Talk:History of Firefox/Archive 1

Archive 1

Delicious delicacies

Removed IRC quote. Reasons below. - Ekevu (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Doesn't sound verifiable... IRC logs aren't authoritative.
• Not neutral. Apparently Connor was present to rebuff, and rebuff isn't there.
• Really, what was Ross' opinion on it? It only says Ross liked the quote, but doesn't even state clearly if he was favourable to it.
• "Inspiring to note over IRC?" This quote doesn't sound all that insightful.

Note about "Branding and visual identity"

I've made a slight change to the section about branding and visual identity, because the conditions for using the Firefox branding were a little bit misleading. About a year ago I e-mailed the Firefox people about using the official branding for my own build – basically, unmodified source code, but built using i486 bytecode and packaged Slackware-style, and got the following response from Gervase Markham at Mozilla [1]:

Martin Ultima wrote:
> I am a Linux developer and have recently been maintaining my own system
> called "Ultima Linux."  One of the programs I wish to include is
> Firefox.  Before now, I've just been using a custom build I made a while
> ago that doesn't have any of the official branding or anything (I hope
> this isn't against your use policies, if it is I most humbly apologize),
> but recently I decided to build it again with the official branding so
> that it would be more prominent and to show that this was the "real
> deal."  (I haven't distributed this build yet, although I have been
> using it on my own machines for now.)
>
> Anyway, would it be possible for me to get permission to distribute my
> build?

This looks fine. :-)

We are currently reviewing how best to meet the needs of Linux
distributions, so the way this works may change in future. However, in
the mean time, please go ahead - your build is basically the same as ours.

Gerv

I'll be more than happy to forward a copy of the original message to anyone who wants to see it, just leave a note on my talk page or send me an e-mail.

multima 17:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Problems in Firefox

I don't know why, but this page misrenders in Firefox 1.5.0.6, with the image overlapping the text. This is probably a bug in either Firefox or MediaWiki. --81.183.88.34 12:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Original Phoenix Logo

I vaguely remember a white angel-like logo when I first started using Phoenix. I could be mistaken. Can anyone confirm this and find that logo if it exists?

Is this it? Jecowa 09:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Firefox 2

Shouldn't there be a section on the developmental history of Firefox 2? Stephenchou0722 (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mozilla Firefox logo design.png

Image:Mozilla Firefox logo design.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mozilla Firefox logo history.png

Image:Mozilla Firefox logo history.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Mozilla Digital Memory Bank

Dear Wikipedia users,

I am a graduate research assistant at the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University. In recent years we have produced a number of online archives such as The September 11 Digital Archive (http://911digitalarchive.org/) and the Hurricane Digital Memory Bank (http://www.hurricanearchive.org/). Our team is currently gathering digital documents related to Mozilla products for the Mozilla Digital Memory Bank (http://mozillamemory.org), and we are in the process of interviewing some of the lead members, former and present, of the Mozilla community.

I recently found your Mozilla/Firefox-related contributions located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mozilla_Firefox. Given your involvement with Mozilla, we think your voice would be an excellent addition to the archive. If you are interested in having your perspectives added to the record, we can conduct the interview via Skype, instant messenger, or email—whichever method might fit your schedule and preferences best.

I have included below the first three questions of the interview in order to give you a sense of the process. For examples of completed interviews, please feel free to examine the interviews section (http://mozillamemory.org/browse.php?cat=interview) of our archive.

If you are interested in contributing your perspectives on the Mozilla community and its products, you can reach me by e-mail at gcheong@gmu.edu. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions regarding the interview process or the Mozilla Digital Memory Bank.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Best regards,

Giny Cheong
Gcheong (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Graduate Research Assistant
Center for History and New Media (http://chnm.gmu.edu)
Department of History and Art History
George Mason University
4400 University Drive, MSN 1E7
Fairfax, VA 22030-4444

Interview Questions

When did you begin using computers? How did you get interested in computers?

What is your education background? Have you had formal computer training?

What’s the first programming project you remember working on?

Why not add 3.1a1 information?

