Talk:Opera Mini

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Opera Mini was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. 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.
February 29, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed


Market Share[edit]

Can we get some numbers here on Opera's

the cell phone browser market? Mathiastck 16:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I read on http://web.archive.org/web/20031216073543/http://my.opera.com/community/ (in the news section)a week ago or so that Mini is used by 8 million people, regulary, but i can't seem to found that text right now. 84.217.101.102 20:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

According to Opera 1Q07 presentation (http://www.opera.com/company/investors/finance/2007/1Q07_presentation.pdf) cumulative numer of users ("downloaded and used Opera Mini" (presumably at least once)) were 15 million and the cumulative number of downloaded pages were 5.2 billion. 213.112.15.125 00:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Final Version?[edit]

From the "History" section

On November 28, the final version of Opera Mini 3 was released.

The "final" version? Right on the right-hand side, it says Latest release: 3.02 (build 6540) / December 15, 2006.

Seems like a silly, unnecessary statement. Maybe it means the non-beta version, or something like that? Then "Opera Mini 3 emerged from beta on November 28" seems better. 209.195.77.59 01:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

"Final" obviously means "non-beta", like with all other software. -Ritarri 08:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Functionality illustrated[edit]

It might make sense to change the image depicting the functionality in the "Functionality illustrated" section to this newer and more professional looking image on the Opera Mini site: http://www.operamini.com/images/server2.gif

There is some accompanying text that could serve as a caption as well on the features page: http://www.operamini.com/features/ Op12 17:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The FAQ section of operamini.com has the following flow illustration that might look better. http://www.operamini.com/images/mini_route.gif The "secure site" needs to be replaced though. 213.112.15.125 00:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit]

I am sorry to say this but this page reads like an advertisement. The language is almost marketing-like. I suggest that some passages are rewritten to accomodate for this. Regards, Daimanta (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect information in article[edit]

From the History section:

In Overview mode, the user can scroll a zoomed out version of certain web pages. This feature is not yet available on BlackBerries and some other devices.[15]

Overview is supported on Blackberries, but not landscape mode. Search the referenced page for * to find that piece of information.

// Lunkwill @ Opera 88.131.66.80 (talk) 08:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)



The page states the Sony Ericsson K610i comes preinstalled with Opera Mini, it does not. I had to install the software myself (I have updated the firmware/OS to the latest version). —Preceding unsigned comment added by KenSharp (talkcontribs) 10:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


The Functionality section is a bit misleading with the diagram. Opera Mini doesn't need to use GPRS. It works with whatever TCP/IP carrier is available from the Java environment in the device. It can connect either with a persistent TCP/IP connection or by tunneling that binary data over HTTP requests to pass through more restricted networks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.20.116 (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Do you know of any sources that explain this? —Remember the dot (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Failed GA[edit]

1.Prose- Fail. Potential Wikipedia:Embedded list issue. Most critically, layout issues in that there is many short paragraphs and short sections which Wikipedia:Layout guidelines frown on.

2. Verifiable- Need to fix the citation needed tag.

3. Coverage- Fail. I feel that the some aspects of the product aren't talked about. What are the names of some of its developers? How much money did the product gross? I'd be interested in the companies relationship with distribution partners and network operators. Maybe expanding some short sections could meet this requirement too.

4. Neutral- Check

5. Stable- Check

6. Images- Fail or check with someone with more copyright experience. The pictures of wikipedia on the browser shots might still be protected by copyright laws by the inclusion of some of the browser in the picture. If that's the case, the number of such images that can be used in any article is usually restricted. I'm not sure on this so may someone could check.

As always, feel free to write on this talk page with questions for me. If you meet the criteria I've listed, feel free to renominate the article and I'll try to review the article promptly. Good luck!User:calbear22 (talk) 06:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  • It would be extremely unwieldly to reformat the lists as prose.
  • The citation in question can be found in the "Market adoption" section. Citations given in the rest of the article do not need to be repeated in the lead. However, if it is important to you then we can repeat some of the references in the lead anyway.
  • I would like to expand the article, but am not sure how. If you could point me towards new sources that would be particularly helpful.
  • I was very careful to comply with the non-free content policy. Only 2 out of the 6 images used in this article are non-free, which is very good for an article about a non-free piece of software.
Remember the dot (talk) 06:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I took the person who put the lead tag on at there word, which I shouldn't have. That's fine. Pictures are fine. The list requirement is something that is always mentioned in reviews with lists. I would not have failed this article on that account alone. The two shorter lists: Network operators and Awards might be more easily integrated. The sources look hard to find and I feel I can use a little discretion. But, I can't find anything in the Good Article Criteria that provides for difficulty in finding sources. The article doesn't need to be super expanded, but it needs to answer some big questions. See shortest FA articles for some general ideas about how to improve the article.User:calbear22 (talk) 08:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Your probably already know this, but Opera (web browser) was a featured article. There might be some ideas and information you can get from that article. Good luck.User:calbear22 (talk) 19:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Market adoption[edit]

