Talk:Vivaldi (web browser)

Technologies used
Can we start to gather information on the technologies used in this? I know that Blink is used as the rendering engine and have heard that there is some NodeJS and modules going on. What about the JS engine, can we find more details? Wrxahedron (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, they called it Vivaldi, because Vivaldi wrote Operas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.230.52 (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Reads like an advertisement
Most of the article, especially the "Features" section looks like it was just copied and pasted from the Vivaldi website. This should be cleaned up to be more than just a mirror of their page. Fench (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, Fench. I concur. It is indeed a problem. If I had a little more free time, maybe I could fix it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ - see what you think. - Ahunt (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me! Fench (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * - Ahunt (talk) 12:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that! I just wanted to get down the content and didn't really focus on the formatting. JC713 (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletion?
I've never heard of Vivaldi. If I had heard it mentioned somewhere, I'd certainly look it up on Wikipedia. Therefore I think the article ought not to be deleted. Some people will hear of it and look for it here. It should be here.

Its optimistic tone could well be toned down. It could perhaps mention 'intentions' to develop the product instead of making it look like a sure thing.

BTW I clicked on the image and nothing happened except that it opened something I could not get rid of; had to close down the tab and start over. --Hordaland (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You can note that the deletion discussion is at Articles for deletion/Vivaldi (web browser), not here. I just checked the image on the page and when the thumbnail is clicked on it loads fine, at least in Firefox 36.0.1 on Linux. - Ahunt (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Update Cycle
The August 14, 2016 version of the article reads "The browser is updated weekly," but I cannot confirm that.

I want to know how often the software is updated. If someone can find a history, calendar, or quote; cite it; and update the article, I would appreciate it.

Kxykzz (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

There does not seem to be a clear policy. Though Tatsuki Tomita uses the title "Weekly snapshot 1.0.123.10 is available for download". Other posts in the category Vivaldi updates show updates every few days around the beginning of August 2016. Kxykzz (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Employee Owned
I think it is notable that this is an employee owned company. Binaryhazard (talk) 08:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have a ref that says that it would best belong in Vivaldi Technologies.- Ahunt (talk) 12:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Here is a primary source. Pathway to the linked page is: Vivaldi Home --> About --> What We Believe --> scroll down about 2/3rds of the way to "We're in Control" for employee-owned statement - https://vivaldi.com/company/  All the best, Wordreader (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Why was this removed from Category:Vivaldi Technologies?
Why was this page removed from Category:Vivaldi Technologies?Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 08:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi.
 * There is no such template.
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly, because the category doesn't exist. I have no problem with adding it if the category is created, but we don't normally have red-linked categories on articles. - Ahunt (talk) 12:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought. I figured you removed the category because it was a redlink. But I couden't be sure, because for some reason, edit summaries aren't showing up on the history page for me! Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That is odd, perhaps it is a browser issue? The edit summaries are all visible in Firefox 49.0.2 for me. My edit summary for that removal actually said (category seems to not exist). - Ahunt (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. The edit summaries seem to show up fine in my Firefox, but they're not showing up in Vivaldi 	1.4.589.38 for me. And switching to the Monobook skin doesn't help. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That is ironic that the Vivaldi article doesn't show right in the Vivaldi browser! - Ahunt (talk) 13:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Turns out, the problem isn't Vivaldi itself. It's a Chrome\Vivaldi extension for hiding comments on websites, called Shut Up (apparently, Shut Up's mistaking the edit summaries for web-comments). Fortunately, Shut Up has a whitelist: I whitelisted Wikipedia, and edit summaries seem to be working fine now. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * - Ahunt (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Why "Vivaldi version history" page was removed and replaced by redirect link?
Hi all!

The question for. Why you did it? The reason?

