Talk:Vivaldi (web browser)

Can we start to gather information on the technologies used in this? I know that Blink is used as the rendering engine and have heard that there is some NodeJS and modules going on. What about the JS engine, can we find more details? Wrxahedron (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, they called it Vivaldi, because Vivaldi wrote Operas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.230.52 (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Reads like an advertisement

Most of the article, especially the "Features" section looks like it was just copied and pasted from the Vivaldi website. This should be cleaned up to be more than just a mirror of their page. Fench (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Fench. I concur. It is indeed a problem. If I had a little more free time, maybe I could fix it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done - see what you think. - Ahunt (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Fench (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 12:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I just wanted to get down the content and didn't really focus on the formatting. JC713 (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletion?

I've never heard of Vivaldi. If I had heard it mentioned somewhere, I'd certainly look it up on Wikipedia. Therefore I think the article ought not to be deleted. Some people will hear of it and look for it here. It should be here.

Its optimistic tone could well be toned down. It could perhaps mention 'intentions' to develop the product instead of making it look like a sure thing.

BTW I clicked on the image and nothing happened except that it opened something I could not get rid of; had to close down the tab and start over. --Hordaland (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

You can note that the deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivaldi (web browser), not here. I just checked the image on the page and when the thumbnail is clicked on it loads fine, at least in Firefox 36.0.1 on Linux. - Ahunt (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Update Cycle

The August 14, 2016 version of the article reads "The browser is updated weekly," but I cannot confirm that.

I want to know how often the software is updated. If someone can find a history, calendar, or quote; cite it; and update the article, I would appreciate it.

Kxykzz (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

There does not seem to be a clear policy. Though Tatsuki Tomita uses the title "Weekly snapshot 1.0.123.10 is available for download". Other posts in the category Vivaldi updates show updates every few days around the beginning of August 2016. Kxykzz (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Employee Owned

I think it is notable that this is an employee owned company. Binaryhazard (talk) 08:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

If you have a ref that says that it would best belong in Vivaldi Technologies.- Ahunt (talk) 12:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Why was this removed from Category:Vivaldi Technologies?

Why was this page removed from Category:Vivaldi Technologies?Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi.

There is no such template.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, because the category doesn't exist. I have no problem with adding it if the category is created, but we don't normally have red-linked categories on articles. - Ahunt (talk) 12:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

That's what I thought. I figured you removed the category because it was a redlink. But I couden't be sure, because for some reason, edit summaries aren't showing up on the history page for me! Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

That is odd, perhaps it is a browser issue? The edit summaries are all visible in Firefox 49.0.2 for me. My edit summary for that removal actually said (category seems to not exist). - Ahunt (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I think you're right. The edit summaries seem to show up fine in my Firefox, but they're not showing up in Vivaldi 1.4.589.38 for me. And switching to the Monobook skin doesn't help. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

That is ironic that the Vivaldi article doesn't show right in the Vivaldi browser! - Ahunt (talk) 13:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Turns out, the problem isn't Vivaldi itself. It's a Chrome\Vivaldi extension for hiding comments on websites, called Shut Up (apparently, Shut Up's mistaking the edit summaries for web-comments). Fortunately, Shut Up has a whitelist: I whitelisted Wikipedia, and edit summaries seem to be working fine now. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Why "Vivaldi version history" page was removed and replaced by redirect link?

Hi all!

The question for @CapitalSasha:. Why you did it? The reason?