Hi there,
I've been trying to add the 3.1a1 information both in the Firefox article and this article. However, they always get reverted. I really want to add the information, can anyone tell me why I mustn't?
Thanks in advance. --Mktsay123 (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Firefox 3.1 alpha 1 has not been released. There are only nightly builds of Firefox 3.1. They are deemed preAlpha, because there has not been an alpha release. Don't worry -- the information will be added when a release does occur. It's often added many times before it occurs! -- Schapel (talk) 10:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for answering. So that's only a pre-alpha......... --Mktsay123 (talk) 08:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

what was the very first extension?

add-ons that was written by surfers. someone? 1 Oct 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.229.4 (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

3.0.6

Can someone add Firefox 3.0.6 to the table? I've tried many times but the table always gets messed up. Here's the source: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Releases

Thanks. 201.17.81.218 (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Table

Something wrong with the table, it says Namoroka is 4.0 instead of 3.6. 189.4.241.123 (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Naming

Should we mention the mozillazine discussions about renaming Phoenix to Firebird/Firefox? Here are a few threads about it:

• Phoenix needs a new name
• They've shut down the playground, and the new name is...
• The list is out, pick your top 5
• Discussion for 'The list is out, pick your top 5'

There are probably others too. Mindmatrix 19:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

External links

Should all those external links in "Version 1.5" be sources? It seems messy, as it is. Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk | ☮✌☮ 16:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

3.6 release date?

I find it odd how the release date for 3.6 says "Mid-December" and not an actual date. I mean seriously, shouldn't it have at least be released by now, if it's "Mid-December 2009"? Or at least have had a release date? If it still has "Mid-December" and it still hasn't had a confirmed release date, it's more likely that it's not coming out in December at all. More like January or February.--The Ultimate Koopa (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Add "JavaScript Engine" to Release History matrix.

Would be helpful. I had to read through the comments to see when JavaScript engines were changed. 209.216.208.251 (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Changing "still-supported previous release" graph entry colors

Hi all! There seems to be an ongoing (though occasional and perhaps inadvertent) edit war over the Release History graph's background colors for "previous releases that are still supported". Every so often, the graph color of still-supported previous releases is changed from "khaki" to "salmon", perhaps because they are not the newest releases of the current version(s). Needless to say, they are still supported and the key at the top of the graph clearly indicates that they should bear the khaki background color. Benjamin22b (talk) 08:19, 06 September 2010 (UTC)

Filling in references

I just made this edit. It added +17,000 to the article. Please feel free to rv or 2 col the reflist. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Firefox 4 (betas) release date

4b8 should (finally) ship this week: http://ashughes.com/wordpress/2010/12/10/status-report-for-2010-12-10/ --85.181.145.149 (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Shipping date for 4b8 is Dec 22nd, according to http://blog.mozilla.com/meeting-notes/archives/456 --92.229.13.238 (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Graphical Timeline of Releases

Instead of having the table, someone should make a graphical timeline similar to the one on the "history of the opera web browser" page.--A9l8e7n (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mozilla Firefox 4 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 01:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Release date sources?

Is there a source for the listed upcoming Firefox 5 6 and 7 release dates? - Josh (talk | contribs) 02:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Release History Graph Colors

Hmm, not sure I'm such a huge fan of the new "Old test release" category in the Release History graph - the additional color significantly impairs graph readability. Any thoughts? Benjamin22b (talk | contribs)16:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

No Aurora,Nightly icons and Firefox 5.0 Nightly is missing

You should add some Aurora and Nightly icons. FFX 5.0 Nightly is missing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntim380 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Firefox 6 beta "he's lating now"?

