This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Is it just me or does this have way too many links? it sounds like an ad! (comment by User:Naelphin, copied from article).
No, you are quite right. There are a few things wrong with the article, starting with (as you pointed out) the huge case of over-linking in the introduction. The article is also quite fannish in places, and large parts of it read like a list of features added by fans of the software -- the accessiblity section, for example. - Motor (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I also think there are much too many links in the introduction, but as long as the text of the introduction remains such, it is correct. So I vote for a simpler introduction, with these features in a bulleted list. Maybe something like:
I'm not sure about the necessity to mention Oslo here, when it's in the OS article. The external links at the bottom of the article are also excessive, even to a fan like myself. --jnothmantalk 00:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
My first-draft suggestion:
Opera is a suite of internet applications, developed by Opera Software of Norway. It is designed to run on a variety of platforms, such as Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X and Linux. The suite contains applications to handle most of the common internet-related tasks such as browsing the web, sending and receiving emails, basic contact management and real-time chat.
Cross-platform is jargon. There's no need to document every single part of the suite since this is the introduction (listing every bit belongs in a more detailed section later in the article). Just cover the basics in a general way. Drop some of the pipe-links (why iTV, when Interactive Television is much clearer). Discussing the layout engine in the introduction is completely unnecessary (again, that's for later in the article). No need to link "mobile phone" etc etc. All the introduction is supposed to do is provide a non-technical easy to read overview of the article to allow people who are skimming to get the general idea what it is and what it does. - Motor (talk) 01:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I like the second one. But the jargon words are wikilinked to their respected articles, so one doesn't need to assume what cross-platform is. I agree it shouldn't be in the lead paragraph, but it fits best in the infobox, since we really don't want to list every single platform Opera runs. (We don't want to mislead people into thinking Opera doesn't run on QNX or BeOS.) Also, I realized that not all of Opera's apps are free. If I recall, the cellphone versions of Opera still require payment. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and it is encouraged to be bold with our edits. My draft would be like this.
Yep, I think that's an improvement generally. Regarding "cross-platform". I agree it's suitable for the "OS" parameter of the infobox where brevity is vital, just not in the article copy. Jargon is something to be avoided whenever possible. Just because it's wikilinked doesn't excuse it. Articles are supposed to read well without the necessity of reading other articles first -- an impossible goal in practise, but an important aim nonetheless. Criticisms: the linking of "internet suite" seems rather pointless to me (the target article says little or nothing). We'd be much better off with a choice of words that doesn't require linking. My second-draft:
Opera is a collection of computer applications for handling many common internet-related tasks. Although best-known for its web browser it also provides applications for dealing with email and usenet messaging, basic contact management, and real-time chat.
The latest desktop versions of Opera are available as a free download, while shareware trial versions are available for mobile phones.
note 1: I left out RSS... I'm not against including it in the intro, but I'd rather find a way to describe what RSS does in non-technical terms rather than just use the term "RSS". note 2: I stated "computer" explicitly in the first line. It may seem a bit redundant, but it establishes very quickly the area into which the article falls. Some article use a style like "In computing, 'Opera is...", but I think that's rather ugly. note 3: again, I see no reason to link mobile phone... smartphone, perhaps, PDA and interactive television certainly, but mobile phone is overdoing it. note 4: I split out the pipe linked shareware bit. I try to avoid pipe-links when possible. They mess up the source and make it very confusing for anyone who is new to editing.
I'll leave it for now and see what comments there are, but tomorrow (or maybe someone else will do it first) I'll replace the intro and we can work on it in the article rather than editing the talk page. 'night all.- Motor (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I edited it to this. Once someone gets used to edit WP, confusion wears off. Anyways, style guidelines don't recommend redirects and rather use pipes. I realized important information about the presto layout engine would be omitted if we stick with either version we wrote. If someone doesn't know what RSS is, they could simply click the wikilink to the specific article about it. That's what wikilinks and articles are there for, right? --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 08:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
That's rather the point... once they get used to editing they aren't newbies any longer. Everyone starts somewhere, and an unnecessary pipe link is confusing for someone try to get started. What about the printed version? I mean, look at iTV in the printed copy, what does it tell you?
Layout engine: If you read back over the discussion the layout engine information was deliberately left out of the introduction because it's not important... at least, not important for the introduction. The idea isn't to cram every current use of opera into the introduction (same goes for IBM and its 'multi-modal browser' but to provide a quick overview and an easy starter for the article. I've moved information about the layout engineto later in the article.
As I tried to explain about RSS, Wikipedia introductions are supposed to read clearly and for a wide audience without having to click on other articles and understand those first -- and how would someone do as you suggest with the printed version? That's the reason I wanted to remove the use of RSS and find a way of describing it in a non-jargon non-technical way. I've also replaced "email and usenet" with just "messaging", and "online chat" for IRC.
Finally, can you point me to where in the style manual it recommends using piped links? The most I can find is Manual_of_Style (links) that "pipes are preferred over redirects" -- which a) I was already aware of b) I agree with but only up to a point (would you always pipe link alternative spellings for example)?- Motor (talk) 10:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Cleanup and Merge
I've added merge templates to both this article and Opera browser features. I can't see any reason why there needs to be a separate article to document the features of the web browser, and as the template says, I suggest "browser features" be merged in. There's just not enough to warrant an article alone. Opinions? - Motor (talk) 18:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge? Are you kidding? I'm planning to split even more content from this article. --minghong 07:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
To what end? The article isn't anywhere near being too big. As for the point made above about "why should firefox have it" -- answer: it shouldn't IMO, but what does Firefox have to do with this. I'm not editing the firefox article at the moment, and this isn't a competition to see which browser can create the most spin-off articles. I'm trying to make the Opera web browser article as readable and well-organised as possible -- which includes documenting its features fully and accurately within the article about it.
We need to decide what this article is going to be: an article on the web browser (as its name suggests), or an article on the Opera suite with separate articles on its components. As it stands (and stood before I started editing it), it was neither. If it's an article about the web browser, then the article about its features should be merged in. If it is going to be separate articles on the components then some major reorgansing has to be done. - Motor (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Because splitting allow us to expand more about the history, features and criticisms of the browser. It is also more well organized. --minghong 17:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
File:MergedOperaArticle.jpgA merged article will make the article too large.Until Opera goes the way of Mozilla, and split their suite into separate products (eg. Firefox, Thunderbird, NVU, Sunbird, etc...) then that's when the article would focus directly on a component of the suite. But as far as I see, it's best if we summarize the features in a subsection, then go into detail on another article, as it is right now.
Not if you "merge" rather than dump the source text directly in. There is a huge amount of redundancy. I mean, the "Opera browser features" article contains information on the M2 mail client (which already has its own entry here *and* its own article). There is an entry for Tabs in this article, and one in "opera browser features" -- which adds absolutely nothing. Same goes for sessions. The Accessibilty entry here has far more detail than the two lines in "opera browser features". "Voice interaction" too. There are parts of "opera browser features" that are more like a howto than a wikipedia article (what are we doing documenting which keys to press for keyboard navigation, zooming and what the default mouse gestures are)... that's what opera's help system is for.
The "Opera browser features" article is the very definition of pointless. IMO, it should be merged in (and I'll be glad to do the work)... there's no point having redundant articles spread around... not only is it awkward for people looking things up (again, think printed version), it also requires information to be maintained in two places for no good reason. When (and more importantly if) we face the fortunate situation that someone adds enough history and detail that the article becomes too large, then we can look to split things up.
I don't see much point in Opera (minibrowser), or Opera Mini. Those belong as part of the browser article until they get too big. Right now there's no need for them. Even the pre-existing MultiTorg Opera is just a stub and a quote and should be merged.
which means to begin splitting things up, we'd only need to start with creating Opera (internet suite) and work from there. - Motor (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree, and I see your point. If we are to elaborate on features of the suite, might as well split the article into these four, then explain their features in each article. This will leave the main article open for functions around the suite as a whole, such as marketing strategies and crits. It'll evenually solve both a cleanup problem (redundancy, uneven focus on each component of the suite), as well as our merge problem. But as the article stands right now,it needs some cleanup. As you said, there's lots of redundancy, as well as some unencyclopediac statements. I'd write in a way that it'll be made for print, since there's a project which aims to have some of the best WP articles available for print, so I'd move any statements in the article such as "Release versions are available at: http://www.opera.com/download/" to the external links section. As well as some grammar fixes. Is there a more professional way to say "...application for dealing with many of the most common internet-related tasks..."?
Ok, I'll outline one view of how the set of articles should be structured,
Introduction - what is it, how does it relate to the web browser
Development - when did it start/who did it/why was a replacement for the old layout engine required/why is it separate from the browser
Features - what does it offer (there will inevitably be some overlap with the web browser here)
Licensees - who uses it (Adobe for a start)
Comments? - Motor (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I've done a conversion to the ref/note system -- and collected all the sources together in a "notes" section. It's a tiresome finnicky job though and I'm sure to have made some errors and typos, so I'd appreciate anyone giving it a good check. However, I haven't verified whether the link provided originally actually backs up the claim made in the text. I also spotted a lot of POV language that needs redoing and plenty of copy that needs a good cleaning.
