Talk:Google Chrome

Active discussions
Google Chrome was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 3, 2008Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
August 12, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 7, 2008.
Current status: Former good article nominee
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Google Chrome:

  • Rel 31.0.1650 is here!

* Add information regarding Chrome 8 and its cloud features. Findnorulz (talk) 08:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Add a seperate section on chrome canary build. Findnorulz (talk) 08:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Get proper sourcing for this article. Most sources are WP:SPS.
  • Say not synchronizable with "Google bookmarks".
  • Add a section about the dispute around if it's "open-source".
  • Extend the lead section to give a clear overview as per WP:LEAD
  • Build-numbering explaining
  • since versionchange from 15 to 16, prerendering of pages was removed. done it with http://www.oldapps.com/google_chrome.php chrome versions. 194.8.213.2 (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • update and maintain this list, or delete it Widefox (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Help: according to release history, v24 was released before v23, which cannot be correct. Typo? Need someone to investigate and fix.

Future of ad-blockingEdit

Would anyone object *in general* to the idea of adding some text regarding Google's plans to restrict ad blocking features, or would that be recentism (WP:RECENT)? Just want to gather some initial thoughts before I start composing verbiage. Galestar (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I think that would a good subject to add, keeping in mind that there is some debate about what exactly Google is doing there. - Ahunt (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Google Chrome Canary 80.0.3969.0Edit

Is there a bug in Google Chrome Canary 80.0.3969.0? I seem to be unable to uninstall it. MaynardClark (talk) 05:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

"MSI wrapper" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MSI wrapper. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Please change "78" to "79" on version compatibilityEdit

It's now outdated and change "78" to "79" on version compatibility! 31.6.144.143 (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Color management doesn't actually work.Edit

A comment should be added to the Color Management section noting that it is only partly implemented, and as a result is not truly color managed.

See <https://discuss.pixls.us/t/web-browsers-color-management-solved/15071/6> and <https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/1592680> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.22.219 (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2020Edit

105.98.92.85 (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  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. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2020Edit

under the sentence (just before the subtitle "Notable examples): 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. write the sentence: There is a condition in the Google Chrome license that allows Google to "remotely disable or remove any" "extension that violates Google developer terms or other legal agreements, laws, regulations or policies" "from user systems in its sole discretion." add to this sentence reffer: http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html 5.172.255.89 (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

  Not done per WP:NOR. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Please include 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. << the following sentence in the new paragraph: >> The Google Chrome license has the following statement: "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." << and add a link to my fragment in the form of a footnote: >> http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html <<. This is an unchanged quote (without interpretation) from Chrome EULA (http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html) with an introductory sentence that only states the source of the quote. If my introductory sentence were a problem again, please help me how to put this Google Chrome license fragment (original source) in this Wikipedia article.5.172.255.89 (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

flagsEdit

just wondering: why chrome://flags is never mentioned? 15:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cregox (talkcontribs)

It is already in two places in the article. - Ahunt (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

adding a raw, unchanged quotation from the Google Chrome license (reliable source with legal force)Edit

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 << and >> "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)
  Done - 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)
Return to "Google Chrome" page.