![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
@ LABcrabs, Walter Görlitz, and 82.177.120.60: I see there's been an edit war over the lead image in {{ Infobox web browser}}. I'd like there to be some sort of agreement or consensus on what gets represented in the lead image, so I'm starting a discussion on this topic here. I personally want to see Firefox represented at full functionality, to be as familiar to the personalised Firefox experiences as possible, rather than an "out-of-the-box" look that a majority of Firefox users won't find that familiar to how they use Firefox. I'd like there to be a window drop shadow effect as well to make it even more familiar to how Firefox would look running in the vast majority of operating systems such as Windows 10 and macOS. I'd also like the screenshot to be in English, since this is, after all, the English Wikipedia, en.wikipedia.org to be exact. As for what version should be represented, I really don't mind as long as it matches the look and feel of the current version. I concur with the sentiment that 57.0 doesn't look discernibly different to 61.0. For reference, here's the two screenshots I've uploaded for 57 and 61. – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 08:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia's Manual of Style for images reads that images displayed in the lead of an article should be "natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic; they not only should be illustrating the topic specifically, but should also be the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see." To reflect this guideline, the main screenshot should portray the software in its most common form by using its default settings.
While an "initial" state is desired (i.e. one with a blank document, or showing a "welcome" menu), it may also be desirable to load generic data or filler text into the depicted software (especially if it is graphics software or part of an office suite) in screenshots to show the software in "normal" use. It is preferable that the demonstration content itself is self-made, freely licensed or in the public domain to prevent the accidental inclusion of non-free content if it can be avoided. It has been a common practice for web browser screenshots to use images of Wikipedia's front page. There have been concerns over the practice by some, however, as it is a self-reference, and because Wikimedia Foundation logos were previously non-free (although this is no longer the case). Most major web browsers now have their own dedicated "start" pages built-in, which typically display recently visited or bookmarked sites, that can serve as an alternative.
For several years now, Firefox users have criticised the developers for removing features and diminishing the customizibility of Firefox. It seems that they are trying to mimick the Chrome interface, leading to the response that people preferring Chrome, would use that program. Because this criticism is a theme recurring on many discussion pages all over the web for many years, I think it should be mentioned in the article. Also I don't understand this removal of useful information added by another user. Bever ( talk) 11:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Pursuant to the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firefox version history, I have merged Firefox version history into that section of this article. Since this substantially increases the size of this page, editors here might want to think about breaking out other sections into freestanding articles. The merged-in content is also subject to reasonable pruning. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
at least enough to actually revert me removing it. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 09:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
More importantly, though, I think the process by which we got to this point has been fundamentally flawed. While I appreciate that this was a " complicated close", nevertheless, I believe it was done improperly. According to Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Closure, "A decision is either to 'keep' or 'delete' the article. Discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to 'keep'. The decision may also include a strong recommendation for an additional action such as a 'merge' or 'redirect'." Based on the lack of consensus to merge it specifically to here (I agree with Onetwothreeip about this), and the admitted "absence of consensus […] for the complete removal" of the content (I agree with bd2412 about this), it seems to me that closing the discussion as "no consensus to delete, but possible emerging consensus to merge elsewhere, therefore a merge discussion should be undertaken on an appropriate talk page" would have been more appropriate — especially given that the discussion for deletion had already been relisted twice for further comments (because of a lack of consensus) while no proper merge discussion, including notification of the watchers of the potential target page(s), had taken place. I therefore ask bd2412 to reconsider his closure on this basis. I also object to the way the content was moved into the template. I don't think there's any accepted precedent for copy-and-pasting article content into a template simply to get it out of its own stand-alone article, whether with the intent to transclude it into another article (as I mentioned above) or to hold it while waiting for it to be properly merged into another article. Therefore, I (also) ask that Firefox version history be temporarily restored, the template be deleted, and a proper merge discussion take place at Talk:Firefox version history, with notifications given at both Firefox and History of Firefox. - dcljr ( talk) 09:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
The title says it all; you can also discuss merging here: /info/en/?search=Talk:Light_(web_browser) --NinLEGWho 23:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VarhOuh ( talk • contribs)
@ Walter Görlitz: You have twice claimed that there is a preference of the term "x64" over "x86-64" in the English Wikipedia, despite evidence to the contrary. So, where is the evidence for your position? Where has this been " discussed in previous talk page discussions"? 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. - dcljr ( talk) 04:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
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. — kashmīrī TALK 00:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I have noticed that when a JavaScript bookmarklet tries to open a website in a new page, the URL bar only shows the URL after the loading of the page has finished. Prior to that, it only shows “about:blank”, which is not the actual URL of the page that is being loaded. Maybe this information is useful to some editors. And who else has observed it? -- Handroid7 ( talk) 03:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fox of Fire. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 09:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MFx. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 09:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Can this page be separated into two pages, one for the browser, and one for the product family? SportsFan007 ( talk) 08:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I guess the part concerning updates needs updating. Alfa-ketosav ( talk) 10:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A reviewer felt that this edit would not improve the article. |
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.
