Talk:Browser engine

Goanna engine is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia Goanna_(software) and with so few truly independent currently supported/maintained, it strikes me that it should be listed in this page. In years gone by, I'd "be bold" and just plonk it in there, but Wikipedia seems much more reserved these days so I'm trying to be cautious to be sure I'm not stepping on toes/doing it wrong.. DigitalSorceress (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Disagree for two reasons. The section in this article focuses on the engines of major browsers; the lone exception being KHTML, which is historically significant as the origin of WebKit. But Goanna is only the engine of small niche Pale Moon and a few others (and thus has no historical significance). The other reason is that Goanna is not "truly independent"; years ago I followed its development for a while, which was heavily dependent on backports from Gecko for new functionality. So it shouldn't be listed here. -Pmffl (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if we can properly consider LibWeb for inclusion here, the basis for Ladybird -- Joe (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't belong here since it's neither part of a mainstream browser nor is it historically significant. -Pmffl (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Pmffl,

I noticed my recent edits were reverted. I’d like to briefly explain the rationale behind them for context, but I won’t be editing further; I’ll leave it to you and other editors to review.

- DOJ antitrust case (Chrome / Blink) – Documents regulatory scrutiny tied to engine dominance. Neutral, verifiable (Wired).

- Ladybird and Servo projects – Represents active efforts to increase engine diversity. Directly relevant to “Notable engines” and sourced to W3C. Omitting them leaves the section incomplete.
- AI integration trend – Shows how engines are evolving beyond layout and rendering. Neutral, factual, and sourced (Fortune).
- Blink dominance / monoculture – Provides context on security and standards risks of engine homogeneity. Sourced to reputable publications.

Taken together, these additions improve completeness and context for readers.

I’m curious: how would something like Ladybird be considered sloppy, irrelevant, biased, or tangential? Not including it seems like bias by omission, since it represents a key development and the future of browsers, with an alpha release planned for 2026.

Creating a browser from scratch is complex, often involving multiple teams and technical factors. The companies controlling these engines also control search or ad platforms, which is central to the monopoly concerns the DOJ is addressing. How is this irrelevant to the topic “browser engine”?

Omitting these facts risks whitewashing or implicit COI with Blink/Google, rather than giving a complete, neutral picture of the current engine landscape.

Cheers, Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

This article is for the browser engine, not the entire browser. The DOJ case is irrelevant here - that's about Google having both dominant Search and Browser, so not surprisingly, the Blink engine is not even mentioned in the article.

As for Ladybird, it's an entire new browser; LibWeb is the engine. Perhaps it will merit inclusion here after it's actually released which won't be until next year at the earliest. Plus, I addressed LibWeb in the prior section of this talkpage. -Pmffl (talk) 06:42, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

if @Pmffl or anyone else tries to whitewash this article, all hell will break loose. This is Wikipedia, not a Google kiss ass group.

I've added a section titled "Market Consolidation and Independent Development" because the current article omits critical, well-sourced information about the browser engine landscape.

To ignore the legal scrutiny and the rise of independent alternatives is to present a distorted view of reality. Two facts back this addition: The U.S. Department of Justice has called out Chrome’s dominance, even proposing a full divestiture — reported by Wired.

Projects like Ladybird exist as direct responses to this consolidation — covered by Ars Technica. These aren't opinions. They're facts from reputable sources. Removing them would amount to bias by omission and whitewashing — especially when the article already includes less consequential details. If anyone wants to challenge the wording, fine — let’s talk. But if this gets reverted wholesale, I’ll make it known publicly that Wikipedia editors are suppressing sourced criticism of a major tech company. That’s not neutrality. That’s complicity. Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Your rant here is the actual non-neutrality. -Pmffl (talk) 06:39, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

When there are top publications talking about it, what’s the need to gatekeep? Ladybird is a nonprofit initiative taking on monopoly, so Wiki editors should know about it. It’s not a fork, but written from scratch and obviously about the browser engine.

I don’t have a COI, but if you do, you’re supposed to disclose it so the white washing makes sense.

Thanks, Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 07:09, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Refrain from attacking other editors, especially when they remove clearly ai-generated and WP:PROMO content you've added, following WP:BRD. glman (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@Glman,

When you reverted my edits earlier and another editor reverted it back, it was for the sake of Wikipedia. Don’t take it personally.

Just so you understand what’s happening here is that updates were posted from top publications. Now, if you check the references, they are functional and non primary.

So, just because someone takes it as an ego issue, it doesn’t change facts. If you stand up for a nonprofit, it makes sense, but not taking sides with a monopoly company.

LLMs don’t spew out content from thin air. All links were manually checked, and text validated. It’s allowed for copy editing. But then, think of the bigger picture and how volunteers are supposed to contribute and not blindly click revert without reading.

Nice to see you again here though.

Cheers, Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

LLMs are absolutely not allowed for generating text, which your edits include. Please see WP:LLM. glman (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@Glman

Maybe you should read WP:LLM, where it says the text and references have to be verified before use. That’s what was done.

If you continue to revert, other editors will see through it y No because the content is also there in the talk pages.

However, I’m not going to start an edit war. I’ve done my part.

Leaving personal differences aside, if you remove content sourced from top publications, that’s giving readers the incomplete picture. Good luck! Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Once again, as Pmffl has pointed out, your edits also introduced WP:PROMO and WP:BIAS to the article. You then responded with personal attacks here. glman (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@Glman You are entitled to your opinion. If I was talking good about Google, that’s promo and bias.

I’ve added info from Wired and other sources about the monopoly and alternatives. How can you say top publications are wrong? Even if they are, our role as a volunteer is to presents facts, not to judge and gatekeep. Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2025 (UTC)