Talk:Google Chrome/Archive 3

adding a raw, unchanged quotation from the Google Chrome license (reliable source with legal force)
I didn't want to create a new section on the same topic, but I think I have to. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, but I know that Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. I want to add (already) anywhere (example place: just above the part "Notable examples") in the article about Google Chrome a raw fragment of licence the Google Chrome program in its original wording (reliable source) - available at: http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html. As far as I know, when using a given program, you must agree to all the terms of the license attached to it. This issue is not subject to consensus. Unfortunately, the license is long, and in addition the fragment I want to add is located almost at the very end of the license text, so many people may not have a clue about this statement in the Google Chrome license. In addition, I think that the issue contained in this passage is important. I thought it would not be a problem to quote the license, i.e. the legal contract attached to the downloaded software. The license must be attached to Google Chrome for legal reasons, but as you can see, placing a fragment from this text in the Google Chrome article on Wikipedia has problems. I can only believe (naively) that Google users Chrome have read the entire Google Chrome license to the end or to hope that soon, as a result of cooperation of many Wikipedia editors, relevant information will appear on a Wikipedia article on this unpopular topic - I cannot find any serious article except the article Google itself: https://www.google.com/chrome/privacy/. There is also a mention (only) on Polish Wikipedia: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome#cite_ref-eula_38-0 There is a discussion was seven years ago, during which the user complained that some extension disappeared from the browser, which he used almost every day. The extension just disappeared when it was also removed from the Google's Chrome Web Store. Link to the discussion. The Google Chrome License (http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html) fragment I wanted to include is as follows: 20. Additional Terms for Extensions for Google Chrome 20.1 These terms in this section apply if you install extensions on your copy of Google Chrome. Extensions are small software programs, developed by Google or third parties, that can modify and enhance the functionality of Google Chrome. Extensions may have greater privileges to access your browser or your computer than regular webpages, including the ability to read and modify your private data. 20.2 From time to time, Google Chrome may check with remote servers (hosted by Google or by third parties) for available updates to extensions, including but not limited to bug fixes or enhanced functionality. You agree that such updates will be automatically requested, downloaded, and installed without further notice to you. 20.3 From time to time, Google may discover an extension that violates Google developer terms or other legal agreements, laws, regulations or policies. Google Chrome will periodically download a list of such extensions from Google’s servers. You agree that Google may remotely disable or remove any such extension from user systems in its sole discretion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.172.255.179 (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * There is no problem quoting the EULA, but I think you need to explanation what the point of adding a quote from the EULA is. - Ahunt (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * It is very bad that a stranger (Google) can "in its sole discretion" and according to the rules he creates himself (e.g. Google developer terms) or other rules to remove something that is not illegal, but only harmful, e.g. for Google. There are people who don't like it. In addition, it is also a violation of privacy / private property (my extension - my case). Ultimately Google in this way "makes you happy by force" (not everyone wants to be "happy" in this way).
 * I think people should know about such conditions in the license, because Google can enforce them, and users will not even be aware of what happened that sometimes extensions from the browser disappear. This is also at least very unfair to users - especially considering what Google plans to block ads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.172.255.179 (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Well I can see what you are getting at, but we need some sort of third party ref that illustrates extensions being removed to be able to add this as an issue. There is an issue of WP:UNDUE here too, as Google would say they remove harmful extensions to protect their users, etc. As per WP:BALANCE we would need refs for both sides of the issue. - Ahunt (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The problem is that there are NO ANY external sources analyzing the Google Chrome license in this context (I reviewed all Google search query results: >> google OR chrome "may" remotely remove extension < > "remotely" chrome "may" remove extension << - I was looking for such phrases because referring to such an issue should cite the license). There are only: reddit discussions: previously indicated and one new, which I managed to find, Google's own privacy policy page, article with a summary >> "Google is able to disable and remove Chrome extensions remotely and it seems that this is exactly what's happening," wrote Meshkov. << and another article https://www.extremetech.com/internet/257256-fake-adblock-plus-chrome-extension-racked-37000-downloads with a key sentence >> According to the Chromium team, they removed the fake extension from the store within minutes of confirming it as malware, and Google also remotely killed it on Chrome installations. << But above all, I just want to add to the Wikipedia article information about the fact of such a statement in the license, and not its assessment of this statement. Someone may need to note the existence of such a statement in the license in such a popular place as Wikipedia for someone to write an article about it (only about it), which will become an external source in the future. I will repeat: the knowledge that there is such a statement in the license is (almost) zero, because there was no person in the discussions who would indicate the source (on the sentence "Google can uninstall extensions remotely in Chrome without permission or notification." Another user only wrote back "Source?" And no one else mentioned it) or any English-language article on this topic (only on this topic). By the way: on Polish Wikipedia (only on Polish) the same topic is raised, and the only footnote is the link to the Google Chrome license.
 * This is a vicious circle: there is no article about this entry in the Google Chrome license, people generally do not know, but at best they suppose, but you can not add a fragment of the license to Wikipedia, even though it is from a text that has legal force ( is a software license). Ultimately, my goal is only to place the unchanged license text without rating it. That removing extensions that do not comply with Google policies (with their whims) is wrong can be read in this article: https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-google.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.172.255.179 (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Well if you just want to add text like, "Under the terms of the EULA, Google can remove extensions from user's installations of Chrome," or similar wording and cite the terms of service, I would be fine with that. To get into analysis of why, when, which ones, etc would need proper refs. - Ahunt (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, please put the following sentence: >> The Google Chrome license has the following statement: << followed by a fragment of the Google Chrome license. But I do not know if only the fragment "20.3" will be more appropriate or the whole section 20 - I do not want to be judged about WP:NOR. But in any case, please quote the entire section "20.3" in original. Please also add http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html as a footnote. Thank you for understanding my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.172.255.179 (talk) 19:45 31 January 2020 (UTC)   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.172.255.137 (talk)


