Talk:Netscape/Archives/2012

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Scandal

This page is a SCANDAL. I suggest you all read TP Jackson's Findings of Fact. This is a fluff piece for Microsoft Corporation. Either that or the person who authored it was inconceivably poorly read and irretrievably stupid. It's a DISGRACE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.1.226.178 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 22 December 2006

Propsed mergers

I have proposed that Netscape Communications Corporation and Netscape (web browser) be merged into the main Netscape article. The Netscape article will then focus on the ex-corporation, as well as the browsers it used to make.

The Netscape and Netscape Communications Corporation articles are rich in information. If the articles are merged, I think the new Netscape article will be close to Good Article standards. However, I anticipate that after the merger, the information may be badly organized. Hence the Peer Review.

The Peer Review is intended to help me collaborate with other editors to facilitate the process of merger, the re-organization of information after the merger, the addressing of any other problems spotted and the proccess of making Netscape a Good Article.

One thing I observed about both articles is that the History sections take up almost the entire article. However, I am not sure whether this is a problem. This is because Netscape as a corporation no longer exists, and there is very little to write about the current state of the Netscape browser. In addition, the History section covers the information well. We may need to create some new sections to hold information which should not belong in the History aection.

I noticed the lack of references in the Netscape article. The Netscape Communications Corporation article has 12 references. After the articles are merged, perhaps we could find more references for the merged article.

Compare with Yahoo!, which I am also Peer Reviewing.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Names and version numbers

One may notice that I've reverted the changes by 81.174.247.96 several times. Here is my line of reasoning:

  • Based on the Netscape Navigator article, the browser started at 1.0 and ended at 4.08.
  • Based on the Netscape Communicator article, the suite started at 4.0 and ended at 4.8.
  • "Netscape 6" is just one of the versions of Netscape suite based on Mozilla suite. We shouldn't split the browser based on its named shown in the splash screen. Anyone got a screenshot of the version 6? I believe that the title bar reads something like "Netscape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Netscape".

The changes are not based on my personal preference, but the information contributed by previous authors.

--minghong 30 June 2005 00:03 (UTC)

Okay, i'll go through your points one-by-one:
An interesting one, this. The flagship Netscape Navigator was from versions 1.0 until 3.04. But, as you rightly point out, a standalone version of Navigator was still available until 4.08 (though it was really just a stripped down version of Netscape Communicator). Of course, the browser within Netscape was called Navigator all the way up until 6.2.3. Therefore, you could technically say that Netscape Navigator existed from versions 1.0-6.2.3. This would be misleading, however, as it was part of another product from version 4.0 onwards.
Correct. I've never disputed this. So why did you keep on changing it to say 4.5-4.8?
  • "Netscape 6" is just one of the versions of Netscape suite based on Mozilla suite. We shouldn't split the browser based on its named shown in the splash screen. Anyone got a screenshot of the version 6? I believe that the title bar reads something like "Netscape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Netscape".
Yes, Netscape 6 and 7 were both based on Mozilla. However, it is indisputable that they had different names and therefore should have different articles. After all, Netscape Navigator and Netscape Communicator were based on the same code, but they get their own articles.
With regards to the screenshot, here's a screenshot of Netscape 6.1 and you can clearly see that the titlebar says 'Netscape 6' in it. And it's also worth noting that the user agent string also called the product 'Netscape 6':
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020508 Netscape6/6.2.3
(In comparision, Netscape 7's just says 'Netscape': Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0)
It was clearly called Netscape 6, so I've changed it back. I've also restored all corrections, grammatical changes and expansions that you got rid of without reason. And why not have a full release history? It's handy to have these things in one place.
-81.174.247.96 30 June 2005 11:37 (UTC)
In the screenshot, there is "Netscape 6.1", so according to your reasoning, we should split Netscape 6.1 from Netscape 6, right? No. Anyway I'm out so as to allow other editors to see which version is more correct. --minghong 1 July 2005 08:13 (UTC)
No, read what I wrote properly. In the titlebar, it says 'Netscape 6'. Don't put words into my mouth. - 81.174.247.96 1 July 2005 10:27 (UTC)

Merging articles

They had different names, but they were substantially the same product. We shouldn't split articles based on marketing decisions. I suggest this:

