Software: Computing Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This template is supported by WikiProject Computing.

	Mozilla NA‑class (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mozilla, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.MozillaWikipedia:WikiProject MozillaTemplate:WikiProject MozillaMozilla articles NA This article has been rated as NA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

I don't understand why the template has this specific link to an extension and no others. It's not even the most popular extension. If anything, it appears to be advertisement, so I removed it. - Sikon 07:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where should a Firefox based distribution like http://webconverger.com/ go? Hendry 09:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Custom distributions shouldn't get such a prominent location on the Firefox page. Sure, there needs to be a way to navigate around the various custom distributions, but putting it under the Firefox TOC doesn't seem like the best way to me, and somehow borders on advertising.

I suggest:

• A separate "custom Firefox distribution" template and
• A list of Firefox custom distributions that could be linked from Mozilla Firefox--mintchocicecream 21:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. Someone needs to do this. Until then, I think it is much safer to remove potential Trademark issue this side of Firefox 2.0 release. Considering the trademark issues with Mozilla - in particular their insistence that the Firefox logo is not used on 3rd party builds, I have removed the Firefox TOC (section) from Swiftfox as a precautionary measure (it contains the logo). Please could someone either:

• justify the use and association of the Firefox logo on non Mozilla articles on this page before they re-add.

or

• change or remove that logo, and the strong association of Mozilla/Firefox with non Mozilla/Firefox builds. Widefox 00:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I think the TOC should include notable custom variants of the browser, because it's heavily related to the original. It's based on them so it's "part" of the original. Now, on the legal front, could it be elaborated how including a firefox TOC on the page would infringe copyright/trademark? I know Mozilla is not really Free software per it's issue with debian. But there's no logo or recognizable symbol aside from the mention of the firefox name on the TOC. (Which, I think constitutes some kind of fair use/free speech thing) There's another issue that the TOC is removed from Swiftfox that IMHO does not infringe any copyright/trademark by adding this TOC there. Besides, the TOC that links to an article should be included in the said article by default. Hmm.. This issue's been around since may, it seems, and IMHO due to lack of participation, I suggest we get RfC? I'll post an attention grabber on the firefox & swiftfox talk page first. Feureau 19:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not so much interested in cherry-picking worthy software, but legals. Mozilla a very insistent on trademark issues wrt 3rd party builds. Best to not go there at all. A separate box for alternatives - across FF or all browsers, I don't mind. Just stay neutral.Widefox 19:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The logo has only been removed in the last 24hr because I insisted. We need to go further than that though, IMHO Widefox 19:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• and no, 3rd party builds are in no way part of Firefox or Mozilla. We cannot go there! Widefox 19:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Firefox is trademark. be careful what you suggest the term be associated with! 3rd party builds have strict conditions about this. I don't have a ref on me (just when I need one), but it's the close association - inside one box = one happy family = ;( Widefox 19:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't get too worked up about this. If the 3rd party builds are based on firefox, then this can be discussed with the scope of Firefox. What you seem to be suggesting is that the word 'Firefox' cannot be mentioned on anything other than articles about the official 'Firefox' and 'Mozilla' pages. This is not so. This would mean to in no circumstance could the term be used as a comparison point or as a way to link the 3rd party build to the original build.-Localzuk^(talk) 21:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've changed the TOC. I'm happy with it now. There's a difference between mentioning Firefox/Mozilla and having a box title Firefox/Mozilla with software that doesn't come from Mozilla or is allowed to be called Firefox. See what I mean - it's just closeness of association. Others have mentioned this too. I've added the TOC back to the main Firefox article now, but in the new Unofficial versions section. Widefox 13:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed that Swiftfox is listed as a Fork. To me it is not, it is a build. A recompile of the firefox code with nothing changed but the firefox icon, license, and compile options. Should it be listed as a fork? Kilz 04:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How is it not a fork? Is it a custom package of the official binaries like Firefox Portable or TorPark are? No, it's an unauthorized build by a third-party project with a different license. If you think Swiftfox isn't a fork, then IceWeasel isn't a fork too.--67.168.0.155 04:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, please check Swiftfox. You'll see that there's more to it than that - granted not much more, but removing subsystems, preferences like pipelining, and the odd change like disabling IPv6. I'd say it's just slightly more than a build. Fork (to me) has some forward looking divergent intent, which I don't think any of the forks plan to do much, so they're all more like patched versions. What wording can we agree on? "Technically fork, but practically patch." Widefox 13:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All those are build time options. The code has not been chanmged. It is simple built with different flags and the icons changed. A fork would have changed something, removed something , or added something besides the icon the MPL requires to be changed.Kilz 16:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anyhow, this issue is moot as I was forced to coalesce the two categories to save space in the TOC a while back (see below), and Swiftfox categorisation was changed to build, as better fits it. Widefox 14:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this template relevant anymore? It got deleted from the main Mozilla Firefox article. Could the template be changed to appear at the bottom of the page as a navigation aid that could be included in the main article rather than a TOC? --tgheretford (talk) 08:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template should be either split in 2 - 1. official navigation (if needed by History and Features pages), and 2. Unofficial articles Widefox 13:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was easiest to put disambiguation at the top of the history, and features articles. I've then recycled the TOC as a community box, with the single reference to the main Firefox article, very low down in a smaller space, directly where the 3rd party stuff is. I managed to get it much smaller so it fits, partly by combining the Forks and Builds so we don't have to get into minutia of categorisation, when they're all 3rd party or broadly community activities. Widefox 18:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've removed "Mozilla" from the top title. I think I'll leave it with this single word "Firefox" so it has lowest chance of changing name so often. Widefox 20:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't really see the point of this template. The only significant content in the box is the various forks of Firefox, which seem to be pretty much irrelevant to most of the articles this template's on. I think this template should be removed from most of the articles it's currently part of. Twinxor t 22:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the extensions it allows navigation. On the browsers too. Perhaps more importantly, it links the development community around Mozilla/Firefox. Widefox 11:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Besides listing the forks of Firefox, I'm not seeing much point to the template. Extensions, for instance, are obviously linked to Mozilla Firefox and Category:Mozilla extensions. The template's other content, links to a bunch of obscure forks, seems to have little relevance to anything, unless the user's got a particular hankering to check out every fork. It might make sense to put this on pages about Firefox forks so it can be used as a nav box, but beyond that it does not seem useful. Twinxor t 15:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The extensions are the killer feature of FX. Bottom line is - categories are not overtly visible. Do you know a better way of increasing the visibility of the extensions, forks and associated community? Widefox 01:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, it's hard to see how articles such as the Mozilla Foundation, Spread Firefox, and the myriad niche forks of Firefox are possibly relevant to articles about extensions, which comprise most of the articles including this template. It seems unimportant that they be visible. Twinxor t 03:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can see using this template on the major Firefox articles, but not on every single extension that has a Firefox page. For example, ((Censorship)) is on articles like Censorship in the United States, but not on, say Water buffalo incident. The former is an issue affecting one of the world's superpowers, the latter isn't nearly so important. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, List of Firefox extensions, which is used in this template, has been nominated for deletion. John Vandenberg 04:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there any reason it's been changed to yellow? Tobz1000 13:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why does this not link to very Firefox related articles like History of Mozilla Firefox, Features of Mozilla Firefox and Market adoption of Mozilla Firefox, but does link to articles with tenuous links to Firefox? Is this intentional? —Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 00:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just made some necessary changes to the template, because, since its creation, it has drifted away from the TOC sidebar aspect and transformed into to an indiscriminate list of vaguely Mozilla-related subject matter (and an inadequate one at that). To put it simply: much of the information here is not within the scope of this template.

