -not- claim WP:UNDUE so what exactly do you claim then? Just that a hoax does not belong in WP or WP:NOT#NEWS ? I will have to bring your attention to List of hoaxes which shows that there is WP community consensus that hoaxes actually do belong in WP... as long as they are notable, like this hoax. --DeVerm (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC).
  • This hoax, if it's notable, is only worth like two sentences.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I claim WP:UNDUE. This story would have disappeared after a few days even if it wasn't a hoax. Now that it has been proven to be a hoax, the only responsible way we can include this is if we start the section with "In a story that was later proven to be a hoax, ...", to which readers should respond "then why am I reading about it?" –CWenger (^@) 17:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
This hoax is not notable. 12.107.188.5 (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • (@DeVerm) I'm perfectly relaxed, thanks. I was also amused by the hoax, but I'm even more amused by the fact the news media and Wikipedia editors were taken in by a claim that IE users had such an incredibly low IQ. Don't you get the fact that your addition of this claim to the article says much more about your IQ than that of any IE users? And, just for the avoidance of doubt, I am certainly no fan of IE and wouldn't let it anywhere near any computer of mine. You asked what I claim: the main answer to that is already in my comments above (WP:NOT#NEWS), but WP:UNDUE also clearly applies. A whole paragraph about one ephemeral publicilty stunt in an article about a product that's been ultra-notable for umpteen years? That's pretty much the definition of undue weight. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
"amused by the fact the news media and Wikipedia editors were taken in" Have you read the blarring NegPOV on ~100% of MS-related articles? Wikipedia is a hostbead of anti-MS FUD. 12.107.188.5 (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I'm a Microsoft fan, and I actually have to disagree with that. I see no POV problems on MS-related articles.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Crystal Clear app ksmiletris.png
@Jasper: agree, I had only put 1 or 2 sentences in but did create a section for it... @CWenger: If this would not have been a hoax, it would not have disappeared from the news of course... it would've put the world in motion. Also, you could start a section like: Internet Explorer has been used for an IQ test hoax in 2011[...] which is perfectly okay. @Phil: nobody noticed that my way of quoting that Cambridge professor was very funny, check the diffs and compare with BBC News article that I linked as ref. Yes, I agree the separate section was a bit much but I wouldn't be surprised if we get a separate article about it and that it will survive any AfD thrown at it... more sources will come up I think and @Jasper again: I agree, the M$ articles on WP are pretty decent but some people get really worked up when "their" OS is criticized. --DeVerm (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC).
I don't believe we should be writing one-or-two sentence sections. This belongs into a Controversy section, which I'm proposing to include the hoax and the existing Security and Removal sections.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
As CWenger says, I agree that it is undue WP:UNDUE. It came as quickly as it went. It's just not noteable. No mention necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.107.188.5 (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
DeVerm, I did notice the way that you quoted "that Cambridge professor" out of context, but thought it so silly that it wasn't worth a comment. Please rely on others to tell you whether jokes that you make are "very funny", rather than try to evaluate them yourself. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Well Phil, I don't need you to have my fun... I wouldn't dare to try to make you laugh, sorry if I gave you that impression. But please do remember that editors here (well most of us) do not get paid for this and just do this because they like it... so pls. take the knife from the table and enjoy editing WP! --DeVerm (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC).
The hoax is WP:Recentism and it should be added back to this article ONLY IF it is still in news after say couple of months. Abhishikt (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

IE 8[edit]

IE 8 does not download easily in Korea. I don't have any citable sources -- just a lot of horrible experience with crashing systems, frozen pages, and goofy messages from MS. If anybody knows any good tech articles documenting these problems (not necessarily just in Korea), please use them to add to the article. 211.225.34.176 (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Microsoft did not develop their browser[edit]

In the very first section of the article it is stated that IE is a

[...] graphical web browsers developed by Microsoft

This is factually wrong. Microsoft was caught on the wrong foot when the Internet took off and Bill Gates famously dismissed it as a 'fad'. Once the error of this assessment became obvious, Microsoft scrambled to offer it's users a browser and licensed the Mosaic browser for Spyglass (in a controversial deal) and included it for free in an update for Win95. Claiming that Microsoft developed IE is not true. A claim could perhaps be made that Microsoft re-developed or refined the Mosaic code base. 83.249.105.199 (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Before Good Article Review![edit]

I am interested to start Good Article review of this article, but I have noticed the editor who has nominated the article is not one of the primary contributors of the article. In some similar GA review discussions, where the article was not nominated by a primary contributor, after starting review I found no one, neither the nominator nor the editors.
So, before I start reviewing, I want to ask editors can they provide some time to participate in GA review discussion? --Tito Dutta 02:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Emacs-W3 hors concours[edit]

Why Thai? More simple than Korean? w3m as well. CAPTCHA "bloodmaybe", so, near the land of Genghis (and kamikazes for sure), a closed world was turned actually wide by them.