Do we need the section and explaining on which devices/pda/whatever om is pre-installed/bundled with? there is no need for. also not for the Network operators... If nobody will answer, I will completly remove this section and write a few sentences...mabdul 0=* 17:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Great[edit]

I think that it's very good article and don't need any improovements. I'd revard it with a yellow star! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.146.167.62 (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Platform requirements?[edit]

What hardware and software does Opera Mini require? For example, to run on Palm OS it requires the IBM WebSphere Micro Environment Java Virtual Machine for Palm OS, which hasn't been updated for a few years. (Circa 2007.) It also requires a 3rd party app like VFS Exchange to install the .JAD and .JAR files because IBM's installer only supports direct URLs to .JAD files on the web - it cannot install from local sources like an SD card. Bizzybody (talk) 09:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Opera Mini. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

3 Basic still available?[edit]

Opera Mini#Low-memory_device_support claims version 3 is still available for MIDP1 devices. However, the linked source no longer has it available for download --86.50.71.195 (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

A: Correctly observed. Mini 3 was discontinued 15th of December 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.23.193 (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't match reality[edit]

I am running Opera Mini on my phone. In Settings > About Opera Mini the version number is given as 26.0.2254.117551. There is no information that corresponds to the information in this article which refers to Opera Mini versions by a single digit number. I can find no information in this article that describes the version history in manner that ties in to the reality of version numbers given in Opera Mini running on mobile devices. Does Opera Mini have a different version systems for mobile platforms and for desk machines? Can anyone clarify? At the moment the article is full of data but seems incoherent. LookingGlass (talk) 08:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Fixed Hi. Articles on Wikipedia go out of date if no one update them. And people who do this are just like you and me. I updated the version number to the latest version that can be acquired from a source. —Codename Lisa (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
NOT FIXED Firstly you appear to have misread and/or misunderstood my comment. Secondly I can find no such revision to the article through a comparison of the editing History section. Your edit ONLY undid mine!! Therefore I have reverted your deletion. PLEASE do NOT simply go to war about this. Consult, agree, cooperate. I am familiar with wiki and have been an editor of it for well over a decade. LookingGlass (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
@LookingGlass: LOL. Face-smile.svg You said: "I can find no such revision to the article through a comparison of the editing History section." That's because you are looking at the wrong place. Here is what I did: [1]. All five revisions of it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

From my Opera desktop I see that Opera label their browsers with IDs and version numbers. For instance, my desktop Opera has ID number: 9.80 and version number: 11.61. Perhaps their reason for only disclosing the ID number of mobile Opera (Android platform, Motorola device) is because of the push update facility of new Android versions. Whatever, it seems clear that this article needs to be either renamed or edited to reflect that it is discussing the IDs of Opera and not their version numbers. In my opinion a renaming is unsuitable as it would only further obscure the issue (especially for information regarding RWD and cross browser performance discussions) Making it clear that Opera labels their browsers in this way would allow the article to be developed so as to allow the inclusion and description of the mobile family of Opera browsers. I intend to file a report on devopera on GitHub regarding other things but as the project does not appear to have a lot of support there it's not a priority for me at present. When/if I do so I'll also ask about their version numbering system. LookingGlass (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi again. Opera for desktop is covered in Opera (browser) article. Please discuss it there. Thanks. —Codename Lisa (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
@Codename Lisa, You clearly demonstrate your competence in wiki coding however you assume this grants you special editing status. It amuses you that I looked for your edits in the correct place and was frustrated in this by your cleverness, invisible to us common folk. Incidentally your edit of the template (?!?!) changes nothing as you have entirely misunderstood what I have written here. I also note you edited this Talk section with similar hauteur, inserting your comments with no respect for chronology, something most readers will not note and which I myself assumed at first was evidence of an oversight on my part. Through all of this you present yourself as owning the "higher ground", summarily dismissing any legitimacy in my comments. Your negative editing seems only to serve some personal desire, as it certainly brings no benefit to wiki. It merely stifles discussion and consideration of improvement. In stark contrast to my editing which has sought to improve wiki through discussion, yours merely summarily enacts your judgements. So, I have learned what litle there is of use here to understanding the Opera ecosystem and I have tried to constructively engage with wiki's content to move its knowledge base forward. You have demonstrated your determination to frustrate this and as I have no time at present to contest your claim to, what you appear to see as, your fiefdom, I will leave you to enjoy it. LookingGlass (talk) 10:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Really? You've been here for ten years? Because in addition to the external version number sources, you also seem to not know about proper indentation of messages in talk pages, WP:NPA and WP:AGF either. If you feel someone has misunderstood you, kindly waste no time and paraphrase. Because, the odds are, nobody else has understood you either. —Codename Lisa (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, over ten. True, more front-of-house/content-interest than code-monkey/librarian. Takes all sorts but ... no more time to waste. LookingGlass (talk) 10:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)