Template talk:Web browsers by year

Minor versions

Usually we don't add minor, point revisions of browsers. There are exceptions, such as Opera 9.5, which was in development for two years, and Safari 3.1, which was the first version that ran on Windows. One might also make the case for Firefox 1.5 or Firefox 3.5. But we can't add most minor versions, or else the table would be so crowded with versions as to be nearly unreadable. -- Schapel (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I add all amayas: I recognised that only 0.95; 2.0 and then 9.0 were in the list. the rest was added ;) mabdul 21:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting Ecosia Browser

A recent edit uses this topic to promote a new browser, without bothering to take into account notability. A one-line production announcement tacked onto the end of a different topic (browser-addon) doesn't address that issue. TEDickey (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tedickey What exactly do you mean ? Ecosia is very known. Spectritus (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The linked topic doesn't support that. Perhaps you have time to find reliable sources demonstrating its notability, keeping in mind that this topic is used as a list of notable browsers. TEDickey (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you do some research you'll see that it is notable. It has over 20 million users. Spectritus (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to discuss something here, you ought to start by reading the guidelines (which I pointed out above). TEDickey (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even check Ecosia's wikipedia page ? Spectritus (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did. You did not. TEDickey (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tedickey You should do some research. I can assure you Ecosia Browser exists. I use it. Also, could you explain what you meant by "not topical" please ? Spectritus (talk) 06:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no topic for that browser, merely an incidental mention in the topic which you linked. If you want to provide reliable sources to support your edits, you are free to create a topic providing that information. Since the existing link is devoted presenting information about a search engine, it is not topical here. Pasting in links to that topic is not likely to improve it, either. TEDickey (talk) 07:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tedickey Just look at this link: https://www.ecosia.org/browser. This is proof of its existence. Spectritus (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what is needed. The template is used to depict notable browsers, whose notability has been demonstrated by reliable, independent sources of information. None of your comments address this issue TEDickey (talk) 08:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tedickey Then why does it have a Wikipedia page ? I thought that a topic needed to be notable to have a page ? Spectritus (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The browser which you are referring to does not have a page. It is mentioned in one sentence in a related topic for a search engine TEDickey (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tedickey If Ecosia's search engine is notable then why not its browser ? Spectritus (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following that line of reasoning, whatever Ecosia does, you would say it's "notable". The guidelines don't agree with you. Here's another one for you to read sometime: general notability guideline TEDickey (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tedickey Alright. I give up. Spectritus (talk) 09:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]