Internet Explorer 10 for Windows 7?[edit]

Will Internet Explorer 10 be available for Windows 7? --98.183.199.31 (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes! Microsoft: IE10 coming to Windows 7 /PatrikN (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Standards Support section is clearly about W3c standards, not Microsoft standards[edit]

"Standards support" should read "W3c standards support"

Text should be updated that the latest release is Internet Explorer 10[edit]

The info box is correct and Internet Explorer 10 is mentioned on several places on the page, but the fourth section of the intro text stills says: "The latest stable release is Internet Explorer 9". This should be updated of course and the rest of the section with info about the browser option screen should be moved to the subsection about IE9. I don't have time to do that right now, so is there anyone else...? :-) /PatrikN (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I've done that, but would appreciate if someone would be able to flesh out the lead with v10 info. At the moment, I've just added a placeholder statement. drewmunn (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Last edit by anonymous user (16:02, 9 February 2013)[edit]

Hi, I still feel that I'm a bit of a newbie at Wikipedia, so I'm wondering if the latest edit/addition conforms to the general Wikipedia guidelines. It seems a bit non-objective and I'm not sure that it makes the article better. In other articles, I've seen sections named "Critics" (or something like that) and maybe this text new should be put in a section like that. What do you more experienced users say? /PatrikN (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It was WP:Soapbox, lacking WP:RS which is a frequent issue with this topic. Looking at the IP's history, there's been nothing usable so far TEDickey (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks TEDickey, just was I supposed, and your answer was also with links to sources, so that was just perfectly! And I have also noticed, and am clearly aware, that this article is a big target for vandals. Thanks again! /PatrikN (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
No problem TEDickey (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Quick Question[edit]

Sorry if I'm missing something, but could anyone explain why this exists at the beginning of the article?

<!-- ***** ATTENTION! ***** Screen shoot of B695 RTM. ***** ATTENTION! ***** --->

I see no reason for it to exist, and after a quick check back, I can't find when it was added. I also did a net-wide search, which returned nothing of much interest, except sites copying the Wikipedia article. Can it be deleted, or does it mean something? Thanks in advance. drewmunn talk 16:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

IE11[edit]

I've just blanked the recently added section on IE11. The only evidence of its existence is the leak of Blue, and I don't think we should cover it just yet. Things change massively from each prerelease to the next, and this wasn't even an official release. For now, I think it's best we don't cover it at all. When an announcement is made, then we could look into it. drewmunn talk 08:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

IE 11 again[edit]

Nobody's gonna add the new article "Internet Explorer 11"? Internet Explorer – Windows Dev Center has clearly suggested that IE 11 preview has come :) Why not start that article? I'm expecting to see it. Sky6t (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

StatCounter: May 2013[edit]

There is a mistake in the article: most used browser in the U.S. according to StatCounter as of May 2013 is Internet Explorer. Please see: http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-ww-daily-20130501-20130531-map (the link was referenced underneath the image showing Google Chrome as the most used browser in the U.S., by mistake). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.84.57.244 (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixed Image caption now correctly reports June 2012, instead of May 2013. Source is updated. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry to tell you this, but it still reports May 2013 and links to May 2013 page on StatCounter... Why don't you update the image, it is simpler and more accurate and up to date, I think... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.84.107.53 (talkcontribs)
If we're talking about the same image, it's updated monthly, and has been updated now to reflect June 2013's data. If not, I can't find any occurrences of "May 2013" outside of references in the article, so it may be a caching issue.  drewmunn  talk  10:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I think he should refresh his web browser. Face-wink.svg Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Split up article - move historical info to eg. History of Internet Explorer[edit]

The article is over the size limit. While that is the current limit we should split up the article and/or get the limit upped (see: Wikipedia talk:Article size § 100 kB too much? An ideal? Or for old/slow computers/networks? Out-of-date?).

I could be bold and just do as I suggested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet Explorer 11 "splitting up Internet Explorer - take all historically important info out anyway. All pre-IE6 at least, if not up to (almost) the most current version (then it would end up being exactly this article.. plus some general stuff and links to older info)", but don't want to get reverted? Do people agree with this or propose other ways of splitting up? comp.arch (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi.
§ OS compatibility and § Desktop Market share by year and version are the prime candidates for the move.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Redundant to mention here, already in edit history, just in case anyone missed/es it, moved first suggested section to Internet Explorer versions, there is already a "see also" for it in the article, just don't know where to put "see also" for Internet Explorer Mobile. As that is really a "separate" product with a separate name I'm not too worried.. as Windows Phone/Mobile is a separate OS and this page doesn't claim that IE supports it. comp.arch (talk) 01:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Conservatively moved IE2-4 info (copied IE1, changed my mind on deleting here) to Internet Explorer versions. No history is lost. All dates are there and features and other info. Highlightes (hope it didn't miss anything, in case anyone wants to readd as features, please do with as few words as possible, not need to say which versions started in):

Macintosh System 7.0.1 (PPC or 68k) double-byte character-set (who cares? really? UTF-8 now dominant) "first major browser with CSS support, although this support was only partial" ActiveX controls (dead? half-dead?) Java applets (dead(?)) inline multimedia (wow!) PICS system for content metadata (dead?) Internet Mail and News (dead, now no news support?) NetMeeting (dead) Windows Address Book (?) 'blue e' roughly 100 people during the development of three months The first major IE security hole, the Princeton Word Macro Virus Loophole deepened the level of integration between the web browser and the underlying operating system Active Desktop (dead) numerous packaging criticisms (see United States v. Microsoft) Internet Explorer 4 introduced support for Group Policy.. offline browsing Outlook Express (dead?) Microsoft Chat (dead(?)) NetMeeting (dead) easier 128-bit encryption comp.arch (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure where to move "Desktop Market share by year and version" (with lowercase market share). comp.arch (talk) 02:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

There have been no complaints so I moved IE5 also highlights there (some might be incorporated back such as first item, though not differenciators from other browers?): bi-directional text, ruby characters, "the ability to save web pages in MHTML format."