– Smyth\talk 09:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

That's no good. The article names are weird and not memorable. The applications are known by their marketed names. --minghong 02:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure a lot of people know that Netscape 6 was called "Netscape 6", Netscape 7 was called "Netscape" 7, and Netscape 8 was called "Netscape Browser" 8. But seriously, please suggest some better titles.
How about Netscape Communicator and Netscape (Mozilla-based)? – Smyth\talk 09:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I like it how it is. Currently, the system is based on the names of the products, which works well:
  • Versions 1, 2 and 3 were all pretty similar (at least from the enduser's perspective), so they should stay together (in the Netscape Navigator article)
  • Netscape Communicator was radically different to everything that has come before or since, so needs its own article (it was also the longest-living release)
  • Netscape 6 was the first Mozilla-based version, and needs its own article
  • Netscape (version 7) was similar to 6 in many ways, but it was marketed under a different name (and we must be consistant about article names). Furthermore, it was based on Mozilla 1.x code, while Netscape 6 was based on 0.x code, so backend-wise, there's actually more difference between 6 and 7 than 7 and browser (though you wouldn't think that to look at them). Also, 7 had a lot of new features, like ICQ, which weren't in 6
  • I don't think that anyone disputes that Netscape Browser deserves its own article
- 81.174.247.96 22:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
It's hard to be consistent about article names when Netscape/AOL have been so inconsistent about product names. There was no fundamental change from Netscape 6.2.3 (based on Mozilla 0.9.4.1) and, months later, Netscape 7.0 (based on Mozilla 1.0.1). And "Netscape Browser" will always be known as "Netscape 8", whatever AOL wants it to be called.
I think my real problem is that there are so many articles with almost indistinguishable names reflecting arbitrary marketing decisions, that you can't tell from the article title what version the article is about. Different things should have different articles, irrespective of renamings for non-technical reasons. We don't have a separate article for Phoenix, Firebird and Firefox, do we? – Smyth\talk 08:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
In term of functionality, the only articles that should be merged is version 6 and 7. They are almost the same (with the exception of ICQ and underlying codebase). But to regular users, they see no big difference. For the other articles, they should be left as they are, since regular users can see big difference. --minghong 07:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Alright. What should the merged article be called? Netscape 6 and 7? – Smyth\talk 09:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
As I said before, I think "Netscape (web browser)" would be fine. --minghong 00:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
But all 8 versions were a web browser called Netscape, as far as anyone cared. I think very few people are aware that it was only named with an unadorned "Netscape" for a short interval. – Smyth\talk 09:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Merging

Really, this is ridiculous. One article called Netscape would be much better. I mean Netscape (web browser) and Netscape Browser as different articles. Seriously? I know there are technically different product names and so on but the article naming shouldn't reflect the mess. We need a good central article perhaps with a couple of side articles, with the parent article clearly accessible from each. --Crazeman 21:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC) (edited)

  • Lots of mergers are in order, I think I'm going to be bold and do it myself. - Mike(talk) 01:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Netscape template

Right now, the articles on the various Netscape browsers are all over the place. The naming scheme could be *very* confusing for those who aren't familiar with the history of Netscape, especially if they type in, for example, "Netscape Navigator" or "Netscape Browser" instead of the mother page "Netscape." Thus, I believe we should create a template that could appear near the top or the bottom of each page about Netscape web browsers. Such a template could probably make it easier for those unfamiliar with Netscape to understand the history of the Netscape browser.

I have made two sample templates that illustrate what I'm talking about: this template, which would appear near the top of each article and this template, which would appear near the bottom.

An alternative that might also help is the use of a modified succession box template. Just a thought.

What do the rest of you think? 青い(Aoi) 04:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I personally think the article under "Netscape" should be about the Netscape corporation (currently the Netscape Communications Corporation page with links to various Netscape products. In particular Netscape server needs to be on the "Netscape page" but not necc. on the Netscape browser page Jbolden1517 21:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The history/related topic navigation template looks pretty good. Anyone agree? :-) --minghong 04:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Only 4 web browsers in real world?

I'll tell you what. some say there are only 4 web browsers in real world, which are IE, Firefox, Opera, Konqueror.

they say, this 4 only use their own rendering engine for now,

So, Nescape/Safari/Avant browser/Maxthon/Slim browser or anything are not the original or real web browser.

What do you think?

seeing as netscape existed long before firefox and as they both use the gecko rendering engine, firefox isn't a real browser. And, you forget to mention e-links 204.38.191.99
Hmm... You can make a similar generalisation about current operating systems, in that they are all either based on some Unix-derivative (inc. Linux, MacOS X, apparently even PalmOS soon) or on Windows NT. However, like any such generalisation, there will always be exceptions - notably, for instance, Windows CE, which is not NT-based.
In the case of browsers, there are also serious exceptions: as mentionned, there are the text-based browsers (lynx, e-links, w3m, etc), and there is also the fact that IE for Windows and IE for Mac use different rendering engines (Trident and Tasman, respectively), so even a very conservative list would have to include both.
More generally, I don't think that defining a browser solely by its layout engine is any more valid than defining an OS only by its kernel - it is a strong grouping characteristic, but not the "be all and end all". Consequently, this observation belongs in a list of layout engines, where it already is. - IMSoP 21:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Safari has WebKit as it's own rendering engine, so it can be considered as original. 84.148.167.174 (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Netscape corporation

I think this article should be under "Netscape browser" and the article on "Netscape" should be on Netscape corporation with links about their other older products. For example I came here looking for information on the old netscape server (one of the earliest commercial webservers). Jbolden1517

I think this page ("Netscape") would function better as a disambiguation page. Actually, I think that this page actually originally *was* a disambiguation page but it was changed for x reasons (I think one reason was that the writers wanted to make the complex history of the Netscape browser more clear by creating an article that gave an overview of everything; however, in the process, vital information on the Netscape company and other products became harder to find). Also, I think that the Time Warner template at the bottom of this page should be moved over to the Netscape Communications Corporation article, as it this article describes the web browser. 青い(Aoi) 09:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I like the Netscape Communications Corporation page the best too and think it should maybe be the main page for Netscape. I guess though what really needs to happen is more information about each of Netscape's old products. Jbolden1517 21:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Merger?

A discussion similar to merger seems to already be going here, so I changed the merger tags so that they'd both point to this location for discussion. I'm doing this per a discussion at the village pump and take no position.--Chaser T 17:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The Google article is about the company, not the search engine. Similarly, the Netscape article should focus on Netscape Communications Corporation. This will make it easier to cover both the browser and ex-corporation in one article. I think both articles are rich in information, and if they merge, we can nominate the merged Netscape article for Good Article after a Peer review. Would anyone like to work with me on this? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC) (the one who proposed the merger)

I oppose this merger. I don't think we should be talking about the Netscape company and the Netscape browser in the same article. For example, while the Google article is about the company Google, there is a separate article talking about the Google search engine (Google search). I believe there should be separate articles discussing the Netscape company and the Netscape browser. However, I do agree that the article at "Netscape" should be about the Netscape company. However, given that there are currently around 5 articles about the different generations of Netscape browser (Netscape Navigator, Netscape Communicator, Netscape 6, Netscape (web browser), and Netscape Browser, we need an index page like the one that exists here now to give an overview of the browser's development history and we need to figure out where to put that before anything gets moved around. 青い(Aoi) 23:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Mergers and new format

I have merged Netscape Internet Service and Netscape Communications Corporation into the article, and it is now about the comany, not just the browser. I'm going to work on going through and fixing references to be footnotes. I really think that this article has FA potential. - Mike(talk) 01:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm really disappointed that these articles were merged despite a very clear lack of concensus. I like the addition of citations and the other improvements you made to the article, but I still don't think merging these two articles was the right thing to do. 青い(Aoi) 07:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
From what I see on the talk page, the general consensus is that the Netscape article should be about the company and not just the browser. So I decided to be bold and do it myself. I really think that the new format is good. No information from the Netscape Communications Corporation article is gone, its just here now. There's a lot more that can written about Netscape, too. It was one of the pioneers of the Internet in its early days. Really though, when people search for Netscape, they should find the page for the company, just like Google and Google Search are two different articles. BTW, does everybody really think that each version of Netscape's browser deserves their own article? Wouldn't it make more sense to just have an article about the Netscape browser in general and put its history and several versions into different sections? As it stands right now it is very confusing. I won't change anything until I get a consensus this time though. I apologize for any problems I may have caused, but there really seems like there is a consenus that the Netscape article should be about the company and not just the web browser. - Mike(talk) 13:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the Netscape article here should address the Netscape company; in fact, I even said that when the merger was proposed (well, not at first, but I did change my mind later and I noted my change of opinion back on my June 19 comment). However, like I also mentioned above, while I didn't dispute that the Netscape company article should appear at "Netscape," I disagreed with the idea of merging the Netscape company and Netscape web browser articles together. While I'm glad you were bold and did what you thought needed to be done, I really believe it might be easier to have separate articles on the browser and the company.
I don't know whether or not there should be articles on every single Netscape version. While I can understand the existence of some of the articles (like the Netscape Navigator and Netscape Browser articles), I think certain articles (particularly the Netscape 6/Netscape 7 articles) should be merged together because some versions are so similar to each other that they really don't merit separate articles. What do you think we should do?
(P.S. I apologize if I sounded angry in this or my previous comments, I tend to sound a lot sharper than want to. I'm actually pretty glad you took action because the previous arrangement of articles was really inadequate and no one was doing anything about it.) 青い(Aoi) 05:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
What I'm aiming to do here is have a section with brief information about the browser, and then have a seperate article about it. In other words, it would be mostly about the company itself, but still have information about the browser since, of course it was their flagship product. I understand that there is a lot more information about Netscape Navigator to write about, but I think the solution should be to merge all of the Netscape browser articles together. But if that is too drastic, then yes, I would certainly support merging Netscape 6 and 7 into something like Netscape Browser (Gecko Based). - Mike(talk) 14:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps merging all of the Netscape browser articles into a single article would make things easier, but I'm still not convinced this is the answer. First off, there is a huge wealth of information in each of the Netscape articles, and while the article naming sequence before you merged the articles wasn't pretty, it worked. However, I agree with most of your other proposals, as long as the browser continues to have a separate article (and appropriate disambiguations are created).

