Template talk:Web browsers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by WikiProject Software.
 
WikiProject Internet (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Versions[edit]

Should we really have all the versions of Opera and Firefox mentioned in this template. As I see it, on the "yes" side are one extra click saved and on the "no" side are the size of template (it is really huge now) and readability. For me the answer is pretty clear: no. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree the template is too large, was half wrong (due to it being too complex). I added the Opera vers yesterday to be consistent, and fixed obvious problems. Currently unmaintained browsers are in italic. I suggest simplifying by removing all versions, and splitting off non-browser articles (http, etc) into a web tech template. Widefox (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I support removing all of the versions (and many are in any case just links to sections within articles). For now I would prefer to keep the 'Others' links however, which I do think are useful. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but at least IE and Firefox are in italics, though AFAIK they are quite far from being unmaintained. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for removing the version related articles. mabdul 14:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done

Split the template[edit]

This template sorts the browsers according to two criteria: (1) the environment of the browser (Desktop, Mobile and TV [sic]) and (2) the layout engine. Also the template features the common sections "Features", "Web standards" and "Related articles". I would suggest to split this template into 3-4 templates:

The benefits of this split are:

  • the lack of (relatively) unrelated template content in the articles about Desktop, Mobile and TV-based browsers respectively
  • the size of the template
  • the amount of wasted space

Another solution I envision is making this template modular, so that the parts of the template could be enabled/disabled with the arguments (eg. {{web broswers|mobile=yes}} or {{web broswers|nomobile=yes}}). This approach maintains the benefits of the previous one with several specific pros and cons:

  • the parser functions eat the Wikipedia servers' performance
  • the rendering of template with parser functions is slower, thus articles' load times are bigger
  • the previous two points are valid, but are not as significant as similar problems with each of the citation templates
  • the ease of editing the template suffers
  • there still is the only template (less confusion)

Whatever the outcome of this proposal is, I will implement it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

A split would remove a considerable amount of utility - in terms of enabling a proper overview of the subject, and the ease of navigation provided from having the links in one template. Post-split a number of articles would also end up with two or in some cases three templates instead of the present one. The suggestion above also means that the common links would be duplicated across multiple templates. Finally, I find 'web browsers' a more natural topic area than 'Mobile web browsers' or 'Desktop web browsers', which are somewhat artificial topics.
A better solution would in my view be to move to collapsible groups. If the template continues to grow considerably more then a split will still remain an option. It should be remembered that removing versions has not just reduced the current size of the template, but the rate of future growth. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: I have just added a default collapsed state to the template, which greatly reduces its size until opened, and is the usual approach for larger templates.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
See, I have 1280x720 screen resolution (the typical for a netbook is 1024x600, which is ⅔ of mine) with sidebar disabled. This setup still doesn't allow me to see the whole template at once. So I don't actually get the meaning of your statement about current template's usefulness for navigation. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, per these stats about 24% of Desktop Wikipedia users (and all the user of phones and tablets) suffer from the same problem as I do. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
That is an issue which affects Wikipedia generally, the smaller the screen the more likely scrolling will be required. That applies to article contents, search results, pictures, etc. However a collapsible template would mean that the uncollapsed section would fit in all but the smallest screens without scrolling.
It would be useful if you could reply to the various points which I made in my prior post. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Sure. Here we go:
  • I see no value in possibility to navigate from, say, Abaco (web browser) to, say, MSN TV or vice verse. The lack of such navigation is more of a feature for me. Actually, Arena (web browser), [[Abaco (web browser) and Arachne (web browser) don't share a topic with Firefox for mobile, MicroB and Minimo.
  • In case of split some articles (eg. Opera (web browser)) indeed will end up having all the templates. This means that such articles won't benefit from the split. But the uzbl article doesn't need to have the ability to navigate to mobile and TV-based browsers. So the result is no benefit for some articles and the benefit from others. A good argument to split the template. Actually the situation in the Opera article suggests that in case of split we still need to have the parser functions in the templates, so enhancing this template with a possibility to show/hide parts is a better choice.
  • The 'web browsers' is less natural topic then the niches. Eg. this template suggests that Opera for Desktop is closer to Opera Mobile then to Android browser, which is not the case (the last time I used the Opera Mobile, its rendering was less similar to desktop Opera then that of Android browser).
  • This template will grow inevitably. Once this becomes a major problem, we can remove some older browsers (I mean those that were deprecated long ago and still are not of such historical importance as are some other. We could remove Java-based browsers as they are not browsers at all and are not used as browsers. We can... that is a topic of another discussion.
  • The need to scroll article is not the same as the need to scroll the template, as the benefit of this template (as you put it) is the ability to overview the topic. Once you have to scroll, this is not an overview of topic, it is just a mediocre user experience.
Upon reading your argument I was puzzled with your conclusion: they suggest me exactly the opposite one. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I support using collapsible subsections to manage this navbox's size. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Didn't think about collapsible subsections. How about adding both the ability to collapse "Desktop", "Mobile" and "TV" sections and the ability to define the sections collapsed by default? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes that sounds good, to make sure we are all roughly on the same page here is an example of what I understand is being proposed - a template which has both collapsible sub-sections and an automatic selection for the relevant section, which causes it to be shown when the template is opened (in this case the 'Under construction' is selected: {{UKSkyscrapers}} Rangoon11 (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
As we need to have several sections simultaneously in the same article (eg. Opera (web browser)), I would suggest using another syntax: {{web browsers |desktop= |mobile= |tv= }} with non-empty argument for an option making it active (like it is done in {{infobox software}} with "frequently updated" option).
P.S.: Rangoon11, please hide this template with {{tl}} and remove this "P.S." when/if done.
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Like the collapsible subsections. Good I'll add some more to the current one! Widefox (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

