Talk:Chrome

More disambiguation?

I may not be thinking too rationally today, having just lost someone very dear, but there is a problem, possibly created deliberately, with the use of 'chrome' by predator google and by supposedly free mozilla. Geeks can doubtless see all this without confusion but for us mortals it's a different matter. This may be best resolved on the pages for google/chrome (browser)/chromium (browser)/mozilla/firefox/iceweasel/whatever else, but if anyone has a pithy explanation it could be very helpful to add it here.Alkhowarizmi (talk) 10:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation/redirect

there needs to be a disambiguation page for this article. I'm not sure discography merits as the main link to this topic "chrome". Albert Cruz 20:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Pikez33

Looking at the history this page has obviously been altered by someone posting the discography of a band named "chrome" i will attempt to revert this. if you want to list discography a page for "chrome" should be made (disambiguation) Albert Cruz 20:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Pikez33

After reverting the page, it was obvious that the person whos only link is the IP (68.162.188.24) near-vandalized this disambiguation page. a note to the person who did this: its not my ability to prevent you from having this article; it should have its own page, and not replace the disambiguation page Albert Cruz 20:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Pikez33

Chrome is shiny

This should definitely redirect to the article about the metallic surface finish. I came looking for Google Chrome and even I know that "Chrome" is not usually used in reference to that. --64.149.42.46 (talk) 12:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I will dig through the history, everthing else that is called Chrome is all in reference to the shiny thing. —Wikibarista (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this. I believe Chrome should redirect to chromium (as oppoosed to the current redirect of chrome plating), with a header note suggesting chrome plating as an other use. Chrome is explicitly a synonym for chromium, whereas chrome has only come to mean "shiney metal surfaces" through popular convention, convenience, and ignorance in the case of non-chrome shiney metal surfaces. -Verdatum (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Chrome should be the disambiguation page. Which happens to be where the admin just moved it back to, bringing us full circle. Please establish consensus for a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC before moving it any more. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you please justify your position beyond the fact that concensus has not yet been met? (As I agree, it obviously shouldn't be moved without concensus.) To further my argument, the article on chrome plating describes a technique, not an object. It is the technique of applying Chromium. Looking at WhatLinksHere, most links are either in the context of chromium, or in objects plated with chromium. Other disambiguation topics are named after Chromium or chromium plated objects. Chrome plating is only the appropriate article when the word is used as a verb, (e.g. the bumper is them chromed before reattaching it to the vehicle). This usage is pretty rare. People discussing the technique usually just say "plated", "chrome plated", or "electroplated". -Verdatum (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. Taking a look through Special:WhatLinksHere/Chrome, it seems fairly even split between uses intending "chromium" (mostly geographical or chemical articles) and uses intending "chrome plating" (most of the vehicle and pop-culture articles), plus quite a few that should point to the band (I've fixed a few of these over the last few days, so there are less than there were. The rest of the incoming links should also be fixed when we have time (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links)).

Secondly, whilst "chrome" was the original name for the element,[1] it is not in current usage (it isn't even mentioned as such anywhere in the chromium article).

Chromium is definitely close to being the primary topic, but I personally prefer to direct users to the disambiguation page when there is such a strong likelihood that they are looking for one of the other meanings (the band, the browser, the plating process, etc). That's all the reasoning behind my position :) -- Quiddity (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the Chromium article doesn't mention chrome is only circumstantial evidence. If needed, we can fix that. Chrome as a synonym for chromium is definately still in current usage. For example, the most commonly employed method of tanning leather is refered to as "chrome tanning", Google reports it ten times as frequently as "chromium tanning". According to every definition at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chrome (beyond slang/jargon dictionaries), the first meaning is "Chromium". many mention chromium plated objects in later definitions, but only a few define it in the verbal sense of the chrome plating article, and always as lower definitions. As far as personal opinions regarding disambiguation pages and primary topics, your opinion is valid, and the guideline is left open (probably on purpose). I myself believe using a disambiguation page as the main page is appropriate when there is doubt as to the inheritence of the term, such as with homographs, or where the terminology split is apocryphal or ambiguous (e.g. mercury, planet, god, or element? without knowledge of ancient history, you couldn't say what came first). In this case, all other entries are clearly named after chrome. A user with knowledge of our nameing conventions interested in learning about the band would certainly know that there would be articles on both chrome and the band named after chrome and thus enter "chrome (band)" whereas a like-informed user might not be aware that chrome is synonymous with chromium and thus would not think to enter the later. -Verdatum (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

A quick comment: the inheritance of a term has nothing to do with determining a primary topic; primary topic is only the one most encyclopedia readers will be looking for, whether or not it was first, last, more important, biggest, most populous, etc. etc. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

yeah...I guess you're right, grumble grumble. If no one takes up my position, I won't cry. Both structures of organization allow users to find what they want easily within a few clicks, and that's the only thing that's really important. -Verdatum (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Browser link

Chrome (browser) vs. Google Chrome, repeating one of my Talk page archive notes: Exact titles are not preferred. Preference is given to links (direct or redirect) that match the dab title. If someone reaches Chrome by entering "chrome" in the search box and they're looking for the browser, Chrome (browser) would be the closest hit for them. If they reach Chrome by entering "google chrome" in the search box, well, something went really wrong. :-) See WP:MOSDAB#Piping and redirects. Note to that several articles still link to Chrome (browser). -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The browser is called "Google Chrome." It's a disservice to readers to condition them to expect (and rely on) a description in each title; they should be using the descriptions that accompany the links.

