| Revision as of 04:36, 27 June 2019 editRctgamer3 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,696 editsm →OutdatedTag: 2017 wikitext editor← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 10:02, 7 January 2025 edit undoFavonian (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators287,719 editsm Reverted edit by 2409:40F4:1029:E85E:D80E:80FF:FE8D:8D04 (talk) to last version by CewbotTag: Rollback | ||
| (88 intermediate revisions by 54 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{merged-from|Light (web browser)|6 January 2024}} | |||
| {{Skip to talk}} | {{Skip to talk}} | ||
| {{Talk header|noarchive=yes|search=no}} | {{Talk header|noarchive=yes|search=no}} | ||
| Line 28: | Line 29: | ||
| |maindate=28 November 2004 | |maindate=28 November 2004 | ||
| |currentstatus=FFA | |currentstatus=FFA | ||
| |otd2date=2019-09-23|otd2oldid=917248497 | |||
| |otd3date=2020-09-23|otd3oldid=979727918 | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes| | |||
| {{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
| 1= | |||
| {{WikiProject Mozilla |importance=Top |class=B}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Mozilla |importance=Top }} | |||
| {{WikiProject Internet |importance=high}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Computing |importance=mid |free-software=yes |free-software-importance=top |software=yes }} | |||
| {{WikiProject Linux |importance=High}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Open|importance=high}} | |||
| {{WP1.0 |class=B |importance=High |orphan= |VA= |core= |coresup= |category=Engtech |v0.5=pass |v0.7= |WPCD= |small=yes}} | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{To do|collapsed=yes}} | {{To do|collapsed=yes}} | ||
| Line 42: | Line 44: | ||
| {{section sizes}} | {{section sizes}} | ||
| {{Notareferencedesk|subject=Computing}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | |archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | ||
| Line 58: | Line 59: | ||
| |indexhere=yes | |indexhere=yes | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Archives|auto=short|collapsible=yes|search=yes|bot= |
{{Archives|auto=short|collapsible=yes|search=yes|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=90|index=/Archive index}} | ||
| == Mention of specific platform requirements in short description == | |||
| == Firefox version history merge == | |||
| "However, as with all other iOS web browsers, the iOS version uses the WebKit layout engine instead of Gecko due to platform requirements. " | |||
| Pursuant to the deletion discussion at ], I have merged ] 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! ] ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] ] 13:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Please see my comment at ] for my idea of what to do with this information. Seems to me, it belongs in the ] article (assuming we're keeping that one) rather than this one. - ] (]) 02:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I have no objection to that resolution to the problem. I would keep it as a template (now ]), 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. ] ] 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 ]. - ] (]) 02:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I think we should just delete it entirely, until someone objects to removing it. {{u|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 ] and ]. It's just far too big a table to be useful, I don't believe anybody would read it from start to finish. ] (]) 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%. ] ] 03:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Sure, but it doesn't take a discussion or a consensus to remove content from Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 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. ] ] 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. ] (]) 04:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::: Come, now, {{u|Onetwothreeip}}. The discussion at ] clearly does ''not'' support the idea that "nobody thinks it should be retained" at ], as bd2412 just explained (not to mention my own opinion, expressed above in this thread). - ] (]) 09:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::{{tq|at least enough to actually revert me removing it}}. ] (]) 09:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::: Yeah, I'm saying someone would revert you. - ] (]) 09:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::Let's find out? ] (]) 10:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::: Let's not. - ] (]) 10:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent}} 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 "]", nevertheless, I believe it was done improperly. According to ], "''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 ] 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 ] be temporarily restored, the template be deleted, and a proper merge discussion take place at ], with notifications given at both ] and ]. - ] (]) 09:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree completely, but reducing that article is as appropriate (if not more) than merging it. ] (]) 10:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :: I've decided to discuss it at ] instead, since that's actually where the content originated before being moved to this article (and where I hope it will end up). - ] (]) 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 ] pending the outcome of such discussion. I will remove the templated version from this article and delete the template. ] ] 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... - ] (]) 22:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC) | |||
| Should we move this part into a more relevant section, perhaps Firefox for mobile? I agree that it is notable, but not enough to be part of the article's short description. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Light Web Browser - Should It Be Merged To This Wiki Page? == | |||
| == Citation needed for Firefox name == | |||
| The title says it all; you can also discuss merging here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Light_(web_browser) --NinLEGWho 23:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| > The name Firefox was said to be derived from a nickname of the red panda | |||
| == x64 == | |||
| What's the source of this statement? ] (]) 19:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|Walter Görlitz}} You have ] ] that there is a preference of the term "x64" over "x86-64" in the English Misplaced Pages, despite ]. So, where is the evidence for your position? Where has this been "]"? A search of the archives of this talk page (Talk:Firefox/*) for the terms "x64" and "x86-64" did not turn up anything relevant. If you're alluding to other talk pages, please specify which. - ] (]) 04:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| : The fact that it's here and has been reverted back by other editors over time is the evidence. | |||
| : There's no need to ping me as this article is on my talk page. ] (]) 05:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :: If those users are applying an actual Misplaced Pages convention, then it is most likely that of maintaining the status quo when optional styles are available, neither of which is preferred (as ]). It is not evidence of a Misplaced Pages-wide preference for one term over the other. For the benefit of other readers, I (again, as I did on your talk page) point to ], where an explicit statement exists indicating that "x64" is not preferred over "x86-64". Unless that part of the guideline was put there in contravention of consensus (if so, it wouldn't be the first time), I think we need to act as if there is no general preference for one term over the other. Now, because the convention exists ''in this particular article'' to use "x64", that should indeed be maintained in the absence of a compelling reason to change it, in accordance with ]. But if you try to extend that perceived "preference" to another article, it may not be valid there. This all started because ] was justified with the phrase, "''Not the usual notation on Misplaced Pages''". That was not the proper justification for the revert, and it should not be used in the future to justify similar reverts here or in other articles. That's all I wanted you to understand. - ] (]) 03:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Refs 39 and 40, particularly the Mozilla FAQ. Follow the citation links. ]] 20:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == Is Firefox "free"? == | |||
