Jump to content

Talk:GNOME Web/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Removed line

I removed this line:

It can be seen as a fork of the Galeon browser.

To be honest, i'm not sure if Epiphany is a fork. The MZ post I linked wasn't NPOV to be honest.

Mea Culpa. hoshie

Epiphany started as a Galeon fork in 2002. It's been a Galeon fork since. It will continiue to be so forever. Your NPOV opinion is irrelevant. Yeah, I used Galeon back then, I remember the developer disagreements. But you don't have to take my word for it, it's been in the FAQ for years. http://live.gnome.org/Epiphany/ProjectFAQ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.224.104 (talk) 00:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Most recent version

The most recent version should be reverted to 1.6.4, since the 1.7 branch is the non-stable development branch. How do I do this? The page history doesn't seem to offer a revert function. ReinoutS 22:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Though this message is old, you might be interested in popups for reverting. ~Linuxerist E/L/T 03:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Updated screen shot for Gnome 2.20?

Why not post a screen shot using the new Clearlooks theme? I don't have Gnome 2.20, but someone else might. --87.51.246.215 20:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

WebKit

The SVN version of Epiphany now has support only for WebKit (the Gecko embed code has been removed). Should this be mentioned? Stilroc (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It is still there, one year later. In the meantime they removed the webkit code from the released sources. 2.26 was released without webkit support. The current 2.27 has webkit re-added, but it looks like extensions are not ported yet. So they are way behind their schedule (which is not dramatic, but the article should probably be fixed as it still uses the figure provided in the announcement. --Johannes Rohr (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reference that we can cite that states this? - Ahunt (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Userboxes

For editors who use Epiphany there are two userboxes you can put on your user page:

Code Result
{{User:Tjkiesel/Userboxes/user browser:Epiphany}}
This user contributes using the GNOME Web, a Linux web browser.
 Usage
{{User:Ahunt/Epiphany}}
This user contributes with the Epiphany web browser.
 Usage

- Ahunt (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

vandalism (old information)

Some days ago, I made some changes on the page to update the information. The user Ahunt removed my changes because it was seen as vandalism. I think that some things on the page are not updated (the screenshot, experimental build of epiphany 2.21.4??, language=nothing, developers=various? I know the name of the developers: The GNOME project). The spanish version is more complete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.18.208.216 (talk) 23:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleting every last reference from the article and substituting an image of foriegn language version of an experimental build for the image of the current version is not constructive editing. - Ahunt (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, I just was trying to keep the information updated. I wont edit the page in the future. But I think that some things as the language and the developers should be reviewed. Thanks and sorry. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.27.79.116 (talk)
You are welcome to edit this and any other article, just please make sure that you don't delete references and remove other cited content. Wikipedia is a pretty mature project at this point in time and that makes it challenging to dive into. The foreign language image you substituted File:Epiphany 2-26-1 es.png is labelled as Epiphany 2.26.1, which is the same build as the English language image you deleted. I agree with your comment and have incorporated your additions to the developer and language sections of the info box, since those were useful. I would suggest you open an account, read some of the background material, like WP:V and work with the rest of us who have been here a little while to help make the articles better. There is always room for more editors. You can start out by ending your talk page comments with ~~~~, which signs your username and dates the entry. - Ahunt (talk) 10:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I am grateful for your changes on the page. As you can see, my english is not the best (I am spanish), and my knowledge is not big in any topic, so I wont open and account but thank you anyway --Contributions/88.27.79.116 (talk) 11:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I didn't realize that you were working in English as a second language. One way to contribute in a second language if you aren't confident in your skills is to post changes that you think should be made to the article here on the talk page and other editors should be able to take the ideas and suggestions and put them into the article. If you want to do that on this article, I will commit to making sure that your comments are addressed and, as far as possible, incorporated. - Ahunt (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Epiphany zealots

Dear Ahunt user, could be that you are a fanboy of Epiphany but please don't remove the comments blindly. Epiphany is not Firefox stable. I like it to be too, because the speed is much much better. But let's not forget the .core files on my folder and the frequent crash and recover sessions. Also watch the discussion groups, the developers admit that Epiphany has long to go for a stable and "included release" for any damn OS. For me it is a young stange project and users must be warned. Nobody like to browse and bang! quit. With enough efforts, Epiphany may be what we dream of, but until now ... tell the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.114.19.77 (talk) 10:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not a case of application fans, personally I quit using Epiphany because of all the crashes. However, you still can't add uncited personal opinions to Wikipedia articles. Please read WP:V. If you want to add this sort of information you must cite a WP:RS, otherwise it cannot be included. - Ahunt (talk) 12:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Just to follow up on this issue, I have been looking for refs since this came up and I just found one from July 2010 on the crashes and the cure and added it to the article. - Ahunt (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

JavaScript Engine

What JavaScript engine is Epiphany using? Also webkit? Their homepage doesnt say anything about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.168.86.192 (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

about: URI scheme

Can anybody help in the about: URI scheme-article? the epiphany part need to be updated! mabdul 19:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Reviews in Development section

This section discusses two reviews mentioned in the last two paragraphs of the Development section of the article as of 2011-10-13.