 * I don;t see the need to quote the whole thing, when a simple summary will do. See WP:QUOTEFARM. - Ahunt (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * In that case, please add the sentence "Under the terms of the EULA, Google can remove extensions from user's installations of Chrome." and then add the footnote http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html and put this where you think it appropriate (I think it would be best to add it just under the phrase: >> The following year Google reported a "75% drop in customer support help requests for uninstalling unwanted extensions "which led them to expand this restriction to all Windows and Mac users. <<). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.172.255.240 (talk) 09:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ - Ahunt (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * @Ahunt: I thank you for editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.172.255.8 (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Infobox: Release list
The list of version numbers in the infobox seems to be excessively long and gives undue weight to unnecessary detail. Other, potentially more relevant infobox information like the official website link and the license are pushed down, out of view on my screen. In the main article body, the version table has already been moved to Google Chrome version history, now only linked from Google Chrome.

The list currently looks like this:

I propose to remove "Preview release(s)" from the infobox entirely. I propose to replace "Stable release(s)" by a single version number taken from Wikidata. I don't care which of the three numbers appears in the article; I'd remove the least significant number (i.e. "83.0.4103" instead of "83.0.4103.61").

~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree, it is well into WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOTCHANGELOG territory. - Ahunt (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Done: Wikipedia-en-googlechrome-infobox-releases-2020-05-24-2.png
 * If this is too extreme for a later reader of the discussion, my blanking of Template:Latest preview software release/Google Chrome can be undone, resulting in the following: Wikipedia-en-googlechrome-infobox-releases-2020-05-24.png
 * I'd keep the template blank for the reasons mentioned above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you remove the Preview release template and replace the Stable release template, do you also have to remove both Omahaproxy and the Chrome Releases blog links as well? I'm so confused. And what about Google Chrome for Android and Chrome OS? Do all these Preview and Stable release templates have to be removed/replaced as well? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have incorrectly interpreted "Omahaproxy" to be an unreliable third-party source, but it seems to be reasonably usable, as it is officially linked from chromium.org/administrators/frequently-asked-questions. For this reason, I had removed information based on it from Template:Latest preview software release/Google Chrome. However, neither Omahaproxy nor the Chrome Releases blog are really what is being discussed here. The list of releases on multiple platforms became excessively large and does not belong into the infobox of the article. When I noticed this, I created this discussion here, and when someone agreed, I implemented the removal. Now the whole list has been restored without further discussion. Would you mind choosing between the two screenshotted versions for now, unless (per WP:ONUS) consensus is obtained for including the large list in the infobox of this article? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * (Thanks, the content of the first screenshot has already been restored at 18:02; I saw this too late.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: I am not opposed to the inclusion of one or two preview release numbers; the original list just became much too long. If we include preview releases, I think we should limit the list to Beta and Dev. Canary is updated so frequently that no release notes are published at chromereleases.googleblog.com; its version number is probably rather irrelevant, unlikely to be up-to-date when a reader looks at the article, and thus out of scope of the prominent infobox. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think we should include only Beta and Dev preview releases in Wikidata form if that's alright with you. --Angeldeb82 (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Retrieving Beta and Dev from Wikidata is tricky; I tried to do this at Apache (webserver), but I gave up before saving the page. Beta and Dev version numbers would probably come from the English Wikipedia, like before. I'll restore them if at least one other person agrees to restore them, unless there is opposition. If in doubt, I'd leave it out of the infobox because it doesn't seem to require the prominent position in the infobox. In times of automatic updates, version numbers have become pretty meaningless for users: Everyone with internet access has the latest version anyway, and you need internet access to look up the version number on Wikipedia. While the content of this encyclopedia isn't limited to online articles on en.wikipedia.org, copies of the information in any other medium (offline, mirrors/forks) are likely to show an outdated "latest revision" number. There is pretty much no benefit for any imaginable reader when displaying a list of version numbers in the infobox. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Working Google Chrome 50 on Windows Vista 64-bit SP2.
Hello! I've managed to run Google Chrome 50 on Windows Vista 64-bit SP2. I can run also 51, but it poor works! Screenshot: https://pics.tinypic.pl/i/01009/suqoq8rr3jvi.png 81.190.244.103 (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * That is a very old version of Chrome. What is your point? - Ahunt (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Vista mainline support ended in 2012, and extended support ended in 2017. Our table may show that Vista could run Chrome only up to version 49, but we're not going to change that to version 50 based on one editor's claim that he got it running. And if the editor is not asking us to change the article then this is WP:NOTAFORUM. It might be of interest to Chrome or Vista discussion groups, but it is not for Wikipedia talk pages. Meters (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. One person's WP:OR that he got an old Chrome version running on an old OS, is not really useful information. Unless there is some specific information and an WP:RS to update the article then this thread can be removed under WP:NOTFORUM. - Ahunt (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I uploaded the two videos about running Google Chrome 50 + Opera 37 on Windows Vista. Opera 37 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FqmFxUw5XA, Google Chrome 50 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAWreOyovtI . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.190.244.103 (talk)
 * Uploading your videos to YouTube does not make them reliable sources. This is original research that has no place in this article. Meters (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The editor has also tried to update the History of the Opera web browser article with claims that Opera 37 runs on Windows Vista. I think in both places, we should go with the official information, especially since WP:No Original Research and WP:Reliability Herbfur (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Meters (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, also. Homemade videos are WP:SPS at best. You also have to ask, "so what?" Even if it is possible to get one incrementally later version of Chrome running on a long-out-of-support OS, who cares? Why would that be notable? - Ahunt (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2020
103.103.239.195 (talk) 13:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * You have to actually detail here what you would like changed. - Ahunt (talk) 13:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Update to Enterprise Deployment Section
I made an addition to this section and it was reverted with the recommendation that I suggest the edits here first. The Enterprise Deployment section uses sources that are between 8 and 10 years old. This is quite dated for the subject matter and the statements are true but severely dated. I'd like to suggest the following:


 * In December 2010, Google announced that to make it easier for businesses to use Chrome they would provide an official Chrome MSI package. For business use it is helpful to have full-fledged MSI packages that can be customized via transform files (.mst) – but the MSI provided with Chrome is only a very limited MSI wrapper fitted around the normal installer, and many businesses find that this arrangement does not meet their needs. The normal downloaded Chrome installer puts the browser in the user's local app data directory and provides invisible background updates, but the MSI package will allow installation at the system level, providing system administrators control over the update process  –  it was formerly possible only when Chrome was installed using Google Pack. Google also created group policy objects to fine tune the behavior of Chrome in the business environment, for example by setting automatic updates interval, disabling auto-updates, and configuring a home page. Until version 24 the software is known not to be ready for enterprise deployments with roaming profiles or Terminal Server/Citrix environments.