Otherwise, how far are we to take this? Should we scour disambiguation pages to replace widely used terms with redirects containing parenthetical disambiguation of our own creation? On the Lift page, should Elevator become Lift (vertical transport device)? —David Levy 14:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between saying a redirect can be used (and doesn't need to be replaced) and saying that all redirects have to be used (and created if they don't exist). The browser may be called Google Chrome, but it's also called Chrome -- the reader looking for it by entering "Chrome" in the search box and landing on the dab page just called it Chrome. Claiming that using parenthetical disambiguators "conditions" the readers is doing them a disservice. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You didn't merely "[say] a redirect can be used (and doesn't need to be replaced)." You reverted an actual replacement, thereby asserting that the original style was superior. (Otherwise, what would be the benefit of reverting, even if the previous change was unnecessary?)

The text accompanying the link clearly indicates that the entity is a browser, so I don't know how selecting a link containing the word "browser" (instead of the subject's actual name) could be helpful unless you expect the reader to ignore said text. —David Levy 00:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"Chrome (browser)" allows the user to ignore said text, with no expectation that they will or won't. It's helpful to one set of users (who might be happier just scanning blue links) and no worse for others (who will read the entire entry). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so you acknowledge that you prefer displaying parenthetical disambiguation of our own creation (instead of the subject's actual name) because it allows users who happen to have the arbitrary disambiguation term in mind to ignore the description.

1. You honestly don't think that this would encourage readers to ignore the descriptions? Obviously, a single instance won't result in that, but you appear to advocate the widespread application of such a practice.

2. Again, how far do you wish to take this? I don't see a valid distinction between reverting to a redirect that happens to exist and creating/inserting a redirect for the same purpose.

3. Why do you assume that anyone seeking this particular subject and typing "Chrome" is aware of the fact that it's a browser? Suppose that someone only recalls the fact that a major technology company has released a product called "[Company's name] Chrome" (but isn't sure whether it's "Google Chrome", "Yahoo! Chrome" or "Microsoft Chrome"). That is the situation in which it's appropriate to scan the links, as it's reasonable to assume that the subject's full name will appear there. —David Levy 17:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with David. We've also been discussing this example at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Error on this page - linking to redirects, where I've suggested it is directly-analogous to changing Project Mercury to Mercury (space program), at the Mercury disambig page. An invented, wikipedia-centric, title. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, where exactly does it state/suggest that "Exact titles are not preferred. Preference is given to links (direct or redirect) that match the dab title"? I can't see it in the guidelines anywhere (though I am suffering from a headcold currently..) -- Quiddity (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I said exact titles are not preferred, meaning that there is no preference for exact titles. As far as I know, every guideline on Wikipedia fails to state a preference for exact titles. The question is, if you disagree, where exactly does it give a preference for exact titles?

Other than that, I agree with David too. Sure, it might encourage some readers to ignore the descriptions. Not a problem - they'll reach the intended article. Sure, sometimes an editor might create a redirect for this use. Not a problem - the readers will reach the intended articles. Finally, you're right, if a hypothetical user will know that Chrome is a piece of major technology but not a web browser,

• Chrome (browser)

will not help them. Nor will

• Google Chrome, an open-source web browser

help a different hypothetical user who doesn't know who published it or what a browser is. So perhaps

• Chrome (browser) or Google Chrome, an open-source web browser

would address all the little issues (since there are no big issues with either type of entry), and it's a common ordering for entries that use redirects. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

No primary topic

Now 2010, Chrome the Google software is becoming an important disambiguation. Note there is no primary topic, and 3 possible high importance ones. I suggest keeping the Material and Computer sections to the top to aid disambiguation, no unusual case needed. Widefox (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if you could see if there is a new consensus for your suggestion before reverting to it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

two separate issues: 1. I have made no suggestion regarding primary topic (which is the old consensus above). I am detailing the situation in 2008 - there was no primary topic, and now - *even less* so in 2010 due to Google. 2. There is no discussion at all here that the most popular items are listed as an "unusual case" as per WP:MOSDAB. I would suggest the burden is on editors that revert to an "unusual case" without consensus, which I'm indicating is less appropriate now than 2008. Widefox (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I am very weary of the burdens that editors insist on placing on any view opposing theirs. If you are looking for a burden, the closest thing is the burden on the new edit to demonstrate consensus if reverted (WP:BRD). The existing consensus resulted in the unusual case, which is permissible even if the discussion didn't use the term "unusual case" or focus on it directly -- the discussion may even have occurred before the phrase "unusual case" was added to the guidelines. I agree there is (still) no primary topic. One possible solution that might suit you as well: "promote" the browser to a third place in the "unusual" group. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

What a complete load of absolute nonsense. The primary topic for Chrome is the chemical element chromium. Every single other thing on the list here is derived from the element in Chromium in some way. In computing "chrome" referred to the user interface, because this was the final polish that was added in completing an application.

This is why I absolutely hate companies who give their products stupid and unoriginal names - "Chrome" is the stupidest name for a web browser that you could ever think of, and now stupid product fanboys are using Wikipedia as a mechanism to eradicate the primary meaning of the word (FYI, I'm posting this from the Google Chrome browser so have nothing against the product per-se, merely this hijacking of the name).

The solution for this is to Chrome to direct to Chromium and have a disambiguation link at the top of the page. BoutYeBigLad (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Dyeing and tanning

Looking online a bit leads me to think the term "chrome" is used in both these processes, exactly analogous to "chrome" being to "chrome plate/chromium plate". Anyone? Widefox (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you add that information to those articles/that article? -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to Google Chrome

Chrome most likely refers to the web browser. 50.233.65.29 (talk) 00:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Not really, but if you wish, you may start at WP:RM (to propose moving this page to Chrome (disambiguation)). InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)