When I read these paragraphs, I wanted to delete them. But then I realized that it may happen that I am biased as I am a long term Epiphany user, so I decided to start a discussion over them.


  • Epiphany crashes on Javascript

As the distribution I stick with - Archlinux - has a practice of rolling releases, I am absolutely sure that I tried each and every release of Epiphany out there. I didn't witness that. At the same time, according to mr. Wallen, he set up translucency in Ubuntu, which lead to several bugs, and then experienced Epiphany crashes. May be the problem he described come from the translucency?

Anyway, this problem (if was, which I didn't notice while using Epiphany) is no more. Do we need that review?

  • Epiphany has a small footprint, fast startup, and clean

Nice, but does this really belong to Development? Does mr. Wallen's blog count as a valid source for information about Epiphany's memory footprint and startup timings?


  • There is no setting to designate Epiphany as default browser

She seems to be Using Ubuntu, so she did have Preferred Applications program in here menu. If not, she had xdg-open and other ways to set Epiphany as the default browser. Incompetence.

  • Epiphany is a hard sell as a primary desktop browser

I hoped to find an explonation (apart from missing Firebug, which is missing from everywhere except for Firefox), but no luck. Wait, I found this instead:

  • Epiphany is available for download at their website and is also in the Linux repositories

Does she really expect to download installer from gnome.org? Or she want us to compile and install epiphany manually not using distribution tools? And what the hell is Linux repositories? Note, those aren't Ubuntu's repositories, nor Debian's, nor SuSE's, just Linux repositories! Blind incompetence.

This all together lead me to conclusion that the former article's value is disputable and the latter's - strictly negative.

Anyone willing to keep those in place, please step up. If no one does until the weekend, I'll strip those reviews off.

Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Those are reliable sources that give balanced criticisms and they should be retained. There is little value in disputing published reviews on the talk pages of a Wikipedia article, as, at best these opinions are WP:OR. If you can find other reviews that contradict or add to the existing ones then these should also be added to show that there is controversy in these matters. Removing published criticisms from an article would not contribute to a neutral point of view as required on Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I might have failed to make my point clear. My problem with these reviews is not about the critisism and neutrality - I don't mind valid critisim. But there are real issues in these examples of criticism:
  1. being out of date - Jack Wallen reviewed Epiphany 2.30. Since then there were 2.32, 3.0 and 3.2 - three major releases (each followed by several bugfix releases) with lots of modifications and improvements both in Epiphany an WebKit-GTK. And the first comment to the article states that the problem is not the case as of 2.30.2 release - again, three major releases ago.
  2. false statements and incompetence which dominate in review by Veronica Henry.
  3. obscurity of statements, lack of facts - in both reviews statements are not followed neither by the use cases, nor by explanation.
And those reviews are not reliable sources - blog posts (like both of these reviews) are specificly exluded from the definition of reliable sources. The specific proof of the lack of notability of review by Veronica Henry is that she got exectly 0 comments for more then half a year — nobody took it seriously. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
P.S.: in fact the lack of contradiction outside Jack Wallen's review is a reliable proof of the absence of the problem described. The GNOME Bugzilla gives some results on javascript crash query, but they seem to be either completely irrelevant or situational. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay let's address your comments one by one then.
