Talk:Netscape Navigator 9

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Mid-importance).

Apple Inc. Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics 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.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc. articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mozilla (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

Image

I found out that someone (Astroview120mm ) have made up false claim that the image was 9.0.0.3, but it was not! I put up an image of the real 9.0.0.3. The report bug button is not included in 9.0.0.3! Helpsloose 20:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was temporary, because problems with my computer prevented me from installing it. I guess we could use your picture now, although it would be better if you used a default Windows theme.
--Astroview120mm 01:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does not matter what theme colours I use (as long as it is from an official Windows-theme). By the way, your theme does not look like a default either.

When next version comes, you can upload a new image if you want (if not, then maybe I will). Just keep my image there at least until 9.0.0.4 comes. Also remember that even if the next version looks exactly the same, you should not change the text under the image if it is still an image of 9.0.0.3. Helpsloose 02:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's the default on Windows XP Media Center Edition (From the OEMs, at least). It was still a pretty serious accusation to say it was a "scam". Well,anyway, I've updated my picture. --Astroview120mm 03:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helpsloose was indeed being intimidating by stating "scam". S/he also needs to fill in a fair-use rationale on that pink theme image or otherwise it will be deleted. There was nothing absolutely wrong with Astroview120mm's image, or indeed mine which I updated earlier today. Aimlessly reverting between images is annoying and childish. If we want to create a unified look accross all Netscape articles, the screenshots should all have common elements between them. Helpsloose and indeed any of us do not have any authority over other Wikipedia users, and simply reverting and petty arguing is a sign of poor Wikipedian cohesion. That is why we have talk pages. To clarify, both users used "official" Windows themes. Helpsloose, the theme Astroview120mm is using is called "Royale", distributed by Microsoft, and installed by default on Windows XP Media Center Edition. In common with most screenshots on Wikipedia, personally I'd refrain from using a pink and blue theme to screenshot (hence the cohesion), though that's personal choice. Moreover, we could not use that screenshot on say the Netscape or Netscape (web browser) articles, because the others stay in the default cohesive manner. Report Bug or no Report Bug, the matter is irrelevant. /Marbles 17:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My new picture is that of Netscape 9.0.0.3 in Windows Vista. To check it out, go to Image:Netscape9.png.--Astroview120mm 03:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a picture of 9.0.0.4. Helpsloose 15:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not for long; unless you fill in a fair-use rationale, it will be deleted. There seems to be a problem with Netscape's GUI under the Windows Classic theme on all Windows OS's regarding the toolbar buttons, would have thought it was fixed by now! /Marbles (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What problem? And how do I fill in a fair-use rationale? Helpsloose 16:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a template for doing that. Also, what version of Windows are you using? From my experiences, the latest version of Windows is usually best. --Astroview120mm 02:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter what Windows I am using. As you see, it could be anything from Windows 95 to Windows Vista. But where do I find that template? Helpsloose 13:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the contrary! It does matter what OS you use. POeople want to see the newest. Read some Wikipedia articles. In addition, the system requirements are to have at least Windows 98, which is what you are probably using. I've also removed your picture until a compromise can be reached. The article actually looks better without a picture, in my opinion.--Astroview120mm 00:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is OK. And you don't know what Windows I am using, it could be the newest. Helpsloose 16:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are using a Windows 9.x release, since your theme appears to be the MS Sans Serif font; which was completely replaced by Tahoma in Windows 2000. /Marbles 19:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, but users could easily change the font and theme. Also, if it is indeed the latest version of Windows, you would not be using the default theme, and it would be a false claim. Please don't put the picture back, we will need to reach a compromise to avoid an edit war. The picture is not yours. You have released it to Wikipedia. --Astroview120mm 01:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using that theme might be better, because all new Windows versions can use it. The article is about Netscape Navigator 9, what Windows theme is used is not much to worry about. Helpsloose 01:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then please explain why your theme is better (other than the fact that almost every Windows version has it).