Like I've mentioned dozens of times before, the current naming sequence is inadequate and needs to be changed. Here are the Netscape articles that exist now:

Particularly, I think the Netscape Navigator and Netscape Communicator articles should be merged together, and I think the Netscape 6 and Netscape (web browser) articles should be merged together. Netscape 1-4 could be seen as an obvious continuous product line, followed by Netscape 6-7, and finally the current Netscape incarnation, Netscape Browser 8. What would you suggest? 青い(Aoi) 09:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly better than leaving it as it is. I think that, as different as they are, all of the Netscape browsers are a continuous product line. But then, there IS more information on some than others. I think that if we do it the way I just mentioned, Netscape (web browser) or Netscape Navigator should be made into the main article for all of the browsers. But I do like your idea too. So here's what I think; make an article about the browser in general, and then we can put "Main article" wikilinks is each section that HAS its own article. Sound good? - Mike(talk) 13:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
That sounds good. Thank you for working patiently for a compromise! 青い(Aoi) 06:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The Netscape corporation was most known for their web browser. This is why I think there should be a single article covering both the corporation and the browser. If Netscape had any other notable products, then I wouldn't mind seperate browser and corporation articles. However, if Netscape doesn't have any other really notable products, then just dedicate a single section in the article to those non-notable products.

I was the one who proposed the merger and sent the article for Peer Review. I don't think it can become a Featured Article. Although I personally dislike WP:V, I must say that it lacks references. However, I think that after another Peer Review, it would have potential to become a Good Article. Being a Good Article would attract contributors to make it eventually featured. This is another reason to have the article cover both the corporation and its browser. If we split the article, it would be too short.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we should REMOVE the browser entirely from this article, but rather shorten it up a little with a wikilink to the main browser article. - Mike(talk) 15:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

Based on the Good Article Criteria, I have declined GA status for the article for the reasons listed below. There is a lot of good information in this article, and I have no doubt that this article can reach GA status with some changes. I encourage the editors to resubmit this article after the concerns I had have been addressed. To help me understand what belongs in a good article about a technology company I looked at the featured articles for Microsoft and Acorn Computers as well as the GA Google.

1 It is well written -- Weak Pass

Although the prose used in the article is well done, and does a good job explaining all the technical jargon, my concern is with the use of subsections. In a few of the sections there is quite a bit of information that does not really follow the heading. The area that seemed most problematic was the section on Open sourcing. The section the acquisition by AOL also could be reworked, since other than it being the first release post-acquisition, Netscape 6 doesn't really have much to do with the buyout.

In addition there are 3 cases where a regular link is used instead of an inline citation. These should be changed, if possible, for consistency.

Please see section 3 for other concerns about the structure.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. -- Needs Improvement

As it stands now, the initial part of the article is well documented. However, once the subject turns from the corporation itself to the browser, there are essentially no citations. Without these, it's difficult to know that certain comments (e.g. "Netscape Navigator 3 was a huge success", "the aging Communicator code proved difficult to work with", "especially 6.2.x was regarded as a good release") are not just the opinions of the editors.