Your first is that Wallen's article is out of date. Wikipedia articles like this deal with the history of the software and we don't remove criticism when a new version is released, we indicate the time frame or version that was being criticized and also add later refs that indicate that the problem was was fixed, but removing old criticisms of previous versions would be whitewashing the history. In this case the current text clearly indicates that Wallen's criticism was from July 2010. My own personal (yes, original research) confirmed what Wallen said of 2.30.2 and 2.30.6 - pages with lots of Javascript often caused it to crash and disabling the Javascript solved that problem. Now my research is not admissible in the article, which is why it isn't there, but it confirms that Wallen was right when he wrote that. Perhaps that problem has been fixed in 3.0 and later but to state this in the article needs refs saying that. So far I haven't found any reviews of 3.0 that deal with this sort of thing, but it is probably time to search again for them now that 3.0 has been out for a while.
"false statements and incompetence which dominate in review by Veronica Henry." I have carefully reread her review and I don't find that. Everything she has said about Epiphany in her article checks as accurate or as reasonable opinion for Epiphany at that time, March 2011.
"obscurity of statements, lack of facts - in both reviews statements are not followed neither by the use cases, nor by explanation." Since you haven't explained what you mean here, nor given any examples I can't really respond to this. In general I don't find your accusations valid.
Your contention that these are "blogs" and therefore not WP:RS, is not correct. If you read WP:NEWSBLOG you will see that many news websites refer to columns as "blogs" these days, but the admonishment not to use blogs in WP:SPS and other self published sources specifically excludes news websites where there is editorial oversight of columnists. These two websites that published these two reviews are in this category, they are news websites with editorial oversight, not self-published personal blogs. Neither reviewer are amateur bloggers and both are well published professionally in this field.
I am afraid that your complaints against these sources don't hold water and seem to add up to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If there are later reviews of Epiphany 3.0 that show that their criticisms have been addressed then these should be added. As noted I will do a search and see it I can find any new reviews of 3.0 now that it has been out for a while. - Ahunt (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, as I wrote in the very beginning, I suspected my opinion being biased. As You confirmed that, I withdraw my sugestion to remove these reviews.
Still, there is another thing I would note. I copied the contents of the page into Libreoffice's Writer, selected the text about reviews and got these statistics 28.6% of the page is about these reviews. By any standard it is way too much for an article that May I at least replace the review citations with the short summory? If so, I could prepare a draft for aproval in my namespace. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually given that the aricle is already pretty short compared to other articles on browsers (see Chromium (web browser), Firefox or Google Chrome for instance) I would prefer that we expand this article rather than cut it down and make it even shorter. One thing that I have been intending to do is go though the old relase notes on the Epiphany blog and add information on the changes that happened over time. Unfortunately the record ends in 2009 and the more recent chnages aren't catalogued there. - Ahunt (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay I have done that - see what you think now that the article is a bit longer. Because the release notes are very incomplete there are some holes, we still need to track down the release notes after that period to make up the more recent history. - Ahunt (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I am working on reorganizing this article in my userspace. Please see my changes (keeping in mind that it is still WIP.
I will merge Your changes later today or tomorrow. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay I had a look though what you are doing there. You should be able to figure out my recent additions from the page history. I just wish the available release history were more complete, but it is start! - Ahunt (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I have just done some extensive searching and haven't found any reviews of Epiphany 3 on the internet. It seems that its release hasn't attracted any attention from reviewers that I could find. - Ahunt (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed refactoring

