![]() Gordon Ecker ( talk) 08:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC) SRWare Iron is already mentioned in the article - if it weren't notable, one might wonder why it's there. man with one red shoe 03:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC) IMO as long as we don't have other Chromium-related articles, all notable unofficial chromium builds should be within the scope of this article, however I don't think it should cover unofficial builds for which notability has not been established. I suggest we limit links to other products. Having POV description like "without any problems at privacy and security" doesn't help either. This article is about Google Chrome, is not about other products based on Chromium code made by various other companies and individuals. Effoveks ( talk) 18:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC) I don't think we should omit the pre-1.0 beta releases from the table. The webkit versions in this official Chrome blog post gives a good start on that. I think it's very wise to model this after the Safari version history table, especially including the webkit version. The claim of WP:OR seems mis-guided if it were the case, shouldn't the Safari & Firefox version history tables be removed as well? Metavida's suggestion on only showing the Stable channel with latest beta/dev releases is on point. Metavida ( talk) 12:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC) I second the motion to return a Version History table, however probably not the same one that removed by Sc0ttkclark. I find it very helpful to see the other browsers' history in a table format, especially the Gecko/Webkit versions and notable changes. On another note, there are several other software packages that include version history tables including Firefox, Safari, and Others. Maybe this table should only show a history of the Stable channel and the most recent Beta & Dev releases. I agree with Sc0ttkclark & FatalError that because there tend to be a lot of releases of Chrome (especially in the Beta & Dev release channels) we shouldn't list them all. Fatal Error 01:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC) I vote to bring this table back. ![]() Sc0ttkclark ( talk) 13:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Awesome, looks good. Fatal Error 07:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC) I have to agree with you FatalError, I've removed this table from the article and renamed the section title from "Version History" to "Stable, Beta, and Dev Releases". You don't see this kind of table in any other software article, and it makes even less sense for Chrome, because there are hardly any differences between the versions (not to mention.just look at the version numbers). Sc0ttkclark ( talk) 14:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC) I'd personally go another step further and say just delete the entire thing, but if anything, have it like above. Does anyone disagree with me in that we need to list EVERY version on this page? It seems way too redundant to track Beta and Public releases of this thing if we're not tracking it on other software. If they want to see a complete version history, they can always click on the reference link in the text section of this area. This makes the chart much easier to manage. Gordon Ecker ( talk) 04:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC) I have to revisit this, I think this should be the new version history chart because we shouldn't be tracking each release of Google Chrome here, only major x.x versions, or x.0 versions. We can trim off most of the bete releases once the table gets too large. Sc0ttkclark ( talk) 23:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC) IMO the number beta and stable releases is short enough to include all of them in the table for now. If it does stay then it should just show when it was released to beta, and then the stable versions released here-in. ![]() not really a need for it to be here and it'll just get long. ![]() X S G 04:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC) Wouldn't the reference from the Official Google Chrome Release blog count towards something? I agree about the version history though. I'd like to discuss before I just go and delete it, however. The Version History section, particularly the chart of releases, rings of WP:OR and doesn't seem to belong in Wikipedia.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |