![]() | 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 1 |
I'm a layman and I'm confused. Is there any connection between Netscape and Mozilla-the-makers-of-Firefox? And if Mozilla is a trademark of Netscape, why are Mozilla-the-makers-of-Firefox allowed to use it as the name for a free browser that many people use in preference to buying Netscape Navigator?! I'm sure all the relevant info is in this article, but it's not clearly expressed for ignorant readers like myself. A few sentences in the introduction could make this so much clearer. The Singing Badger 23:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know if the Mozilla tax evasion stuff posted on an apparently not-approved-for-wikipedia website is true??? I stumbled upon it and now I am quite curious. The article doesn't mention this at all, are the tax evasion accusations all rot? --JP 4/24/06
I was reading a bit in this section of the article, and I notice there's a picture of Firefox 2 RC3 in there. There are two things about this. The first thing is, there's a Firefox screenshot in this section. Should this be removed/relocated somewhere else? The second thing is, It's mislabeled as "Mozilla 2.0". If it fits anywhere else in here, shouldn't it be called "Mozilla Firefox 2.0"? After all, that would mislead someone reading to learn a bit of information about the Mozilla Suite. Moronicles 20:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing about the use of the mascot for the Mozilla Suite. Please also add caption for the two pictures.
thumb|right|200px|Mozilla logo (yes but more precisely old/alternative logo of the Mozilla Foundation?) | 165px|right|thumb|author? date? which usage? |
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 16@r ( talk • contribs) 18:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC).
Surpisingly, entering Mozzilla (2 'z's) into a Wikipedia search, seamlessly sends you to this page (1 'z'). Yet, searching for Mozzilla with 2z in google, cheerfully sends you to http://www.mozzilla.pl/, complete with a firefox 2 download "invitation". I'm not a security expert, but something about the page makes me think that it's malware, masquerading as Mozilla (1z). I was hoping to get confirmation of my gut feel here, (or if it's legit, a good explanation of what's going on). But... there's no inkle here of anything. confused & paranoid. 64.26.147.9 08:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I was just wondering if a comprehensive table of version numbers of all related browsers might be drawn up? Looking at the release history in the SeaMonkey article, there are columns that tell you which branch version each version is built from (for example, SeaMonkey v 1.1.5 comes from rv 1.8.1). I think that if we had something which listed Firefox, Netscape, SeaMonkey, Camino, Flock, K-Meleon etc, all together, then this might help people to know which product has the latest additions to the layout engine, security, etc (considering that release dates do not always indicate this) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.232.19.118 ( talk) 11:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please add the original Mozilla? Helpsloose 03:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Will anything be listed about this? http://air.mozilla.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConradKilroy ( talk • contribs) 05:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
For some reason I thought the mozilla mascott for netscape was different then the mozilla mascott for the mozilla foundation. Bawolff 21:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
IMHO: all this history, name and logo stuff is interesting but secondary. IMHO: the Mozilla s/w suites should be primary info, and thus have a central place in the initial introductory paragraphs, and come early in the article. Then, such a strange name as "Mozilla" and the use of a T. Rexxy logo must obviously be explained. Other IxHO:s? Said: Rursus ☻ 09:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
mozilla.org redirects to here. The article should document the project during the pre-Foundation days, when it was led by jwz and afterwards, especially the aspect of community-authored essays and whatnot. 129.15.131.246 ( talk) 08:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
What about include information about managing of XML file (i.e. metalink files or RSS files) in SeaMonkey and Firefox (latest versions)?. -- 77.210.125.202 ( talk) 08:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Songbird is mentioned as a mozilla product, but I doubt it is actually one. It's made by Pioneers of the Inevitable. Check the website, it uses XUL so it's POWERED by mozilla. No more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.179.53.57 ( talk) 21:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
"Mozilla Labs" redirects here, but is not explained in the article. -- Beland ( talk) 16:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I have an error message when launching Mozilla Firefox states chrome —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.56.152 ( talk) 10:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
How is the name Mozilla meant to be pronounced? In my time I seem to have come across /məʊ'zɪlə/, /mɒ'zɪlə/, /mə'zɪlə/, /mɒt'sɪlə/ and /mɒd'zɪlə/. Can anyone find any statement of the official pronunciation anywhere? -- Smjg ( talk) 19:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I nwork at Mozilla. It is a happy enviroment, I help out on live Firefox support aswel helping troubled users. Though, some can get abit buggy!
Wjack2010 ( talk) 16:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi I hope I can remove non-proved informarion (especulative or opinion) from the article, in bold I selected exactly what I hope to get removed: "Because the Netscape browser initially implemented many features not available in other browsers and quickly came to dominate the market, a number of web sites were designed to work, or work fully, only when they detected an appropriate version of Mozilla in the user agent string."
This information doesn't even add a specific info to the real topic of information "Part of the "user agent string" of many browsers". The fact is Netscape didn't came to dominate the market because it "implemented many features not available in other browsers", if the editor didn't forgot there were/are many other browsers than Internet Explorer that implemented features before Netscape... that's fanboy's lie. Maybe other browsers didn't implemented these features the fanboy wanted us to believe, but implemented other fetures... My question: who defines which features does people wants in their browsers? A Wikipedian?
Marketing and cost + AOL's hands, that's the reason Netscape dominated the marketing. -- Rafaelluik ( talk) 19:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm with a group of Mozillans and Wikipedians and after a lot of discussions, we think this page needs a really fundamental rewrite. We've put up a sandbox page at Talk:Mozilla/Sandbox. Input welcome. — Tom Morris ( talk) 13:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The intro presents Mozilla from Mozilla's point of view. Using their manifesto as a reference is far from optimal. A reader of the manifesto would think that Mozilla wouldn't install proprietary video codecs on your computer, but that's what they've recently decided to do: [1] [2]
I'm not looking to discuss whether they did the right thing or not, but the article should note that Mozilla's values can be interpreted in various ways depending on the circumstances.
A free software supporter reading the Mozilla Manifesto could think it's great and that Mozilla will therefore reject all non-free software. A Microsoft or Apple employee could read it and think it applies equally to their work and could argue that the Manifesto requires installing non-free software because it's necessary for providing people with the technical/physical possibilities to enjoy what's available on the internet.
Mozilla's actions show that they are much much much closer to the free software interpretation. But, their recent move shows they can interpret their manifesto in the non-free sense when they think it's beneficial.
It's important to note that Mozilla's compromise was done to maintain their market share so that they would be in a position to act as a conduit for a free format when the next format battle erupts. So they really do have free software values at heart, but still, the link to their manifesto is misleading without context.
Any ideas for how to mention this in the article? -- Gronky ( talk) 09:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Mozilla have officially said that it is a Red Panda [6]. But the artists specifically said he ignored what a Red Panda looked like [7] and that the logo was based on a image of a Red Fox. [8]
Firefox OS uses a Red Fox as the mascot.
So while it makes sense to say Mozilla refer to it as a Red Panda, it's clear the people who actually drew the logo had something else is mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.39.57 ( talk) 04:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
@ 67.6.110.59:, care to explain why you added those tags and what your conflict is with this article? Ging287 ( talk) 03:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I consider it a non-scandal. This was in 2008, and suddenly, just because he's Firefox's new CEO, it all of a sudden deserves a mention?
WP:DUE is my main concern.