 * In 2017, Google launched Chrome Enterprise, a service for businesses that combines the Chrome browser, Chrome OS, and Chromebooks or Pixelbooks into a cloud-based platform. The upgrade addresses enterprise concerns and gives IT managers the ability to control content accessibility, app usage, and browser extension usage while employees continue to use Chrome to access their data from anywhere.

The top paragraph is unchanged and the second paragraph summarizes the current state of the sections heading. I can add this once a consensus is achieved or someone else can make the edit and/or include other sources that are date-appropriate. Thanks - SBCornelius (talk) 03:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this request here. I have read the refs you proposed. The second ref is fine and the text generally supported, so I have added it, with modifications to conform to the ref cited, plus formatted and archived the ref. The first ref does not support that this affects Chrome browser deployments, as it deals only with Chromebooks running Chrome OS. As a result it is "out-of-scope" for this article, but may belong in one of those other articles. - Ahunt (talk) 11:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Ahunt (talk) Thanks for all of your previous help. I want to revisit an issue with this section one last time. I still feel that the way the section leaps from information that is more than 8 years old to 2019 leaves a hold in the narrative that could be quickly filled. I'd hoped other editors might have done something organically, but that hasn't happened yet. Here is what I'm proposing the second paragraph of the Enterprise Deployment section.
 * In 2010, Google first started supporting Chrome in enterprise environments by providing an MSI wrapper around the Chrome installer. Google starting providing group policy objects, with more added each release, and today there are more than 500 policies available to control Chrome's behavior in enterprise environments.
 * In 2016, Google launched Chrome Browser Enterprise Support, a paid service enabling IT admins access to Google experts to support their browser deployment. In 2019, Google launched Chrome Browser Cloud Management, a dashboard that gives business IT managers the ability to control content accessibility, app usage and browser extensions installed on its deployed computers.
 * Thanks and please let me know your thoughts. I will format the refs once the addition is approved. SBCornelius (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It looks like a worthwhile addition to me. If you want to add it, I can format the refs. - Ahunt (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. I just made the update to the section. Thanks again for all of your help on this.SBCornelius (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

2020 merge proposal
[Transclusion] from source page: Merge from Google Chrome for Android to here. - I'm surprised this was a separate article. First, Google Chrome for Android is not unique from Google Chrome especially when its availability on mobile isn't just to Chrome. Google updates the app in a 6-week cycle and that goes with mobile versions as well. I know this merge proposal was before a lot of synchronicity was put to Chrome across all platforms. – The Grid  ( talk )  14:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Strongly Support CampWood (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Outdated Image Description
The "The most used web browser per country in 2019" image has been updated to a 2020 version, but the description still has the 2019 date. Unless I'm missing something, that should be updated

--Zankoas (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ - Ahunt (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Should I delete the "Google Chrome for Android" templates?
A few weeks ago, somebody merged the Google Chrome for Android article into the Google Chrome page. This is just so unfair, because these templates that I'm editing are now orphaned and don't even have article pages now: Template:Latest stable software release/Google Chrome for Android and Template:Latest preview software release/Google Chrome for Android. Since this Google Chrome for Android article page has been deleted/merged, should these orphaned templates be deleted or blanked out too? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, if they are now empty. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 17:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2020
36.37.193.247 (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You need to specify what changes you would like to see here. - Ahunt (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2020 (2)
203.144.68.164 (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC) Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

Date error
Not sure how I'd fix this error, but there is an error "Error: first parameter cannot be parsed as a date or time." under the section "Windows, macOS, Linux". If anyone knows how to fix that one, please fix it. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 04:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That error was introduced with the most recent edit, which I have now reverted. Thanks for alerting us. HiLo48 (talk) 06:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Some one had manipulated the Wikidata item, note that the "latest release" should be the "preferred one", I mean in the "triangle circle triangle" shapes pattern, the top triangle should be the black one. Now it is fixed. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing it. I'll admit I don't understand your explanation (Wikidata is a mystery to me), but it certainly looks OK now. HiLo48 (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2020
These are two edit requests:

1. I suggest adding the second paragraph below this existing one:

Chrome allows users to synchronize their bookmarks, history, and settings across all devices with the browser installed by sending and receiving data through a chosen Google Account, which in turn updates all signed-in instances of Chrome. This can be authenticated either through Google credentials, or a sync passphrase.

Criticism has been aimed at the lack of data portability on the mobile version. Users are unable to export their data such a list of their opened tabs or their browsing history into accessible local files.

