Talk:Google Chrome/Archive 3

I made an addition to this section and it was reverted with the recommendation that I suggest the edits here first. The Enterprise Deployment section uses sources that are between 8 and 10 years old. This is quite dated for the subject matter and the statements are true but severely dated. I'd like to suggest the following:

In December 2010, Google announced that to make it easier for businesses to use Chrome they would provide an official Chrome MSI package. For business use it is helpful to have full-fledged MSI packages that can be customized via transform files (.mst) – but the MSI provided with Chrome is only a very limited MSI wrapper fitted around the normal installer, and many businesses find that this arrangement does not meet their needs.^[1] The normal downloaded Chrome installer puts the browser in the user's local app data directory and provides invisible background updates, but the MSI package will allow installation at the system level, providing system administrators control over the update process^[2] – it was formerly possible only when Chrome was installed using Google Pack. Google also created group policy objects to fine tune the behavior of Chrome in the business environment, for example by setting automatic updates interval, disabling auto-updates, and configuring a home page.^[3] Until version 24 the software is known not to be ready for enterprise deployments with roaming profiles or Terminal Server/Citrix environments.^[4]

In 2017, Google launched Chrome Enterprise, a service for businesses that combines the Chrome browser, Chrome OS, and Chromebooks or Pixelbooks into a cloud-based platform.^[5] The upgrade addresses enterprise concerns and gives IT managers the ability to control content accessibility, app usage, and browser extension usage while employees continue to use Chrome to access their data from anywhere.^[6]

The top paragraph is unchanged and the second paragraph summarizes the current state of the sections heading. I can add this once a consensus is achieved or someone else can make the edit and/or include other sources that are date-appropriate. Thanks - SBCornelius (talk) 03:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this request here. I have read the refs you proposed. The second ref is fine and the text generally supported, so I have added it, with modifications to conform to the ref cited, plus formatted and archived the ref. The first ref does not support that this affects Chrome browser deployments, as it deals only with Chromebooks running Chrome OS. As a result it is "out-of-scope" for this article, but may belong in one of those other articles. - Ahunt (talk) 11:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ahunt (talk) Thanks for all of your previous help. I want to revisit an issue with this section one last time. I still feel that the way the section leaps from information that is more than 8 years old to 2019 leaves a hold in the narrative that could be quickly filled. I'd hoped other editors might have done something organically, but that hasn't happened yet. Here is what I'm proposing the second paragraph of the Enterprise Deployment section.

In 2010, Google first started supporting Chrome in enterprise environments by providing an MSI wrapper around the Chrome installer. Google starting providing group policy objects, with more added each release^[1], and today there are more than 500 policies available to control Chrome's behavior in enterprise environments.^[2]

In 2016, Google launched Chrome Browser Enterprise Support, a paid service enabling IT admins access to Google experts to support their browser deployment.^[3] In 2019, Google launched Chrome Browser Cloud Management, a dashboard that gives business IT managers the ability to control content accessibility, app usage and browser extensions installed on its deployed computers.^[4]

Thanks and please let me know your thoughts. I will format the refs once the addition is approved. SBCornelius (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

It looks like a worthwhile addition to me. If you want to add it, I can format the refs. - Ahunt (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ahunt: Thanks a lot. I just made the update to the section. Thanks again for all of your help on this.SBCornelius (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The "The most used web browser per country in 2019" image has been updated to a 2020 version, but the description still has the 2019 date. Unless I'm missing something, that should be updated

--Zankoas (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

A few weeks ago, somebody merged the Google Chrome for Android article into the Google Chrome page. This is just so unfair, because these templates that I'm editing are now orphaned and don't even have article pages now: Template:Latest stable software release/Google Chrome for Android and Template:Latest preview software release/Google Chrome for Android. Since this Google Chrome for Android article page has been deleted/merged, should these orphaned templates be deleted or blanked out too? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, if they are now empty.GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 17:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Google Chrome has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

36.37.193.247 (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

You need to specify what changes you would like to see here. - Ahunt (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Google Chrome has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

203.144.68.164 (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Not sure how I'd fix this error, but there is an error "Error: first parameter cannot be parsed as a date or time." under the section "Windows, macOS, Linux". If anyone knows how to fix that one, please fix it. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 04:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

That error was introduced with the most recent edit, which I have now reverted. Thanks for alerting us. HiLo48 (talk) 06:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: Some one had manipulated the Wikidata item, note that the "latest release" should be the "preferred one", I mean in the "triangle circle triangle" shapes pattern, the top triangle should be the black one. Now it is fixed. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. I'll admit I don't understand your explanation (Wikidata is a mystery to me), but it certainly looks OK now. HiLo48 (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Google Chrome has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

These are two edit requests:

1. I suggest adding the second paragraph below this existing one:

Chrome allows users to synchronize their bookmarks, history, and settings across all devices with the browser installed by sending and receiving data through a chosen Google Account, which in turn updates all signed-in instances of Chrome. This can be authenticated either through Google credentials, or a sync passphrase.