--Shpankov (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Cannot add a screenshot of Vivaldi

I tried adding a screenshot of Vivaldi in actual use, to highlight some features. I hit some filter when I try to upload the screenshot. No idea why. Can anyone please help? --Villarebut (talk) 02:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Villarebut: You couldn't upload you say? That might not be bad news. To be honest, many newcomers upload images without the slightest respect for copyright laws and Wikipedia Non-Free Contents policy and their upload eventually gets deleted. If a filter can stop you from doing this without hurting your dignity, that can only be good. So, familiarize yourself with the policy and try again. Also, including the error codes and filter name would help a lot, but I don't assume it is an option anymore. —Codename Lisa (talk) 05:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

There was no such info you mention. If there would have been any such info, maybe I could have understood the problem. This is the screenshot I took on my machine: http://imgur.com/a/yeNTR Can you please tell me what is wrong with it? --Villarebut (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Is this the image you wanted to upload? Wow. It is filled with copyright-protected intellectual properties of others. (Did you study the link I gave you above?) And what is the point of such a crowded image anyway? We want to inform the reader not swarm them. There are so many things in it I don't even understand. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I did. What is wrong with my screenshot? There are so many things wrong you cannot even name one? How else can I present the specific features of the browser if not by using it and taking a screenshot? --Villarebut (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

It's full of faviocons which show copyrighted logos, your speed dial also shows screenshots of copyrighted websites. We can't have that. It's best if we show Vivaldi as if it was first opened, which is what we already have. --w^{L<speak·check>} 02:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Villarebut: I did name one! Like I said "It is filled with copyright-protected intellectual properties of others" and also I said "crowded image" and "We want to inform the reader not swarm them". And you still have not studied WP:NFCC. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Chromium example

This image here of Chromium (browser) may give a better idea how we more normally show a browser window, with minimal clutter and no proprietary or copyrighted images, websites, favicons, etc. - Ahunt (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you @WikiLeon: and @Ahunt: for trying to help! Anyway, back on topic, that image of Chrome is basically empty. How can I show the awesome functionality of Vivaldi if I cannot show stacks of tabs and the history panel and the speed dial at the same time? That is what differentiates Vivaldi from other featureless browsers.
I could make stacks of empty tabs and pin empty tabs and open lots of empty tabs, but what could I do about the history side panel or the speed dial?
How can I show an actual working Vivaldi instance of a human user, not some synthetic screenshots?--Villarebut (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@WikiLeon: @Ahunt: Also, in that Chromium screenshot you show, there is a Google favicon. If the favicons in my screenshot are copyrighted, is the Google favicon not copyrighted?--Villarebut (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your questions. It is fine to show functionality like tabs, history and speed dial, but you have to show it without showing copyrighted websites and similar. I usually use US government websites as they are public domain. As far as the Google favicon goes, it is just a letter "G" and doesn't meet threshold of originality for copyright protection, to it is public domain as well. - Ahunt (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ahunt:OK, so I have lots of changes to do. Can we please clear each change type that I need to do and start with just the favicons? Which ones should I get rid of? I mean, if the Google favicon is OK, which ones are not? Is it OK if I blank or replace the bad ones with the default favicon (the pinned tab on the right side of the WhatsApp tab)? If I do such edits, does it still count as a screenshot? --Villarebut (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I would recommend not editing the screenshot, but set up a new one with non-copyright elements in it. As far as favicons go, I am not a copyright lawyer, but as long as they have just letters and not logos, then you should be safe there. As far as showing websites, choose public domain ones, like US government (I often use https://www.faa.gov/ as it looks nice) or use a Wikipedia page (which then needs a suitable content licence in the screenshot). Showing features and elements of the browser user interface should be fine. Keep in mind that the image has to be as small as possible (fair use rules, again) so perhaps 400px wide, or at least only as large as to show the elements being illustrated. When ready to upload keep in mind that Vivaldi is "proprietary freeware" and therefore needs to be uploaded to en.wikipedia at Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard and not Wiki Commons (which only accepts freely licenced images) and must have a fair use licence and not a free licence, as it is not eligible. The screenshot also has to be used in the actual article or else it will get deleted under the fair use rules in the US Copyright Act. If you have questions as you go along, please do ask here and we'll try to help out! - Ahunt (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ahunt:Wow, man, thanks a lot! I was indeed trying to upload to Wiki Commons. I used your suggestion and uploaded the image here: File:Vivaldi_browser_1.8_session_in_use.png. Can you take a look at it? Should I wait until it gets approved before adding it to the article?
Again, thank you! --Villarebut (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)