Rraue (
talk) 09:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
A majority of modern day browsers are free and make money of ads, or in Firefox's case donations/royalties. Drakesdrs1 ( talk) 15:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
In the infobox and system requirements table, I've noted that OS X 10.9-10.11 are supported by the ESR channel, but 10.12 is needed for the standard release. However, this goes against the precedent of the last time this happened, when OS X 10.6-10.8 were dropped in 2016. Should I leave it the way I edited it until 2021, or just immediately bump the requirements to macOS 10.12? Herbfur ( talk) 15:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Mozilla is undergoing a transition to these logos, it seems. Maybe someone can put something in about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seemplez ( talk • contribs) 11:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Due to the high amount of memes of the Firefox logo being oversimplified, and a bunch of media coverage on it, should we start adding a controversy section regarding the logo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The great Jay ( talk • contribs) 04:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
On a Motorola Moto G5 Plus (ARM Cortex-A53), which apparently won't get updates beyond Android 8.1.0, Firefox Beta reports it's on version 92.0.0-beta.8
Sorry, I can't begin to figure out how to update the chart. Thanks Nei1 ( talk) 16:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
"Firefox" is used for multiple things. So, I propose that the title of this article be changed to "Firefox Browser" to avoid confusion.
Contributer1234 ( talk) 15:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
The photo in info-box shows a screenshot of firefox at wikipedia website. It should be more informative and topic focused if we use the screenshot of firefox homepage instead. 2409:4050:E9C:BF88:0:0:4ACA:C014 ( talk) 02:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
@ LABcrabs, Walter Görlitz, and 82.177.120.60: I see there's been an edit war over the lead image in {{ Infobox web browser}}. I'd like there to be some sort of agreement or consensus on what gets represented in the lead image, so I'm starting a discussion on this topic here. I personally want to see Firefox represented at full functionality, to be as familiar to the personalised Firefox experiences as possible, rather than an "out-of-the-box" look that a majority of Firefox users won't find that familiar to how they use Firefox. I'd like there to be a window drop shadow effect as well to make it even more familiar to how Firefox would look running in the vast majority of operating systems such as Windows 10 and macOS. I'd also like the screenshot to be in English, since this is, after all, the English Wikipedia, en.wikipedia.org to be exact. As for what version should be represented, I really don't mind as long as it matches the look and feel of the current version. I concur with the sentiment that 57.0 doesn't look discernibly different to 61.0. For reference, here's the two screenshots I've uploaded for 57 and 61. – PhilipTerryGraham ( talk · articles · reviews) 08:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia's Manual of Style for images reads that images displayed in the lead of an article should be "natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic; they not only should be illustrating the topic specifically, but should also be the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see." To reflect this guideline, the main screenshot should portray the software in its most common form by using its default settings.
While an "initial" state is desired (i.e. one with a blank document, or showing a "welcome" menu), it may also be desirable to load generic data or filler text into the depicted software (especially if it is graphics software or part of an office suite) in screenshots to show the software in "normal" use. It is preferable that the demonstration content itself is self-made, freely licensed or in the public domain to prevent the accidental inclusion of non-free content if it can be avoided. It has been a common practice for web browser screenshots to use images of Wikipedia's front page. There have been concerns over the practice by some, however, as it is a self-reference, and because Wikimedia Foundation logos were previously non-free (although this is no longer the case). Most major web browsers now have their own dedicated "start" pages built-in, which typically display recently visited or bookmarked sites, that can serve as an alternative.
