Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Opera (web browser)

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:32, 20 December 2007.

Opera (web browser) edit

previous FAC

A lot of work has gone into this article, and I believe that it now rivals the featured article Mozilla Firefox in quality. This article has already been promoted to good article status, and I think it's ready to receive featured status.

I nominated this article once before, but only received one comment. I'm hoping that this time there will be more comments. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Support: I am supporting this article because Opera is the worlds fastest browser and better than Firefox. --Saud Iqbal (talk) 05:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that's really your reasoning, you might want to take a look at WP:WIAFA. 140.247.131.86 (talk) 05:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes...we're judging the article about Opera, not Opera itself. What are your thoughts on the quality of the article? —Remember the dot (talk) 06:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
+ The article is very well written and meets the required criteria for Featured Article. --Saud Iqbal (talk) 11:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support: long, complete and informative article filled with plenty of references. Purgossu (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support: Excellent article covering the browser accurately and completely. Well written. Dsergeant (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support: I think a lot of work has gone into that article to make it of a high quality. It's filled with plenty of information and is accurate, it gets my support. --85.211.64.151 (talk) 16:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Although it is overall good, the article has a few issues of content balance and PoV in places Circeus 01:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original concerns
    • I don't see why "internet suite" is used as the disambiguation: it is only really discused a a browser, with a very brief mention of Opera Mail the same issue could be leveled against the subarticles' title). Opera Mail needs at least a section dedicated to it before "internet suite" can be used accurately as a disambiguation parenthesis.
      • The IRC client, BitTorrent client, and web feed reader are also discussed, and they are other reasons that Opera is an "Internet suite". I don't see Opera Mail as a major feature or selling point of Opera, so it doesn't have its own section in the main article. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem is that a "suite" implies several software. However this article isn't about anything that can be called a software suite: it's about a browser. It's as if Microsoft Word was called "Microsoft word (suite)". Circeus (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Opera is an Internet suite in the same way the Mozilla Application Suite is an Internet suite. "Internet suite" means a single application that combines the functions of a variety of Internet applications. I admit that the the term is a bit misleading, but it certainly appears to be the term that is used in the real world. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keeping tabs across session is not really "unique" to Opera, as it is part of the capabilities in Firefox from 2.0 onward. I do not know whether the option is activated by default though (I had been using an extension to do it before it was introduced). checkY
      • The difference is that Opera does this by default, something that no other major browser does. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did specify I wasn't sure whether firefox did it by default (I just checked, for the record; it doesn't). However, I'm seriously doubting the appropriateness of calling a mere default setting of a feature available elsewhere a "unique feature". Circeus (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • All right. I've removed the offending sentence from the article. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The differences in security flaws are even more apparent when comparing older versions of these browsers" checkY
      • This is rather misleading given that all the numbers bar the Opera (which has unchanged number of unpatched) are better in relative importance: 1 in 11 vs. 1 in 3 (Firefox), 1 in 5 vs. 1 in 3 (IE), 1 in 15 vs. 1 in 2 (Safari).
        • Thinking about it, I agree with you that this is an unfair comparison. The numbers only tell us how Opera 8 looks security-wise today, and don't tell us anything about how long those flaws remained unpatched. It might have been that the flaws were patched shortly before Opera 9 was released, so people just migrated to Opera 9 and the entire time they used Opera 8 it was insecure. In any case, I've removed that paragraph. Now the gist of the "Security" section is more "if you were to choose a browser today, how does Opera's security compare to other browsers?" —Remember the dot (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Besides, it probably has more to do with Opera having received overall less attention to discovering new security issues. Firefox had a very comparable track records when its market was around 1%. The paragraph should at the very least specify that Opera has no unpatched known vulnerabilities. Not to mention that the other browsers' obviously include unpatched vulnerabilities in older versions that are not listed for Opera (as briefly mentioned at the end of "Others' responses")
    • Are there any specific explanations for the unusually high market shares of Opera in some countries? Are there market share stats for non-computer use? (the Opera Mini stats given are apparently for total cross-platform use) checkY
      • I do not know of any specific explanation for Opera's higher market share in Europe. It could be because the Opera Software company is based in Norway, but I can't say for sure. As far as mobile browsing statistics, this quote sums it up nicely: "Finding data on mobile web traffic and mobile browser share is like pulling teeth." [1] —Remember the dot (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • the MSN.com spat is neither really "reception" nor "criticism"
      • You've already renamed the section to "MSN.com controversy", so that should resolve the problem. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That was a quick-n-dirty fix. I'm still dubious that the section should be where it is. Circeus (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Opera has also been criticized for website compatibility issues, partly because many web sites do not adhere to web standards as diligently as Opera. Because of this issue, recent versions of Opera include workarounds to help specific web sites display properly."