"XMLHttpRequest, giving birth to Ajax (even though the term "Ajax" was not coined until years later)." "improving its print preview capabilities, CSS and HTML standards support, and developer APIs" "Version 5.5 was the last to have Compatibility Mode, which allowed Internet Explorer 4 to be run side by side with the 5.x." and XML, XSLT comp.arch (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not want to move IE7 and not IE6 (leave a gap) to Interrnet Explorer versions. By most accounts IE6 (first XP version) market share is low. By those who estimate it the highest [Internet Explorer 6 market share finally falls under 5%]. Would you say it's ok to move IE6? IE7? And how high up? Withought rewriting the rest of the article (anything in them differencing them from competitors?) IE8 is last supported version by XP that is last supported Win version (still, not for long). All info will still be available in another page. I hesitate to move, getting to be a lot of work unless rewriting rest of article. comp.arch (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Windows versions and their last IE versions[edit]

The last version of IE available on Windows XP SP2 is IE 8 [1]. The last version of IE available on Windows Vista SP2 and Server 2008 SP2 is IE 9 [2]. The last version of IE available on Windows 8 and Server 2012 is IE 10 [3]. Windows 7 SP1, 8.1, Server 2008 R2, Server 2012 R2 SP1 can run IE 11 [4].

[1] http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc985359.aspx
[2] http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg699422.aspx
[3] http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh846773.aspx
[4] http://technet.microsoft.com/library/dn268945.aspx

Might be useful to someone...

81.134.74.241 (talk) 11:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Might, but please put as much of historical info in IE history page and "versions" page. See section above. Would be good to move the rest to either page. comp.arch (talk) 01:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, this information has been incorporated into Internet_Explorer_versions#Release_history_for_desktop_Windows_OS_version (and is also implied by the Windows table on that page).
46.208.141.161 (talk) 06:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Better Infobox, only focus on current version(s) - "consensus can change"[edit]

PA-RISC (long dead processor) and Mac OS X support is seriously misleading. Who cares about Windows 95 (no longer supported)? :) I copied the Infobox to Internet Explorer versions as is where it IS appropriate to list all historical versions of IE (and maybe in the Infobox). I say trim it down here. Discontinued status is probably(?) ok here as that is "current" and could be changed but focus on current (that is now IE 11). And probably IE8+ (have at least release dates). comp.arch (talk) 10:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and that means it is part a history book. So when you run into the question of "who cares about [something very old]", the answer is: We do!
As for Mac OS X, the field that you changed was |included with= field. IE for Mac was bundled with Mac until Mac OS X 10.2 but was produced as a separate product until Mac OS X 10.6. The part that was produced but not included falls out of the purview of |included with=
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
We are in agreement on "Who cares about Windows 95 (no longer supported)? :)". I didn't mean to say it shouldn't be in Wikipedia, I had already copied the Infobox to Internet Explorer versions. I say historic versions should be described fully in that page (and maybe in an Infobox there, optional). Cluttering the Infobox here with info in discontinued products here such as PA-RISC, implies that it is still supported. You would have to know that it was only used in Unix. comp.arch (talk) 10:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
No. It does not. The infobox clearly says they are gone. But this discussion is old: Every now and then someone says "if we write X, someone might assume Y". The consensus is: We can't hold ourselves responsible for what people wrongly assume out of their own volition. If we write X, someone might also assume W and Z too. We can further clarify in the article body but turning this infobox into a copy of the infobox on Internet Explore 11 article, or whatever comes last, surely isn't the way to go.
Still, if you are not convinced, you can proceed with WP:DR. Call WP:3O or something. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I guess it's ok to quote what was brought to my attention: "The ordinary infobox is put on the articles that cover all versions of a product with one same infobox. For example, TuneUp Utilities, Windows Movie Maker or Firefox. These always include the latest specs only, e.g. operating system and platform for the latest version only. There is also the collective infobox, put on main article page for software that have one article for each version. For example, Microsoft Office or Internet Explorer." I'm saying, isn't the Firefox way better ("consensus can change")? And while I agree this page should discuss how IE started ("IE1"), it needs no discussion on IE2-IE6/7 as that can and mostly has gone to Internet Explorer versions that this page links to. comp.arch (talk) 10:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

IE6 is NOT supported(?) Neither is IE7(?)[edit]

Ok to move IE6/7 to Internet Explorer versions? Note IE6 came with XP, XP is still supported, but as XP SP3, right? XP SP3 doesn't update from IE6. Note also that people can be running pre-XP, pre-IE6.. and no information would be lost only moved to the other page so this one can consentrate on non-discontinued versions. comp.arch (talk) 11:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Merge/redirect Internet Explorer 11 into IE[edit]