Criticism has been aimed at the lack of data portability on the mobile version. Users are unable to export their data such a list of their opened tabs or their browsing history into accessible local files.^[1]

2. I also suggest adding this second paragraph below the existing first:

Incognito mode is similar to the private browsing feature in other web browsers. It does not prevent saving in all windows: "You can switch between an incognito window and any regular windows you have open. You'll only be in incognito mode when you're using the incognito window".

In incognito mode, the mobile version of Chrome blocks the creation of screenshots since version 65 and disallows downloading pages.^[2]

2006ru (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

These seem like very minor items, getting into WP:CHANGELOG. Perhaps you can explain why you think they are needed? - Ahunt (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done it's not clear that the sources presented are reliable and weighty enough on their own to demonstrate the utility of this content on a page with large scope that cannot cover all feature details of the browser. This text can be added after discussion if there is a consensus among users that it is appropriate. — Bilorv (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it is worth mentioning without version number, so it does not appear like a change log. And minor appears subjective to me. F.Colline (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Something's wrong with the Wikidata article on Google Chrome. I wanted to add the Beta versions of Chrome according to these links, but Wikidata won't let me publish them! When will the issues be fixed? Can someone please help me? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I think a section discussing controversies and privacy concerns can be added to this article. Somerandomuser (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

For guidance, see: Wikipedia:Criticism#"Controversy"_section. - Ahunt (talk) 13:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Mention controversial aspects of behind the scenes Variant testing, in e.g., Canary. Jidanni (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Needs a proper third party ref, like tech press reports. If it is notable then it will have been reported there. Forums and bug reports are not notable without third party refs. See WP:SPS. - Ahunt (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Version 91.0.4472.80 was released on June 2nd, 2021. Please edit it. I've already added the new version to the Wikidata page. GabrielBloom28 (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Google Chrome is proprietary, non-FOSS, etc. and is not included in many distros e.g. Ubuntu and others, Chromium (web browser) is similar and FOSS. This is like the Adobe Flash Player and Java Runtime Environment for Linux distribution issues. .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

What is your point with regard to improving this article? - Ahunt (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The article could use a section on Chrome's influence on the Internet. This would make sense to cover apart from "Reception". Here is a source with some themes: O'Flaherty, Kate (June 6, 2021). "It's time to ditch Chrome". Wired UK. ISSN 1357-0978. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 05:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Czar: This kind of thing might fit better on a dedicated Criticism page, as adding too many negative points here could sway the article away from WP:NPOV. Far as I understand, it’s a pretty broad topic and could be deserving of a separate page even without neutrality concerns. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps on Criticism of Google? InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I would think the impact and legacy of Chrome definitely belongs within the article, being a major component of the topic, no? And a dedicated Criticism of Google Chrome article would only be warranted from a summary style split perspective when such a section becomes too big for the main article. I don't think this Wired article needs to be used as the sole source for such a section, if at all, but set aside its clickbait title and it's an example of the type of reference that covers the browser's influence in shaping the Internet. I wouldn't foresee any neutrality issue beyond that of a standard Reception section. The purpose wouldn't be to summarize opinion but to aggregate facts about Chrome's influence on Internet policies and standards, hence my surprise at not seeing it in the article already. I'll add more sources here if/when I find them. czar 17:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I am 99% sure that Google Chrome is licenced under the Apache 2.0 licence like Android and all other Google works are.--Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

and you are 100% wrong. As the article notes, it is licensed under Google Terms of Service and the Google Chrome and Chrome OS Additional Terms of Service. It is not free software, it is proprietary software based on some free and some non-free components as that second page makes clear. - Ahunt (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. Please see my response at Talk:Gboard as well. That's not how licencing (or the AOSP) works. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

ALL Google software is Apache 2.0 you read the agreement wrong. There is no way it’s non-free software if it is free to download.--Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

You are confusing a number of concepts there. The license is explicitly stated as Google Terms of Service and the Google Chrome and Chrome OS Additional Terms of Service, Just because something is given away at no cost does not mean it is free software, please read freeware for more on that. If you really think the license is Apache 2.0, you will need to provide a ref that actually says that. Right now there is nothing to even discuss. - Ahunt (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you perhaps referring to Google's Chromium project underlying Chrome, which is indeed open source? --Distelfinck (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

There is a problem in the feature section. In the "Speed" sub-section it is written "JavaScript Virtual Machine". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisatime (talk • contribs)

You will need to be a bit more specific about what you see here as a problem. - Ahunt (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

i want to change the Wikipedia to the normal website Lemer jane lima (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

thanks uo Lemer jane lima (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

can i change now Lemer jane lima (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

You will need to explain that much better. What you have written here makes no sense in English. - Ahunt (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Google Chrome icon (2022).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

With the release of Chrome 110 (expected stable release will be on February 2023), it will only supported Windows 10 and 11, Windows 8 and 8.1 is also affected on end of support of Chrome in Windows 7. Source 1 Source 2 BeemoKincaid (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Not really surprising since Microsoft ceased support for Win7 on January 14, 2020. - Ahunt (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Don't forget, they release an update that install Microsoft Edge even after the Windows 7's end of support. BeemoKincaid (talk) 04:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