Ging287 (
talk)
15:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
It is looking for a citation that Marketplace is mainly Firefox OS. This blog indicates that policy shift [1] https://blog.mozilla.org/labs/2012/10/update-on-firefox-marketplace/
However note the marketplace itself has filters for Desktop products on some tabs and there is specifically a Desktop Firefox help article: [2]. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/marketplace-apps-firefox-desktop
IIRC there have been recent changes focussing on Desktop Marketplace, & I am fairly certain they are country specific and not global but I am unable to track down where I read that. I should have a login for the wiki but can't find it at present 2.122.207.52 ( talk) 09:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I guess that counts as Original Research and not a third party reference, but at least it highlights the situation and so the likelihood proper suitable references exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.207.52 ( talk) 09:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
References
At present the info about Eich is listed under Values. I suggest a new section be created for it given the ongoing furore and apparently plummeting market share. 118.208.38.231 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mozilla. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. 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}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Any objections to dividing the "History" section where it starts talking about the CEO controversy? Could make that a new section and call it "Controversy"
50.251.208.11 ( talk) 00:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Did anyone hear about Paperstorm? It's a project Mozilla just put out that fights copyright reform in the EU. One of the proposed measures that Mozilla is fighting against is mandatory content filtering that could affect Wikipedians not just in the EU, but globally. Over 22 million leaflets have been dropped so far, making this a huge petition, yet it got very little media coverage. This is why the Internet in the EU and globally must get loud on this issue. -- Mrs. Jan Cola ( talk), 03:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mozilla. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
in the section "Common Voice" there is a link to the main article. This article doesn't exist and links right back to this page. The history only shows the creation of the redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefangrotz ( talk • contribs) 11:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
According to this page, "The name was created as a contraction of the words 'Mosaic killer', hinting that Netscape would be the end to the (then only) competitor browser, Mosaic." Yet according to -zilla (suffix), the name illustrates "a back-formation derived from the Japanese movie character Godzilla," and provides two sources to that effect. Should this inconsistency be mentioned on the page? The citations on -zilla suggest that, regardless of what Mozilla's creators had in mind, contemporary hearers relate the word to Godzilla. There should be some source added for the historical 'Mosaic killer' etymology. Cnilep ( talk) 16:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Still needs to be fixed! Other mozilla-related pages on wikipedia all follow the "Mosaic Killer" word origin, but this still sticks to the origin being Mosaic Godzilla. 2001:569:7D77:E700:E15F:EF44:CCD1:5A80 ( talk) 20:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Type
moz://a
in the Fx address bar. This is a redirect to blog.mozilla.org. Alfa-ketosav ( talk) 17:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
This is an entirely American page, and there should be no British spellings on this page. I'll let you use behaviour or organisation on the Beatles page, but there is no reason for that here. USA! USA! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.236.150.198 ( talk) 14:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I suggest adding some information on Mozilla Rally. —DIV ( 137.111.13.4 ( talk) 05:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC))
skola zalites arturscelkarts1@gmaiI.com 2180 40403 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.201.7.68 ( talk) 06:50, 2 February 2022 (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 1 |
I'm a layman and I'm confused. Is there any connection between Netscape and Mozilla-the-makers-of-Firefox? And if Mozilla is a trademark of Netscape, why are Mozilla-the-makers-of-Firefox allowed to use it as the name for a free browser that many people use in preference to buying Netscape Navigator?! I'm sure all the relevant info is in this article, but it's not clearly expressed for ignorant readers like myself. A few sentences in the introduction could make this so much clearer. The Singing Badger 23:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know if the Mozilla tax evasion stuff posted on an apparently not-approved-for-wikipedia website is true??? I stumbled upon it and now I am quite curious. The article doesn't mention this at all, are the tax evasion accusations all rot? --JP 4/24/06
I was reading a bit in this section of the article, and I notice there's a picture of Firefox 2 RC3 in there. There are two things about this. The first thing is, there's a Firefox screenshot in this section. Should this be removed/relocated somewhere else? The second thing is, It's mislabeled as "Mozilla 2.0". If it fits anywhere else in here, shouldn't it be called "Mozilla Firefox 2.0"? After all, that would mislead someone reading to learn a bit of information about the Mozilla Suite. Moronicles 20:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing about the use of the mascot for the Mozilla Suite. Please also add caption for the two pictures.
thumb|right|200px|Mozilla logo (yes but more precisely old/alternative logo of the Mozilla Foundation?) | 165px|right|thumb|author? date? which usage? |
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 16@r ( talk • contribs) 18:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC).