I've developed another version of Epiphany article in my userspace. I'm going to replace the current text with my version, but before I would like to ask for Your comments.

The changes are:

  • added some structure;
  • fixed some references and added new ones;
  • moved information from Development section to features to make article look more like an excyclopedia article and not lika a development blog;
  • yet covered development history in more detail.

Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

While it is an interesting approach I think it needs some more work. The table approach to releases is a good idea. The article organization you propose is substantially different from other browser articles, see Google Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Chromium (web browser) for instance, and I am not sure why that is needed. As written it is far too promotional in tone, quotes the developers and not the critics and also removes just about all serious criticism. The new article has a number of spelling an grammar errors that shows it needs further work, also parts of it are written in second person, which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Much of the developmental history is unreferenced, even though these refs are in the current article, meaning if this article replaced the existing one these would be lost and have to be retrieved from the history. Also I have a serious problem with the concept just taking an existing article and replacing it with a new one. This is not usually done on Wikipedia. It would be far better to progressively edit the existing article to incorporate new text and tables, rather than replace the existing article. We apparently have a total of 47 editors watching this page, so let's see if anyone else supports your approach. If not, then this indicates no consensus to proceed with replacing the article. - Ahunt (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Structure. As You might have seen, my version's structure is very close to that of Google Chrome. It was not intentional, but it invalidates Your argument. Also please note that the development history of Epiphany is a way more incremental then that of Firefox, while at the same time the way less notable, as Epiphany is only a front-end to WebKit.
  • Promotional tone. That was not intentional. Frankly, I don't know what are You talking about, so examples would be helpful. Anyway, this may be fixed one the article appears.
  • The new article has a number of spelling an grammar errors that shows it needs further work, I'll fix what I find, but I'm not a native English speaker, so any help would be apreciated.
  • also parts of it are written in second person, which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. I'll fix it.
  • Unreferenced development history. Examples again. Try to find a single string in a history not covered by references. Though, the references to all the initial sources are preserved.
  • Replacing an article with another. As You might have noted on the page history tab, I have derived my version from 2011-10-15 version of this article with incremental changes. If it will make thing easier, I can merge my version diff-by-diff, so it will be derived not only in fact, but also in revision history. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Let's see if anyone else agrees with your proposal to replace this article with your new one. - Ahunt (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
No consensus on either side (replace or keep) for 20 days. Acting as per WP:BOLD, WP:BRD. Everybody interested in article improvement is welcome to update it and fix (possible) issues. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:Consensus doesn't work that way. You came here with a proposal to replace this article with the new one you wrote. You need consensus to do that sort of change and you didn't get it so you went ahead and replaced the article anyway without consensus. I have reverted your change as "no consensus". Now this time gain proper consensus for this change. That no one else agrees with you means you can't make the change. The lack of agreement with you does not allow you to proceed anyway. As I indicated above what you do have a consensus to do is to incorporate your properly-referenced additions to this article, provided that you don't removed existing referenced text. - Ahunt (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
First off, as WP:Consensus states, no prior discussion is needed to make edits. At the same time, WP:BOLD encourages the bold edits, so I was right in my deeds. The need for WP:Consensus came now, when You reverted. As WP:BRD requires, Rather than reverting, try to respond with your own BOLD edit if you can.. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
You came here to gain consensus to replace the article with your own version. You failed to gain consensus but replaced the article anyway. Even ignoring that you failed to gain consensus beforehand, as per WP:BRD you made a bold move, were reverted and now need to gain consensus to make that move. I have suggested that you incorporate your changes into the existing article without removing existing cited text. Why don't you try that instead? - Ahunt (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I came here for feedback, as I need no explicit consensus to edit material on Wikipedia. I did my best to avoid harming Your personnal affilation with the development blog You created on the page, though it described the part of the history of the project that should not be normally covered by encyclopedia article at all - the previous version, that was rewritten nearly from scratch several years ago. The priviously cited text must be removed anyway as per WP:Notability. That's why I didn't try it. Further more, I don't see why I am required to do it. Any Wikipedia policy You can draw to support Your position? Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
You came here for feedback and you got that, as I gave it to you above. You ignored the feedback and replaced the article with your version regardless. Regardless whether you call it feedback or consensus, we would still be at this same point where you want to replace the article with your new version and I disagree and have asked you three times instead to incorporate your changes into the article. Since you went ahead without consensus now we are into WP:BRD, which indicates that your changes need consensus, so let's see what other editors have to say. - Ahunt (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
As I previously said, I did incorporate everything that may be as per WP:Notability. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm a Third Opinion Wikipedian. I've removed your request from the list at the Third Opinion project because, mainly, a higher form of dispute resolution, a RFC, is also pending and, to a much lesser extent, because the entry of a third editor, Rich Farmbrough, into the dispute can either be seen as providing a third opinion or disqualifying the dispute as having too many editors involved or both. If the RFC does not resolve the dispute within thirty days, feel free to consider using the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard for additional dispute resolution. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Reverted changes

As the article was too outdated and had nearly no structure, I've prepared a new version in my userspace. When the first draft was ready, I've requested feedback on this talk page. The minor discussion occured, but it didn't lead to any descisive result, so, guided by WP:BOLD and WP:BRD I made my changes.

As the edit was reverted, I request for everyone's input in settling this dispute, as I sincerely believe that my edit improves the article and the revert is not legitimate. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Gaining more wide input is a good idea. As explained above I am against removing the content of this fairly mature article and replacing it with a new article. As I noted above the new content is promotional, eliminates cited criticism and replaces cited text with uncited text. I am in favour of using portions of the proposed replacement article that are cited as additions to the existing article. Now once again, as we did above, let's see if there is an support for replacing this article with the new one. If no support is expressed that indicates no consensus to proceed. - Ahunt (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Any interested party can notice that the so called "new article" is no way new, as it is directly derived from this article and includes all the relevant info, including the updates since the fork. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay you have expressed your opinion, now let's see what other editors have to say. - Ahunt (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The development section is too long in the current version. The "new" version has no lead. The "new" reception section is short and only positive comments are included. The issue with undue weight over the May reviews - I suggest you retain the references and trim the coverage. The current article uses DMY dates, no reason to change to MDY. Looks like you two worked successfully together before, go through it a step at a time, and make a great article. Rich Farmbrough, 21:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC).