I propose a merge of Internet Explorer 11 into Internet Explorer#Internet Explorer 11. Or I did when it was under 10,000 bytes and should have followed up here. Nobody objected here or there except by taking off the merge template saying there is consensus. It can change, and there really was none, last time getting rid of IE11 as a separate page was proposed (AfD) . Really this page need not get (much) bigger since I had already merged to here. Anyway this page is much smaller than a few days ago when most of the objections regarded the size. comp.arch (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Strong Oppose Internet Explorer 11 will only become more widely used by people as time goes by, and each Internet Explorer version has its own version. Eventually, IE11 will have much more information when the time comes, we shouldn't delete a potentially useful page just because we don't have a lot of information present. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it will get more used and all of the features in the IE11 article are described here. People will go here to see IE11 (most current version) info and no need to duplicate it in another page. Not all versions have a separate page any more. IE11 would redirect here (not get deleted) and could easily be revered if this page couldn't handle the extra info. Or the info could go to Internet Explorer versions. comp.arch (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Strong Oppose comp.arch, I'm not quite sure what you mean when you state "Not all versions have a separate page any more". Are you referring to those versions prior to IE8? As we still have wikis for IE8, IE9, IE10; all of which are extremely comprehensive and would be a travesty if they too were to suffer a merge with this wiki or the Internet Explorer versions wiki. There is important information pertaining to a litany of removed features, particularly between IE8 & IE9. By merging Internet Explorer 11 with this wiki, you would set a precedent for IE8, IE9 & IE10 individual wikis to also be merged. It is important to note that Internet Explorer is still using a version moniker in its name and has not followed Chrome or Firefox in truncating the version from its name. They are yet to adapt to a rapid versioning history. Nothinglastsforever (talk) 09:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I'm refering to Internet Explorer 1 that is now a redirects to Internet Explorer versions. There you also have IE2-7, but those are only in summary form and link to separate pages. The newer versions are all here in summary form and still link to separate pages. I'm just arguing for IE11 now. I'm not entirely convinced we should view version numbers as parts of names (if that's the case) to mean that they have to have separeate pages (see MS-DOS). Note: Just goint to the official IE page I see "Internet Explorer". No mention of "11" (version numbers). The official Microsoft product page shows "Internet Explorer" just below "Windows 8". If I remember correctly title bar of IE shows "Internet Explorer", nothing more. I'm not suggesting throwing any important notable information out. The precedent would be good though. comp.arch (talk) 10:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I believe they've made its usage quite explicit with the logo of Internet Explorer https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bc/IE_11_Wikipedia.png If your assertion were true, they would have dropped the version from the logo. They have not. I also just checked the download page within a browser other than IE and it clearly states Internet Explorer 11. "Get Internet Explorer 11" & "By clicking "Get Internet Explorer 11" you agree to the Internet Explorer Software license terms" Nothinglastsforever (talk) 11:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Comment If we're going to merge IE11 into the main article on IE, then what about the articles on IE2 to IE10? (For some reason IE1 redirects to Internet Explorer versions.) George8211what did I break now? 17:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. What about them? They stay the way they are. You're not going to put up one of those classic "all or nothing" arguments, are you? Well, please don't. It is one of the most hated arguments in Wikipedia. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean that. I was just wondering if it would seem odd for only IE2-10 to have their own articles. George8211what did I break now? 16:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Experience has proven that the thought of it is orders of magnitude more odd-sounding than actually encountering it. People oppose left and right in the merge and deletion discussions but once it is done, nobody reverts. (I have never seen an instance.) The fact is: People appreciate a good merger as well as having less duplicate things to read.
Now, Oppose votes like those of Pmsyyz below have a sound of validity to them. But five years later, I will come back here and if the expansion that Pmsyyz has spoken of hadn't happened, I'll just merge. Others are welcome to revert me, but the odds are, nobody will. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for the explanation. George8211what did I break now? 17:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. Each version is notable on their own and there is enough info for good sized article. --Pmsyyz (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. I oppose this but I won't name anyone. Anyway, I oppose IE merge as it needs time to mature, also the arguments for this just fail on so many issues I'm not naming it. There is nothing bad about having a separate article; to soon to merge.--Pretty les♀♥, Dark Mistress, talk, 20:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. First of all because Internet Explorer 11 is a notable release, just like any other Internet Explorer version. I don't get why it shouldn't have its own wiki. It's not like Chrome 31 that only fixed some bugs, we are talking about a giant update to worlds most used browser. --YannickFran (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
"I don't get why it should have its own wiki" seems to be a Freudian slip :) I changed to shouldn't in your text for you. Are you saying Chrome 31 isn't notable? It got a lot of media coverage - the definition of WP:NOTABLILITY ("notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article". Says "can" not "should" and "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article"). Does that mean all versions of (IE) software should have their own page? NO! I think you proved my point. Notabability is a red herring. Ok, but you say IE11 has a lot of new features. So do at least some versions of Ubuntu (operating system). Does that mean that all new versions (with lots of new features) SHOULD have their own page (they do even have a (code)name not just a (version) number)? Such as Ubuntu 13.04 Raring Ringtail and Ubuntu 13.04 Raring Ringtail etc. Note, these are just redirect to the history page. comp.arch (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are wrong; any chrome version is non-notable, but Internet Explorer is as each except one does have a lot of coverage. Your idea has no basis on which should prevail. --Pretty les♀♥, Dark Mistress, talk, 22:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Sentence saying that vulnerability exists in all versions after version 6[edit]

I discovered today in the section Security vulnerabilities that there is a sentence saying that all versions after version 6 have a security vulnerability which allows the mouse cursor to be tracked by some malicious display ads. I checked the Secunia website and found an advisory called SA53193 which impacts versions 6 through 11. However, this advisory includes version 6. Also it doesn't mention anything about a mouse cursor.