3. It is broad in its coverage. -- Needs Improvement

This is marked needs improvement because of criteria 3b - it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia). As I read it, the article is on Netscape, the corporation/group. However (my just a simple character count), over one half the article is dedicated to the products that Netscape released, especially the browser. Neither of the FA companies that I looked at focuses so greatly on the products. There are already articles on the browser(s) themselves, and much of the information here belongs there (if it isn't there already). Because the company is so tied to the browser, the mention if it, as well as some details about it are certainly merited (.the Google article, for example, spends approximately 20% on its products and is better integrated into the overall flow of the article). As it stands now, the article loses focus once it shifts away from the company - it feels like a separate article was tacked on to the main Netscape one

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. -- Pass

5. It is stable. --- Pass

I was a little concerned when I saw how many edits have taken place over the last week. Most of them seemed to be minor formatting changes or vandalism. There has not been much change to the general content since this article was nominated.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. -- Pass

If there's anything I can do to help, or questions you have about my comments, please contact me. The Bethling(Talk) 10:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

As you can see by the discussion above, we are thinking about farming out some of the stuff on the browser into a seperate browser. I'll do that when I get time, indroduce more citiations, and then resubmit. Thanks for reviewing it :-) - Mike 21:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I was the one who suggested that the articles on the corporation and browser be merged, because both articles were too long, and I believed that if they were merged the merged article could become a good article. There are several reasons why there should be only a single article about the corporation and the browser. Netscape (the browser) is Netscape's only notable product. The history of the corporation closely correlates with the history of the browser. In addition, the corporation is defunct, so there's not much to write about it, except its history. Having seperate articles on the corporation and browser would result in two short, low-quality articles that definitely would not pass the good article criteria. Since I've cleared this up, I will seek a review. It looks like the only other thing this article needs is references. I will send the article for a peer review so we can improve it further. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
If the article is going to deal with both the browser and the corporation, the introduction specifically needs to focus on that. At the very least, the lead sentance should specify that the article is going to focus on both. I honestly think as it stands, the way that the two are combined is overly broad, and is not up to GA criteria. My personal opinion, would be that the article would be best served sill focussing on the corporation, however, take a look at the Good/Featured articles I specified at the begining of the review, especially Google. The information about the product is there, but it accents the information about the company, not overshadows it.
Information about the browser does need to be in the article for it to be a GA (in my opinion), just not the overwhelming amount that's here. I'd start by removing the release history, and then not go into nearly as much depth about each of the release types of the browser. I think 13+ paragraphs is far too much detail, and is a reason why the article feels like it's two articles pasted together. If the amount of information in the browser section was cut in half, I'd personally feel that it would be in better shape.
One last note - and it's something that I failed to look at during the review, the copyrighted images do need a fair use declaration. see: Help:Image_page#Fair_use_rationale.
I do think the article needs more work before reaching GA status, but I probably will not be the reviewer the next time around. --- The Bethling(Talk) 15:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for not promoting

Hi all,

This article is very close to being a good article but the lead is very weak. Try to focus on writing concise factually-based statements. Do not introduce new statistics unless they have a source or are explained later in the article. Specific issues I encountered when reading this artice:

  • The source of the 1% figure in the lead is not cited.
  • "but as a result of the browser wars, they lost much of their userbase in that area." is poor writing (too many words, you were previously referring to the browser not the company so don't use "they").
  • "and by 4.0, it was generally considered to be more stable" could use a citation. If you are referring to just the Microsoft Windows platform you should state this.
  • Citations could be used for the last paragraph of the "Early years" section.
  • The release history list is very imposing.

Cedars 05:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking of finally farming out the excessive info about the browser into a seperate article, per the above discussion. I was the one that originally nominated this for GA, but I can't imagine why it would be nominated again by somebody two weeks after it failed. - Mike 19:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I have moved the release history out of the article and converted Netscape (web browser) to a general article about the browser itself, linking to even more detailed article about specific versions. The old version of the current complete browser page has been moved to Netscape (Gecko based), and Netscape 6 will ikely be merged with it too. I am currently working on cleaning up the main article, and after some more work is done it will be a good GA candidate. - Mike 20:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Format changes again

I have re-formatted the article slightly as I had been meaning to do for quite a while now (per discussions above) and the GA review prompted me to finally get around to. There is now a new article about the Netscape browser exclusively at Netscape (web browser), and even more detailed articles about specific versions still exsist. I have abridged the browser section of this article and added a link to the main browser article along with all of the versions. - Mike 20:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Netscape infobox