--Shpankov (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Cannot add a screenshot of Vivaldi
I tried adding a screenshot of Vivaldi in actual use, to highlight some features. I hit some filter when I try to upload the screenshot. No idea why. Can anyone please help? --Villarebut (talk) 02:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You couldn't upload you say? That might not be bad news. To be honest, many newcomers upload images without the slightest respect for copyright laws and Wikipedia Non-Free Contents policy and their upload eventually gets deleted. If a filter can stop you from doing this without hurting your dignity, that can only be good. So, familiarize yourself with the policy and try again. Also, including the error codes and filter name would help a lot, but I don't assume it is an option anymore. —Codename Lisa (talk) 05:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There was no such info you mention. If there would have been any such info, maybe I could have understood the problem. This is the screenshot I took on my machine: http://imgur.com/a/yeNTR Can you please tell me what is wrong with it? --Villarebut (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this the image you wanted to upload? Wow. It is filled with copyright-protected intellectual properties of others. (Did you study the link I gave you above?) And what is the point of such a crowded image anyway? We want to inform the reader not swarm them. There are so many things in it I don't even understand. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. What is wrong with my screenshot? There are so many things wrong you cannot even name one? How else can I present the specific features of the browser if not by using it and taking a screenshot? --Villarebut (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's full of faviocons which show copyrighted logos, your speed dial also shows screenshots of copyrighted websites. We can't have that. It's best if we show Vivaldi as if it was first opened, which is what we already have. -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 02:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I did name one! Like I said "It is filled with copyright-protected intellectual properties of others" and also I said "crowded image" and "We want to inform the reader not swarm them". And you still have not studied WP:NFCC. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * This image here of Chromium (browser) may give a better idea how we more normally show a browser window, with minimal clutter and no proprietary or copyrighted images, websites, favicons, etc. - Ahunt (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you and  for trying to help! Anyway, back on topic, that image of Chrome is basically empty. How can I show the awesome functionality of Vivaldi if I cannot show stacks of tabs and the history panel and the speed dial at the same time? That is what differentiates Vivaldi from other featureless browsers. I could make stacks of empty tabs and pin empty tabs and open lots of empty tabs, but what could I do about the history side panel or the speed dial? How can I show an actual working Vivaldi instance of a human user, not some synthetic screenshots?--Villarebut (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, in that Chromium screenshot you show, there is a Google favicon. If the favicons in my screenshot are copyrighted, is the Google favicon not copyrighted?--Villarebut (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your questions. It is fine to show functionality like tabs, history and speed dial, but you have to show it without showing copyrighted websites and similar. I usually use US government websites as they are public domain. As far as the Google favicon goes, it is just a letter "G" and doesn't meet threshold of originality for copyright protection, to it is public domain as well. - Ahunt (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, so I have lots of changes to do. Can we please clear each change type that I need to do and start with just the favicons? Which ones should I get rid of? I mean, if the Google favicon is OK, which ones are not? Is it OK if I blank or replace the bad ones with the default favicon (the pinned tab on the right side of the WhatsApp tab)? If I do such edits, does it still count as a screenshot? --Villarebut (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I would recommend not editing the screenshot, but set up a new one with non-copyright elements in it. As far as favicons go, I am not a copyright lawyer, but as long as they have just letters and not logos, then you should be safe there. As far as showing websites, choose public domain ones, like US government (I often use https://www.faa.gov/ as it looks nice) or use a Wikipedia page (which then needs a suitable content licence in the screenshot). Showing features and elements of the browser user interface should be fine. Keep in mind that the image has to be as small as possible (fair use rules, again) so perhaps 400px wide, or at least only as large as to show the elements being illustrated. When ready to upload keep in mind that Vivaldi is "proprietary freeware" and therefore needs to be uploaded to en.wikipedia at File Upload Wizard and not Wiki Commons (which only accepts freely licenced images) and must have a fair use licence and not a free licence, as it is not eligible. The screenshot also has to be used in the actual article or else it will get deleted under the fair use rules in the US Copyright Act. If you have questions as you go along, please do ask here and we'll try to help out! - Ahunt (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, man, thanks a lot! I was indeed trying to upload to Wiki Commons. I used your suggestion and uploaded the image here: File:Vivaldi_browser_1.8_session_in_use.png. Can you take a look at it? Should I wait until it gets approved before adding it to the article? Again, thank you! --Villarebut (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I am glad that was helpful. I have a few concerns: 1. At 1,366 × 766 pixels it will probably get tagged as too big for fair use and then someone will reduce it in size, probably to about 400 px wide, 2. the websites shown in the speed dial look like they are copyright sites, so it may get deleted for that, 3. Your statement under "Author or copyright owner" is not correct, the copyright holder is "Vivaldi Technologies" and 4. your statement under "Respect for commercial opportunities" needs fixing. You don't own Vivaldi, you are just a licensed user of it. There is no "approval process". You can just go ahead and insert it into the article and then other editors may make adjustments to the use of it or the file itself. I'll keep a watch on it and see what happens, too. - Ahunt (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As I suspected a bot just reduced the size of the image for "fair use" so that issue has been addressed. - Ahunt (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Now that I see how bad it looks like in the accepted resolution, I'm really questioning whether it makes any sense to use it at all. I mean, you cannot really see the tabs of the tab stacks or the tooltip on the highlighted extensions buttons toggle. Is there any argument that can be made for a higher resolution version? How is the Chromium one so high? Is it because Chromium is truly free or what?--Villarebut (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Chromium is freely-licenced, so there no restrictions on its use in screen shots. Vivaldi is proprietary, so we are bound by "fair-use" rules, which means it has to be as small as possible and still be legible. We could try making it a bit bigger, if you like, arguing legibility. - Ahunt (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅, see what you think now. - Ahunt (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That looks much better. Thanks! I revisited the article just to see if the image is in the article anymore (hey, anything can happen on wikipedia), I clicked the image and was like "this doesn't look like total crap. Why was I complaining it looks like crap?". Then I thought I should check the talk page as well and lo and behold, mystery solved! :)) --Gravecoins (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Supported languages