The sources are both from 2012. I am considering adding that some versions after version 6 instead of all of them contain the vulnerability but I want to provide some time for discussion first instead of just going ahead and making the change. If someone else makes a change to the sentence or even entirely removes it that's fine by me provided the sentence was wrong to begin with. Jesant13 (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi
First about the vulnerability in the article: Spider.io, the source, says it applies to 6–10 only. As for the other source, The Register, it is toxic! The Register has reputation for being an unreliable source. I myself have seen on many occasions how its statements fail verification. So, the question is: Must we delete The Register only (and correct to 6–10) or must we delete the whole claim?
Second, about SA53193: Secunia says it is totally a different thing; something about finding out which files are present on your PC. That applies to 6–11. You can include that but make sure it says "according to Secunia" and add the source. Curious thing, however, I tried Secunia's demo in my IE11 and it kept telling me "you need to use IE". Okay, did I miss a fine-print somewhere, like this issue having been resolved?
As for writing "some versions", the first person to see it will either put a {{which}} in front of it or delete it outright for being WP:WEASEL. I can't possibly blame him.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I read your response earlier today and did some research on the Secunia website. I failed to find anything even saying that there was such a vulnerability, even when I did a search for it in their list of vulnerabilities. I have decided to remove the two sentences. Thanks for your help! Jesant13 (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Support?[edit]

Support for Windows XP ends this April (2014). Given that IE 8 is the highest version that XP runs, and given that the IE update option (in the Safety menu)is called "Windows Update", this strongly suggests that there will be no more security updates for IE 8 after April, 2014. I came here to find out whether that is true or not, and this article should contain a clarification about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.122.14 (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Security announcement - reverted[edit]

See [here]. I tried to be as neutral as I could. A formality, not content, was the reason given for the revert. See my edit history for geting this in other pages too. And [[1]]. comp.arch (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Moving the discussion to Talk:Windows_XP#Security_announcement._Reverted_-_breaking_the_rules. Prefer to keep it in one (or two, not three places). Please read and take a deep breath before answering. The discussion has been fun. :) comp.arch (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

"hint" on open source[edit]

this edit links to a blog entry which provides all of its own facts, putting their own words into someone else's mouth. Probably not useful for this topic TEDickey (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the notice. Looks like a case of lack of compliance with WP:CRYSTAL and WP:UNDUE. Even if it is completely true and not a rumor, it is a product announcement. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Does Opera Mini, belong here in the article (in See also) - and/or where else?[edit]

I'm sorry, I should have "discussed" here, but not in the edit summary [2]. I believe this information belongs in the article, not a navbox (and Opera Mini is not in one - to be clear a navbox would be the templates below? I can't see that this should be in main article navbox?). comp.arch (talk) 09:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for starting the discussion. Honestly, I miss the old times in which I had taken up less Wikipedia tasks and would have started the discussion myself. (Maybe I should return to those times. It was fun.)
You can find Opera Mini under {{Web browsers}}, under "Mobile" list, "Presto-based" section. But to understand why the mention of Opera Mini is inappropriate here, try looking at this relational chart:

Internet ExplorerInternet Explorer Mobile → Microsoft mobile phones → Opera Mini

So, my concern is that a mention of Opera Mini in article related to Microsoft mobile phones is appropriate, perhaps a must; in Internet Explorer Mobile it could be a "See also" section item. In Internet Explorer, it is totally inappropriate.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
It is surprising that Internet Explorer is not the exclusive web browser of Microsoft, and that this surprising fact would be of interest to those reading this article on Internet Explorer. I suggest changing the first sentence to say something like "is one of<ref>...</ref> the graphical web browsers" and putting in a citation there fore the <ref> that discusses the sale of Microsoft devices that use Opera Mini. I've always viewed "See Also" as a crutch for the lazy to avoid incorporating wikilinks into the main article. Michaelmalak (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, that sentence would be patently false. Opera Mini is on Microsoft mobile phones because until very recently, they were Nokia mobile phones. These phones run Symbian (not developed by Microsoft) instead of Windows Phone (developed by Microsoft). And while Internet Explorer Mobile is an exclusive Windows Phone browser, Opera Mini runs on Java ME. These phones even bear the name "Nokia" instead of "Microsoft". (Microsoft licensed the name.)
Your sentence would have been fine if it was about Opera Mobile for Windows Phone. And certainly not in this article. In Internet Explorer Mobile article, perhaps?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Now that you mention {{Web browsers}} (and navbox mention in your edit summary) that is clearly not good enough to describe the relationship to Microsoft. I'm not a IE user let alone Mobile IE (really had forgotten about that one). When I (and most people) think of Microsoft in relation to web browers they would think of IE and look at this article and would not expect Microsoft to market any other browsers. The Mobile version is just that - a version (and it seems to be now, the same one as described here (excluding UI) "In the Windows Phone Developer Summit in June 2012, Microsoft revealed that the next version of Windows Phone, Windows Phone 8, will come with the same web browsing engine to be used in Windows 8 PCs and tablets.") I will not enducate myself to much on its history it just seems cut-down/older. I fully expect it will align with the full version. I see no reason going forward that any (recent) mobile device will have older HTML standard compatibility or need to lack features for performance reasons. The information on Opera Mini, could ALSO be mentioned there. Nokia vs. Microsoft is irrelevant as Microsoft Mobile is fully owned by Microsoft, right? And thus they market other browsers than their own. Seems notable and the ref should be attached (not possible/appropriate? in a navbox). comp.arch (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Now if the ref (news article) I added to "See also" is just unreliable source/wrong, then I do not object to it being taken out.. I see news saying Microsoft killed off older feature phones (over one month older news)[3] Either that or the other seems to be wrong or they do not actually mean Symbian Asha with non-Windows.. I'm just not aware of any other Microsoft ("Nokia") non-Windows mobile phone OS (exept the killed X platform/Android). comp.arch (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi.
Your message was rather long and it was hard to grasp the thread. But I must ask: Eventually, what is your point? (Do you have any?)
I don't seem to find enough connection between a desktop web browser that Microsoft makes and a mobile web browser that Opera ASA licenses; at least, not a connection that makes this browser so special and not many other mobile browsers. If you are using the name of Microsoft as the licensee, this is too weak to outweigh the WP:NOTADVERT aspect.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@Comp.arch: It is really not my forte to enter another discussion and unravel its convoluted thread or cause and effect but two things seems very obvious here: One, there is no consensus. That means counter-reverting is inappropriate; please consider a compromise at least. Two, you use a lot of "I don't know/understand/am unware" sentences. It seems to me you consider your own lack of knowledge a logical reason to perform a specific edit. The logic behind this eludes me. Codename Lisa's discussion is at least a bit clearer: Why include a link to a web browser that neither shares a developer nor platform? I'm not saying I agree or disagree with her but if any consensus is to be made here, at least answer that question.
As a compromise, I move the link to Internet Explorer Mobile. A link in Nokia Asha series, Series 40 or Series 30 might be appropriate too. Also consider coverage in Opera Mini article. Cheers. Fleet Command (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I've probably explained enough below (I know I can be unclear.. hopefully understandable there now), but concerning my unknowns, you all consider the source credible (for the Mobile version article at least). I can't see any "don't know", "understand", "unaware" (my "not aware of" is unrelated) on my part. I assume the (most recent) source is correct, I have to go by sources and am not aware of any rules that allow disregarding a newer source based on an older conflicting one. Maybe either one is wrong or something changed in the meantime, I was just providing a heads up in case the source is unreliable. Until proven false (or I have credible info) I'll take it as a fact. comp.arch (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
"Why include a link to a web browser that neither shares a developer nor platform?", regarding platform, Microsoft markets that platform Symbian Asha (and Opera Mini because IE doesn't work there). Developer, not sure, you mean Microsoft? Yes, they develop neither but that applies to much of their software (pre-buying companies)! Yes, they haven't in this case.. comp.arch (talk) 12:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Using an analogy, that really applies here: Microsoft only sells (say a year ago) the operating system(s) Microsoft Windows. Now Microsoft starts selling Symbian S40 OS (Asha). That is really surprizing and warrants being mentioned where? I would think in Microsoft Windows (and maybe Microsoft), not just "hidden" under Windows Phone (or DOS..). The same argument can me made for Android/Nokia X (I know they do not sell that anymore). Just because Symbian Asha (or Android) happens to be "mobile OSes" doesn't make it less relevant to desktop Windows (all OSes "compete" in some sense with each other). I view mobile/Windows Phone OS as a "version" of the full (desktop) Windows. Now, Windows Phone is both well publized as "separate" and also is not very compatible (the apps) so in that case I could see that only Windows Phone as the real "competitor" to Symbian Asha and maybe mentioning only there would be ok. In the case of Internet Explorer Mobile vs Internet Explorer I see no such distinction (the screen is smaller but the web the same). I support adding (not moving) the info to the mobile version page. Codename Lisa usually has good arguments (but Lisa's first one, "We have a navbox for that", was flawed) but in this case I thought I resolved the issue on the talk page and Lisa would agree. I'm sorry I made the mistake of taking support (in numbers) over consensus in case Lisa wasn't convinced. Note that Lisa made the first revert (on false grounds, not citing a specific WP:MOS-rule disallowing in the article itself and I "corrected" that admittedly counter(?) to WP:BRD first). comp.arch (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Erm... Sorry to blunt, what on Earth do you think you are talking about? Microsoft doesn't sell Symbian, doesn't own it either and Opera Mini is not sold on Symbian devices. (I think I clarified that for Michael above.) Opera Mini runs on Java ME and comes with Series 40 and Series 30 devices, which according to your own The Verge source, is dead. Basically, every sentence of yours that has the word "Symbian" in it belongs to the trash can. (Of course, you previously stated that you refuse to acknowledge any difference between Microsoft and Nokia, because you believe, in error, that they are one and the same. So, I should have seen this one coming.) FYI, Symbian runs Nokia Browser for Symbian but may run Opera Mobile too.