      • This sentence is entirely sourced to Opera website material. It is also positively spun: the problem as perceived by users is more accurately that Opera could not display websites with non-standard code as intended by the designers where other browsers' quirks modes managed better.
        • I have not found any good data on whether website compatibility issues are mainly web designers' fault or Opera's fault. The sentence that is in the article leaves open both possibilities. I do not think that we should slant the sentence towards it being Opera's fault because there have definitely been cases of poorly coded web pages causing problems, as with the MSN.com controversy. Also, Opera 9 does pass the Acid2 test, which uses invalid CSS to test for proper error handling. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • That doesn't makes my remark about independant sourcing any less relevant. Circeus (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • All right, I've added some references to back this up. I did not explicitly discuss or add explicit references for the MSN.com example or the fact that Opera passes Acid2's CSS error handling test, since that is discussed in other parts of the article. —Remember the dot (talk) 06:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That section is weaker than it looks, and include no details about specifically recent versions (e.g. comparison between new and older versions). Such material could be included in the "Future development" which is otherwise mostly repeating Opera company statements. checkY
      • I'm not sure what you're getting at here. When I researched the topic, I found that criticism of Opera has consistently been largely positive, and it improved a bit when the ads were removed from Opera. Older versions of Opera did have some problems with handling web sites. But the later versions of Opera have been better, with more correct standards support and JavaScript workarounds for problematic sites. All this is discussed in the "Critical reception" section. What more would you like to see? —Remember the dot (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • statements about versions 9.5 and 10 look mildly outdated, and might need to be somewhat rephrased: if the schedule proceed as suggested, then 9.5 and 10 will be released within on month of each others! checkY
      • No, you misunderstand a bit. A final release of 9.5 is expected later this year. A preview release of 10 is expected at the end of the year. As I understand it, some development of 10 is happening at the same time as the 9.5 development, so it is entirely possible to have an early preview version of 10 shortly after the final release of 9.5. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support Pretty much all my concerns have been addressed. As a side note, ref #86 gave me a good laugh. Just dump the innumerable links to Opera Software from the references and you'll be all set.Circeus 01:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Circeus (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for supporting! However, I'm not so sure that we should drop the references' links to Opera Software. Opera Software is mentioned so that the reader understands that the reference may be biased (though I believe I have avoided bias in the Wikipedia article itself). The name "Opera Software" is then wikilinked for clarity and so that the user can learn more about the company. It helps clarify because without linking, the casual reader might think that the source is a piece of software, and not realize that "Opera Software" is the name of a company. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose. Article is severely lacking in several areas:
      • Lede mentions interactive televisions, but article has no details.
        •  Fixed. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fixed? You added a reference, but as of two minutes ago, there was no new information about these in the article; your edit summary says "forthcoming". "Forthcoming" is not "fixed". [2]. Try not to bullshit your reviewers if you can help it. Samsara (talk • contribs) 07:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • My apologies. I was going to make that change to the article, but apparently I failed to actually save the edit instead of just previewing it. This is the first time I've made that mistake. In any case, now it is actually  Fixed. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lede could make a stronger case for notability (I seem to recall that Opera had several other "firsts" besides the phishing protection)
        • Opera's "firsts" are not so important to establish notability. Opera's small but significant market share and its ability to run on devices that no other browser can on is the manifestation of its notability, and that is what is discussed. But what ultimately makes it notable is the existance of 3rd-party reviews and sources. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I disagree. The lede should establish as much notability as possible. The lede is what people will see when the article is on the main page. If it doesn't entice them to read on, we've failed. Samsara (talk • contribs) 07:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Photographs of games consoles add nothing to the article (yes, that's what the games console looks like, now what about the browser?)
