Talk:Internet Explorer 7/Archive 1

GUI Differences
What is with the plain gray background of IE7 (toolbar) on some computers and the "gradient" look on others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IE7_in_XP_SP2.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:EVCert.PNG

Pop-up blocker
I disagree with the pop up blocker comparison of IE6 and 7. When I navigated to the site IE7 blocked all popups from there (tests 1 and 2, I didnt do others). So, I would suggest it be looked into. --soum সৌমোyasch  09:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, those are not good comparisons and it needs to be improved. Digita 17:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

IE problem
some websites including wikipedia pages are not stored support forum. But, pertaining to your answer, I believe that PHP articles may not work correctly.Rmsuperstar99 00:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC) in work offline.What is the solution —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eyas Hajeh (talk • contribs) 19:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
 * This has absolutely no relationship to this article. It should be asked in a tech support forum. anyway, I believe that PHP generated files may not sync correctly. Rmsuperstar99 00:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested merge with Internet Explorer

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

'''No consensus. Default: Do not merge'''. &mdash; -- soum  (0_o) 18:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge Internet Explorer 7 article with Internet Explorer. --soum সৌমোyasch  06:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The prior dicussion done at this place in response to rationale was moved to the Discussions section to keep this place clean. Please do not follow up with any discussion here. Thanks.


 * Rationale:
 * Previous versions of Internet Explorer do not have dedicated articles.
 * No other browser have different articles for each of their iterations.
 * Merging into Internet Explorer does not make the size of the IE article go out of proportions.
 * Some of the information in this article is present in other articles like Criticism of Internet Explorer and others. So, there is no point repeating here.


 * Comment: This place is not for discussion. The separate place for discussion was given at the bottom. --soumসৌমোyasch 17:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: There was no separate place for discussion when the comments were made. Digita 17:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with  ~