Could You please be more specific about how You would prefer this dispute to be settled? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Can this be regarded as WP:CONSENSUS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czarkoff (talk • contribs)
That is a good question to ask and, since it has been a week since you posted your request for comment, probably indicates the maximum level of input we are going to see. So let's recap: You replaced the article with your own version, I reverted it, which under WP:BRD sent us here to the talk page to see if there is a consensus for you to make that change. My position was that you should not replace the article, but add in your changes to the current article instead and then we can improve the article from there. You asked for a third opinion and a request for comment. Since your desire to substitute the article and my opposition cancel each other out, resulting in a "no consensus for change" condition, the outcome now hangs on the input we received from other editors who responded to your third opinion and request for comment, so let's see what we got. User:Rich Farmbrough responded above with comments to improve both the old and proposed new versions, including retaining and shortening the criticisms, fixing date formatting, etc. I read that as that we should combine your new text with the existing text and then improve the whole thing as per his suggestions. He certainly doesn't support your proposal to replace the article with your new version. The other input was from User:TransporterMan above and he indicated that since you went to RFC that the third opinion request was thus negated. I read this as being just an administrative note and not participating in consensus building. So I think we have our answer. If you want to add your additions without removing text then we can then work together on deconflicting and trimming after that. My only request is that you should ensure that anything you add is supported by footnotes as per WP:V. Once you have added your parts then give me a chance to work on it for a bit. - Ahunt (talk) 12:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I would then prefer the following form of interaction: I add some of my info to the article and write here (I would start a new thread for that) to see whether anyone sees any problem with this addition. I would like You to either OK the change here explicitly (with some notes about further improvement if needed) or revert the change explaining what is wrong with it. Surely, the other users' input would be also very appreciated. After all, this argument only happened due to the fact that all participants would like to make this article better. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Well of course, the article is freely open to editing, so go ahead and add your sourced material and I, and anyone else who wants to, will edit it. I would suggest that we only need to come back here if there are disagreements. - Ahunt (talk) 14:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I called for more interactive mode just to be sure that You actually read my changes after they are made, so that there would be no need for You to manually revert some edits that were already followed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I will read them as you make them. I don't intend to remove anything you put in unless it duplicates existing information or is unsourced. I may do some integrating and rearranging, but that depends on what you add. I'll also wait until you are done before I do any editing, so please do drop a note back here when you are finished. We have no deadlines, so no rush. - Ahunt (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems that you're resolving the matter well, but after my review I agree with Rich Farmbrough's assessment of the new version as it was originally introduced. The improvements in structure should not result in a less comprehensive or neutral article. The approach you're taking seems to be working well, so carry on!--~TPW 21:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The funny thing here is that I didn't remove any critical comments, I've just left out quotations, as they are largely out of context or outdated. Anyway, the issue is resolved. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Galeon

The Galeon page is proposed for deletion (not WP:PROD, only suggestion on the page). May be we could adopt some more Galeon-related issue as an information on Epiphany's origin and let the Galeon page be redirected to the respective section? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That article lacks refs, which is its main problem. I think the best approach would be to expand it as some of the refs we have here talk about Galeon, which would save it from future deletion. - Ahunt (talk) 14:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I am not really sure on its notability. Anyway I'll try to extend it somehow later this UTC day. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I will leave you to do that and then see if I can find any more to add. - Ahunt (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I've done some extending work, but I still have to hunt for references. Any help will be appreciated. Ahunt, is the Galeon article on Your watchlist? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Your work over there looks really good! Let me see what I can do today to add anything else. - Ahunt (talk) 13:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I did my best, and still there's much to do there... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I should get to some work on it soon. - Ahunt (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Page archiving

This page grows fairly long. May be we should set up an archive bot? — I would prefer it to be introduced with the following config: 

{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo                = old(91d)
| archive             = talk:Epiphany (web browser)/Archive %(counter)d
| counter             = 1
| maxarchivesize      = 70K
| archiveheader       = {{talk archive navigation}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft      = 4
}}

Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me, that sounds fine. - Ahunt (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

My WP:SPS

MrOllie removed my link to my blog. While I can't argue this move, as it was righteous as per WP:SELFCITE, the link was there for a special reason. Our Reception section is nearly purely negative and a bit outdated. My link was supposed to be a WP:good faith positive reception example for Epiphany, as I failed to find anything apart from HOWTOs on Epiphany versions newer then 3.0.

So, Ahunt I would like to ask You to add my link back in a place You think it will fit, if You agree with me. If not, I would be glad to actually have this issue resolved.

P.S.: I ask specifically Ahunt, as we had an argument recently, so I can count on his critical reception of my moves.

Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that personal blogs are specifically not acceptable as references as per WP:SPS. I have written several self-published reviews of Epiphany over the years myself, but they aren't cited in this article, just because they are self-published. I have been still looking for WP:RS reviews of Epiphany 3.0 and later, but the tech press seems to being ignoring it. - Ahunt (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, I actually saw it as inline citation, not WP:RS as it is described in WP:SPS. Actually that's why I linked WP:SELFCITE, where it is used as I see it. Though if that doesn't convince You, I have no more comment on this issue. Anyway, I still hope I'll find anything more reliable sooner or later. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Epiphany-extensions

I still want to replace the list in the section.