The Mozilla subsection is gone. It contained links to Mozilla Corporation and Mozilla Foundation. For that we have the much more appropriate and much more expanded Mozilla organizations template.

The template now follows convention by explicitly linking to the articles split off from the Firefox article, in some attempt to actually resemble a TOC.

I removed the Book of Mozilla from the Lineage section. Again, I think it would be better placed in a broader Mozilla-focused template, as it's not Firefox specific.

I removed the applications from the list that are only tangentially related to Firefox—yet again, by way of Mozilla, e.g., Miro and Songbird based on what can be collectively described as the "Mozilla platform," and IceApe, IceDove, and other GNU/free equivalents, which should certainly be mentioned in the SeaMonkey and Thunderbird articles, but not here.

I will now begin cleaning up the use of this template on irrelevant pages. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 05:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On second thought, I've removed the fork list entirely. This is exactly what the "See also" sections are for. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand your concern as it grew after the last time I cleaned it up. Balancing that though - and central to the whole Firefox issue - is the ability to extend the browser, and embracing the whole development community. We do need to provide some "linking" for this ecosystem, more visible than just using categories. Widefox (talk) 11:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. Could you elucidate? I'm having trouble pairing meaning derived from your comment with the effects of my changes or my own comments. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

spelt out...FF plugins (and maybe builds) - either we need a mention in the FF TOC, or a 2nd TOC. Higher visibility than just category links is vital as it's arguably a key part of the FF ecosystem, and next to open-source, the killer technology in/with FF. Widefox (talk) 10:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]