How about this one draft? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

One change - make the last section collapsible too, then yes, be bold and change it! I already have fixes! :) Widefox (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
e/c It's a good start. A few comments: I think that 'Related articles' should be a separate section and that the 'Italics denote...' wording should on the bottom bar just above the category and commons icons. I also tend to think that the links in the above bar should be moved to the 'Related articles' section to keep thinngs simple and neat.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Some explanations: I specifically made the common section uncollapsible as it is common for all categories. The phrase Italics indicate software no longer in development was moved up to actual list of browsers, as it has nothing to do with the content below it. I'll do some more drafting later today, so stay tuned. Face-smile.svgDmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

As I promised, the new version is here. Changes:

  • Now template can be used with argument selecting visible section; eg. {{web browsers|desktop}} (when uncollapsed) will show both "Desktop browsers" and common section.
  • The "Italics indicate software no longer in development" moved to the top of the template, so it (hopefully) gets noticed before the reader sees that something is in normal font and something is italicized.
  • The previous template's header is now moved to a new group in common section. I didn't find the right word, so for now it is "About". I slightly squeezed it to avoid unlinked text.
  • The group name "Related articles" got changed to "Related topics" in order to fit the width of the field.
  • The color of the groups' fields in common section was reset to default in order to separate the common section from "TV-based browsers". Some more creative approach is welcome.

Comments? Suggestions? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The Common section still looks like it's the expansion of "TV-based browsers". I would suggest moving the Common section to the top to avoid this. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I made a draft with common section on top (and some other minor changes I feel needed in that case) and another one with common section on bottom made more distinct. Comments? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I like the on-top draft. Nice work. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
The on-top version works for me too, good job.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
On-top is fine. Maybe drop the word "browsers" on each, as there's confusion with the title. Also, I think there should be a new section "games console" browsers (or better title), for internet Channel for the Wii etc and then it can be moved out of the incorrect TV section (if we're categorising by platform running on, rather than displaying on. Widefox (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The VGC browsers are pretty different question, as here we are primarily deal with a form, not with the content. Though renaming "TV-based" to "Browsers in TV and gaming appliances" (or something like this) may make more sense, given the amount of content there. Still, it should be done after formatting changes, not within. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I did my edit suggestion, and some fixes. Any feedback? Also, I suggest we merge the template for old browsers {{Early web browsers}} . Others? Widefox (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I really like the new design of the template. How about merging gopher browsers, early web browsers, and internet suites into this template? (and maybe rename it) mabdul 20:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll start working on a draft in an hour or so. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge of templates[edit]