It's 6th of July,but Firefox 6 beta isn't avaible (It planned to release in 5th of July).What's now?This version will never released,or Mozilla is on "holiday" right now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.28.134 (talk) 08:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

collapse release history

Due to the recent deletion of the FF5, 6 and 7 articles I've done a little bit of work to correct the redirects. On this page I think the release history table would be better as should be changed to collapsed by default, as it is hogging up an awful lot of screen room, and is not at the end of the article, i.e. there is more information underneath it. It may annoy users, or make users think they've reached the end of the article, as such I recommend a change to collapsed. Yes/no? (I have already made this change in with the other improvements, and it was changed back, so rather than an edit war, I came here....) - ChrisWar666 (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see the point in collapsing it. It shouldn't bother people to scroll down a little. Awesomeness95 (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a lot to scroll down on netbooks and small screens. --Dima1 (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

My point exactly, Dima, for somebody accessing from a phone, netbook or old computer it isn't ideal. As I said, if other readers don't use the contents box, they may reach a big table and think they've come to an appendix or suchlike, and not part of the main article. Any more opinions? - ChrisWar666 (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, do we really need all the alphas and betas to be in the table? I think they are not so important as final release. --Dima1 (talk) 06:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Undo last edit.

1. Please cancel only the changes you really want to cancel. I spent hours today improving the article. Don't revert all changes when you want to revert only some changes. I know that this is difficult, we have to sort white rice and green peas. That is what I did: I changed only stuff to revert, and kept the rest, and did other changes.
2. Someone — you? — recently changed a huge lot of refs, systematically replacing "Mozilla Firefox" with "Firefox". And even "Mozilla Firebird" with "Firebird". First, at the time of the release, Firefox/bird was known as "Mozilla Firefox/bird". Secondly, when we cite a document, we put its title in the "title" attribute of the template — read the template documentation. Whether we like this title or not. Such a huge change needs good explanation and consensus. In the meantime, the titles respect their value as it was before. Read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Editing policy. I checked the cited documents and I put (back) their real title.
3. I changed more than 100 times the publisher "mozilla.com" or "mozilla.org" to "Mozilla". Read the template doc. The publisher is Mozilla, not "mozilla.com" nor "mozilla.org". By the way, what are "mozilla.com" and "mozilla.org"? Furthermore, the publisher gets displayed as a sentence with a period. So it's better that it start with a real word starting with a capital letter.
4. Same for "Mozilla Developer Network" or "Mozilla Developer Center".
5. Same for "The Mozilla Blog".
6. In some cases: the publisher was just the server address but wrong, which I have replaced by the right server address.
7. "TBA" needs to be explained. Now it is explained and made accessible.
8. No edit warring. I'm open to discussion. If you want to make some non-consensual changes, let's discuss them.

--Nnemo (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

1. First: I've spent hours as well on this article, so don't think you are the only one who invested time.
2. I agree on the publisher issues and I think we can arrange each other on the "Mozilla"-title issue, BUT

I can hardly accept the reference titles to be changed back again, just because the website title is different. I understand that usually the title of the website is given in the "title" section, but here the real title is not necessary at all. We have al long list of release notes, and if every title is different it is had to orientate. This is as well, when the titles are too long. Therefore people (not only me) have tried to name the references concerning the release table equally and I think this scheme should be carried on in future.

1. Again I agree with the rest, but therefore ask you to agree with the reference titles and would like to see you having them changed back again.

Thank You for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.83.73.154 (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding too.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We have to be rigorous regarding cited sources. When we cite a work, we can focus on the essential — in my humble opinion, we often have way too much useless info, place of publication, date, access date, God knows what… —. The simplest way on Wikipedia to cite a Web document is <ref>http://www.server.net/toto/titi/document</ref> and it is perfectly fine. But, if we give work info — author, publisher, title… —, then we have to give the genuine info of the source, even if the title has been ill-chosen by the source author — and God knows it happens often! —.

Loooooong titles are no problem. But I agree that sometimes we don't need the title at all. And I understand that you like more consistent ref texts. What you want are not titles, but descriptions. So, feel free to write consistent descriptions, but not in the title attribute of the template. And still respect name history. Mozilla Firefox is now named Firefox, and same for Mozilla Thunderbird, but this is quite recent, and Mozilla Firebird was always named Mozilla Firebird.

Cheers,

--Nnemo (talk) 05:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I've checked the web citing wiki page but there isn't a parameter for that. Can you give an example for a description input please?