BTW, someone should add this on Google Chrome's Wikipedia since its semi-protected and I'm still unable to update it, even I signed in. BeemoKincaid (talk) 04:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 12:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Chrome is the default for nothing but Android and the way it is written here it implies that it is the dfault for everything in that sentence. It wasn't "ported" to anything. Chromium runs on everything NOT Chrome. 67.246.101.221 (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Fixed. - Ahunt (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Google Chrome has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I saw the image File:Google Chrome on Windows 11.png on Commons. Can any of the editors replace the screenshot in infobox with File:Google Chrome on Windows 11.png? Xeverything11 (talk) 09:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that is a copyright violation and has been tagged for deletion. - Ahunt (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Just to close this out, you can note that even though the Commons file is a clear copyright violation depicting "all rights reserved" proprietary software, with incorrect licences on the file page, Commons admins have refused to delete it. That said we can't use it here as our en.wikipedia polices prohibit using copyright violation images. If you want to upload a new Chrome screenshot as a "fair use" file here on en.wikipedia that would be fine. - Ahunt (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I have reuploaded the Chrome screenshot from Commons to enwiki. Xeverything11 (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I see how you did that as an update, so I think that solves the issue. Thanks! - Ahunt (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The end of support for windows 8 and 7. The Chrome will end support at February 7 2023. here something that link here. 47.234.198.142 (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Is there any article with Google Chrome version history? Similar to Firefox version history.

As I remember, there used to be a version history section within this article a few months ago. Grillofrances (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I found that it was a separate article which had been deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Chrome version history (2nd nomination).

Btw. I found also an ongoing discussion on another version history article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IOS version history (2nd nomination).

Generally, I cannot understand that deletion as there are many similar articles which aren't even nominated for deletion, and that deletion discussion used to have a plenty of votes to keep that article. I realize that it may have been written as far from being perfect but in such a cause, we should edit instead of deleting, I guess. Let's see e.g.:

• Android version history
• Debian version history
• MacOS version history
• Java version history
• Ubuntu version history
• ECMAScript version history
• Linux kernel version history

Grillofrances (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

"WP:NOTCHANGELOG" is often referenced but I cannot find any page about it. It's just a redirect WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Does it mean the all the "version history" articles should be deleted? Grillofrances (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Basically Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not a software fanzine or software developer textbook. The Wikipedia policy is actually at WP:NOTCHANGELOG, which says Wikipedia articles should not be: ... Exhaustive logs of software updates. Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources in articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article. Common sense must be applied regarding the level of detail to include. So basically a sumary of key versions with major changes is okay, a long list of every version is not allowed. As per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS if you find pages that violate the policy then please do nominate them for deletion. - Ahunt (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I give tech support, and have used the version history here extensively, for many years, so that I can tell my customers, using old versions of software, exactly how out of date they are. The loss of this section is extremely inconvenient! Adagio67 (talk) 08:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a tech support manual or tool, though, it is a general encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Google Chrome has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

201.130.22.43 (talk) 10:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 10:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The redirect GBrowser has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 7 § GBrowser until a consensus is reached. TartarTorte 14:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Google Tone has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 7 § Google Tone until a consensus is reached. TartarTorte 14:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Alexceltare2 I do not understand were you are coming from. I agree that the article is not the most NPOV ever, but the {{COI}} is only meant for the cases where there has been only one specific contributor to the article and they have a clear established COI. The person listed at the top of the page has contributed to about 0.4% of the edits to the page and is hardly a major contributor. Sohom (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The COI tag is being misapplied in this case.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Regardless, this does not give you the right to remove the tag since there is a clear bias in the article. Furthermore, you have still not clarified your WP:COI situation with Google. Most, if not all the good articles out there have a Controversy section and this article is clearly omitting one, especially at a time when Google is getting a lot of flak for its anti-competitive behaviours (banning AdBlocks, IP Protection, data harvesting, Topics API...just to name a few) and a lot of users are switching browsers as a boycott. I suggest that you and the fellow readers come up with a better tag until this issue is resolved. -Alexceltare2 (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Alexceltare2Feel free to use to {{NPOV}} tag if you want. From my perspective, it just seems like the article is not up-to-date with the latest coverage (and so maybe the {{update}} tag would be better in this scenario).

I don't understand what needs to be clarified regarding my "COI situation". As mentioned on my userpage, 4 years ago, I recieved a stipend as part of a Google sponsored 3 month student program to make code contributions (and only code contributions) to improve ProofreadPage. I don't think that has effect on my contributions here at all. I'm literally actively agreeing that the article is not NPOV and just pointing out that your usage of the {{COI}} tag was inappropriate. Sohom (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with that. Alexceltare2 (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Google Chrome has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

typo "omputer scientist" => "computer scientist" Leoxiong (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. 13:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)