To try and "pull the Netscape articles together" a bit more, perhaps we should introduce a Netscape infobox, simliar to the Mozilla one, and based on that one I have made a quick test for a Netscape infobox in my sandbox. I know it's a bit bare, but the Netscape articles feel "far away" and unrelated from each other (besides that preceded/proceeded by thing on the browser pages themselves). Take a look, and if people feel Netscape should have an infobox, then say so. I would implement it myself but I thought I'd get opinions first. Marbles 19:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoops didn't notice it was already mentioned above! It would be nice however Marbles 19:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know why the info box at the top right has this in it instead of actual numbers? "Peak size peak number of employees employees"

Major Problem with Parts of this Article

Aside from the above reference to DOM compliance with Internet Explorer which for those contributors who were actually in the technology field at the time, was a very real problem for Microsoft, there are other POV difficulties with this article. Most major corporations would not adopt Microsoft's IE until it achieved DOM Compliance. Netscape made most of its money through corporate and public sector purchases of its software. Although, home users would generally use IE (much to their chagrin), it was not adopted by the corporate and public sector environment until 1999-2000 period. This article needs to be corrected to reflect that reality as otherwise it is purely POV and a retelling of reality (in nonreality form), by someone writing in hindsight without much experience (if any at the time of the event). This article should reflect a NPOV, which it currently does not. Stevenmitchell 14:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal hindsight and experience is not necessary, but references are. Otherwise, how can anyone else verify that the POV is truly neutral? – Smyth\talk 16:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Netscape Communications

Jay Garcia confirmed on the Netscape community board that Netscape has since lost the "Corporation" off the end of its name:

http://community.netscape.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?msg=9259.3&nav=messages&webtag=ws-nscpbrowser#a3

/Marbles 11:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


Unreferenced assertions==

The article currently claims "By version 3.0, IE was roughly a feature-for-feature equivalent of Netscape Communicator, and by version 4.0, it was generally considered to be more stable." Well, when I was a web developer writing for IE4/5 and Netscape 4.x I can tell you that our user base preferred Netscape when they could get it because it was more stable (and we found it easier to code for!). We were still using Netscape 4.73 alongside IE6 and I wouldn't say that stability was EVER a problem for any of the versions of Netscape which our company used. So my personal experience contradicts the article - I'd be able to live with that if there was some kind of reference as to why IE "was generally considered to be more stable" 195.153.45.54 10:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. In the special case of IE4 it was useful to install, because it fixed some bugs in Windows 95 (installing IE was like upgrading the OS to some kind of Windows 97), but it would however still be a good idea to run Netscape on it. --lynX —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Contest to break Netscape's encryption

I can't find any reference in the Netscape articles to what I recall was a contest to "break" the encryption algorithm for one of the versions of Netscape (a version of the browser, I assume). I think there was a prize worth US$100,000; I remember the story because it was cracked by someone I knew of who took math at University of Waterloo (UW) in Canada. I don't remember his name, but he participated in programming contests at UW, and I think he chose to use the prize to attend grad school at University of California at Berkeley. Does anyone have an online source for this story? Peter Johnson 70.52.181.189 06:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Netscape-logo.png

Image:Netscape-logo.png 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 Wikipedia: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 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 07:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

netscape merging idea

if you want to merger the netcape page with the netscape (web browser) page why don't you add a header in the netscape page called Web Browser. then copy all the stuff from the netscape (web browser) page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.170.71 (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)MadCow 93

Freeware

The statement "Netscape Navigator was not free to the general public until January 1998" is false. According to this company release it was available for free since 1994. This undermines the whole premise of the following paragraph.201.41.113.171 (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

vandalism, etc.

I reverted some apparent vandalism that was in the article for a long time. One of them (23 February 2009, 67.32.146.84) had changed "Netscape was the first" to "Netscape was the second" for no apparent reason. The other (23 May 2008, 84.13.162.0) had put in a spurious employee headcount (10,000) and a fake slogan ("We Only Use the Netscape"). The slogan was not visible in the article as displayed, but seems to have propagated to other sites anyway (oh well!). Other than that, I added mention of the legendary CEO (he wasn't even in the article!) and the guy who coined the name Netscape, and moved the mention of Cisco to a less prominent location. Also added mention of browser development in Beijing, clarified details of the 1999 merger with AOL, and removed wording about Netscape becoming a "holding company" (which seems to be an unsupported assertion). -- HLachman (talk) 23:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Netscape/Archives/2012"