--130.83.73.154 (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.83.72.53 (talk)

Yep. Editwarring is something to be banished from our minds. However, Nnemo, the other fields we give when we cite are to simplify finding the information, so publisher, date and title are desirable to identify the work in archives and suchlike. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 14:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to add such fields, as long as you put their correct value. The exact title is particularly useful to find the document in search engines and archives when the original Web address does not give the document.

--Nnemo (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Ask for a description param on the templates's discussion page.

Create it.

Put the description before or after this template.

Don't use this template.

--Nnemo (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

FF6 and stability

Any stability improvements planned for FF6, considering FF5 is still unstable compared to FF4 (though not as bad as 4.5)? It's so bad I'm thinking of moving to Chrome. — kwami (talk) 04:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

TOC

The intro to FF is above the ToC, and should be of global interest to the general viewer. The first sentence is appropriate, but needs something like an objective FF 'mission statement' (or link to the original), a perspective of the place FF holds in the constellation of browsers, and the categories of FF users and how their materials in this Wikipedia entry are organized.
The basically irrelevant dates of releases are better tabulated under that specific topic.
--Wikidity (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The TOC has been removed from the top of the main article, and so:

• A header pointing to the main article has replaced the TOC here.
• The TOC has been changed to a lower priority FF community TOC, and reinserted in the main article

Widefox 14:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Table collapsing was a stupid decision!

The most important part of this article is the versions table, and just this table is hidden by default! What a stupid design decision. The only reason I ever upon this Wikipedia page is to read the Table and now I need to unhide it everytime :-( 16:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.76.204.129 (talk)

• Yes, I agree, it is not a good idea. 85.3.109.186 (talk) 10:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Where can the current beta version be downloaded

Is the beta version marked intelligibly, e.g., with a "b" and a number?

Ocdncntx (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Go to Help → About Firefox and look under the "Check for Updates" button.

"You are currently on the beta update channel", means you are on the beta channel.

"You are currently on the release update channel", means you on the normal release channel, not the beta channel.

If you are on the beta channel and wish to switch to the update channel, you need to download the current release version and install it. Current release version (choose OS and language): https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all.html

Senator2029 | talk 23:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

beta: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all-beta.html aurora: http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all-aurora.html nightly: http://nightly.mozilla.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.245.114.128 (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Firefox 8 cosmetic changes

I just got Firefox 8, and it looks like the cross on the new tab button is white instead of transparent. It also looks like the bookmarks menu icon has changed. AmericanLeMans (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

FF8 “Add-ons installed by third-party programs are now disabled by default”

Add-ons are plugins and extensions. Does it work for both of them? I've just installed FF8 and it seems to be working for extensions only. Their blog also talks about extensions only and doesn't mention plugins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.110.10 (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

From what I've seen so far in RC1 and RC2 and now the final version; it doesn't block them from installing, it simply installs them as set to 0, (aka disabled on startup). You can change how extension/plugins installs are handled in the about:config listings now, filter extensions and plugins; rather than writing (or installing 3rd party) scripts and loading them into the profile. So you can install them set to disabled (default, 0), to install active (the old way 1), install: run always after first use (3), and never allow install (5). Haven't figured out what 4 actually does. My testing was with Adobe Acrobat Pro X, Abbyy 3 PDF Parser(from FineReader), and LibVLC (Windows compiled from source) with the FireFox plugin; not extension.
:As a side note; Chrome 18 build branch b is currently doing the same thing.
I hope that's what you were asking. If not try messaging me on my user talk page; as WINF bars forum discussions on article talk pagesLostinlodos (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

List of features for Version 10.0 and 11.0

Can you add these following features for Version 10.0:

• New Tab Page
  
• Import Chrome Settings, Bookmarks, History, ...
  