Vivaldi currently supports 53 languages. There is no article about this. What to do? Also, the list in the article has 53 languages and the number currently says 47 because Codename Lisa cannot count.--Gravecoins (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * We provide the most accurate information for which we can cite a source. In this case, the source says it's 40 languages (where Chinese seems to be listed twice, for 41 list entries). Huon (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, yes, I know Codename Lisa. In addition to not being able to count, she is a bitch! But still the burden of the source is on the person changes or reinstates a statement; in this case, you. Why don't you tell us where exactly did you see the languages, and we send an editor who is not a bitch and is able to count, to count them?
 * Best non-sarcastic regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I see you fixed the languages count. Non-sarcastic congrats for finally learning to count! --Gravecoins (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Huon did, and that's still not the 53 that you reported. —Codename Lisa (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I see. I thought you learned to count. I take my congrats back then. The 53 languages are in the browser. You wouldn't know, since you don't use it. --Gravecoins (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If everyone agrees, I can download a copy and list all the languages, and then provide proper referencing.
 * I also feel obliged to note everyone that in addition to the disrespectful language ("I take my congrats back then") that shows pettiness, has resorted revenge-reverting too: . So, with no intention to bite our newcomer friend, I'd like to remind him of our non-negotiable WP:CIVIL policy.
 *  Fleet  Command ( Speak your mind! ) 06:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't notice it was the same person. But what I said is true: We don't reproduce a source' typo unless we are quoting. We use sources for verifiability only. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires published sources, preferably secondary sources. All we have here is a primary source, but it unequivocally says: "Today we support 40 languages, including 10 languages not supported in Google Chrome!" I am aware the list actually has 41 entries; I commented on the difference above. I don't know the reason for the difference; possibly they consider simplified and traditional Chinese or the two varieties of Portuguese or, most likely, the two varieties of Norwegian (Nynorsk and Bokmål) a single language. I'll also add that we indeed use sources for verifiability only, not for spelling errors; that goes for the Belarusian language, too. Huon (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Now that we have an answer from Huon to my original question and the language list was updated with information from the actual browser (54 languages on the latest count), like I did in the first place, can someone please remove the thing that Codename lisa put on my talk page out of spite? He and Fleetcommand have been removing my messages for help and edits to the language list just because they are mods and I am a poorfag user. I was just trying to help by adding updated language information and Codename lisa was abusing his power to remove my edits for his own satisfaction, not for the good of the article. How can I file a formal complaint about their abusive behavior? Gravecoins (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You can file a complaint by going to WP:ANI.
 * But I tell you what happens if you do it: Either you yourself get blocked, or nobody pays any attention to you.
 * Do you know why? Because you lost all your rights and privileges when you wrote "Codename Lisa cannot count" and you never got them back because you maintained an attitude of assuming bad faith throughout the whole discussion and kept committing personal attacks up until that very last message. And your motivation for all this? You came to this article, changed the number of languages but didn't change the actual list of languages. Anyone who see this think you are the one who cannot count. Reverting you is the natural outcome. WP:CIVIL is a fundamental policy; you either edit collegially or have no rights to edit at all.
 * 37.254.119.96 (talk) 06:49, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know who you are, but you must be really stupid to think I changed the number of languages without also updating the actual list of languages. You didn't follow the discussion or the edit history on the article. Gravecoins (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "you must be really stupid to think I changed the number of languages without also updating the actual list of languages"
 * Well, you did:
 *  Fleet  Command ( Speak your mind! ) 18:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not understand what you are implying. The link you provided shows an edit in which I FIXED the number of languages, because it did not match the list of languages. What is your point? It is a clear and obvious FIX. Gravecoins (talk) 12:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I just went to WP:ANI. What a mess! There is no way I will invest that much time in that horrible bowl of spaghetti discussions. I already invested too much in this horrible bowl of spaghetti discussion. What matters is the article now has the right number and list of languages, like I did it in the first place. The precedent has been set, so whiny useless bureaucrats can't remove without any reason the improvements to that list anymore. I tried to improve the article and it has finally been done thanks to my efforts and despite the efforts of others to make the article worse. This also happened with the image in the Usability section. Gravecoins (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Whatever floats your boat, dear.  Fleet  Command ( Speak your mind! ) 18:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, that went off topic. Let me drag it back on topic. Improving the article floats my boat. Unhelpful bureaucrats working against me and to the detriment of the article again and again is what sinks my boat. Gravecoins (talk) 12:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Rendering engine
The first paragraph says that Vivaldi "is aimed at ... previous Opera web browser users disgruntled by Opera's transition from the Presto layout engine to the Blink layout engine". The "technology" section says that "Vivaldi uses the Blink rendering engine". This is confusing and should be explained. --Fkv (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Better? :) Gravecoins (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