| == Move discussion in progress == | |||
| The top part of the article says Firefox is a "free and open-source" web browser, however I was under the impression that parts of Firefox were non-free (free-as-in-freedom). Is this accurate? --] (]) 17:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC) | |||
| : It is released without cost to the person who installs and uses it, so it is free. ] (]) 18:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :: "Free" when used as "Free and open-source" doesn't refer to cost, it refers to "freedom", mainly the program's license and the rights it gives to the users. I was under the impression that parts of Firefox were "non-free". Cost is irrelevant to "freedom". Sorry for the confusion. --] (]) 21:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::: That's one interpretation of what ] means. There are ] and none of those appear to be contravened by Firefox. Which are you concerned with? Which do you have sources to support that contravention? ] (]) 21:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The Firefox branding (e.g. logo) is non-free. Everyone may compile a completely free version of Firefox, but without using its branding. This was once an issue for Debian and Ubuntu. See ]. ] (]) 01:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC) | |||
| There is a move discussion in progress on ] which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. <!-- Talk:IOS version history/Archive 7#Requested move 23 December 2022 crosspost --> —] 17:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
| {{request edit|D|T}}<br/>I work for Mozilla so changing this very important page might be a CoI. Mozilla announced a change in the Firefox brand (https://blog.mozilla.org/opendesign/firefox-the-evolution-of-a-brand/) where Firefox will be the masterbrand and the spezific products have specific names. Firefox therefor does not reference anymore just the browser but more products so this page should imo move to Firefox_browser and Firefox should be an overview of all products of the umbrella brand. | |||
| :Not any more, there isn't - "The result of the move request was: pages not moved." ] (]) 23:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion == | |||
| * {{ping|Rraue}} Thank you for disclosing your conflict of interest. Per ], until Firefox browswer catches on as the common use of the name, the article's title should remain as is. Also, please sign your edits by inserting 4 of these: ~ before publishing your edit. Thank you! <b>]</b><sup>]</sup> 13:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC) | |||
| The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: | |||
| * ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2023-02-18T10:52:52.661503 | Firefox100DarkThemeWin11.png --> | |||
| Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 10:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Please disregard the automated message. The file was kept per —] (]) 12:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Outdated == | |||
| == Someone update the stable release date of firefox on this page. == | |||
| Gecko is no longer used as the rendering engine. FF Quantum is the current stable version, not a future project. Need newer user stats than 2014. And so on. — ] ] 00:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC) | |||
| According to Mozilla, a stable version 113.0 has been released on 9 May 2023 https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/113.0/releasenotes/ ] (]) 17:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Gecko is still used as the rendering engine, Quantum is just a shiny new umbrella name of some improvements. ] (]) 04:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == "]" listed at ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 7#Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ]] 14:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 10:02, 7 January 2025
 | The contents of the Light (web browser) page were merged into Firefox on 6 January 2024. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Firefox article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Firefox is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 28, 2004. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
|
As of 08/09/13, the Firefox article requires the following to be completed:
|
 |
|
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Mention of specific platform requirements in short description
"However, as with all other iOS web browsers, the iOS version uses the WebKit layout engine instead of Gecko due to platform requirements. "
Should we move this part into a more relevant section, perhaps Firefox for mobile? I agree that it is notable, but not enough to be part of the article's short description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.18.90 (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Citation needed for Firefox name
> The name Firefox was said to be derived from a nickname of the red panda
What's the source of this statement? Spotlesstofu (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Refs 39 and 40, particularly the Mozilla FAQ. Follow the citation links. Mindmatrix 20:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:IOS version history which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Not any more, there isn't - "The result of the move request was: pages not moved." Guy Harris (talk) 23:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Please disregard the automated message. The file was kept per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Firefox100DarkThemeWin11.png —megamanfan3 (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Someone update the stable release date of firefox on this page.
According to Mozilla, a stable version 113.0 has been released on 9 May 2023 https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/113.0/releasenotes/ LDM2003 (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
"Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 7 § Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox until a consensus is reached. TartarTorte 14:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages former featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- B-Class level-5 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in Technology
- B-Class vital articles in Technology
- B-Class Internet articles
- High-importance Internet articles
- WikiProject Internet articles
- B-Class Computing articles
- Mid-importance Computing articles
- B-Class software articles
- Unknown-importance software articles
- B-Class software articles of Unknown-importance
- All Software articles
- B-Class Free and open-source software articles
- Top-importance Free and open-source software articles
- B-Class Free and open-source software articles of Top-importance
- All Free and open-source software articles
- All Computing articles
- B-Class Linux articles
- High-importance Linux articles
- WikiProject Linux articles
- Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists