Talk:Microsummary

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was merge. I've gone ahead and merged into Features of Mozilla Firefox as this now seems more appropriate. -- MartinBrook t 13:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be merged with firefox's. This feature is being introduced by firefox, but will hopefully be adopted in other software as it matures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhknight (talk • contribs)

When (or if) it will, we'll see. So far, it isn't notable enough. - Sikon 23:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that it should be merged with Firefox article. --EEMeltonIV 03:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge yet. Although this feature is currently only in Firefox 2.0, this is not part of the definition of "microsummary" - it seems that this feature has a good chance of being incorporated into other browsers. -- Writtenonsand 21:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't merge never. This only IS in Firefox but as Firefox is the ONE browser that everybody compares with all other browsers it will be introduced in other ones soon. And hopefully it will be adopted as web standard. And yes no FF in definition of microsummary.
Merge. This article should start with something like "Microsummaries are a Feature of Mozilla Firefox 2.0." Microsummaries are a new feature of FF2, but the article is written to make it seem like they are some kind of new standard that Mozilla has implemented before all the other browsers, which are somehow lagging behind by not having. That's both inaccurate and misleading.
Don't merge - I also agree. A microsummary is a kind of microformat (or will be soon) and will become a standard. It's not just a Firefox-specific feature.
Don't merge I think that microsummaries are likely to appear in other browsers soon. Other features like RSS and bookmarklets have their own articles as well. Twjordan 05:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Microsummaries are a browser-specific feature, and neither fully developed nor widely used enough to merit their own article. --Mistermoy 20:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.