Pros: the current list reflects the state of the package of pre-WebKit era.

Cons: my table is completely WP:OR, I looked in my extension list and pasted. I could give a reference to the packing lists in some distributions, but extracting the extensions list will anyway need special knowledge (one must know that extension files' mask *.ephy-extension, which isn't completely evident, IMHO.

Disputable: my version is a table in "name-description" format, while the original list is a mere list.

So, I don't really know what to do. I've mailed epiphany's mailing list a request to update a list (it actually sounds nice then is summarised here) but that can only solve the problem of reference. I would ask everybody interested to comment on my proposal. This time I'm not going to blindly replace something without prior consensus. ;-) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the fact that the Gnome Epiphany home webpages are so out of date is a problem. It seems that when Lopez took over that all updating was stopped, including the dev blog, which was useful information. Until we get some real refs there isn't much we can do except mark the existing extensions text to indicate what time period it represents. - Ahunt (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The funniest thing here that we can't do that, as there is no proper information on the subject. I'm going to give a glance to epiphany-extensions changelog in GNOME's GIT and inspect the WayBack Machine's content, but these constitute what we call "thin ice". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
So we have an archive of Epiphany Extensions page which remains the same at least since 2008-12-11 and NEWS file from git, which has a long list of added and removed extensions. The latter can be set as reference to the last paragraph before the list (right after :), but this IMHO still is a dubious way of referencing... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
That should do it! - Ahunt (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm on a hunt by MrOllie, so I would better refrain from any contribution for a while, in order to prevent damage infliction on this article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
No sweat, the article is in pretty good shape right now. - Ahunt (talk) 13:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, this or even this link might do for verification. The last question is whether I should update the list or replace it with my table? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
The table looks okay to use. I would suggest if both those refs are up to date then cite them both! You can never have too many refs in case one goes dead in the future! - Ahunt (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Done it. I also renamed and extended the section as I found links to currently available third party extensions. I'll extend it more later, as time allows. Revert me if I'm wrong. ;-) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Just a couple of minor spelling errors, fixed. It will be great when Epiphany gets spell-checking! - Ahunt (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. I was in a hurry, and I have a mixture of languages, as I speak one language home, two other languages outdoors and write regularly in fourth. BTW, Epiphany has spell checking. I've just had to turn it off due to the bug with non-ascii encodings: eg. word слово gets "corrected" to слово. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
No sweat, that is why we collaborate on articles, we catch each other's mistakes and build a better encyclopedia that way. - Ahunt (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Added refs to third-party extensions (live and defunct). Also added a statement about find-as-you-type bookmarks access. I'm sure I've read about that somewhere, but I can't recall the source. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge process

Added my Features section. Pre-existing Bookmarks and Epiphany-extensions are left intact for now (though I shifted heading level). I believe a further discussion will be necessary here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Added Fork of Galeon, Default GNOME web browser and Release history. Fork of Galeon was mentioned in the article before, but I added more details. I've entirely omitted my Layout engine switch section, as it is covered in more detail in the original. Now many things in Development needs sorting, and I would kindly ask Ahunt to help me with that, as I promised to keep things intact. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I have converted my references from dts they used to YYYY-MM-DD, as it is currently the default in article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks pretty good so far. We are missing some refs and have some minor formatting errors, etc. I can tag/fix them but I want to make sure you are finished first, before I do anything, so let me know. - Ahunt (talk) 12:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I did pretty much all I could. While I have some issues with some parts of the text, I just don't want to mix them in here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay, well if you are done let me go over it and see how it looks. I should be able to get this done later on today! - Ahunt (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I made a few small editorial changes and added few tags where refs are missing. I'll let you have a look at that and see you you have any comments. Next I think we have to integrate the Fork of Galeon and Default GNOME web browser sections into the development section as they present parts of the same history twice. The resulting section can be sub-sectioned and even retitled "history" or "Development history" if you like. I think this can be done fairly easily, but I'll wait until you have a look at things now. - Ahunt (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank You for Your editorial improvements!
  • Fork of Galeon and Default GNOME web browser sections are the parts of a common trend. I did split them to eventually insert some information about Epiphany's early development, but as now there's no such information, I don't mind them joined together.
  • Do You think I should provide references for WebKit features? They are covered in details in series of articles on Wikipedia, so I don't think it's necessary.
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I've added references and removed duplicates I've found. I left a single citation needed in Epiphany-extensions, because I wanted to raise this question later — the list is outdated. I've made an up-to-date list in my version but I didn't replace this as for now I was supposed only to add. Can I replace it now, or should we update this list by some other means? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I removed the Default GNOME web browser heading. Do You think anything else is required to join them? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