I've also made a start pruning ext links (starting with the official ones). We only need one link to my.opera.com. google groups isn't official, and isn't really needed anyway. the swim one million download challenge should be mentioned in the history and ref/noted (but I've left it for the time being). - Motor (talk) 09:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I've culled down the external links a little more. I don't think we need more than the main fan collections. And the one Opera community web and IRC link. --jnothmantalk 11:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Just a quick note... I removed the usb-opera ext link because there was no justification given for why it should be included. IMO that should be the basic requirement for adding ext links to any article. If the person who added it (or someone more tolerant) wants to make a convincing argument why it should be included, that's fine... but it's not for others to have to go hunting around figuring out why something added anonymously with no explanation should be included. You added it, you explain it (BTW: The site linked to needs a lot of work). Just adding an ext link with no explanation is how these articles turn into link farms. - Motor (talk) 10:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge disputed?
"Why are we merging when we are splitting"
Well, we may be splitting the article into internet suite, browser, mail and layout articles... but that doesn't affect Opera browser features -- that article remains completely redundant, and in large part, a poor quality copy of the information here. The idea behind the split was to remove the need for that article... we don't need any more spin-off articles just for the sake of it. - Motor (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
If that's the case, can we give it another template, other than merge. I would like to VFD it out of existence once we get these other articles together. Because each feature will be described in its own article. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 21:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, merge describes the process I'd planned to follow after waiting a couple of days to collect any more objections. Over a number of small edits, move (or remove the redundant) stuff into this article (allowing everyone to see what was happening) and when finished redirect the article here. Hence... the mergeto and mergefrom templates. A VFD would just be a waste of effort, and I doubt that clogging up the VFD process with it would be appreciated. - Motor (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I find it bizarre that there exists an Opera browser features article - surely the Opera browser article is covering its history, features, and use. To my mind the only other article that might be justified is one about Opera ASA (the Norwegian corporation that creates Opera) and maybe, just maybe, a history article (a la History of Mozilla Firefox). Opera is a major business product used by millions of people, so it certainly deserves detailed coverage in Wikipedia. If the page were to become unmanagably large then it would make sense to split it. But it is not yet that large - and in fact could be smaller if a good cleanup were undertaken. El T 11:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
History and development
Around 1992, Jon Stephenson von Tetzchner and Geir Ivarsøy were part of a research group at the
That has annoyed me for quite a while, "Around 1992" is really vile... was it 1992, or 1991, or 1993... if we can't pin it down, we should replace it with "in the early nineties". Does anyone know for sure? - Motor (talk) 11:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'm not going to worry about it now. I posted a note asking for someone to provide a reliable source for the early history information, but no luck. So I'll be removing it tomorrow anyway, unless someone adds a ref overnight. - Motor (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Market share
I'm reading the gemius page, and I can't find a reference to Opera (admittedly this is possibly because I can't read Polish). The front page contains a table headed: "Przegl\u0105darki" which contains IE 6.x, Firefox and IE 5.x... someone needs to explain where the figure of 6.5% of the market (600,000 users) in Poland comes from (preferably in English, the language of the article), or I'm going to remove it. - Motor (talk) 13:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
So, what's needed is:
A source for the claim that StatMarket "is the primary source for international browser usage statistics.".
A source for the StatMarket quote
Can anyone help with this. Without at least some of this information I am probably going to remove the StatMarket historical share information completely.
Additionally this would be nice to add:
If StatMarket is "the primary source blah blah", then what do they rank Opera's market share as in 2005?
Some hard information on the market share of Opera on mobiles/PDAs etc etc
Information about whether the Opera still reports as IE by default. I'm sure I read somewhere that it was changed -- and if so, it would be useful to have some information on what happened to the market share after the default was changed.
It still reported itself as IE in 8.5 by default. Not sure about 8.51. It's not supposed in 9.0 from what I've heard. It is possible to differentiate between IE and Opera; their signature is not identical. But you have to know to do so in advance.
Quote: "As of October 2005, usage data gives Opera's share of the browser market as being between 0.2% and 1.2%."