For several years now, Firefox users have criticised the developers for removing features and diminishing the customizibility of Firefox. It seems that they are trying to mimick the Chrome interface, leading to the response that people preferring Chrome, would use that program. Because this criticism is a theme recurring on many discussion pages all over the web for many years, I think it should be mentioned in the article. Also I don't understand this removal of useful information added by another user. Bever ( talk) 11:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Pursuant to the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firefox version history, I have merged Firefox version history into that section of this article. Since this substantially increases the size of this page, editors here might want to think about breaking out other sections into freestanding articles. The merged-in content is also subject to reasonable pruning. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
at least enough to actually revert me removing it. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 09:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
More importantly, though, I think the process by which we got to this point has been fundamentally flawed. While I appreciate that this was a " complicated close", nevertheless, I believe it was done improperly. According to Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Closure, "A decision is either to 'keep' or 'delete' the article. Discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to 'keep'. The decision may also include a strong recommendation for an additional action such as a 'merge' or 'redirect'." Based on the lack of consensus to merge it specifically to here (I agree with Onetwothreeip about this), and the admitted "absence of consensus […] for the complete removal" of the content (I agree with bd2412 about this), it seems to me that closing the discussion as "no consensus to delete, but possible emerging consensus to merge elsewhere, therefore a merge discussion should be undertaken on an appropriate talk page" would have been more appropriate — especially given that the discussion for deletion had already been relisted twice for further comments (because of a lack of consensus) while no proper merge discussion, including notification of the watchers of the potential target page(s), had taken place. I therefore ask bd2412 to reconsider his closure on this basis. I also object to the way the content was moved into the template. I don't think there's any accepted precedent for copy-and-pasting article content into a template simply to get it out of its own stand-alone article, whether with the intent to transclude it into another article (as I mentioned above) or to hold it while waiting for it to be properly merged into another article. Therefore, I (also) ask that Firefox version history be temporarily restored, the template be deleted, and a proper merge discussion take place at Talk:Firefox version history, with notifications given at both Firefox and History of Firefox. - dcljr ( talk) 09:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
The title says it all; you can also discuss merging here: /info/en/?search=Talk:Light_(web_browser) --NinLEGWho 23:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VarhOuh ( talk • contribs)
@ Walter Görlitz: You have twice claimed that there is a preference of the term "x64" over "x86-64" in the English Wikipedia, despite evidence to the contrary. So, where is the evidence for your position? Where has this been " discussed in previous talk page discussions"? 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. - dcljr ( talk) 04:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
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. — kashmīrī TALK 00:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I have noticed that when a JavaScript bookmarklet tries to open a website in a new page, the URL bar only shows the URL after the loading of the page has finished. Prior to that, it only shows “about:blank”, which is not the actual URL of the page that is being loaded. Maybe this information is useful to some editors. And who else has observed it? -- Handroid7 ( talk) 03:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fox of Fire. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 09:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MFx. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 09:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Can this page be separated into two pages, one for the browser, and one for the product family? SportsFan007 ( talk) 08:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I guess the part concerning updates needs updating. Alfa-ketosav ( talk) 10:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A reviewer felt that this edit would not improve the article. |
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.
Rraue (
talk) 09:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
A majority of modern day browsers are free and make money of ads, or in Firefox's case donations/royalties. Drakesdrs1 ( talk) 15:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
In the infobox and system requirements table, I've noted that OS X 10.9-10.11 are supported by the ESR channel, but 10.12 is needed for the standard release. However, this goes against the precedent of the last time this happened, when OS X 10.6-10.8 were dropped in 2016. Should I leave it the way I edited it until 2021, or just immediately bump the requirements to macOS 10.12? Herbfur ( talk) 15:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Mozilla is undergoing a transition to these logos, it seems. Maybe someone can put something in about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seemplez ( talk • contribs) 11:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Due to the high amount of memes of the Firefox logo being oversimplified, and a bunch of media coverage on it, should we start adding a controversy section regarding the logo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The great Jay ( talk • contribs) 04:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
On a Motorola Moto G5 Plus (ARM Cortex-A53), which apparently won't get updates beyond Android 8.1.0, Firefox Beta reports it's on version 92.0.0-beta.8
Sorry, I can't begin to figure out how to update the chart. Thanks Nei1 ( talk) 16:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
"Firefox" is used for multiple things. So, I propose that the title of this article be changed to "Firefox Browser" to avoid confusion.
Contributer1234 ( talk) 15:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
The photo in info-box shows a screenshot of firefox at wikipedia website. It should be more informative and topic focused if we use the screenshot of firefox homepage instead. 2409:4050:E9C:BF88:0:0:4ACA:C014 ( talk) 02:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)