        • Including another non-free screenshot for each edition of Opera is shaky because of WP:NFC. It's better to leave the non-free screenshots for each edition's main article (Opera Mobile, Opera Mini, etc.). —Remember the dot (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The screenshots of the devices themselves are the next best thing. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Don't include them just because they're "the next best thing". If that's all they are, dump them! Samsara (talk • contribs) 07:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • So, if something isn't the best in terms of quality alone, it is worthless? I thought it's been made very clear that we seek a balance between free content and high-quality content. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's not about quality, it's about relevance. The images are not relevant to the scope of the article. Knowing what a Wii looks like is not relevant to any part of the article. If Opera could be shown running on the device, it would be relevant (but then the device shown would be a television rather than a Wii). The decision not to include fair use images should be based purely on legal issues, not on their quality. Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • The images illustrate the variety of devices that Opera is available for. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • That sounds to me like a case for one image, showing several devices. For instance, you haven't shown a PDA at all. The three images you have included are all licensed GFDL, so there's no excuse. Samsara (talk • contribs) 05:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Image:Nokia6630.jpg is of a smartphone, which is essentially a cell phone and a PDA combined. I do not think that combining the images together into a collage would increase the reader's understading of Opera by any appreciable amount. —Remember the dot (talk) 07:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • It would increase the readability of the article. Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Not really. Having one large image in the middle of the page, interrupting the text, is hardly better than having 3 or 4 smaller images unobtrusively to the right of the text. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                          • I hope you do realise that your style of argument just there is analogous with saying something like, "Trabant cars often fail, so all cars are unreliable". I'm challenging you to think harder. Can you? Keep in mind that featured articles are "the best of Wikipedia". Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                            • That's not what I said at all. I said that splitting up the images is better because it doesn't interrupt the text. Also, I do not think that a collage of images would look as good as displaying the images separately. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                              • You've got to fix your layout. I'm not going to do it for you, given your general attitude towards my edits. I have better things to spend my time on. Your layout needs help, though. Choppy, non-standard size images all the way down the right hand side of that section. Horrible. Samsara (talk • contribs) 04:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                • I don't think it really looks all that bad. The images in the "Other editions" sections are different sizes to help give a sense of scale without being too big or too small. If you'd like to suggest a different way of doing this, I'd be happy to look at it. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • You mean you'll revert it right away? I think you need to revisit WP:OWN. It's not for you alone to decide what this article looks like. Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • No, I mean that we need to have consensus to make whatever changes you suggest. In this case, it would probably mean that we would both have to agree on your proposed changes. So, were you to suggest a change, we could discuss it and decide what should be done. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Opera masquerading as other browsers for website compatibility is important to mention, as this affects estimates of market share.
      • It's worrying that the cited market share figures come from only one source. More than one source is publicly available.
    • I may come up with more once you fix these. Finally:
      • Stability: Large parts of the article will have to be revised when Opera 9.5 comes out. Who will be around to do this?
    • Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addition I think it would be good to show marketshare by platform, and say something about the rate at which the different platforms are growing. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are simply no good statistics available to make that kind of comparison, sorry. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll comment on this later. Samsara (talk • contribs) 07:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alright, so what are the browsers available for mobile phones/PDAs? I can see Internet Explorer Pocket Edition, Safari (presumably strings 31 and 41 refer to the iPhone edition?), and Opera Mini/Mobile in [3]. Surely, that can be compiled such as to show market share in the mobile market? Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • How do you know that the 31 and 41 refer to the iPhone edition? —Remember the dot (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Apparently, they don't: [4]. Build 41x refers to Safari 2.0. I'm sure it made sense to someone at the time. However, the iPhone builds are 41x builds, just look at [5]. However, this may be the data you're looking for: [6] The take-home message here is, it can be found if you're willing to look for it, and that's what's implied by the comprehensiveness requirement. Samsara (talk • contribs) 05:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Good idea to look at the statistics by operating system to differentiate the iPhone edition from the Mac edition! When I combined the statistics, here is what I got:
                • Safari for iPhones: 0.09%
                • Internet Explorer Mobile: 0.03%
                • Opera Mini/Mobile: 0.02%
                • Blazer: 0.02%
                • Danger web browser: 0.02%
                • Total mobile browser use: 0.18%
              • Dividing by the total:
                • Safari for iPhones 50%
                • Internet Explorer Mobile: 17%
                • Opera: 11%
                • Blazer: 11%
                • Danger web browser: 11%
              • I've added this information to the article. —Remember the dot (talk) 07:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Carrying on with further severe complaints...
