Talk:Internet Explorer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good articles Internet Explorer has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Peer review This page has been selected for Version 0.5 and the release version of Wikipedia. It has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Engtech.
This article is part of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a WikiProject devoted to maintaining and improving the informative value and quality of Wikipedia's many Microsoft Windows articles.
Peer review Internet Explorer has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
edit
Archive
Archives
  • Prior to January 30, 2005
    • Market dominance; IE for Unix; Mozilla evangelism; Mac OS X image caption; standards; IE features; competing browsers; removal of IE; Microsoft's bug database; edit wars; cost of IE; anti-IE CERT advisory; misc NPOV issues
  • Prior to July 9, 2005
    • NPOV issues; JavaScript; Microsoft AntiSpyware; Embrace, Extend and Extinguish and vendor lock-in; presence of Firefox-related content; BHOs; web standards and degrees of conformance; languages; article headings & organization; PNG; peer review and featured article submissions; Sandbox and Chrome; the criticism section; impact of Firefox advocacy on IE's decline; ActiveX and eBay
  • Prior to March 25, 2007
    • IEBlog citations, Relationship with W3C, old history, standards compliance, wikipedia layout problems, proprietary extensions, infobox screenshot, phishin filters study, not being a trademark, renaming and moving to WIE, splitting and some technical details.
Discussion on this article has been archived. If you wish to comment on an ongoing discussion, you may quote it here or simply refer to it. Post new comments below the list of archives please.

Contents

[edit] Separate Articles for Separate Versions?!

Compared to other browsers, such as Mozilla Firefox and Opera (Internet suite), Internet Explorer is divided into two general pages, the official page and the subpage about version 7, not to mention the basic groups of history/features pages. Anyway, my question is why exactly is IE divided between both the IE general (6 and below) and then the IE 7 versions? Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 05:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The same (new) user that did that is also making all kinds of god-awful changes to the lead section in this article. [1][2][3] I'm reverting all these changes because there's no way I'd want to lose our Good Article status because some new user wants to muddle. -/- Warren 06:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
You might take note of Microsoft Office and Microsoft Office 2007, Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Windows 98, Windows CE and Windows CE 3.0, etc. Digita 07:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Your comparing apples to carrots, in all respects, in that those are a whole different category of products compared to the Internet Explorer line, and each is completely different than the previous version. The general setup for Internet Explorer should be like Firefox, Opera (Internet suite), or Safari (web browser) in that the one page covers the general product, usually updated for the latest version, not a new page for the newest versions. We don't have an article on Mozilla Firefox 2.0 or Opera 9.0, do we? Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 15:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The softwares that you are mentioning are actually a suite of applications (in a broad sense of the term) and as such has lots of changes between versions, whereas Internet Explorer focusses on a single usage (well, almost). So, there is much less to talk about within different versions. And that does not merit separate articles for versions. In case there comes a version the discussion of which cannot fit in the confines of this article, it would make sense to fork it. --soumসৌমোyasch 16:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
IE has changed a lot between the current and historical versions. Also, the amount of content for IE has already merited many IE related pages.Digita 17:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure, IE has changed a lot but what new features are there that you cannot state here? (Its not about IE, but all browsers in general). The different articles pertaining to Internet Explorer draw a general trend in IE, not discuss the different versions individually (except for this one, which makes it explicit which features are to be expected in the latest version. Even other applications like Windows Media Player do not have individual articles for each version. Nor do APIs like ADO.NET, .NET Framework or DirectX. --soumসৌমোyasch 17:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, Visual Studio, Microsoft SQL Server etc do not have different articles for each version. What they have is different articles for different applications in the suite (some of them). Windows Server 2003 does not have articles for different editions even. But its better not to follow articles of other applications categories, but keep stylistic consistency with other browser articles. Like Clindhartsen said, take a look at Firefox, Opera, Konqueror and Safari articles to see how the IE article should pan out. --soumসৌমোyasch 17:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, we both agree IE has changed a lot, but you seem skeptical that IE7 has enough content for its own article. However, the IE7 article is quite long and would not fit on the IE page. Digita 17:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not saying IE7 does not have enough changes to have its own article (sure, IE7 does have a lot many (and in many cases long-overdue and absolutely necessary, thats my POV) changes), I am saying whatever changes IE7 has can be fitted in line with the generalization of the IE features and the new features and changes can be fitted in this article without making its length go out of control. On that basis, new article just for IE7 is not needed. --soumসৌমোyasch 17:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The IE page has already branched out over several sub-pages, yet is still over 36kb. Trying to merge more would only make its length go further out of control Digita 18:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
36KB is not difficult to work with. I have worked with article over 100 KB in length (the Features new to Windows Vista article) on the course of which we realized what a pain in the *** the large size can be. But 45-50 KB is pretty okay. --soumসৌমোyasch 21:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Creating a single large page may be possible, but it would be unnecessary. The relative stylistic consistency compared to other MS pages like Microsoft Office and Microsoft Office 2007 is clear. Digita 21:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you paying attention to the past few comments here? The general point that has been made already is that Internet Explorer does not warrant the same treatment as other products of which have drastic changes between newer and past versions. With that, the IE 7 article should be remerged into this article and possibly reworded or reduced considering that a good amount of the information on the IE 7 page is actually copied from the History of Internet Explorer page. Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 02:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I have been paying attention, however, that was a wrong conclusion- IE7 warrants the same treatment as other MS products that have significant changes. Just like those other products, it has enough unique content to warrant its own dedicated page. Digita 03:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
As you point out Chris- that much of the content does not come from this article- its not possible to 'remerge' because it was not 'unmerged' in the first place, but a new article. Digita 03:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus on merging IE7 article

Consensus on whether the Internet Explorer 7 article be merged into Internet Explorer is being sought at IE7 Talk Page. --soumসৌমোyasch 06:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing the W3CSchool statistics informations because they are not accurate

Somebody added in this entry statistics from the W3CSchool website and as you may know, since that website is frequented mostly by webmasters (great part of which prefers firefox) the percentuals are not real.

This is a more accurate source: http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=3 (those stats are gathered and generated from hundred of websites). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.6.64.161 (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] WIE/MIE

User:91.19.234.159 has been changing Windows Internet Explorer (previously known as Microsoft Internet Explorer) to Microsoft Internet Explorer. But I feel that the previous version should be kept as that IS the current name. We are using the more common name as the article title (WP:Name) but we should identify it, at least in the lead, with the current official name. --soum (0_o) 07:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/t/Talk%7EInternet_Explorer_62e0.html"