| Revision as of 09:55, 2 October 2019 editChampion (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,555 edits Notification: listing of MFx at redirects for discussion. (WP:TW)← Previous edit |
Revision as of 00:34, 3 October 2019 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,091 editsm Archiving 4 discussion(s) to Talk:Firefox/Archive 17) (botNext edit → |
| Line 60: |
Line 60: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Archives|auto=short|collapsible=yes|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=90|index=/Archive index}} |
|
{{Archives|auto=short|collapsible=yes|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot I|age=90|index=/Archive index}} |
|
|
|
|
== Firefox version history merge == |
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Light Web Browser - Should It Be Merged To This Wiki Page? == |
|
|
|
|
|
The title says it all; you can also discuss merging here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Light_(web_browser) --NinLEGWho 23:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== x64 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{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) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Is Firefox "free"? == |
|
== Is Firefox "free"? == |
| Line 108: |
Line 72: |
|
|
|
|
|
* {{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) |
|
* {{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) |
|
|
|
|
== Outdated == |
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
|
: 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) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Observation: The “about:blank” glitch. == |
|
== Observation: The “about:blank” glitch. == |
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? --Sebastian Hudak (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
.svg){kind=logo}