That all looks good so far. What I was thinking is that the "Fork of Galeon" section is chronologically out of order in the history, so should be be moved up intio the history. Let me do that to show you want I mean and you can see how it looks. - Ahunt (talk) 13:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Go on! I would like to see Your vision, but anyway I absolutely agree it belongs to the beginning of the development section. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay - I should get to that this morning. - Ahunt (talk) 14:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
That is done, at least at a preliminary level. I have asked another editor who hasn't worked on the article before to take a look and see if it flows well, logic, copy edit, etc. I figure a third set of editing eyes would help improve things. She should be able to do that later on today. - Ahunt (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I've split Development into three new subsections for major periods of history. I think this way the article looks better and the readers who look for some specific information can easier find the most interesting parts. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I saw that - good idea, I think it improves readability! That other editor I invited to look the article over should be able to get to it today, too. - Ahunt (talk) 13:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I just had another run though the article fixed up a bit of formatting and such. I think we are "there". At least for now! I think overall the article looks pretty good. - Ahunt (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to remove my draft, as it seems there's nothing useful there now. Could You please have a look, whether I missed something? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we got it all! - Ahunt (talk) 12:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Gecko-based and minor versions

I'm not sure that we are not too much detail. As per WP:NOTCHANGELOG, only major versions should be covered in development section. Instead we have there:

  • Development versions:
  1. 1.7.2
  2. 1.7.3
  3. 1.7.4
  4. 1.7.5
  5. 1.7.6
  6. 1.9.1
  7. 1.9.2
  8. 1.9.3.1
  9. 1.9.5
  10. 1.9.6
  11. 1.9.7
  12. 1.9.8
  13. 2.15
  14. 2.19.2
  15. 2.25
  • Stable minor versions:
  1. 1.8.1 (misspelled as 1.81)
  2. 1.8.2
  3. 1.8.3
  4. 2.16.3 (this one might be actually notable enough)
  5. 2.20.2 (probably should get attributed as 2.20?)
  6. 2.26.3

We already have all dates in the table. We could use relative dates here to emphasise the timeframes if needed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I would be in favour of cutting it down to the versions that introduced notable changes or features. - Ahunt (talk) 13:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree, we should explain the most notable changes here. My list:
  • Simplified location bar (?) (1.8)
  • XULRunner (2.14)
  • NetworkManager (2.14)
  • Multiple backends (2.20)
Any ammendments? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. - Ahunt (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 Fixed I also cleaned up WebKit-based section, added some new refs and converted "ANNOUNCEMENT" ref to cite mailing list format. It needs some copyediting, and I'm still in doubt about clarity of transition process. May be we should be more explicit about the co-existence of GECKO and WebKit backends in versions 2.20-2.26, abstraction layer and difficulties in its maintaining? As always, feel free to revert me if You see any problems with my edit. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
It looks good, reduced some of the less important stuff. - Ahunt (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Renamed

Since Epiphany has been renamed to (the rather presumptuous) new name "Web", should we move this article as well to Web (web browser)? - Ahunt (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought about it. For now I wrote that it was "renamed", though I'm not entirely sure that it is the case: probably this "rename" only happened within .desktop file. Anyway, I'd reserve my judgment on this issue until I get 3.4 update on my system. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The ref above seems pretty clear: "Epiphany, the GNOME web browser, has been renamed Web." but I have no problem with waiting until you can actually try it out! - 17:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
For reference-based move I would wait for some secondary source reviewing GNOME or Epiphany support this claim. Though GNOME's release notes have the statement, the developer's blog doesn't mention new name in the new version announcement, which may indicate that no actual name change happened. Or may indicate nothing. That is: the question is unclear yet. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, I was wrong: "Also, notice that we now brand ourselves as “Web” in all user visible strings." So I support the move. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Do you want to do the honours, then? - Ahunt (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 Done. Tomorrow afternoon (UTC) I'll walk through incoming links to make necessary changes. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
It appears that I already fixed everything that doesn't need updating. I left some links to Epiphany (web browsers) when specific old versions were discussed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I just realized that searching for reviews of Epiphany Web will now be a complete nightmare... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

That is true - how are we going to find reviews under "Web Browser"?! - Ahunt (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

More than a year has passed since the Gnome announcement that Epiphany had been renamed and I am starting to wonder if the name really was changed or not. Let's look at the evidence. Other than the above announcement there is only:

  • Main Menu - About - "Web"

The following are places where it is still called Epiphany today:

The "main menu about" is really the only place where the name has actually been changed. It is interesting to note that some other Gnome applications don't have their real project names on the "main menu about" though. For instance, the Gnome PDF reader, Evince, on its "Help - about" says "Document Viewer" and Eye of GNOME is called "Image Viewer". My understanding was that this was for menu indexing, so that users wouldn't have to remember the name of the PDF reader and would just see"Document Viewer" on their menus instead.