I've looked into merging {{gopher clients}} and {{early web browsers}} into this template (as suggested by Mabdul, and here are my observations:

  1. The {{early web browsers}} template has different rationale behind it. It can be trivially merged into this template, but this merge doesn't make sense to me: combining both history- and category-based splits makes more sense. Though it can be reorganized into a template or a series of templates which would be much more usable.
  2. The {{gopher clients}} is already a mess: apart from gopher clients it contains gopher servers, gopher related person (one) and some technologies more or less connected to gopher (with latter being the more common case).
  3. While web browsers can be divided in two groups ("active" and "discontinued/unmaintained"), some gopher clients fall into third group: software, which previously supported gopher, but doesn't any more. This issue can be addressed by changing the meaning of italics though.
  4. The current split of web browsers is based on web engines used as underlying technologies (though one of these engines is "Text" [sic]); on this criterion the gopher browsers can be split into Mozilla-based and others. Note, that gopher support in Gecko is now dropped.
  5. The "common section" of this template is web browser-specific. Gopher clients don't have ad blocking, cookies, privacy mode and other web browsers' goodies.

My summary: neither {{gopher clients}} nor {{early web browsers}} can be merged into this template without breaking this template's consistency, so no draft as of now. Comments? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem in merging the early web browser into this template since we easily can use the collapsable stuff and thus having a new cat. With the gopher template you are correct - it wouldn't fit into this ("totally different" topic) - same problem also at the {{internet suites}} although all are also web browsers... mabdul 23:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I just don't want to overcrowd this template. Actually, there's a good working model for such cases (eg. {{Dodge Truck Timeline}}). Given the specifics of timeline of web browsers, I could make a bit heavier template (or set of templates) providing the same experience, and it would be better serving the purpose. Probably this template could be then merged there, if unification is wanted. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Desktop browsers[edit]

I recently removed several entries and another editor restored some of them. As I'm fairly sure that I was right removing them, I want to start a discussion here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Netscape[edit]

Though definitely significant, Netscape evolutioned into Mozilla, so I'm pretty sure it should be noted only in Gecko section. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Firefox builds[edit]

This template is devoted to browsers, so it shouldn't list named alternative builds of Firefox. The valid borderline browser to be included IMHO is Pale Moon, which features slightly modified UI. Swiftfox, GNU IceCat and other builds of Firefox that differ in branding, build options and default set of extensions are to narrow to be covered here. Firefox people should have separate template for these. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be inventing your own definition of "browser" here. They're bit-player browsers and only vary slightly, but they are browsers nonetheless. Notability is an AfD matter. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Sure they are browsers. More specifically, all of them are Firefox. This is the reason I believe they shouldn't be mentioned here regardless of their notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
They have distinct identities. That's sufficient, IMO. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
In several linux distributions the firefox is included under versions' code names. So, may be we should include them also? And if I build Firefox with my custom proprietary branding, may be I should also include it? Or may be we should discriminate browser builds? Or may be we should follow WP:WEIGHT? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Why not creating a sub-category like at {{Office suites}}? mabdul 10:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Notability is a sufficient criterion. Shiretoko and similar only have articles as release versions of Firefox, which I think we all would agree are covered under the general Firefox entry as Firefox has yet to make any significant enough change to warrant historical discontinuity; mere incremental updates don't qualify as separate browsers. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
If so, there are at least twice as many browsers that are not mentioned in this template but still have their articles. FWIW, there is dozen of Lynx forks. Following your logic, all of them are going to lend here? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I know only of two existing Lynx builds having an exiting article - and these were tagged with a merge template. This should likely also happen with these many Firefox builds, but if the community things that they deserve more than a sentence in a list (like at OpenOffice.org) [means surviving an AfD], then why the hell shouldn't they listed? mabdul 20:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Non-browsers[edit]

