User talk:Jake01756/sandbox/firefox version history

__NOCAT__

Section summary for version 102 seems wrong.
The section summary for versions 102-110 begins with a description of version 91. 67.82.144.211 (talk) 05:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Urgent proposal to split article.
The article is currently the 6th largest article on Wikipedia as of the time this proposal is published, with 497kB. 486kB of this is from a section "Rapid releases", which is now officially too long to navigate comfortably. As firefox will most certainly continue to update, according to the current and future releases, there would be no room for newers versions to be added, as there is now an increased risk of broken templates.

Therefore, I suggest that this massive section should split into two articles: Versions 5 to 67 (290kB) and from Version 68 (196KB). When the future releases release, they can be put into the 'from Version 68' article. I'm not sure how to name these split portions, but if it was possible for the early versions to be split into its own article, then so can this. zsteve21 (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It sounds very bad. It would be more convenient to split the article by moving the tables into a separate article and keep the summaries here. LinuxPower (talk) 11:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * agreed that the article is too long and sometimes needs to be done about it
 * but IMO splitting it is like doesn't really address the problem here; there is plainly just too much content not just in a tech nical/nological perspective but from most importantly an human one. is anyone really going to benefit from having all this information? is anyone even going to read it?
 * this page fits perfectly WP:INDISCRIMINATE #4 of what wp should not be; plus the majority of citations are from mozilla itself, and therefore ought to be removed along with the material they support. all in all the solution is to trim/summarize/cut away the bloat on the article
 * Mignof (talk • contribs) 12:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Splitting would be inappropriate; this cruft should be removed entirely. DFlhb (talk) 10:47, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would argue for splitting it. The page is much to big and slows down my computer. While this page may fit WP:INDISCRIMINATE #4, you could also argue that the Google Chrome version history page does too, yet it is also on wikipedia. Also some people may find this information interesting, and this might be the only place to get a complete change log for firefox that is on one page and in one place. Jake01756 🗩 🖉 23:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)