I am really wondering whether Epiphany was really renamed to "Web" or not. It seems possible that it is still actually called "Epiphany" and the name "Web" is merely for simplified menu indexing. - Ahunt (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The Raspberrian Os on my brand new Raspberry PI 2 uses "Ephiphany" 3.8.2 with webkit 2.4.1 as one of the 4 browsers. No mention is made of "Web" It also currently will not correctly work with ssh @ Calomel.org I hope this helps. Glennndavis (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Article quality rating

I don't feel this article only deserves 'Start quality. May be we should request some higher rating? Which? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

No idea, I really don't pay a lot of attention to ratings. I leave them for others. - Ahunt (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I've nominated the article for GA. Not sure whether it will make it, but anyway we'll have a feedback on what needs to be improved. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
GA is a scary process, let's see what happens! - Ahunt (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that this article is barely literate. The prose is clearly written by a non-native English speaker. Oecology (talk) 12:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I have carried out a copy edit. Are there any remaining areas that require addressing? - Ahunt (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on GNOME Web. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Userbox

For editors who use GNOME Web, there is a general userbox now that can put on their user pages:

Wikitext userbox where used
{{Template:User GNOME Web}}
This user contributes using the GNOME Web, a Linux web browser.
 linked pages

its namespace is based on Wikipedia:Userboxes#Which_namespace?

see also: Wikipedia:Userboxes/Browsers#GNOME_Web

Editor-1 (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Wayland support for Epiphany comes from GTK and WebkitGTK Wayland support

@Editor-1:, you said: Reverted good faith edits by Ogoorcs: Wayland, GTK, GNOME, are developed primary for Linux, read: Wayland_(display_server_protocol)#Weston--"Epiphany Wayland support comes from the GTK project" WRONG! its come from Linux kernel drivers, GNOME, and Mutter (software)--GTK support is always on the edge, not limited to v3--wrong linking and phrasing.

The fact that GTK are actually developed primarly for GNU/Linux does not imply that it is not a cross-platform toolkit anymore. GTK developers still release their code for Windows and Mac OS and you can run most GTK applications on Windows and Mac, too.

Not being dependent on any os-specific library in fact, you are able to actually build Epiphany even on Windows.

The fact that no one has packaged it yet just does mean that probably no one is interested in doing it (and mantaining it), not that it can run only on GNU/Linux, specially if no changes to the code are needed to run it elsewhere.

To a limited extent the same applies to Wayland (I have seen it run only on unix-like devices).

To the extend of my knowledge, no kernel developers were directly involved in adding Wayland support to WebkitGTK nor GTK.

You can run Epiphany on any Wayland compositor (if Epiphany dependencies are installed) and you can because the toolkit it is written for (GTK3) and the rendering engine it uses (WebkitGTK) support Wayland protocol.

It could be exact to say that Wayland support were added by GNOME developers, by the way, but I think it could be obvious if it is. In any case the fact that Weston is linux-only does not mean Wayland is linux-only, and in fact you build it flawlessly on *BSDs without any apparent changes. The fact that the "main developers" will not solve bugs encountered on unsupported systems, but they would gladly accept patches that enhance portability in most cases.

In any case I just said that Wayland supports comes from the fact that GTK (3 and 3.9x) supports Wayland through their specialized backend.

I also removed the wrong assumption that it is something special that Epiphany can be run on GTK latest version, because you can run any GTK3 program on any newer version of the 3.x branch; that is why it is a stable branch.

On the contrary, you can run epiphany against most newer GTK3 releases (I believe you can build even against 3.18 branch) and in most cases you will just build against whatever version your system has installed in the default paths.

So you can have the latest version of Epiphany on Ubuntu 16.04, running it with the GTK and the rendering engine that are installed on that system.

Please, if you find points that you think we need to discuss just do not undo the changes entirely because, as indicated in the log, they contain boring to re-do syntax and source corrections.

Notes

You wrote

GTK support is always on the edge, not limited to v3

That was not what I meant to say; I wrote (with explaining parenthesis if you are not a native english-speaker):

The features of Web include x and y, as (much as) support for edge technologies like Wayland (which feature-wise it is still not on par with X.org on GNOME, just search on the issue lists), (which is indirectly) supported through GTK version 3, (meaning that because wayland support had been added to gtk, every gtk application had it since then), multimedia support using GStreamer, [...]

Ogoorcs (talk) 11:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:GNOME_Web/Archive_1&oldid=1084068740"