 * Support - The division of an internet suite between different versions does not exist with any other of the internet suites available on Wikipedia, in addition to (already said) the information on the page is predominately on other pages and just copied onto this one (see History of Internet Explorer for example) Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 14:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, it is just another version of Internet Explorer for Windows. --minghong 16:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose, this goes against the standards for MS software (such as Microsoft Office/Microsoft Office 2003) that significant changes, as well as being to much for the IE page. In fact, much the older content was already moved to sub-pages of its length and the new content was never there. Digita 16:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, merging does not necessarilly mean copying entire contents of a page into another. Only relevant portions are assimilated into the destination article. --soum সৌমোyasch  16:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The relevant portions can't be assimilated without sacrificing the quality of IE7 content and making the IE needlessly larger. Digita 17:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: It can be. The IE7 article contains a lot of redundancy. To start with, the Release History list and tables. Also, the feature list could be summarized a lot without diluting any informational content. Also, the Adoption capability thing can be better expressed in a line (like, "IE7 can be run on this and this OS" and "IE7 in Vista has a superset of features of its XP counterpart, including Protected Mode, Parental Controls and 256 bit ciphers). The per-preview list of enhancements is not needed (the final feature list is the sum of it all). Also, some of the commentary is better suited for the IE companion articles (like the comparative market share table and feature comparison between versions is best kept in history and development articles, respectively). --soum সৌমোyasch  17:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: It makes more sense to keep the bulk of IE7 materal together, rather then mix it with historical data from 17 years ago, and version from 8 years ago, all across 5 pages. Digita 17:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: IE7 (and historically, all current versions) got its own section in the IE article. Only when its no more the current version, is the specific section done away with. --soum সৌমোyasch  18:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Rmsuperstar99 00:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: "The bulk of IE7 material" can be kept together in a section on this page. As changes go, this is not a very significant change. (Anyone remember when IE 4 came out? That was the first time it did not look like Netscape.)
 * Comment: I believe that you are referring to the Microsoft Office 2007 article, as Microsoft Office 2003 redirects to the Microsoft Office article. Themodernizer 21:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose: While it is the current release and so much information on the page it makes sense to leave it as it is. I think we should be thinking about creating pages for Internet Explorer 6 etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richardwhiuk (talk • contribs) 18:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Comment: The problem with creating subpages for each edition is that we will end up producing one for each edition, which doesn't even show any use. When the predominate use of the product is of the newer editions, there is no point not to make the main page about the current two new pages and then expand upon the older editions in the History of Internet Explorer page. Also, take a look at Windows Media Player, which features an added section on the newest edition of the player, not a new page about the player. Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 19:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Commment:The subpages are only needed when amount of content warrants it, as with any article that is broken up. In the case of IE, many pages have been been created and each has to be evaluated on its own merits- but this doesn't effect the validity of the IE7 page. Digita 00:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is completely unnecessary to have pages about most of the other versions, as no major changes had occured. (1.0,2.0,3.0 appeared the same, 4 was a major overhaul, with tons more bugs, 5 added full color icons and better script support, 5.5 just added print preview, and 6 was the most insecure version, and was only created for XP support). Rmsuperstar99 00:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: This article mostly consists of duplicate information from other Internet Explorer articles. Themodernizer 21:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The bulk of the information is not duplicate;the feature list and many of the references for instance. Also, what duplicate IE7 information there is, can be moved from the those pages to the dedicated IE7 page. Digita 00:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Much information and much to be told about this subject, stop deleting useful articles... Salaskan 15:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Internet Explorer 7 is a version of Internet Explorer. It doesn't need an extra article: the above arguments consist of "there is much about this", "it should be left as is because we don't like change, but others should be changed to fit it". The only substantial problem is that it might be too much for the Internet Explorer article: however, this concern should not be taken lightly. Merging and splitting is not the way to go: information will be lost in the merge, and won't come back after it. { Slash -|- Talk } 05:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge.  Personally, I wouldn't mind a separate page for each major version of IE, FF, Netscape, and any number of other browsers/software.  Not to say there can't be improvement done to these pages, but that there's a good reason to present this information by version.  It helps organize it better.  FrozenPurpleCube 06:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose No other browser have different articles for each of their iterations. Yes, there are in Wikipedia. Despite Firefox doesn't have separate version articles, old Netscape versions do and they contain less wording compare to Wikipedia's IE7 article. The IE7's article's "prose" is pretty much a list. It is still informative and helpful to visitors. This is coming from a person that prefers to use Firefox over this version of IE (or any other). --Souphanousinphone 23:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Merge as even though other programs may have different articles for each version, I don't think they should. IE7 is still Internet Explorer, no matter how much the interface or mechanisms have changed. It doesn't merit its own article. Sean<FONT COLOR="#008080">MD80</FONT>talk 11:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support merge and delete: there are changes in IE7, but they do not change the program's purpose, or the goals of the Microsoft IE program.Raazer 15:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support merge and redirect. Just another version - doesn't require its own article. Addhoc 12:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Merge Per Salaskan. &mdash; Alastor Moody (T + C + U) 00:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, per Addhoc and others. &mdash; SheeEttin {T/C} 00:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose This article is informative about IE7 and shouldn't get mixed with the IE article. -- Chetblong 15:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Previous versions of Internet Explorer do not have dedicated articles.