Surpisingly, entering Mozzilla (2 'z's) into a Wikipedia search, seamlessly sends you to this page (1 'z'). Yet, searching for Mozzilla with 2z in google, cheerfully sends you to http://www.mozzilla.pl/, complete with a firefox 2 download "invitation". I'm not a security expert, but something about the page makes me think that it's malware, masquerading as Mozilla (1z). I was hoping to get confirmation of my gut feel here, (or if it's legit, a good explanation of what's going on). But... there's no inkle here of anything. confused & paranoid. 64.26.147.9 08:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I was just wondering if a comprehensive table of version numbers of all related browsers might be drawn up? Looking at the release history in the SeaMonkey article, there are columns that tell you which branch version each version is built from (for example, SeaMonkey v 1.1.5 comes from rv 1.8.1). I think that if we had something which listed Firefox, Netscape, SeaMonkey, Camino, Flock, K-Meleon etc, all together, then this might help people to know which product has the latest additions to the layout engine, security, etc (considering that release dates do not always indicate this) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.232.19.118 ( talk) 11:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please add the original Mozilla? Helpsloose 03:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Will anything be listed about this? http://air.mozilla.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConradKilroy ( talk • contribs) 05:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
For some reason I thought the mozilla mascott for netscape was different then the mozilla mascott for the mozilla foundation. Bawolff 21:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
IMHO: all this history, name and logo stuff is interesting but secondary. IMHO: the Mozilla s/w suites should be primary info, and thus have a central place in the initial introductory paragraphs, and come early in the article. Then, such a strange name as "Mozilla" and the use of a T. Rexxy logo must obviously be explained. Other IxHO:s? Said: Rursus ☻ 09:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
mozilla.org redirects to here. The article should document the project during the pre-Foundation days, when it was led by jwz and afterwards, especially the aspect of community-authored essays and whatnot. 129.15.131.246 ( talk) 08:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
What about include information about managing of XML file (i.e. metalink files or RSS files) in SeaMonkey and Firefox (latest versions)?. -- 77.210.125.202 ( talk) 08:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Songbird is mentioned as a mozilla product, but I doubt it is actually one. It's made by Pioneers of the Inevitable. Check the website, it uses XUL so it's POWERED by mozilla. No more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.179.53.57 ( talk) 21:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
"Mozilla Labs" redirects here, but is not explained in the article. -- Beland ( talk) 16:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I have an error message when launching Mozilla Firefox states chrome —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.56.152 ( talk) 10:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
How is the name Mozilla meant to be pronounced? In my time I seem to have come across /məʊ'zɪlə/, /mɒ'zɪlə/, /mə'zɪlə/, /mɒt'sɪlə/ and /mɒd'zɪlə/. Can anyone find any statement of the official pronunciation anywhere? -- Smjg ( talk) 19:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I nwork at Mozilla. It is a happy enviroment, I help out on live Firefox support aswel helping troubled users. Though, some can get abit buggy!
Wjack2010 ( talk) 16:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi I hope I can remove non-proved informarion (especulative or opinion) from the article, in bold I selected exactly what I hope to get removed: "Because the Netscape browser initially implemented many features not available in other browsers and quickly came to dominate the market, a number of web sites were designed to work, or work fully, only when they detected an appropriate version of Mozilla in the user agent string."
This information doesn't even add a specific info to the real topic of information "Part of the "user agent string" of many browsers". The fact is Netscape didn't came to dominate the market because it "implemented many features not available in other browsers", if the editor didn't forgot there were/are many other browsers than Internet Explorer that implemented features before Netscape... that's fanboy's lie. Maybe other browsers didn't implemented these features the fanboy wanted us to believe, but implemented other fetures... My question: who defines which features does people wants in their browsers? A Wikipedian?
Marketing and cost + AOL's hands, that's the reason Netscape dominated the marketing. -- Rafaelluik ( talk) 19:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm with a group of Mozillans and Wikipedians and after a lot of discussions, we think this page needs a really fundamental rewrite. We've put up a sandbox page at Talk:Mozilla/Sandbox. Input welcome. — Tom Morris ( talk) 13:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The intro presents Mozilla from Mozilla's point of view. Using their manifesto as a reference is far from optimal. A reader of the manifesto would think that Mozilla wouldn't install proprietary video codecs on your computer, but that's what they've recently decided to do: [1] [2]
I'm not looking to discuss whether they did the right thing or not, but the article should note that Mozilla's values can be interpreted in various ways depending on the circumstances.
A free software supporter reading the Mozilla Manifesto could think it's great and that Mozilla will therefore reject all non-free software. A Microsoft or Apple employee could read it and think it applies equally to their work and could argue that the Manifesto requires installing non-free software because it's necessary for providing people with the technical/physical possibilities to enjoy what's available on the internet.
