Talk:Mozilla Firefox

Request move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

closed as no clear consensus. fr33kman 21:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Mozilla Firefox → Firefox — Firefox is the common name and its article on the regular English Wikipedia was moved after unanimous consensus. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 05:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I, for once, disagree with a move of this page. The name "Mozilla Firefox" is the official name of this software. "Firefox" is only an abbreviation of its complete name. I don't think that we should move it. Also please note that only enwiki has done such a move. All other wikis keep on using the name "Mozilla Firefox". I know that we usually follow enwikis style, but in this case I'd follow an other guideline. -Barras (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The only time you ignore a rule is when a policy was written without consideration of a possible exception to the rule. In this case however, common name was specifically written with articles like Firefox in mind. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's actually necessary to move/rename the page. Note also that "Fennec" (thats how they call the smartphone/pda version) is above all a fox that lives in the desert.Note also, we are not EnWP..--Eptalon (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your statement. Please rephrase. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

1. We are not EnWP; while we often name our articles the same as en, thats not always the case
2. If you take another "product" by the Mozilla foundation: fennec, renaming is not possible because first of all a fennec is a ox living in the desert.

Best.--Eptalon (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You are delving into WP:disambiguation here which is irrelevant to this discussion because Firefox (browser) is primary to Firefox (novel), Firefox (film) etc. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with the move, most of the people, although they called it Firefox, they know it is "Mozilla Firefox". I am of those people, that belief that articles must be named by their correct name, and not as they are called, for example J.K. Rowling I think it should be called Joanne Murray, but in the other hand wikimedia uses for articles the way they are usually called (except for species or vegetables and plants), I have started this topic, in the J.K. Rowling article of the spanish wiki (where I am very active) but everybody thinks that it must be called as it is known, but I don't think that, so I am against of moving it to "Firefox", "Mozilla Firefox" its okay. --Lcsrns (Talk) 22:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

So Democratic People’s Republic of Korea? Really?? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Normally articles titles are the name the subject is most known by, whether it is the "proper" name or not. For example Cher is not listed under "Cheryl Sarkisian LaPierre " because she is not known by the public under that name despite it being her "real" name. Article titles are there to help users find the content they are looking for, not to enforce using "correct names." Beeblebrox (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Firefox already redirects here, I don't see a reason to move. It's fine where it is, imo.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 06:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

At the top of my browser window it says "Mozilla Firefox". That is its name.--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Strongly oppose The official name is Mozilla Firefox and Firefox redirects. chris†ianrocker90 18:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Mozilla Firefox may be the full name, but they are marketing their product as "Firefox 3" / "Firefox 4", etc. Titlebar in the new software just says "Firefox". When someone asks me "what broswer(s) do you use", I'd reply "Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer", not "Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, Microsoft Internet Explorer". Plus, we should follow policy whenever it make sense, and this one does! EhJJ^TALK 01:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Neutral, and therefore Oppose - Firefox is informal, besides, it redirects here. WHO CARES?! IT REDIRECTS HERE. IF I TYPE IN FIREFOX, IT'S NOT ANOTHER PRODUCT!! --Jeffwang16 (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support The common name is Firefox. I don't know many people that would know it as Mozilla Firefox. This is exactly the case that WP:COMMONNAME was written for. -DJSasso (talk) 00:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add that we are not en and I think this is a perfect opportunity to invoke WP:IAR. As Jeffwang16 sta-, er, yelled, Firefox already redirects to this article so I don't think it matters. chris†ianrocker90 21:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I should also point out as a courtesy that the en move was done after a discussion only involving like 3 or 4 people and a deciding admin, including the starter of this discussion. Quite honestly, not that it has any meaning, I think it should have been closed as a no consensus due to lack of input over there. chris†ianrocker90 21:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Closed as no consensus? It would be relisted if not closed as move. You are also overlooking the two people who voted to move in the first discussion. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

That's still 6 people at max. Still not very much input considering the scale of enWP. And why would it be relisted? chris†ianrocker90 19:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You mention we are not en. But we do have a policy that says if the policy doesn't exist here we use en's. For exactly cases like this one. We should use the common name and then you note the full name in the first sentence of the lead paragraph. -DJSasso (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

We also have a policy called WP:IAR when it benefits the wiki and think it does here. chris†ianrocker90 05:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

How does having a more complicated not common name help a wiki that is supposed to be simple? If anything of the two wikis we should be the ones striving to use the simplest common names instead of complex official names. -DJSasso (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The same way having United States where it is as opposed to America or USA. United Kingdom where it is instead of UK. Official name, not "more common" name. For goodness sakes you're trying to change an article to a name that already redirects to it. Seems a bit pointy to me. chris†ianrocker90 03:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually you just proved my point. United States is the common name. The official name is United States of America. And the United Kingdom is the common name. The official name is United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. You should read what being pointy is. Being pointy is disruptively doing things to be disruptive. Moves are done all the time on articles that already have the target redirecting them. In fact that is usually how most moves are done. -DJSasso (talk) 11:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support per EhJJ and DJSasso, and per CR90 who's just quite badly shot himself in the foot. COMMONNAME exists for a reason. Goblin 11:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Belinda!

• Might as well move Harvard University to Harvard while you're at it then. chris†ianrocker90 19:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• While you at it, move PlayStation Portable to PSP, Major League Baseball to MLB, Universal Media Disc to UMD. all these aren't at their COMMONNAME, yet people access the articles just fine because of redirects. chris†ianrocker90 19:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between a common name and an acronym as well. Acronyms aren't always clear and or common names. UMD for example, I doubt anyone would know that as a Universal Media Disc. You are straining now to try and prove a point, when frankly you have been proven wrong. -DJSasso (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Look, I'm not gonna sit here and argue my life away on this. You know my !vote, why I voted that way and what policies I think justify it. I'm moving on. chris†ianrocker90 05:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.

History? My first time editing simple Wikipedia (Firefox) article

Not sure History section should even be here. It's empty now and has been for a long time. Not sure History (for Firefox) is very useful for kids. Assuming that is the audience. And "rendering engine" is red-linked now. I guess that article it could be written in a simplified language, but it's non-existent as it is and my guess not forthcoming. Does the red-link rule apply here? Comp.arch (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Meh, you can probably just remove the empty section. The guideline for red links is here. It may be a bit different here since there are so many of them! We usually leave them if it's for a topic that obviously meets the inclusion criteria (WP:N and WP:V, etc). Osiris (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

"Age appropriate"

See: Template_talk:Latest_preview_software_release/Mozilla Firefox. Discuss particular there or in general here (or somewhere else?). See also my talk pages. Comp.arch (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)