Talk:List of web browsers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Opera

Opera web browser is still missing in the list. I don't know, however, into which category Opera belongs. --Maxl 16:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I just found it. It's not correctly sorted into the alphabetical list. I'll change that. --Maxl 16:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


The following text appears on the page, "Aushim was here", Possible vandalism

[edit] External links.

Shouldn't each browser have a link to additional information? All the browsers which have a wiki article have such a link. Creating additional wiki articles "just" for the purpose of providing an external link to additional information seems like a bad idea.

I see nothing in the Wiki External Links articles which justifies deleting the external links from browsers which do not have an internal link. A list by definition is little more than a set of categorized links. A list entry without a link isn't very useful and forces the wiki user to use a search engine to find additional information.

The issue of whether lists belong on Wiki is another issue all together, but Wiki lists which do exist should not be intentionally made hard to use. --VMS Mosaic

I agree - it's not always clear what lists are called and which are not... Regardless (sortta) I have added ext.links to Chimera (NOT Camino) & DeepNet MonstaPro 00:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Omission

Someone needs to add David T. Pierson's "WannaBe" browser - Mac OS 8/9's best ever text-browser. Some people still run it! --Beforedecay 20:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Preliminary searches through Google prove inconclusive; however I did find something! MonstaPro 01:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not certain of what your search proves. Is the article supposed to be an exhaustive list of web browsers that exist and have existed or only the top few ones? Thanks --Beforedecay 20:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DOS-based "Net' App's"

Added link to Bernadi's work on cataloging DOS applications. MonstaPro 01:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kidz - the browser for children

Is this anything to do with KidRocket? MonstaPro 02:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What broswer?

My school is using a browser where it has a purpleish-pink border on the top (compare with blue top border on IE and firefox). What browser is my school's computer? OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Isn't GNOME's default browser is firefox?

I'm using Ubuntu, so i might be wrong if the Ubuntu guys changed it. --Amir Eldor 09:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, Firefox is the default browser of Ubuntu. You can use the following link as the reference - https://help.ubuntu.com/7.04/internet/C/web-browsing.html Foxius 18:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historically important browsers?

I really don't think Mozilla Application Suite, Apple Safari, & Mozilla Firefox should be on the Historically important browsers list. They are not "historic", they basicly have just came out in the past few years... -- 24 July 2007 (UTC)

As for Mozilla Firefox, What makes it historically important is that it's the first (?) massivly-used browser which conforms to web-standards. Thus recommended by many web-designers and CSS tutorials that also advise you to smack yourself on the head if you still use IE. Amir Eldor 17:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that the personal preference of which browser to use is a reasonable excuse for a public offence. I agree that Mozilla Firefox is historically important, but not because of the conformance to web-standards (I'm yet to find a browser which does). Firefox is important because it's (a) the first open-source browser which became so popular (b) provides a set of open-source technologies such as XUL, XPCOM, etc. Foxius 18:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Historic != Historical. IMHO, whichever gets released first, IE8, Opera 10 or Firefox 4, will become a historically important browser. 130.230.92.227 18:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Early Web Browsers

Glancing over the list, it seems to span about ten years. Does anyone want to put dates on the entries (with citations of course) Tedickey 12:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ace explorer

Ace explorer is a somewhat popular browser, I'm not sure what section it would be in but it porbably should be included

82.71.12.130

The way to go about it would be to write a (NPOV) article on "Ace Explorer (web browser)", and add a wikilink to it, e.g., in "Other browsers". There are of course several red-links in the topic, which is an indication of lack of interest Tedickey 17:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linkfarm

Most of the external links in the article should be removed per WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT#LINK --Ronz 15:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Done by Irishguy. Thanks! --Ronz 23:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion of 'External links' above appears to have been ignored. I guess the only acceptable solution then is to create small articles for browsers which need added to the list. Yes, SPAM needs deleted, but a list should be as complete as possible (or why bother having one?). I didn't think 'VMS Mosaic' was notable enough for a separate article, but I guess I will create one anyway. VMS Mosaic 23:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if it appears I ignored it. I did not. There are other solutions. See WP:LIST. I think the easiest solution is to find a reliable and independent source for such a list, then include that as an external link or use it as a source to expand the existing list. --Ronz 00:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Since all external links were removed, it appears that none of them are considered reliable. Tedickey 11:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I added "and independent" to my comment above. If we could find say a review of web browsers in a reliable source not written by a web-browser developers, then we could use that list as a source for a list here. --Ronz 16:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
This article contains numerous red links for browsers that do not have articles. The convention that editors follow over at List of search engines is that no search engine may be added to the list unless it has a real article. I suggest that we observe the same convention here, and delete all the red links. Otherwise the page will fill up with redlinks to non-notable browsers that are famous to no-one except their creator. EdJohnston 17:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Until we can come up with a better inclusion criteria (see WP:LIST), we should only list web browsers that already have their own article. --Ronz (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"Otherwise the page will fill up with redlinks to non-notable browsers that are famous to no-one except their creator." And in one stroke Ronz removed NotJustBrowsing thinking it be as unknown as any other foolish unknown browser. What can I say accept Bravo to Ronz for chopping all red links without discrimination. NotJustBrowsing was one of the 3 bowsers in a very short list and not one in a list of 200 web browsers. It is either ignorance or prejudice, can't be both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebbee (talk • contribs) 00:57, 1 December 2007

Same reason why entries for Scope and Networker browsers were removed from under the very same heading. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_web_browsers&oldid=154242609 ) :( 193.229.159.16 11:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
If a web browser is important enough to be included here, it should have been evaluated or at least commented upon in detail in some external published medium. That means it should have a reference to a reliable source. That could be a book, newspaper, magazine, the trade press, or an edited website that has a reporting staff. If a browser has reliable sources, that will usually justify having a separate Wikipedia article about it. That is the benefit of requiring blue links for entries in the list. See List of search engines for a place where that kind of rule works well. EdJohnston 15:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Presto-based browsers

I would assume that this list should also include the Internet Channel on the Nintendo Wii as Opera was contracted by Nintendo to write the Internet Channel. 195.77.63.25 13:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional browsers

Not quite sure if this is supposed to be an exhaustive list of (officially released?) web browsers, I would like to point out two that don't appear to be listed.

1) Charlotte, for CMS 2) EnterWeb, a 3270 browser for S/390s

Refer to http://www.vm.ibm.com/ebusiness/browsers.html for more info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwaptiva (talk • contribs) 18:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Please check whether you can find independent reliable sources about these browsers, to use as references. This would help to show their importance. If hardly anyone uses them, it's not clear that they would deserve a place here. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

As for Charlotte, a simple google search for "charlotte CMS browser" returns a number of interesting hits, most notably an interview with the developers/maintainers (http://www.rexxla.org/Newsletter/9810charlotte.html).

I'm not too familiar with the way CMS works, but I do believe applications like Charlotte would be installed at a server level and then be available to all users. So install base and use base are hard to estimate. The article tries but of course these are the devs, so possibly unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwaptiva (talk • contribs) 10:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Salamander (web browser)

Just clarifying my edit history comment, when deleting a red link to Salamander. What happened is that Salamander (web browser) got deleted via WP:PROD on 22 December. The PROD reason (which for the moment, can still be seen in the Google cache, was 'Obsolete and non-notable application.' There was also a redirect at Salamander web browser that got deleted as WP:CSD#R1 on 23 December. From what I can see there is no reason to keep an article on Salamander. EdJohnston (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WebSurfer

http://www.allbusiness.com/technology/software-services-applications-internet-audio/7196790-1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.179.196.113 (talk) 05:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)