Talk:Firebug (software)

What We Plan to Edit

 * 1) Create organized headings and sub-headings.
 * 2) Create sections for the articles that are neutral and have no bias.
 * 3) Expand on known issues.
 * 4) Give an overview about the tool.
 * 5) Give a brief explanation on how to get started
 * 6) explain the advantages, tips, and tricks of firebug.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zcoughl (talk • contribs) 18:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Include Firebug Logo I'm not sure what the copyright status is on this, but here's the logo.. I think it would be good to show. It's an open source thing, so you'd think it would be fine.. (I can't upload because I'm a new user) http://www.ewriting.pamil-visions.com/img/firebug-logo.png --SeaOfGreen (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright and Piracy Perhaps a inclusion that it's popularity amongst users is partly due to its ability to give direct links to video and music url's for they can be saved on a users drives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.41.31 (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you can just hit "view page source" for that, I think most people using this are legitimate web developers. -Zeus-u 14:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

History It would be nice to read more about Firebug's history. Was it the first thing of its kind and inspired the developer tools in all of today's browsers, or was it itself inspired by something else? --Zupftom (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review
Overall, the edits made subsequent to the dormancy of the article(2008-March 2014), structurally makes the article efficient to browse and thorough in information.

Pros:The article has a clear lead section which successfully gives insight for the remainder of the Wikipedia page. The structure is clear and there appears to be no overly dominant section.

Cons: There are allot of simple grammatical errors, such as the capitalization on section titles. The biggest issue is obviously the lack of citation for the sources used to acquire the information. There are numerous sections that have no direct citation, thus making the material's integrity questionable. I assume the one citation at the bottom of a sub-section such as the one in sub-category "page speed" under main category "useful firebug extensions" was intended to refer to the source in which all the information for that section was acquired. The lack of clarity directly takes away from the article. In addition, the lack of resources makes the article very weak. Little diversification can bring rise to bias, although most of the information provided is informative and very-user guide like. Another issue arises, it only appears with the category title "Useful Firebug Extensions", in particular with the word useful. Useful brings to rise a sense of bias and thus the section seems to come off as non-neutral. Simply changing the title to Firebug Extensions would be better. Lastly, another issue can be seen directly in the "Useful Firebug" section and indirectly throughout the article. You state "Firebug makes changes immediately", but fail to elaborate on how things are done. Elaboration seems to be an issue throughout the whole page as certain sections seem to be very brief. As for pictures, it appears an attempt was made to post an image, but it was removed or failed to appear for copyright infringement. Visualization can be helpful when trying to differ between certain specs of the software. Images can always be taken from Wikipedia Common Grounds page.

Babyhuey94 (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review
The article seems to have a little about a lot, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, since Firebug is a very diverse program, and it's not expected that the editors would all have extensive knowledge of its usage. However, it seems that the majority of the page was written through looking through the Firebug extension and looking at the features, and not all too much time learning what the features actually do. Most of the technical parts are not all too much explained, with a lot of them being links at the beginning of the page, and then the reader either knows what each thing is or has to follow the links at the beginning of the article, which they may not know are there. Ideally, there would be both more inlinking and more explanation of items when they are introduced. In addition to this, much like how the previous reviewer mentioned, there is a noted lack of citations. I am chalking that up to most of it being learned from looking at the extension itself, but if there is a doc page of the extension, then that could be cited so that people know where to look for each feature. Another point of contention is the header "Magical cd function", which I feel is an example of how the page is done as a whole. The use of the word "Magical" seems to come out of nowhere, and is not referenced within the paragraph, and so it feels as though it was used for flourish. In fact, that whole section has no citation at all. Also, there is a box with "File:Getfile.jpeg" which I assume is a failed picture link.

Overall though, the article does mostly serve its purpose of informing people about Firebug. However, as an encyclopedic source, as Wikipedia is supposed to be, it falls short.

Kfo123 (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Maintenance and rating of JavaScript articles
Concerning editing and maintaining JavaScript-related articles...

Collaboration...
If you are interested in collaborating on JavaScript articles or would like to see where you could help, stop by WikiProject JavaScript and feel free to add your name to the participants list. Both editors and programmers are welcome.

Where to list JavaScript articles
We've found over 300 JavaScript-related articles so far. If you come across any others, please add them to that list.

User scripts
The WikiProject is also taking on the organization of the Wikipedia community's user script support pages. If you are interested in helping to organize information on the user scripts (or are curious about what we are up to), let us know!

If you have need for a user script that does not yet exist, or you have a cool idea for a user script or gadget, you can post it at User scripts/Requests. And if you are a JavaScript programmer, that's a great place to find tasks if you are bored.

How to report JavaScript articles in need of attention
If you come across a JavaScript article desperately in need of editor attention, and it's beyond your ability to handle, you can add it to our list of JavaScript-related articles that need attention.

Rating JavaScript articles
At the top of the talk page of most every JavaScript-related article is a WikiProject JavaScript template where you can record the quality class and importance of the article. Doing so will help the community track the stage of completion and watch the highest priority articles more closely.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 01:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

What is the relation between FlashFirebug and Firebug?
FlashFirebug seems to be just using the same name and even the same bug icon of Firebug.

Are they developed by the same people? It looks more like a rip off than a relation between the two.

If they are not related, please remove the FlashFirebug section from this page. Create a new page for it if you want... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:7F4:C28F:3C4A:5C8D:E8B8:6552:CE3C (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly same thoughts, the article is about a notion, not a word. --Dereckson (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)