Talk:Web browser

This may be one of the least adequate articles on an important topic in Wikipedia

Not only does it not clearly identify what a web browser is, it leaves out major features of all web browsers that the user needs to be aware of.

For example I just made the most minor changes to the lead, and mention cookies, which are managed by browsers and routinely used by companies to track people across the web, and they've been deleted twice in a row. There's HUGE gaps in this article!!!! GliderMaven (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Disagree. It clearly identifies what a browser is in the simplest way possible: "a software application for accessing information on the World Wide Web." That's what a browser is in a nutshell.

As I stated in the edit commit reverting your change, you can add Cookies to the Function section. That's where they belong in this article. -Pmffl (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about simply identifying things in the simplest way possible, it's about covering things, in depth. GliderMaven (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Just added a statement about cookies in Function. -Pmffl (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. That is completely, ridiculously, incredibly inadequate. What is a cookie, what is it for, how do browser's maintain, obtain and use them, what are the privacy implications of them? All of these should be addressed in this article, not necessarily in incredible depth, there is an article about them, but there's literally nothing. GliderMaven (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

And the whole article is like that. It's supposed to cover what they do, AND how they work, not which buttons you press. The article should probably be at least twice as long, and possibly four times as long. GliderMaven (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The point of a wiki is that subjects can be covered in whatever depth is needed (which will be vary widely by person) simply by following wikilinks. Large sections of text should not be copied between articles; that just makes maintenance more difficult and bloats articles, making it more difficult to find the unique content. -LiberatorG (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

There's no such rule, and when an article is as terrible as this one, any content at all is an improvement. Articles inevitably overlap anyway. So the problem never goes away. Simply linking to other articles is almost never adequate. You ALWAYS have to summarise the material from the other article to some extent. GliderMaven (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Completely disagree with your opinions here. No, this is an article that should be accessible to a general, non-technical audience. Going "in depth" will convolute it. That's what hyperlinks to other articles are for. -Pmffl (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Most people don't even know what a cookie is, but it's a major feature of a web browser, and there have been laws that have been passed in the EU to control them. Can I safely assume that you don't even know what a cookie is, but have taken it upon yourself to revert all changes that you know nothing about? Because that seems to be what you're doing. GliderMaven (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Cut the condescending tone. I do agree that cookies and their privacy implications are worth adding, so I just did so in a new sub-section. -Pmffl (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

What about cacheing? What about the HTTP protocol, and what about that versus HTTPS? What about certificates? I've barely spent five minutes thinking about it. There's all kinds of things that are user visible, and important, but completely not mentioned. You thought that the cookie stuff was bloated, but that's only because there's nothing else that's covered properly in the article. GliderMaven (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• StatCounter-browser-ww-monthly-200901-201905.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 6 November 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. There is a clear consensus to keep things as is. Interstellarity (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

---

• Web browser → Browser
• Browser → Browser (disambiguation)

– Browser is more concise and this topic is the most notable of the topics listed on the disambiguation page. Interstellarity (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:CRITERIA disservice to readers to ambiguate with an abbreviated title when browser can mean many things. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per In ictu oculi. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 15:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose since the term browser pre-dates web browsers. Dicklyon (talk) 05:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose since "web browser" is unique to this case and still in common usage. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 05:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Why make things more difficult to find? The Banner talk 13:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

icons

Although I can see the icon for each named browser when I correctly mouse-over the name in the list, it would be easier for users to find out the icons by having them present on this page. On a computer screen, the icons might be at the bottom of the screen, but they are not named: I look at the icon and can click on it, but what browser does it represent? If this article had the icons on it, then the answer would be really easy to find. As it is, I have to mouse-over the names one at a time until I come to a matching icon. Kdammers (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

No, those Icons definitely don't belong in this article. Hovering over links is convenient enough. I do it too. -Pmffl (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

• Using Microsoft Edge based on Chromium source code to browse Wikipedia Main page en.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I replaced the image. The new one is a better example anyways. -Pmffl (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)