2. I also suggest adding this second paragraph below the existing first:

Incognito mode is similar to the private browsing feature in other web browsers. It does not prevent saving in all windows: "You can switch between an incognito window and any regular windows you have open. You'll only be in incognito mode when you're using the incognito window".

In incognito mode, the mobile version of Chrome blocks the creation of screenshots since version 65 and disallows downloading pages.

2006ru (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * These seem like very minor items, getting into WP:CHANGELOG. Perhaps you can explain why you think they are needed? - Ahunt (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌ it's not clear that the sources presented are reliable and weighty enough on their own to demonstrate the utility of this content on a page with large scope that cannot cover all feature details of the browser. This text can be added after discussion if there is a consensus among users that it is appropriate. — Bilorv ( talk ) 12:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it is worth mentioning without version number, so it does not appear like a change log. And minor appears subjective to me. F.Colline (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I can't add the Beta versions of Chrome on Wikidata
Something's wrong with the Wikidata article on Google Chrome. I wanted to add the Beta versions of Chrome according to these links, but Wikidata won't let me publish them! When will the issues be fixed? Can someone please help me? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Controversies and privacy concerns section needed
I think a section discussing controversies and privacy concerns can be added to this article. Somerandomuser (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * For guidance, see: Criticism. - Ahunt (talk) 13:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Variant Guinea pigs
Mention controversial aspects of behind the scenes Variant testing, in e.g., Canary.   Jidanni (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Needs a proper third party ref, like tech press reports. If it is notable then it will have been reported there. Forums and bug reports are not notable without third party refs. See WP:SPS. - Ahunt (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

New version for iOS and iPadOS
Version 91.0.4472.80 was released on June 2nd, 2021. Please edit it. I've already added the new version to the Wikidata page. GabrielBloom28 (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

the "Google Chrome" distribution issue
Google Chrome is proprietary, non-FOSS, etc. and is not included in many distros e.g. Ubuntu and others, Chromium (web browser) is similar and FOSS. This is like the Adobe Flash Player and Java Runtime Environment for Linux distribution issues. .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * What is your point with regard to improving this article? - Ahunt (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Influence section
The article could use a section on Chrome's influence on the Internet. This would make sense to cover apart from "Reception". Here is a source with some themes: (not watching, please )  czar  05:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * This kind of thing might fit better on a dedicated Criticism page, as adding too many negative points here could sway the article away from WP:NPOV. Far as I understand, it’s a pretty broad topic and could be deserving of a separate page even without neutrality concerns. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, perhaps on Criticism of Google? InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I would think the impact and legacy of Chrome definitely belongs within the article, being a major component of the topic, no? And a dedicated Criticism of Google Chrome article would only be warranted from a summary style split perspective when such a section becomes too big for the main article. I don't think this Wired article needs to be used as the sole source for such a section, if at all, but set aside its clickbait title and it's an example of the type of reference that covers the browser's influence in shaping the Internet. I wouldn't foresee any neutrality issue beyond that of a standard Reception section. The purpose wouldn't be to summarize opinion but to aggregate facts about Chrome's influence on Internet policies and standards, hence my surprise at not seeing it in the article already. I'll add more sources here if/when I find them. czar  17:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Licencing
I am 99% sure that Google Chrome is licenced under the Apache 2.0 licence like Android and all other Google works are.--Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * and you are 100% wrong. As the article notes, it is licensed under Google Terms of Service and the Google Chrome and Chrome OS Additional Terms of Service. It is not free software, it is proprietary software based on some free and some non-free components as that second page makes clear. - Ahunt (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Please see my response at Talk:Gboard as well. That's not how licencing (or the AOSP) works. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ALL Google software is Apache 2.0 you read the agreement wrong. There is no way it’s non-free software if it is free to download.--Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You are confusing a number of concepts there. The license is explicitly stated as Google Terms of Service and the Google Chrome and Chrome OS Additional Terms of Service, Just because something is given away at no cost does not mean it is free software, please read freeware for more on that. If you really think the license is Apache 2.0, you will need to provide a ref that actually says that. Right now there is nothing to even discuss. - Ahunt (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you perhaps referring to Google's Chromium project underlying Chrome, which is indeed open source? --Distelfinck (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Problem
There is a problem in the feature section. In the "Speed" sub-section it is written "JavaScript Virtual Machine". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisatime (talk • contribs)
 * You will need to be a bit more specific about what you see here as a problem. - Ahunt (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

i want to change the Wikipedia to the normal website Lemer jane lima (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

thanks uo Lemer jane lima (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

can i change now Lemer jane lima (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * You will need to explain that much better. What you have written here makes no sense in English. - Ahunt (talk) 00:21, 18 December 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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Google Chrome icon (2022).png