License
Freeware is not a type of license, it just means that it can be installed without having to pay. Free software on the other hand means released under a license that gives the user complete control over his installation, or something like cc0 that does not require a license at all, but does not fit this whatsoever. It is proprietary software, as reading the license linked in the references shows TheFIST (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I think indicating it is freeware is useful, but I have added that it is proprietary freeware. - Ahunt (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Future additions
I installed Vivaldi 2.0 this morning. The user welcome says that sync is up and running. Also it offers the user the option of opening an email account. I have not had time to test either but their blog has details here: https://vivaldi.com/blog/vivaldi-2-0-your-browser-matters/

David Crayford &#9742;  14:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Feel free to add it to the article with that ref cited. - Ahunt (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Collapse the version history
The version history table is really long and it takes a long time to scroll over it on a desktop browser. Can it be collapsed by default or something? Does anyone know how to do that? Gravecoins (talk) 13:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have fiddled with it for over half an hour and my rudimentary knowledge of HTML/CSS was not enough to figure out a nice way to do it. Yes, it can be collapsed by default, but for some reason then the table caption looks weird. I also tried to find a way to set the features cells to a 2-column version, to shorten the table itself, and that didn't work for me either. I have put out some messages asking people about this and I will be sure to try and fix it if I get a response. Thanks, Gravecoins, and sorry I couldn't be more helpful. :/ Prometheus720 (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done; I added the mw-collapsed parameter to the table class tag. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Vivaldi Browser 3.0.jpg