• Add-ons are compatible by default
  
• Location bar results design is improved
  

And for Version 11.0

• The Home button is replaced with a Home Tab
  
• A new "Panel-based" download manager
  
• Web Apps
  

Source:https://wiki.mozilla.org/Features/Release_Tracking — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntim360 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Please link to source. You'll need to point directly to them in your reference. Then feel free to add them yourself. I'd stay away from adding 11 until it reaches a single, Trunk, beta release or we'll all be changing and modifying both the article and reference links for months. The 11a version has three build branches now.Lostinlodos (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't update article automatically

Some editors of this article automatically update the beta and aurora releases at the same time as the main release is released, even though the alpha and beta usually have a release date several days later. So if the V.9 is released on December 20th, it doesn't mean that the alpha and beta has, so its lame to write that "version 10 is now in beta", while it really isn't. Jørgen88 (talk) 04:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

This information isn't as useful to the reader as actual release dates, but what the article actually said was that they were in the Beta and Aurora channels. According to [2] and [3], the versions are considered to have changed channels/branches on this date, ahead of the actual releases. - Josh (talk | contribs) 04:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Ref 291 broken

Reference #291 goes here: [4] - that link is dead now. --Wrldwzrd89^talk 12:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Found the correct link. Now to fix the reference. Wrldwzrd89^talk 00:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggest Split

This page should probably be RE-split into separate pages for each version revision. Someone apparently became a little overzealous and nominated a bunch of FireFox pages for deletion that should never have been nominated, let alone merged into one gargantuan file. Lostinlodos (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I oppose a split, mainly for the reason that the resulting articles would be permastubs (very short articles that are impossible to expand). This is even more true now that the new version schedule has turned every minor release into a new version revision. I don't believe consensus has changed since the deletion discussion. I support splitting out any section if and when it becomes large enough to justify its own independent article, but right now even the Firefox 5 section has not grown beyond maybe half a page. It might make sense to split the article into two or three articles based on "eras" of Firefox's history. Dcoetzee 19:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Basically as it stands right now; this history page itself is too long. How about a split of this into two articles, one for the history, and one "Versions and Revisions of FireFox"?Lostinlodos (talk) 06:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a "Firefox 4-11" or "Firefox 5-11" article? - Josh (talk | contribs) 18:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support for the obvious reason, I suggested it.
• Support this split into two articles. This was the collapsible chart can be displayed in full. Senator2029 | talk 18:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• Note'I would like to expand the collapsible chart. Maybe splitting the "Release history" and "Release compatibility" sections into a new article, Releases of Firefox, leaving the rest here? Dcoetzee 00:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Note That would still make this page excessively long and large to load on mobile. Lostinlodos (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support I agree that it should be split into mulitple articles as they may not be big now but as individual articles they will be bigger and article worthy. King Curtis Gooden (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support splitting off the timeline. - Josh (talk | contribs) 18:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wikipedia is not a changelog. If you are worried for the size of this article, delete the changelog items out of it and let them stay where they belong: Stupid readme.txt files that nobody reads. Fleet Command (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose split into separate versions. However, I'd be alright if we split it into "Firefox 4+" or whatever, showing all of the "rapid release" versions as one article. Altava (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Support: Best like this: Intra-version information should stay here (some should be collapsible if information extends well south of the viewport), paragraphs about each individual Firefox version should be given their own articles, just like it is with Internet Explorer, as each major version has made a separate impact on the browser landscape. Approximately like this: History of Firefox, then separate articles about each individual version: Firefox 1.x, Firefox 2.0, Firefox 3.x, Firefox rapid development versions — for 4.x and newer. Otherwise, if the article contains information about each version, it grows too large, therefore increasing pressure to condense text to the point where useful data might get lost. I also support keeping the release history table, as it easily helps me to determine version numbers in Commons screenshots. The table may be collapsible. -Mardus (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support I believe it should be split into 2 articles. One about Firefox before the rapid development version and one after. Or we can do it like what Mardus suggested. His idea seems better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasontan190 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