"I see no such distinction..." I don't expect you to do, be it between these two or any other modern mobile web browser. The amount of similarity that you do see, is similar in all mobile web browsers and the desktop web browsers. i.e. "The web is the same" because they deliberately adhere to web standards and undergo tests like Acid2 and Acid3. All these Wikipedia articles on various web browsers tend to that portion that you say you don't see. Ergo, you are linking exactly for the wrong reason. That is exactly why I recommended navbox in the first place; because if the part that you do see is what matters, it only makes sense to treat all web browsers equally and without bias.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I mistook Asha for Symbian-based, they are S40-based (only newer S60 is Symbian). Everything I said for Symbian applies when read as Asha/S40 (I changed those places). Maybe your sentence confused me: "Opera Mini is on Microsoft mobile phones because until very recently, they were Nokia mobile phones. These phones run Symbian". If S40/Asha is really dead/not distributed by Microsofts (or on their site(s)) then I'm not pushing for it in "See also". I can understand that they have the phones in a support category, but having them in a phone lineup on their Microsoft site seems to indicate that they are selling them or at least supporting their resellers ("marketing") - that still have them in stock. Maybe Microsoft has distributed their last phone (no way I guess for we to know). I'm ok with waiting a bit for the dust to settle regarding that (not 18 months).
"Ergo, you are linking exactly for the wrong reason", I'm not saying they are exactly the same (same modulo UI and BHO..?), just as desktop Firefox (eg. for Windows) and mobile Firefox for Android are different versions of the "same" (engine), the same seems to apply for desktop vs. mobile IE (but not in the past). The (minor/worked around) web standard incompatibilities between browsers you mention, do not happen between IE vs. IE Mobile (anymore), right? Excluding because of screen sizes (note though most mobile can ask for a desktop webpage"). [What wersion to you get on Microsoft tablets/RT? Only "Mobile" on WP?] Many mobiles have same or bigger screen sized in pixels at least. Firefox has everything on the same page; Here, for historical reasons I guess, since when IE Mobile version was inferior (on Windows CE) the pages are split. A merge could be in the cards? Anyway, Mobile is mentioned here and I view this as the main IE article and all other subpages (mobile, history, IE 10 down to IE 1), and surprising Microsoft browser policies should be included here.
"you previously stated that you refuse to acknowledge any difference between Microsoft and Nokia, because you believe, in error, that they are one and the same" is I think not called for. Even before I explained below. comp.arch (talk) 11:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
"at least, not a connection that makes this browser so special". I do not add all browsers to "See also" (all notable, yes, should be in but in navbox), only this one as Microsoft markets it. That makes it special. This article already mentions a Mobile version of IE and it makes my case stronger. About me being "lazy", I actually thought "See also" could be the best option (and made for stuff like this, just never seen a line with a ref before) but am ok with it in main text, just not sure where it fits. comp.arch (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
No, Microsoft doesn't market it. Microsoft is licenses it, meaning that it is a customer. And given the fact that the line is killed, Microsoft isn't distributing it either. (Source by yourself.) The licensing is probably mandatory, to deplete the stock. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
If they do not market the feature phones, then they need to update their sites (in case they did, with the browser, but not anymore it is still notable in WP at least in some history part). Asha is listed under http://www.microsoft.com/en-za/mobile/phones/all/ Also listed under http://www.nokia.com/global/products/asha-products/ Note: nokia.com seems controlled (or owned?) by Microsoft Mobile (going by at the top (for me) "Microsoft Mobile uses cookies"). [Nokia situation is a little cloudy, Microsoft bought part of Nokia (and apparently the domain(?) and Nokia trademark for phones or leased), rest of Nokia that they do not own is Nokia Oyj using company.nokia.com.] I would say WP:PRIMARY source trumps secondary Verve even if that is based on an internal Microsoft memo. In case word had not gotten out would we would only have known about cancellation after 18 months? From the [July 17] Verve source that you repeat: "Development and investment for Asha, Series 40, and Nokia X handsets will shift to what is described as "maintenance mode," and services to support existing devices will be shut down over the next 18 months." From the newer (Microsoft announcement and) dailytech news in question: "Announced on Thursday [must be August 19], Microsoft has decided to license Opera Mini as the official browser for its S30, S40, and Asha Symbian Nokia phones, which can be viewed either as entry-level budget smartphone devices or smartphone-like feature phones."[4]. Then, Microsoft markets a feature phones with licensed Symbian OS S40 containing licenced (now or in future) Opera Mini. Right? Is marketing vs. licensing important if the brower if an "official" browser? Why would Microsoft announce a new licensing deal for a cancelled phone? Or even if logical, for the next 18 months, they still market the phone. While they do Opera Mini is an "official" Microsoft (supplied) browser. [I do not want to read to much into "en-za" in URL (maybe Phone is not marketed in the US, but is in South Africa (en-ZA language code)), I have no idea why I get en-za, I do not live there or in any English speaking country.. Changing to en-us or en-gb I get "Authentication Required" (but not for illegal country codes).] comp.arch (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
@Codename Lisa: "The licensing is probably mandatory, to deplete the stock". That is just speculation that seems to be wrong. From dailytech: "Opera was never the official browser of a software platform (to our knowledge) -- certainly not an official browser of a high volume smartphone platform, at least." You seem to also make a distinction between distributing and marketing. Maybe my understanding of marketing is flawed but it seemd to me you can market someone elses browser or OS, in any case if only distributing then source still says official in some of Microsofts (new it seems) devices. comp.arch (talk) 11:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Regarding possible "WP:NOTADVERT aspect", what I could possibly see remotely connected but in my view does not apply: "1. Advocacy, propaganda [..] An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." [Is Microsoft advocating? At least not me. I have no relation to Opera, do not work there or use it, have tried, but I believe never Opera Mini version.] "5. Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable" [I believe doesn't fall here under but even if then ok as "verifiable". Believe "unbiased", another neutral language to go with?] comp.arch (talk) 11:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Update: As of September 15, 2014[5] Microsoft has new feature phones out Nokia 130[6] (and a dual SIM version - is that new in (Microsoft's) feature phones?), so they are not just "draining the stocks" as "In an interview, Microsoft phone unit VP Jo Harlow said the company is committed to this part of the business for the long term."[7] (and Rich Bernardo, head of legacy business, Phones, Microsoft and a "Microsoft Nigeria official") That browser runs "Nokia OS Software release: Series 30+"[8]. The phones run Opera Mini[9]. From the source (the Verge) that previously reported cancellation, now says: "Microsoft might be killing off Nokia’s featurephones and Android handsets, but the company is keeping the very basic Nokia phones alive."[10][11] One source says the phones do not have Java.[12] comp.arch (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"IE 13"[edit]