These stats do not seem to take into account many European countries where Opera has more than five per cent market share. If these are US stats (as they seem to be), they should be stated as such. - Pompoms 17 December 2005
... is a stub article and a quote. I've merged in the useful information. In five days I will redirect it here unless someone either expands the MultiTorg Opera article considerably, or gives a give good reason why it should be a separate article (given that it states it was never publicly available). - Motor (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
The article has now been redirected. - Motor (talk) 12:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
History
We need reliable sources for the facts in the history section, or they'll have to go. Anyone want to step up and provide them? And ideally, something to fill in the gaping 8 year gap... - Motor (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Opera and Links
HOW COME OPERA SEES EVERY LINK ON WIKIPEDIA AS AN EXTERNAL LINK???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.154.99.210 (talk • contribs) 11:10, November 14, 2005
Which version of Opera are you using? Opera 8 works fine with me, but Opera 9 beta has a bug with it's rendering engine which has an effect on the way it shows links based on URL. Check the link here. [1]. Also, this is a place to talk about the articles of Opera. You might get better support answers at Opera's community forums. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 05:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Standards
With bolded comments.
Version 7.0 introduced the faster and more powerful Presto layout enginewhat's a layout engine? It needs explaining what it is and why it matters... and preferably a source for when it was introduced. Opera introduced a completely new browser, which supports the standards of the older Elektra layout engine and has almost full support for the HTML DOMshould have some explanation of what it doesn't support, possibly in an endnote. The ECMAScript engine, a major failing in previous versions, is now the fastest of any web browser. I removed this. You need to provide a reliable source for this claim.
I know you don't like pipes and such, but this is the best time to use one. It's easier for the layout engine article to explain itself, unless we add one sentence to briefly explain it, such as: "The release of version 7.0 improved the rendering of web pages to support better standards using a new layout engine called Presto." of course, you can improve it. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 19:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't mind pipes at all, as long as they are used when appropriate. However, all that's different in this version is a separated "layout engine" and "Presto layout engine" and the addition of "rendering web pages". Naturally it's easier to let the layout engine article explain itself, but that's not what writing a good article is about, this article needs to read well alone. We should be explaining the basics in here... we don't have to go into technical details, just explain what it is and what job it does, and why it's something that requires a mention in the article. IMO, we should be avoiding things like "rendering web pages" -- I know it just rolls off the keyboard for technology geeks (I do it myself all the time), but it's horrible technobabble. Incidentally, this brings up another subject -- the Presto layout engine article is a rubbish stub... anyone want to improve it? - Motor (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, what would be a layman's term for it? "the way the program displays web pages". And one other problem is how web standards do not matter to those outside the web design community. To the general public, all they see is a web page. They aren't concerned about how it's done, as long as it's done. But I think we should talk about what makes layout engines different from each other, and why.
Well, what would be a layman's term for it? "the way the program displays web pages". You could start by explaining that web pages are a description of how the page should be displayed on your computer. That it's a complex business and has evolved into certain standards (a term we don't bother to explain at the moment) over the years and a number of pieces of software have emerged: gecko, the IE layout engine and the one used in Opera (Presto). About how Opera takes this "layout engine" and provides visible controls for which web pages it should display, and how it's available seperately for use in other software, such as Adobe's stuff. [this bit might be better in a section describing how Opera works]
Once you've laid the groundwork, you can give a basic explanation of CSS (or perhaps gloss over it as an CSS is an important standard for defining how a web page should look) -- you could then mention that one the inventors of this important standard is an Opera employee (and preferably why that is important too). They aren't concerned about how it's done, as long as it's done. You mean someone coming to Wikipedia curious about Opera isn't interested in a basic description of how it works?
No, but I was thinking about the nearly-computer-illiterate end users who will use opera and say "How come this page looks good in IE, but it looks like crap in Opera? Opera's broken, and I'm going back to IE." --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 21:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
If the layout engine is mentioned here it should be explained what it is and what it does in as non-technical but informative way as possible. There is already an article about the Presto layout engine which can go into more technical details if necessary, but it's a central part of Opera so explaining what role is plays is important -- particularly if we are to have a standards section. But I think we should talk about what makes layout engines different from each other, and why. I'm not interested in seeing the article fill up with stuff about what Opera's layout engine does/doesn't do compared to others, if that's what you mean. This isn't a "Comparison of" article, it's an article about Opera. - Motor (talk) 11:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
There's no need for comparisons, since there's already an article for it. I was looking toward a simple explaination that Opera doesn't depend on other rendering engines, since it uses its own. It would also help to know why it uses it's own engine when similar browsers like Avant Browser don't. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 21:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