Gollum is a web application, how did it get here at all? AmiZilla and Gnuzilla are project names; the first one didn't release code at all, the second is an umbrella with only GNU IceCat currently released; anyway, there never was software with such names. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Points taken. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
As already mentioned above: notability should be clarified in an AfD/PROD, not at a talkpage of a template. mabdul 10:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
You might have missed the point: these three are not browsers at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Gollum browser is a very spezific browser and we should consider creating another category for site-specific browsers
  • IceCat seems notable (or maybe should be merged)
  • AmiZilla should get 'AfD
  • iLoo is similar to AmiZilla (not directly a browser)
  • Gnuzilla should be merged to MAS (and thus problem solved)
mabdul 20:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Presto-based[edit]

Opera is one of the most significant web browsers, but it is the only browser with Presto rendering engine. I don't see a reason to keep entire raw for one entry. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

BTW, in "Mobile" group Internet Explorer Mobile is listed in "Other" for the same reason, I believe. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
IE:mobile is listed there because a few years ago the browser was using "another" engine (not trident); At the moment I would !vote for keep. mabdul 10:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Rationale? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Opera Mini/Mobile using Presto; IE trident; IEMAC Tasman; and IEMobile used an independent "layout engine" (I believe it wasn't even an engine) until MS switched with IEMobile6 (or 7?) to Trident. mabdul 20:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

KHTML[edit]

Though historically KHTML was predecessor of WebKit, that doesn't warrant joining them together. It is the same as joining together Gecko-based and Trident-based under name Mosaic-based. BTW, Sputnik (the other KHTML-based browser) is a defunct browser that was never notable, so it is just litter here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Then by all means, AfD Sputnik. Your analogy is flawed; Gecko shares no code with Mosaic or Trident, whereas WebKit is a code fork of KHTML, and according to the WP article, there has been some collaboration betwixt the 2 since. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Forget Gecko. Trident is direct descendent of Mosaic. Should we join VMS Mosaic, Mosaic-CK and "Trident-based" into "Mosaic-based"? KHTML and WebKit differ in number of aspects, and this difference is just big enough to trigger regular discussions on deprecating KHTML in favor of WebKit within Qt in KDE. P.S.: I PRODed Sputnik once, but it was subsequently dePRODed with "rm WP:PROD, per WP:Notability is not temporary" rationale. I just have no chance to win over the MorphOS fan camp in AfD. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Trident is (at least) since IE7 (Trident 4(?)) totally independent of Mosaic. Why the need of merging all these cats? Since the cats are collapsible it doesn't steal any real window height. mabdul 11:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Trident 1.0 was relabeled Mosaic, and Microsoft claims continuity between Trident versions; thus Trident is as much related to Mosaic as WebKit to KHTML. Joining the last two in the single group is actually harmful, as they are not much related now and will only get less related in future. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm confused now and I think you mixed some stuff: Trident =/= IE; moreover the early history of Trident is totally unreferenced; strictly speaking about Mosaic we have to separate two major (independent) versions, but this can be sorted out after we have improved the related articles. (IE is based on Spyglass Mosaic and not on Mosaic (web browser) mabdul 20:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

If WebKit and KHTML is the same, then why both have different names? May be they're not so the same how some people imagine it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.10.229.1 (talk) 07:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Adding Blink category[edit]

Hi, regarding revert of my edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AWeb_browsers&diff=570494753&oldid=570418605 "Adding Blink to the Desktop browsers category messed up the ordering. Next time, make sure that the edits don't disturb the order."

I fail to see how I messed up the order. I added Blink at the top, above WebKit. Blink is now current in Chrome, right? And it's the most popular browser, then it should be at the top? (And it's also newest and fits cronological order if that is what it was). I hesitate to revert my revert. Am I wrong? Can anyone add it back (properly)? comp.arch (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

if you change the number of the 'group' fields, you must change the 'list' fields as well. the number has to correspond, or everything is mangled. Frietjes (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)