What you need to split are Firefox 4+ versions, is not it? There are some ways to split this article. The rapid release cycle may be split by years: Firefox 2011 versions, Firefox 2012 versions... or Firefox 2011 releases, Firefox 2012 releases... It also may be split by a set of releases: Firefox 4-8, Firefox 9-13, Firefox 14-18... or Firefox 4-9, Firefox 10-15... or Firefox 4-11, Firefox 12-19... Just choose the number of releases per article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.17.174.234 (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I have marked the article with split section tags to indicate my understanding of what is required. I will come back in a week and carry out the split. If you think I have got it wrong then please say so. If there is additional content to split then I would find it easier if you add extra split tags in addition to describing it here. Hope this helps Op47 (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Please permanently ban 188.254.000.000 and his whole ISP

188.254.000.000 is constantly vandalizing this page. Please permanently ban 188.254.000.000 and his whole ISP from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.100.244 (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Dont make a fool out of yourself. Better stop spamming this article. Version 13 is the last officially announced AND available version for the time being! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.254.170.171 (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• I wouldn't exactly call any of both of your edits "vandalism", per see. There's an edit war going on on this article, and the way to avoid one is to talk about it. There's no need to block anyone here (yet; a ban is something els]), or to call others fools or clueless (it's not productive). OK, to get down to business: I would not exactly consider that source reliable, because it is a third-party blog that seems to be a self-published source, depending on who can post there.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Asa Dotzler works for Mozilla, we all know Firefox is released on a 6 week regular schedule. The Bulgarian 188.254.000.000 is constantly reverting and vandalizing the article. Ban him permanently, it's that simple. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asa_Dotzler if you don't know who is Asa Dotzler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.100.244 (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

And he also wants you to be "banned" (or blocked, really, since a ban is far more serious). How productive would that be, for both of you to be blocked? In addition, neither of you is vandalizing the article. I don't consider your source entirely reliable, yet; you may want to find other sources and I might be convinced. Besides, who knows, it could change by then.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so an employee of Mozilla(Product Director for Firefox is his job's title) is not a valid source. So basically it's pointless to edit anything on Wikipedia since any retard can just revert it if they don't like it. I'm not gonna contribute anything anymore on Wikipedia, clearly it's a waste of time. Good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.100.244 (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, Wikipedia editing requires a lot of time; arguing is also part of it. No, it's not true that anyone can revert anything. Reverts only occur for reasons; in this case, it was by another editor who disagrees with you. It may be reverted back to your version if you can convince the other editor and I that it belongs.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

First of all, Asa Dotzler is - even within the Mozilla foundation - well known to represent extremists points of view, so quoting him and referring to his private(!) blog might not be the most objective source, but Jasper Deng already pointed that out.

Now, that a version 16 of Firefox is likely to be out is more than probable but so is version 20, version 30 and version fivehundredtwentyone ..... fact is, the latest publicly available version is Firefox 13. Once 14 - or as you appear to prefer version 58 - will be available as Nightly you can feel free to enter it as future version, not before that though if you please so. Also providing links to actually working pages might be a good idea when providing sources. Not a single of your release notes links is working. I rest my case. 188.254.170.171 (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

But you have a good case :) .Jasper Deng (talk) 21:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll revert this back to my edit once it's no longer protected and there's nothing the Bulgarian can do about it. People trying to add facts and retards keep on vandalizing and reverting because they don't understand crap and try to force their crap point of view on others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.51.103.61 (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You can keep spamming and vandalising as much as you want, the revert will be faster than you (you have failed numerously times so far to back up your statements), the only thing you will achieve is a getting a block for yourself. Your racist language definitely does not make it better and even running the risk of disappointing you, but I am not even Bulgarian. 188.254.170.171 (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Guys, stop trying to edit war and making personal attacks. Two wrongs don't make a right.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Jasper, I specifically want to point out here that I did not attack or insult this person at any time nor did I continue any "edit wars" (given you want to call my previous like that). So please direct such statements only to the respective addressee. 188.254.170.171 (talk) 05:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You were trying to edit war by reverting the other person before the protection; constantly reverting is edit warring. The no-personal-attacks reference was only for 60.51.103.6; please do not call his/her edits "vandalism" or "spam" because they aren't.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes I did, but this was to keep the article's information correct. Could you please outline in one sentence what the official procedure would be in such a case when an unruly user keeps on posting wrong information? Simply leaving it cant be the solution. 188.254.170.171 (talk) 05:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You must convince him that the information is wrong. Keeping it under protection is not an endorsement of the information. Both of you are at fault for not trying to do that; finger pointing instead of trying to reach an agreement won't get us anywhere.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry Japser, but I NEED TO convince HIM? Are you serious? This person failed half a dozen of times to provide proper back-up for his claims (actually his/her OWN sources disproved him/her by simply not existing - one 404 after the other) and others need to dedicate their time to CONVINCE his excellency to have the grace not to vandalise - yes, with the aforementioned facts I would call it vandalise - this article with that mis-information? Pardon me, but then of course I will not intervene anymore after he posted his "update". And maybe I will post version 31 - or what the heck, version 237 - as future version as these are most likely to be out at some day. And heaven forbid someone might undo it, I will so require to be "convinced" ;)