Mozilla's actions show that they are much much much closer to the free software interpretation. But, their recent move shows they can interpret their manifesto in the non-free sense when they think it's beneficial.
It's important to note that Mozilla's compromise was done to maintain their market share so that they would be in a position to act as a conduit for a free format when the next format battle erupts. So they really do have free software values at heart, but still, the link to their manifesto is misleading without context.
Any ideas for how to mention this in the article? -- Gronky ( talk) 09:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Mozilla have officially said that it is a Red Panda [6]. But the artists specifically said he ignored what a Red Panda looked like [7] and that the logo was based on a image of a Red Fox. [8]
Firefox OS uses a Red Fox as the mascot.
So while it makes sense to say Mozilla refer to it as a Red Panda, it's clear the people who actually drew the logo had something else is mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.39.57 ( talk) 04:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
@ 67.6.110.59:, care to explain why you added those tags and what your conflict is with this article? Ging287 ( talk) 03:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I consider it a non-scandal. This was in 2008, and suddenly, just because he's Firefox's new CEO, it all of a sudden deserves a mention?
WP:DUE is my main concern.
Ging287 (
talk)
15:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
It is looking for a citation that Marketplace is mainly Firefox OS. This blog indicates that policy shift [1] https://blog.mozilla.org/labs/2012/10/update-on-firefox-marketplace/
However note the marketplace itself has filters for Desktop products on some tabs and there is specifically a Desktop Firefox help article: [2]. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/marketplace-apps-firefox-desktop
IIRC there have been recent changes focussing on Desktop Marketplace, & I am fairly certain they are country specific and not global but I am unable to track down where I read that. I should have a login for the wiki but can't find it at present 2.122.207.52 ( talk) 09:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I guess that counts as Original Research and not a third party reference, but at least it highlights the situation and so the likelihood proper suitable references exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.207.52 ( talk) 09:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
References
At present the info about Eich is listed under Values. I suggest a new section be created for it given the ongoing furore and apparently plummeting market share. 118.208.38.231 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mozilla. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. 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}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Any objections to dividing the "History" section where it starts talking about the CEO controversy? Could make that a new section and call it "Controversy"
50.251.208.11 ( talk) 00:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Did anyone hear about Paperstorm? It's a project Mozilla just put out that fights copyright reform in the EU. One of the proposed measures that Mozilla is fighting against is mandatory content filtering that could affect Wikipedians not just in the EU, but globally. Over 22 million leaflets have been dropped so far, making this a huge petition, yet it got very little media coverage. This is why the Internet in the EU and globally must get loud on this issue. -- Mrs. Jan Cola ( talk), 03:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mozilla. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
in the section "Common Voice" there is a link to the main article. This article doesn't exist and links right back to this page. The history only shows the creation of the redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefangrotz ( talk • contribs) 11:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
According to this page, "The name was created as a contraction of the words 'Mosaic killer', hinting that Netscape would be the end to the (then only) competitor browser, Mosaic." Yet according to -zilla (suffix), the name illustrates "a back-formation derived from the Japanese movie character Godzilla," and provides two sources to that effect. Should this inconsistency be mentioned on the page? The citations on -zilla suggest that, regardless of what Mozilla's creators had in mind, contemporary hearers relate the word to Godzilla. There should be some source added for the historical 'Mosaic killer' etymology. Cnilep ( talk) 16:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Still needs to be fixed! Other mozilla-related pages on wikipedia all follow the "Mosaic Killer" word origin, but this still sticks to the origin being Mosaic Godzilla. 2001:569:7D77:E700:E15F:EF44:CCD1:5A80 ( talk) 20:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Type
moz://a
in the Fx address bar. This is a redirect to blog.mozilla.org. Alfa-ketosav ( talk) 17:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
This is an entirely American page, and there should be no British spellings on this page. I'll let you use behaviour or organisation on the Beatles page, but there is no reason for that here. USA! USA! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.236.150.198 ( talk) 14:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I suggest adding some information on Mozilla Rally. —DIV ( 137.111.13.4 ( talk) 05:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC))
skola zalites arturscelkarts1@gmaiI.com 2180 40403 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.201.7.68 ( talk) 06:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)