Would it be appropriate to have a mention of the fact that IE 13 doesn't exist (yet)? There's a thing going around on the internet about this supposed version that's fooling a lot of people. 192.170.137.10 (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be alright with the latest version as IE11 in the infobox. George8211 / T 18:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Is there evidence of due weight for such a mention? Also, is such mention any more important than mentioning IE 15, IE 17, IE 31, IE 242 or IE 65535? Best regard, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Is that a typo? "IE 13"? Not 12? Anyway, Wikipedia is not a rumor-defusal agency. The best way to defuse a rumor is to not to talk about it. Fleet Command (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Chart about Chrome?[edit]

Please, explain why you need a chart explaining Chrome is the most popular browser in an article about IE? [13] Even if you assume the chart is accurate (which it is not [14]) it tells you nothing about IE. Even the way it displayed is misleading. Is everyone in the US using Chrome? It would be more useful to shade each country by the percent that use IE. As for it making it a FA, I think its a big eyesore right at the top of the article. --MarsRover (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi.
Calling it "a chart explaining Chrome is the most popular browser" is untrue. Such a chart only has two colors: One for Chrome, one for everything else. This chart ({{Countries by most used web browser}}) has five colors, for Chrome, IE, Firefox, Opera and Safari. Also, please read the caption: The chart displays the stats by StatCounter, not ChinaInternetWatch.com. (I am not sure what reputation the latter has.)
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay let me rephrase, can you explain what utility that chart has in the article? What do you do you learn about IE from this chart? It is positioned right after that infobox, so it most be something important. Let me answer that, pretty much nothing. The way it formatted you learn IE is the most popular browser for a few islands. Cannot really identify them expect for Japan. The fact that Chrome is popular is information for the Chrome article. It is not even proof that IE is unpopular, being second place is not unpopular. And if you just complain about my question again, then I give up debating with you. --MarsRover (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, having closely read StatCounter's faq, I would be reluctant to use their numbers. Others have similar concerns. Agreeing with MarsRover, as well, that the chart doesn't help this topic because it uses a winner-takes all approach (and comparing with the original, some data was lost). TEDickey (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I can't argue with that. Except, these objections apply to the Chart template, not IE article. Maybe you'd like to take the template to AfD, but I can't think why these reasons must only apply to one out of the five articles. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
TfD, not AfD. "Chart" must be "chart". And it is a map, not a chart.
Removing the map and fixing it cannot be done at the same time. If we are supposed to move to Net Applications stats, then the map must stay put.
Also, Lisa, if you don't like where the map is placed, move it elsewhere. And threatening people to leave the discussion isn't polite, missy. Fleet Command (talk) 04:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I didn't threaten to leave the discussion... unless somehow "Lisa" and "missy" refers to someone else. Codename Lisa (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Should This Article Mention IE12?[edit]

I noticed that the Dutch Wikipedia has an article on IE12. Should this article also be updated to include information about IE12?
— RandomDSdevel (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Short answer: No. Because it doesn't exist.
Maybe we are never going to have IE 12, just as we don't have Windows 9. So much fuss and so much heartbreak over assuming good faith in a bunch people who turned out some l—
Best regards
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Merger with Internet Explorer Mobile[edit]

Oppose As Internet Explorer Mobile (formerly Pocket Internet Explorer) is a different browser with a different history and up until Internet Explorer 11 and Internet Explorer Mobile 11 didn't synchronize nor shared most of their cores, I oppose the merger, though the I.E. Mobile article is to be improved the browser for Windows C.E. and A.R.M. based Windows N.T. operating system is different from the desktop version and has enough notability to be its own Wikipedia article. Also I wrote this here as I can't find the relevant discussion regarding the merger of the 2 pages.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 11:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It appears the nomination was originally made on Internet Explorer Mobile, but the notice there has since been removed[15] so I've gone ahead and done the same thing here. As it is, at the size of each page, it's unlikely that a merger would happen anyway. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 01:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)