Dont get me wrong, but if that is the official policy there's a lot of work to do ..... 188.254.170.171 (talk) 06:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep, you are going to discuss with him. It's not vandalism, plain and simple. I'm pretty serious. With that said, he wasn't right either in calling you bad things.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Jasper, I can assure you, I am not going to discuss with such an offensive and disrespectful person even the slightest topic, I have nothing to say to such a person (I already pointed out where he called me something like pervert or retard, in addition to his racism). If Wikipedia wants such information it shall have it - and as said even more of that, version one-gazillion dot five coming fresh out of the oven.

Sorry Jasper, THIS is ridiculous. 188.254.170.171 (talk) 06:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It's also up to him to convince you that his information is right. I think if you stop calling his edits vandalism or spamming, he won't call you things either.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jasper, thanks a lot, now we are EXACTLY where we started! What is the official policy here? I tried to convice him several times, he simply ignores it. Should I use hammer to get this in his head? As far as he is concerned, he failed on different occasions to provide information about his claims (not even his own source were working - I said that already). So again, WHAT is the official policy in that case?

As to spamming and vandalising, I assume it applies to someone constantly posting mis-information despite of having been told that this information is wrong. Also he called me spammer and vandaliser as well, so we are even. And correct me if I am wrong but socially I would dare to say there is a certain difference between calling someone Spammer and calling someone perverted bulgarian retard, wouldnt you say so too? 188.254.170.171 (talk) 06:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, two wrongs don't make a right. We don't know if it's misinformation or not, so we have to discuss it; if it can be disputed it's not vandalism or spam, period. As for his personal attacks, if he makes any more, I'm going to the WQA thread you posted and endorsing a block for him.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually we do, at least to our best abilities. As I mentioned in a previous reply, the latest available version is 13 Nightly. We are far from 16. Of course the probability that 16 will be released is high, but there is no official announcement whatsoever. There are some informal roadmaps up to 25 or 30 but again nothing official. I hate to have to repeat myself - especially more than once - but his very own source he tried to cite have proven him wrong as they do not work. Period. But actually I already said all of that before. So I seriously dont know what more there is to discuss respectively what more to add as information. These are the facts I can provide. I rest my case. 188.254.170.171 (talk) 07:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not the one who you're supposed to argue with; the user of 60.51.103.61 is that person.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that History of Firefox (rapid release development cycle) be merged into History of Firefox. I think that the content in the History of Firefox (rapid release development cycle) article can easily be explained in the context of History of Firefox, and the History of Firefox article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of History of Firefox (rapid release development cycle) will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned.