Removing releases section
Hello 👋. I'm removing the Releases section per WP:NOTCHANGELOG. If you believe this is a mistake, please feel free to discuss it here. —motevets (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you. The precedent of all other pages on web browsers has been to include a table or list of releases like this. I believe WP:NOTCHANGELOG doesn't actually say that release tables aren't permitted. It only says that these tables should be based on reliable third party sources, and shouldn't be overly detailed. I think we should keep the table and attempt to improve it first by establishing notability through reliable sources/reducing unnecessary details, and come to a clear consensus before axing it. Kind regards - Herbfur (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you for you thoughts. First, I apologise. I may have been a little too bold in deleting that table which clearly a lot of effort was put into without getting consensus first. I have reverted my change in good faith. Second, I think we largely agree on the core points. I think the information can be distilled down, and maybe merged with the "Features" section.
 * I don't believe there is precedent for using a table (or other format) to list every minor release of a web browser. At the time of writing neither Chromium, Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Internet Explorer, nor Brave have such tables or lists. What they do have is a history of their development—normally broken down either by year or feature set—that will highlight at a high level their major releases in the context of what was either going on in the company or the industry.
 * If someone is willing to put the effort into finding reliable third sources and distilling the information, then I think that would be great! However, if there isn't appetite to do this, then I think the section as it is should ultimately be removed. Most of the important information is already in the "Features" section.
 * Look forward to hearing from you. —motevets (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no worries about deleting the table, and I appreciate your good faith edits and reversion. Sorry if I was a bit unclear about the precedent part. The other browsers don't have a version table on the main article, but they have a separate article that consists of a version table exclusively, like History of the Opera web browser or Firefox version history. So in this case, that's something we may be able to pursue, and also take your suggestion to split the rest of the table contents into the features section. I for one would be willing to try to track down some references to establish notability. So yeah, I think there's definitely a middle ground here. Kind regards, Herbfur (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * sounds good to me. Thanks. 🙂 &#32;— motevets (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please restore the release history section, and ignore worthless wp: rules that ruin Wikipedia. pepp5 (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Close-source references
At the time of writing this, ⅔ of the references are to the company's own website, giving the impression that the article is better sourced than it actually is. Granted, this is partly because of the (too long, IMO) release history section, but still, would be good to see more neutral, tertiary RS mentions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. There is some discussion above about the releases table/section. I imagine 's work on that will help balance the sources, but I agree that we should look for more secondary or tertiary reliable sources.— motevets (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Manjaro default browser
Is Manjaro's recent decision to switch default browser from Firefox to Vivaldi noteworthy for the article? -Vipz (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would be, especially because Vivaldi is proprietary software. It should be added to the Manjaro article as well. Just need a ref for that, preferably one that explains why. Is it in the release notes? - Ahunt (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

regarding windows version
it should not say windows 10, as that is incorrect. i downloaded it recently and installed in windows 7. i just checked its download site and it is available for xp/vista(32 bit only), windows 7(32 bit and 64 bit) and then there is a general windows installation available for 32 bit and 64 bit. 84.208.108.74 (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * But that's true, there really isn't Windows 7 or 8 support anymore. You can install the latest version of Vivaldi only on Windows 10 or 11. Look at this article. Jirkacapek13 (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Firefox addons are fake news
I don't know who thinks that Firefox extensions work on Vivaldi. The WebExtension system on Firefox is completely different from the Chromium based CRX extensions, so I don't think extensions for Firefox will work in Vivaldi. Can I fix it in the article and remove the part about supporting Firefox extensions? Jirkacapek13 (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)