 * Comment: Then create them! Salaskan 15:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment IE pages are already spread out over numerous pages 1,2,3, etc.). Digita
 * Comment: None of them are dedicated to specific IE versions. --<font color="#275799">soum সৌমো<font color="#275799">yasch  17:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Well there is ones like, Internet Explorer for Mac and Internet Explorer for Unix. The existence of the IE7 article could support the reverse logic also, but it can stand on its own merits as a article. Digita
 * Comment: They are different series of browsers - separate from the Windows versions (at least the Mac version was significantly different later in its lifecycle; still cross-OS froks tend to differ on a lot of aspects). So, there is no problem with that. But IE5:mac does not have its own article, does it? --<font color="#275799">soum সৌমো<font color="#275799">yasch  17:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Exactly! Compared to other browsers, IE has also been drastically different between the different operating systems, such as being noted as using a totally different rendering engine in the newer version for the Mac OS. Chris<font style="font-size:80%;"> (Talk) (Contribs) 20:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The interface and functionality of IE was not that different it all when it started, it was only later it had a different rendering engine and even then the GUI was nearly identical. The IE7 page doesn't have to focus on the various quirks of old versions however. Digita 21:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No other browser have different articles for each of their iterations.
 * Comment: No other browser has been out for over 16 years and been as popular, nor has generated as much content on here. Digita 16:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Internet Explorer did not exist as a separate legal entity before 1995. Netscape launched in 1994 and thus existed well before Internet Explorer (the trademark, not the licensed codebase). Even Opera) has its existence since 1994. Netscape at one point of time enjoyed higher market share than IE. And the rendering engine in IE was redone (inherited code was scrapped in, I think, 3.0). So Netscape codebase legacy is older. --[[User:Soumyasch|<font color="#275799">soum সৌমো<font color="#275799">yasch  17:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment:Netscape has not been continous in the same way as IE, or as popular;its covered under several articles as a result Netscape Navigator, Netscape Communicator, Netscape (web browser). Opera is also older, but again, it has not generated as much content as the IE page, nor been as popular. Digita 18:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment:There was a release version of Netscape in 1993. In the early-mid nineties, Netscape had a dominant market share, where Internet Explorer had very little. It was not until 1998 that Internet Explorer had a higher market share than Netscape, and even then, it was only about 4% higher.Rmsuperstar99 00:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: IE was also not being actively developed between 2001 and 2005/6. --<font color="#275799">soum সৌমো<font color="#275799">yasch  18:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: There were service packs for IE released in that time frame, in addition to patches. Digita 18:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sans SP2, Service Packs are collection of patches. And Sp2 had security features only. Not all-round advancement (which came with IE7). And thats why I said dev halted till around 2005 (without saying any fixed date). But the point it dev was halted for a long time. --<font color="#275799">soum সৌমো<font color="#275799">yasch  18:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The service packs included significant changes (such as not being compatible with Windows XP without SP2) and were part of MS development of it during that period. Digita 21:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: There were no major feature changes in either of the service packs, other than pop-up blocker.Rmsuperstar99 00:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merging into Internet Explorer does not make the size of the IE article go out of proportions.
 * Comment: Content is already routinely split off the IE page beacuse it is to large.Digita 16:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Not content pertaining to a single version of IE. --<font color="#275799">soum সৌমো<font color="#275799">yasch  17:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Well there is ones like, Internet Explorer for Mac and Internet Explorer for Unix. The existence of the IE7 article could support the reverse logic also, but it can stand on its own merits as a article. Digita
 * comment: The main issue with the different operating systems is that the program was different in large, including a different rendering engine and various differences to make it work. At it's base, IE 7 is still basically Internet Explorer for Windows and does not need to be an extra article. As said in a previous comment, we don't have any extra articles for the different versions available on the Mac or Unix, such as IE 5 for Mac and IE 4 for Mac. Chris<font style="font-size:80%;"> (Talk) (Contribs) 20:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * comment: At its base, IE has varied significantly in features over its lifetime, with widely varying compatibily between versions of Windows. Whereas IE used to work on windows, the latest release only works with all its features (e.g. 256 encrypto) on Vista. Digita 21:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Another example of a program which has gone through drastic change but isn't composed of multiple articles would have to be Windows Media Player, which actually has information about all the versions in the one article Chris<font style="font-size:80%;"> (Talk) (Contribs) 17:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment:Its also another example that doesn't compare well, as it has not generated as much content. If it had as much content as IE (now already over a half-dozen pages), then it to would be split up. Digita 18:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of the information in this article is present in other articles like Criticism of Internet Explorer and others. So, there is no point repeating here.
 * Comment: Most of the content on the page is new or original and not listed elsewhere, such as the feature list. Digita 16:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Most of it was already there before this page was spun off without discussion, or on Windows Vista pages. --<font color="#275799">soum সৌমো<font color="#275799">yasch  17:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The IE7 page was new page to focus on IE7, and not spun off from any one page. Digita