Please view the discussion at the Talk:Firefox#Merger proposal ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 17:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Firefox 16 : Expand this section

Expand section please named version 16! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolandhelper (talk • contribs) 07:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, expanded the section as requested. Also moved some links around from 15 to 16 due to features being retargeted. --Wrldwzrd89^talk 14:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

"Delicious delicacies"

Since Delicious delicacies (still) redirects to this article, I added a free image that shows what it was about and modified the redirect to target the section. -Mardus (talk) 09:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal of Firefox 1, Firefox 1.5

I propose the merge of Firefox 1 and Firefox 1.5 to here: considering they have no text and only a template with little chance of growing. Per Firefox 7, looking for feedback as not obvious what worth merging from the template data. Widefox; talk 13:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Firefox 17

as of writing, firefox 17 is in release channel. Divinity76 (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Ff17 changes to IPC rules for ActiveX components broke at least one rendering plugin : Curl Surge RTE from www.curl.com [ see discussions at http://communities.curl.com ] such that Curl applets must be run in Ff 15 or 16 (or earlier) unless the user manually makes an addition to about:config to add a boolean to set the IPC rule to false for the RTE plugin.

On linux, Ff 17 is now default (ex : CentOS 6.4 ) making the Curl plugin problematic as Ff is the only linux browser with a Curl plugin.

Curiosity : Curl is from the MIT project whose DARPA grant also produced W3C

G. Robert Shiplett 11:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Add section on controversies to the history section

Firefox 4.x changed the UI such that many extensions and themes broke. This drove users to continue using 3.6.x instead. Now Australis may trigger more of the same. Many say it's nothing more than a clone of the Google Chrome UI—including me. Users are already leaving Firefox for other browsers. I personally switched to Pale Moon. Will (Talk - contribs) 11:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Version 36.0.4 came out today, March 21, 2015

I checked to update, and on 3-21-2015 it updated to version 36.0.4

Added. --Claw of Slime (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Spelling consistency, US vs UK standard

I noticed the following sentence:

"Green color denotes current Firefox versions, while the pink colour is for older versions." 

The spelling "color" is US standard, whereas "colour" is UK standard. I think articles look better if a single standard is followed, especially within a single sentence. Comments? Oaklandguy (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Right, that would even be required according to WP:ARTCON. Which variant should we choose, would MOS:TIES apply? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 19:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on History of Firefox. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100827030554/http://mozillalabs.com:80/sync/2010/08/24/sync-in-firefox-4-beta to http://mozillalabs.com/sync/2010/08/24/sync-in-firefox-4-beta/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061025122530/http://weblogs.mozillazine.org:80/roadmap/archives/2006/10/mozilla_2.html to http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roadmap/archives/2006/10/mozilla_2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done, archived links listed above are fine. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Multi-process architecture

Hello, can you add this information? Thanks! --167.58.71.78 (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Firefox. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081113072436/https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Firefox_3_for_developers to https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Firefox_3_for_developers
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ed.mullen.home.comcast.net/Mozilla/moz_pw.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Split version history table and merge into Firefox version history?

While not easy to merge these tables into one, but would it be better having done so? Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 20:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, Rukario-sama, it seems that you've been moving the Firefox version history chart from the History of Firefox article to the Firefox version history article and making a lot of duplicate reference links while breaking the References section. I mean, this is not right. Why does the "Firefox version history" article have too many version history charts?! --Angeldeb82 (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why'd you want to complain in middle of this incomplete merger. Of course it's gonna take lot of time to properly merge two large tables into one and it means removing lot of duplicate information and do other fixes like broken references, especially if copied from another article. Is it not in a good direction to have these tables merged, after that merger is completed? Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 21:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Firefox 57 and Firefox Quantum both redirect to #Firefox_57 on this page but the section doesn't exist?

Is this bad? 125.238.227.228 (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Bump 125.238.229.53 (talk) 07:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I have created the section. Usually releases are relatively inconsequential so no one bothers adding them before the actual release, it seems. Jc86035 (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

57 is a very significant release with a new style system. Yet, the article doesn't even mention the new style system. Hsivonen (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Firefox. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120228204829/http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/firefox-name-faq.html to http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/firefox-name-faq.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131012040022/https://blog.mozilla.org/faaborg/2009/05/15/creative-brief-for-the-new-firefox-icon/ to https://blog.mozilla.org/faaborg/2009/05/15/creative-brief-for-the-new-firefox-icon/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

helloo how are u i am file .......  :)  ;)

}

...............ciaz .................. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.72.225.254 (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)