Why are we at all having this discussion? The image is there to show Netscape. But if you want another argument: My theme is also smaller, the window-bar is smaller than the default on other (at least XP and 3). Then more space is left to the program. Helpsloose 04:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To solve this problem, perhaps we should use Linux... (and I have also updated Image:NS9_screenshot.png which features in the Netscape article, DO NOT change that one!) /Marbles 13:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the picture to the Mac OS X one. It needs to be updated though. Yes, my objective is to show Netscape as well, but you replaced an image that already existed, many people agree that the newer themes are more pleasing to the eye. I do not have the sources at hand but if you read the Jan. 2007 copy of PCWorld, or read the reviews at CNET. Anyway, "your" picture doesn't have that much extra space and if you haven't noticed, the application itself looks the same. Also, your picture needs to be resized. --Astroview120mm 23:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed back, there is no rule in Wikipedia for using new themes, look around, you find many other screenshots of that theme (at least I did). Helpsloose 03:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you just leave it alone until we reach an agreement? It seems you clearly don't know what a compromise is. Please note that if you revert this again I could report you of violating the Three Revert Rule. You are still not providing any information for you argument.--Astroview120mm 04:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are not a administrator, I can do the same to you (but I will not). I think we can find a compromise: I upload version 9.0.0.4, 9.0.0.6, 9.0.0.8 etc with my theme. You upload the other half with your theme. And we upload to the same file, so the article does not to change because of it. Helpsloose 04:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I would block you, I would report you, and an admin would block you for 24 hours. This is already an edit war. And I don't want this to continue. You probably feel the same way, so I've requested that this page be protected for a week.--Astroview120mm 04:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you meant, I just said I could report you to an administrator too, since you are not one of them. What do you think about my compromise? Helpsloose 04:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're idea is plausible, but imperfect. Which picture would you choose to change, "my" Windows Vista one, or "your" old-themed picture. Also, I would probably be able to report you first since I was the last one to edit. If you revert it again, I might do it. --Astroview120mm 04:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think my NN9.PNG, it has shorter, easyer name and if I was supposed to take the even numbers, it is already there. I will fill inn the fair use rationale template soon. And when 9.0.0.5 comes, you upload that version as soon as you can and then delete my image. Helpsloose 04:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but your extension is a bit awkward, as it is capitalized. You also need to get a fair use rationale for you picture. --Astroview120mm 04:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The picture that I uploaded has a better history of edits with an easy to remember Netscape9.png name. --Astroview120mm 04:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let us use your file name then, (NN9 might also mean something else so it might not be a good idea). Since your image is there already with 9.0.0.4, you can have the even numbers, I can put it back in the article (when the block is over). And if one of us don't want to upload some of the later version some day, the other one does it for the other.Helpsloose 04:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have pretty good negotiating skills. So have we reached a compromise? --Astroview120mm 05:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, maybe you can talk with the administrator that blocked the page and say we agree now. Helpsloose 05:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been unprotected.--Astroview120mm 05:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See that, I have already change it. Did you have any communication with administrators at all? I think they found it out themselves. It must be a difficult task to watch millions of article. I don't know how many they are, but still impressive. Helpsloose 05:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone going to update the picture? If not, I will. --Astroview120mm 01:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have, click on the image. However, I can not see my image in the article. It will probably be updated soon.

I think it is best to use the Mac OS X image to illustrate The Book of Mozilla. We already have Windows in the top.Helpsloose 07:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to upload the image of the latest version? If you don't, I will. Helpsloose 15:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

System Requirements

I think we need the system requirements for Netscape Navigator 9. If the format doesn't match the standards of WP:MOS, please don't remove it, just modify it. --Astroview120mm 03:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge for discussion

Do we really need to have a separate article about a specific version number of this browser? Shouldn't it be merged with Netscape (web browser) because an article like this is redundant. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 15:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed before; irrelevent since none of the Netscape browsers with a different article on Wikipedia are the same. Netscape has changed drastically, and there's far too much information to put into one article. They've been like this for years; whether Netscape the company isn't supporting them or not, they exist and are a strong item of Internet history. I'd say leave the existing system how it is /Marbles (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but what's the point of having different articles for version numbers? I know they have different owners, but the brand is still the same (i.e., "Netscape"), and that alone should be enough to put together all these separate articles into one article. The different proprietors of each version number can be listed in the same article. — EliasAlucard / Discussion 17:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed numerous times accross many Netscape pages. The conclusion made was it wasn't likely that all 8 different versions of Netscape browsers could be accommodated into one article, in the required detail. Hence why we have Netscape (web browser) for that purpose; to put brief detail on each one into a single article. The detail that is required for all the Netscape browsers over 14 years cannot be condensed into it. Netscape is a company, not a browser. The current article arrangement goes by the technologies that were used for each release, i.e. Netscape Navigator (versions 1-4.5), Netscape Communicator (versions 4.5-4.8), Netscape 6, Netscape 7, Netscape Browser and Netscape Navigator 9. Each version is a completely different program to another, produced by different people, or based on different code. I can't see myself why you'd want to change this arrangement on Wikipedia, which has been in use for a few years now, and has previously proved to be the best way of dealing with 14 years worth of software. We have Netscape (web browser) for people who want a condensed guide of all the browsers. For the more detailed information on specific software, we have the browser pages. We have both, and its impossible to have one page for all besides what we have now. /Marbles (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Marbles (talk • contribs) 18:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot

Helploose's reasons for reverting the screenshot are ridiculous. Wikipedia is a community project, which does not permit one or two people to edit select pages exclusively. You have no right to "prevent" people from re-uploading better screenshots. As Helploose clearly stated, s/he was to upload odd numbers, of which, I have uploaded a superior even number. The previous screenshot of Navigator 9 claiming to be 9.0.0.6 could well have been 9.0.0.5, 9.0.0.4 or anything. The version 9.0.0.6 has the Migrator Icon, of which the image I replaced lacked. In addition it was taken in a Windows 9x system, as discussed above. I think you'll find I was the first person to ever upload a screenshot of Navigator 9; I was the first to even to write this article, you cannot claim another Wikipedian to be wrong. There is never "no reason" for any Wikipedia edit, and claiming the invalidity of an edit clearly an enhancement on its predecessor is complete rubbish. "Consensuses" do not exist on Wikipedia I'm afraid, we are an international, community and free project benefitting from the knowledge and posessions of our users, which does not bind experts to a particular field. Such was the flaw of Nupedia. If people continue to rubbish other user's more comprehensive edits and go into edit wars, so be it; waste such time on little preoccupancies. If you want to continue to downtread articles in such a manner by insulting other users and using inferior information or media, so be it, but I shall not waste any more of my resources on this sort of "international collaboration" project where there clearly is a sense of heirachy and posession. I think some people should re-consider their position. /Marbles (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what is the point of uploading an new image from 9.0.0.6? And the agreement was that Astroview should upload this picture, and if he/she did not, I should. And the theme is from Windows 9x, the operating system does not have to be the same. is really your image better? (I think it is too big). I have disabled the migration icon, but I guess that is supposed to be done, I think the image looks better without one tooHelpsloose 00:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Actually, that wasn't the agreement >:(. The agreement was to stop revert wars and that to stop it between us we would do it. The rest are free to do whatever they want. Wikipedia is belongs to the people right?Astroview120mm (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Mozilla original research

The article currently lists some theories about what Mozilla 8:20 means, citing only the verse itself as a source. - Josh (talk | contribs) 03:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post a cite, there is information available regarding this. I asked Jay Garcia on the Netscape boards (I never placed that information on here, however) /Marbles (talk)

I flagged the New Features Section as Advert, or parts of it. It's sort of borderline, but the parts that are written in present tense stick out to me as subtle advertising. Not everyone would pick up on it and I had to re-read it. It has references, but it's clearly written separately from the person whose contributions are in past tense and have a more balanced view of the Browser. I don't know if it's worth it to check the references, though they too are likely promotional/product review-related. If nothing else, some copy-editing might fix it up.

Thanks, -Alan 24.184.184.177 (talk) 02:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I think that you have some reasonable changes in mind - so go for them. As far as the references go, they are certainly going to be first-hand reports (i.e. from Netscape) and inherently promotional, but that in no way makes them less credible. They would be the ones who would know the features of their own product. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see someone surreptitiously removed the flag. I added it back in, seeing as no changes whatsoever had been made to improve the neutrality of the section. Kind of makes you wonder. And while I'm here, should the words "Latest Release" in the infobox be changed to "Final Release" due to the discontinuation of the product?

-Alan 24.184.184.177 (talk) 01:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure That was me; I removed it because I don't think it reads as an advertisement, and (if I recall correctly), there was no post on talk. Please re-word it as you see fit. "Final release" makes sense to me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mozilla or Netscape

What's the difference between Mozilla Firefox and Netscape Navigator? Because I can't tell!

Takdir Takdir83 (talk) 01:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Netscape Navigator 9. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 11:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]