Talk:Firefox (novel)

Merge
I created the Firefox (book) article - I found it as a link on the Mig-31 page and didn't realise that there was a Firefox (novel) page as well. I think the (book) page has a better written content but the (novel) page has better format. If we can combine the better aspects of both then merging is fine by me. Bob the Pirate 14:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I waited a month or so and nobody else seems to care one way or the other so I've gone ahead and merged the articles. --Bob the Pirate 10:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CraigThomas Firefox.jpg
Image:CraigThomas Firefox.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CraigThomas Firefox filmtiein.jpg
Image:CraigThomas Firefox filmtiein.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CraigThomas Firefox filmtiein.jpg
Image:CraigThomas Firefox filmtiein.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CraigThomas Firefox.jpg
Image:CraigThomas Firefox.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Plot length.
I've trimmed it to 598 words - which is less than the earlier 707 words. Please help by suggesting edits (or even making them) - I think it now covers the important aspects of the novel. Although, tbh I think it did before when I removed the template last time at 609 words. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Infobox Preceded by / Followed by
The infobox currently says and. But the article text makes it clear that Firefox doiwn is the sequel, and that these two books are before and after only in the sequence of the author's publications. There is already a link to Craig Thomas where a list of the author's woks is given in publication order. It seems to me that this listing of "Preceded by" and "Followed by" without context to explain in what sense this is meant is confusing. I propose to remove this from the infobox, and possibly add info on the publication sequence to the article body. Does anyone object? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I object to the removal. Per the notes at Template:Infobox book/doc:
 * preceded_by
 * Title of prior book in series; will be italicised by template code (do not use to connect separate books chronologically)
 * followed_by
 * Title of subsequent book in a series or a sequel; will be italicised by template code (do not use to connect separate books chronologically)


 * I've corrected the parameters accordingly, and thanks for pointing it out. This is a standard infobox used in thousands of book articles, and a misuse on one article is minor. If it continues to be a problem here, then we can add hidden notes on correct usage to the article's infobox. - BilCat (talk) 00:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have also proposed deprecating the parameter on the infobox, because such misuse is all too common, and because i think putting such information in the infobox is more likely to be confusing than helpful. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * That's the proper venue to discuss removing the parameter. - BilCat (talk) 00:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but this talk page is the proper venu to discuss whether it should be used on this article or not. Just because an infobox supports a parameter does not mean it must be used on any particular article. I think that not using it here would improve this specific article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see why it shouldn't be kept. If keeps being changed, then perhaps. But let's at least see if it causes further problems. At the moment, the sequel isn't even mentioned in the Lead. - BilCat (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)