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Criticism
Some critics say the majority of the new functions is blatantly stolen from Mozilla Firefox. Not having them was a criticism, now having them is also a criticism? Make up your mind, please! -- <font color="#ff6633">soum  (0_o) 17:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's what some critics say. I can slightly understand it, because IE7 has very few functions that FF does not have. Salaskan 15:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * True that only some critics say this, but only in IE7 does this occur. But, the RSS feeds icon in IE7 is virtually identical to that of Firefox, so, in ways, it is true.Rmsuperstar99 00:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course the RSS icon will be identical. It has been licensed from Mozilla foundation by Microsoft and then by Opera to create a consistent identity for feeds. -- <font color="#ff6633">soum  (0_o) 16:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The criticism section mentions nothing about the glitches and the lack of standards compliance. List of IE 7 bugs, Web Browsers Standards Support Summary. --Crashie 19:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

14 March 2007 AFD result
It seems to me that the AfD initiator wanted the article deleted, by using the verbage "Merge and Delete". "Merge" seems to be a valid outcome of AfD according to the first paragraph on the WP:AFD page.
 * Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. Articles listed here are debated for up to five days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus. The page is then either kept, merged and/or redirected, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, or another language's Wikipedia, and then redirected or deleted—...

Merging is a logical step to be taken before deleting an article (rather than deleting and not saving anything "with prejudice").Two questions: 1) Was deletion of this article shot down due to the polite wording of the initiator? 2) What are the GFDL licensing issues brought up by -wwwwolf?

The first AfD entry:
 * Merge and Delete:First of all,besides that no other version specific internet explorer page exists,If there is a page for Internet explorer 7,why not Firefox 2 then,its as well known, and even more critically acclaimed Rodrigue 14:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 *  RESULT The result was speedy close. "Merge and delete" can't be done due to GFDL licencing issues, and no in this AfD seems to be asking this article to be deleted. Please discuss merge on the article talk page. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC) 

More arguments follow:
 * -Close No valid nomination reason given, nomination isn't even asking for an actual deletion. If you're having problems getting the discussion organized, try WP:PM. FrozenPurpleCube 16:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * -Speedy close. Afd is not for merge suggestions. "Merge and delete" is not a possible outcome. It doesn't even make sense to delete — this would be useful as a redirect whether or not their was a history under it. --- RockMFR 21:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Raazer 15:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism
I remove the sentence from the criticism section which said that many bugs were found, because:
 * it reffed a site that talked about the beta release. Beta release is to find bugs, so no surprises here. Criticism pertaining to the versions in development is not suited here. History of Internet Explorer, perhaps.
 * it does not apply to final release. IE7 and FF2 had comparable vulnerability count. So, this is not a valid point of criticism.

Please dont just revert, without a valid reference claiming how this is actually criticism. Discuss it here first. --soum talk 14:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

move
this page should be moved or renamed to Windows Internet Explorer 7 because of the new name--AFUSCO (talk contributions) 00:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We have had this discussion long before, and it was decided per policies that since referring to it as Internet Explorer (or IE) is more common than Microsoft Internet Explorer (or MSIE) or Windows Internet Explorer (or WIE), it be kept here. See the talk archives. You will see the discussions. --soum talk 09:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Internet Explorer 7 → Features new to Internet Explorer 7 — The only unique content in this article relates to new features of Windows Internet Explorer 7. —Themodernizer 20:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Oppose this article is about a version of Internet Explorer not only its features, an article about the features can be created with more details if you think it is importantAFUSCO 23:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per reasons given by AFUSCO Reginmund 01:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Agree that the content of the article at present is limited, but the solution to that is to expand the article, not to give up on covering the rest of the topic. Andrewa 01:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. The focal point for discussion of *any* software is its features, so why not move everything to a Features new to ...  article? As has already pointed out the subject matter of this article is not just the features, move would not be a wise decision. And quoting, the solution to the constained focus is an expansion, not renaming. I was one of the strong proponents of a merger with the main IE article, but since a consensus could not be reached, it was let to develop. In its current state, and after seeing it mature, I am convinced that a very good article can be created out of it. Even without the feature list, there is a lot of market expectation and reaction that can be added. We need to work on it, not limit our responsibilities to the features only. Like the Windows Vista series of articles are used almost universally against the argument that Vista is just XP with a glossier skin, this article has the potential to become a reality check for those who are spreading FUD. Maybe the entire IE series should be updated to reflect that. Save for standards compliant rendering, other browsers are still playing catch up to features IE had since version 6 or even 5 (the userData object for persistent local storage, cookies unreadable by local scripts and so on)!--soum talk 07:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * Comment: Although this article does contain other information about IE7, the only unique information relates to new features of IE7. The other information is duplicated from related articles. Themodernizer 01:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In current form, yes. But IE7 was different from other versions was that other versions were viewed as upgrades to the platform, but IE7 as coming back to life for a platform abandoned to die. As such market expectations and reactions have been different for this specific version. And there is potential for this to be moulded into a great write up. --soum talk 07:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment:A seperate article about the features only can be created and this article be expanded --AFUSCO 21:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Separate article is not needed unless this blows out of proportion. --soum talk 06:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 06:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)