Chrome 110 only supporting Windows 10 and 11
With the release of Chrome 110 (expected stable release will be on February 2023), it will only supported Windows 10 and 11, Windows 8 and 8.1 is also affected on end of support of Chrome in Windows 7. Source 1 Source 2 BeemoKincaid (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not really surprising since Microsoft ceased support for Win7 on January 14, 2020. - Ahunt (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't forget, they release an update that install Microsoft Edge even after the Windows 7's end of support. BeemoKincaid (talk) 04:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * BTW, someone should add this on Google Chrome's Wikipedia since its semi-protected and I'm still unable to update it, even I signed in. BeemoKincaid (talk) 04:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Ahunt (talk) 12:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Default browser??
Chrome is the default for nothing but Android and the way it is written here it implies that it is the dfault for everything in that sentence. It wasn't "ported" to anything. Chromium runs on everything NOT Chrome. 67.246.101.221 (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . - Ahunt (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2022
I saw the image File:Google Chrome on Windows 11.png on Commons. Can any of the editors replace the screenshot in infobox with File:Google Chrome on Windows 11.png? Xeverything11 (talk) 09:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that is a copyright violation and has been tagged for deletion. - Ahunt (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to close this out, you can note that even though the Commons file is a clear copyright violation depicting "all rights reserved" proprietary software, with incorrect licences on the file page, Commons admins have refused to delete it. That said we can't use it here as our en.wikipedia polices prohibit using copyright violation images. If you want to upload a new Chrome screenshot as a "fair use" file here on en.wikipedia that would be fine. - Ahunt (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have reuploaded the Chrome screenshot from Commons to enwiki. Xeverything11 (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I see how you did that as an update, so I think that solves the issue. Thanks! - Ahunt (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

End support for windows 7/8
The end of support for windows 8 and 7. The Chrome will end support at February 7 2023. here something that link here. 47.234.198.142 (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Google Chrome version history
Is there any article with Google Chrome version history? Similar to Firefox version history.

As I remember, there used to be a version history section within this article a few months ago. Grillofrances (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I found that it was a separate article which had been deleted. See Articles for deletion/Google Chrome version history (2nd nomination).
 * Btw. I found also an ongoing discussion on another version history article: Articles for deletion/IOS version history (2nd nomination).
 * Generally, I cannot understand that deletion as there are many similar articles which aren't even nominated for deletion, and that deletion discussion used to have a plenty of votes to keep that article. I realize that it may have been written as far from being perfect but in such a cause, we should edit instead of deleting, I guess. Let's see e.g.:
 * Android version history
 * Debian version history
 * MacOS version history
 * Java version history
 * Ubuntu version history
 * ECMAScript version history
 * Linux kernel version history
 * Grillofrances (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "WP:NOTCHANGELOG" is often referenced but I cannot find any page about it. It's just a redirect WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Does it mean the all the "version history" articles should be deleted? Grillofrances (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Basically Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not a software fanzine or software developer textbook. The Wikipedia policy is actually at WP:NOTCHANGELOG, which says Wikipedia articles should not be: ... Exhaustive logs of software updates. Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources in articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article. Common sense must be applied regarding the level of detail to include. So basically a sumary of key versions with major changes is okay, a long list of every version is not allowed. As per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS if you find pages that violate the policy then please do nominate them for deletion. - Ahunt (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I give tech support, and have used the version history here extensively, for many years, so that I can tell my customers, using old versions of software, exactly how out of date they are. The loss of this section is extremely inconvenient! Adagio67 (talk) 08:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a tech support manual or tool, though, it is a general encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2023
201.130.22.43 (talk) 10:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Deauthorized. (talk) 10:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

"GBrowser" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GBrowser&redirect=no GBrowser] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. TartarTorte 14:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

"Google Tone" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google_Tone&redirect=no Google Tone] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. TartarTorte 14:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)