      • I didn't complain about the lede earlier because I was going to give you a hand with that.[7] Clearly, you've chosen to simply revert[8] to your flawed version with the edit summary, "cutting lead section back down to 4 paragraphs per WP:LEAD [...]", which is not what you've done. You simply reverted to your own favoured version. I am absolutely sick of your unprofessional behaviour in this FAC. My opinion remains that you need to seriously rethink the flow of those last two paragraphs of the lede because to me, they seem to be jumping back and forth. Furthermore, I question the decision to emphasise the desktop version when the mobile platform is where Opera is actually seeing growth. It's also clear that there needs to be an article Opera (desktop version) to give that version equal coverage as the various "embedded" variants. The Opera (web browser) article should then focus more strongly on the shared elements of the various versions, rather than treating the embedded versions as unusual aberrants (even though obviously, they are historically branches of the previous, desktop codebase).
        • Your lead section had rather severe factual errors. You claimed that Opera has less of a market share than Konqueror, which is not true. You claimed that Opera has a strong market share on mobile device platforms when we have no sources to back this up. You carelessly reverted the changes I made in response to a discussion concerning the lead section (Talk:Opera (web browser)#Features). You claimed that the Nintendo DS and Wii ship with Opera, which is not true. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I don't know where you've put that "discussion", but it's clear that the article fails to state how Opera finds its way onto these various devices. Some kind of browser has to be there in the first place in order to download anything (if in the form of a package management software). That failing, the browser has to already be there. So which is it? Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The discussion is at Talk:Opera (web browser)#Features. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • How does Opera get onto devices? Well, it depends:
              • Opera for personal computers is unlikely to come pre-installed on computers due to its small market share, but there may be some computers that do come pre-installed with it. Users typically use the browser that comes with their computer (Internet Explorer, Safari, or Firefox) to download Opera, just like with other pieces of software. "Also, a number of Linux distributions have made Opera available through their package management systems. Ubuntu and Gentoo, for example, allow users to easily download and install Opera through their respective package managers."
              • "Devices that use the UIQ 3 operating system, such as the Sony Ericsson P990 and Motorola RIZR Z8, come pre-installed with Opera Mobile, the price of Opera Mobile being included in the price of the phone."
              • On other devices, Opera is installed just like installing any other program, whether by downloading the program from a personal computer and then transferring it to the device or by downloading it directly to the device.
              • "The Nintendo DS Browser is likewise not free; it is sold as a physical DS game cartridge."
              • "Opera for the Wii, called the Internet Channel, was free to download from its release on April 12, 2007 until June 30, 2007. After June 30, Wii users had to pay 500 Wii Points to download it."
            • So you see, how Opera is distributed depends on the device. But in short, you would install Opera just like any other piece of software. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • No use stating that here, is it? That kind of stuff needs to be in the article, preferably briefly in the lede. You seem to be concerned that your lede might get too long. I don't think that's the case. And just to give another example that I just noticed, the article says Opera now costs 500 Wii points. I had to go to and read half the Wii Points article to find out that that's 5 USD. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's really rather pointless to say "Opera is installed just like any other piece of software." That fact is implied by just knowing that Opera is a piece of software. —Remember the dot (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No Sir, it is not. A lot of mobile devices come with a browser pre-installed. A large number of users never bother to change what was pre-installed. The crucial question here is, is Opera that pre-installed browser? On any device? Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Furthermore, Opera is now free for the desktop, but clearly not for various other platforms. This is a crucial distinction in Opera's business model, and for how consumers think about Opera. Please familiarise yourself with the fact that a large number of browsers now exist that are open source and free of charge. They may or may not be available for particular devices that Opera supports, but the point has been made that you can't assume that people expect to pay for their browser and therefore not mention it, because those days are in the past. An encyclopaedic article is for giving an overview, the bigger picture, and "your" article is failing in this respect. You may want to take a look at some other FACs for reference, such as enzyme inhibitor and influenza, both by an editor who is known for having his FACs go smoothly. In essence, an FAC is not about defending your article. It's about applying those changes that remain in order to get the article ready for prime time. Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I just don't understand where you're coming from. The article already states "Devices that use the UIQ 3 operating system, such as the Sony Ericsson P990 and Motorola RIZR Z8, come pre-installed with Opera Mobile, the price of Opera Mobile being included in the price of the phone." The lead clearly states "Opera is offered free of charge for personal computers and mobile phones, but for other devices it must be purchased." —Remember the dot (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • And in that, the lede contradicts the article. If there are devices that have the device pre-installed, that should be stated accurately in the lede. "purchase" to me implies a separate transaction. Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • OK. I've rephrased the lead and noted the number of mobile phones that come pre-installed with Opera. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • I've added the price in USD of the Internet Channel to the article. —Remember the dot (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • In any case, I've reincorporated some of your changes, and the last two paragraphs should flow better now. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It doesn't make sense to make an article on Opera (web browser) and separate out Opera (desktop edition). The desktop edition is the flagship product. The other editions follow after it. And since the features offered vary from edition to edition, especially in the very small Opera Mini application, there's not enough common ground to devote a whole new article to similarities between the editions. It's better to discuss each edition's similarities and differences to the flagship edition of Opera, and that discussion would go in each edition's main article. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which brings me to my final point, which is that the "History" section says nothing about the origins of the various mobile and mini versions. Yet another serious shortcoming in light of the comprehensiveness criterion.
        • That's not really true. The article states "In an attempt to capitalize on the emerging market for Internet-connected handheld devices, a project to port Opera to mobile device platforms was started in 1998." Do you have any more information than this that we could include? —Remember the dot (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Availability of information is not a constraint on the comprehensiveness criterion. Just because we can't find any information about X, doesn't mean an empty article about X can be an FA. Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Information about the launch of Opera Mobile is now available at Opera Mobile#History, and information about Opera Mini's launch is available at Opera Mini#History. Both of these sections are now linked to at the top of Opera (web browser)#History. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's just not enough. To count towards the comprehensiveness criterion, it has to be in the article. Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • OK. The article now does a better job of summarizing the articles on the four other editions of Opera, including their origins and release dates. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Erm, no, actually. Not in the history section, it doesn't. Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The history section, like almost all of the article, is focused on the desktop edition. There are "See also" links for more information, plus a discussion of history in each of the sections on the four "branched off" editions. I disagree that all the history on all the editions should be combined into a single, massive history section. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Samsara (talk • contribs) 07:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • And I think when you say interactive television, you mean set-top box. Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, interactive televisions use set-top boxes, that is correct. Set-top boxes are used for a variety of purposes, not just for interactive televisions. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Interactive television as defined in the article about the subject has features that many of the set-top boxes that run Opera don't have. Having internet access apparently doesn't make a set-top box into "interactive television". We can't have one article contradicting another. Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, I see your point. I've changed the article to use the more general term "set-top box", since the set-top boxes do not necessarily have to provide interactive television services. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't seem to be able to get into clear waters with this article. I disagree with the wholesale deletion of the statistics that we worked on. If you were unsure of the accuracy of the figures, it would have been better to put in the little phrase "According to [...]" rather than disregard the evidence entirely. Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the current "about 1%" is better than the 0.61% to 1.41%. It's actually serves as decent summary statistics of the situation that even a reader without rigorous knowledge of statistics can verify. The phrase "about 1%" gives both a central tendency and dispersion that better describes the data than giving the entire range of measured values. The only thing I would add at this point is more information on the mobile usage share, which is about 0.02% compared to about 0.09% for the iPhone. With references to the NetApplications data and a source verifying that Safari is the only browser on the iPhone, it would serve as comparison of Opera's usage share to the most current popular mobile browser. I would also use the article I link to as a source, to show the same kind of analysis of mobile usage share from a reliable source (ComputerWorld). -- Schapel (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, that's right: The article is not complete without a quantitative statement about the share within the mobile segment. Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • All the 11% figure is is a comparison of Opera's usage share on mobile devices versus the market share of competing mobile web browsers. Net Applications tells us that only five mobile browsers have a significant usage share: Safari, Internet Explorer, Opera Mini, Blazer, and Danger. So, all you have to do is add up all of their usage shares and divide Opera Mini's share from the total, and you have the approximate usage share of Opera Mini compared to other mobile browsers. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with your analysis, assuming you have accurately determined which browsers are running on mobile devices and which are not. On the other hand, it is an original analysis, and original analysis is disallowed on Wikipedia. Also, the statement "Opera has an 11% usage share on mobile browsers" is not a proper use of the term usage share. In addition, you do not give enough information for any reader to verify your analysis (for example, how can the reader verify which numbers from NetApplications apply to mobile devices and which do not). -- Schapel (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fine. I've removed the 11% statistic until someone publishes this outside Wikipedia. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Guys, this is ridiculous. Simply presenting the data in a more convenient form for readers' benefit does not constitute original research. It's a trivial piece of arithmetic. And if you object to it, you can always present the data as originally given, i.e. "overall market share of mobile browsers is ..., of which Opera Mobile+Mini contribute ..." Just make it unambiguous. You're really making this more difficult than it really is. Samsara (talk • contribs) 04:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • To find the 11% statistic, I had to make 3 assumptions: that Net Applications collects its operating system statistics the same way that it collects web browser statistics, that an insignificant number of iPhone users use a browser other than Safari, and that an insignificant number of users use Opera Mobile. I'm very confident on the first two, but the third I'm not so sure on. [9] says that Opera Mobile, or at least old versions of it, self-identify as Internet Explorer. Thus, the third assumption is far too shaky to enable us to use these statistics. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Stating a lower bound is better than not saying anything. Comprehensiveness, please. Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Even so, because of the other two assumptions it just looks too much like original research. If someone outside Wikipedia who is qualified to make such an analysis made the analysis, we would have a stronger case for including it. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conditional support In reviewing the article, I've found several instances where the article said something considerably different from the source cited. If the article and sources are thoroughly compared and we've ensured that the sources properly verify the information in the article, you have my support for featured status. It's an excellent article overall. -- Schapel 19:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reference issue that you pointed out at Talk:Opera (web browser)#Market adoption has been fixed. I didn't notice any other inconsistencies. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have since pointed out more. I would ask that all sources be checked carefully that they actually verify the content of the article. I'll do what I can, but I'm sure others can point out inaccuracies as well. -- Schapel 16:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I fixed the statement that you tagged with {{vague}}. I'm looking forward to seeing the result of the discussion at Talk:Opera (web browser)#Opera security about how to change how the article treats Opera's security, if any changes really need to be made at all. I think it's fine the way it is, but I am monitoring the discussion and I'm open to suggestions. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, looking at it again it looks like the discussion has died down, so people must be happy with the current revision of the article. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Adam78 14:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support wow! - definitely and unquestionably FA quality.
      --Keerllston 12:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      PS:minor question: do you know what kind of sites would have a lot of javascript/would run faster on Opera?
      • I think (but can't say for sure) that pretty much every site that uses JavaScript will benefit from Opera's optimizations. But on a fast system, the optimizations might not make much difference anyway. Anyway, thanks for evaluating this article! —Remember the dot (talk) 04:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reminder to closing editor: Some of the discussion relating to this FAC is taking place on the talk page of the article. Some issues are discussed there that aren't being discussed here, and their progress should be taken into account when closing this FAC. Thank you. Samsara (talk • contribs) 07:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you be more specific? The only active complaint I'm seeing is your desire to include the 11% statistic for Opera's presence on mobile devices, despite both Schapel and I's uneasiness about including it. If we had a better source for that claim then it would be fine, but considering the sources we have we'd better just leave it out for now. —Remember the dot (talk) 08:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, but can you fix the US$ issue? And I see "5-6%"—Read MOS on en dashes. And I don't know how to get around this, but surely we don't have to have "Response to Opera has been largely positive,[77][78][79][80][81]", and other huge lines of superscripts (they're very ungainly and intrusive). "there are editions of Opera available for" --> "editions of Opera are available for". "full-fledged"—no, "fully fledged", no hyphen, of course, after -LY. Tony (talk) 14:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've  Fixed all of those issues except for "full-fledged". I honestly think that "full-fledged" sounds better, but you can change the wording if you really want to. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, now I've looked it up, I see that your version is more common in North America. I'd never noticed it and took it to be a mistake. Tony (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Opera_(web_browser)&oldid=1078804258"