Talk:BrowserChoice.eu

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance).

Microsoft: Windows Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Microsoft Windows (assessed as Mid-importance).

Internet Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Web browser choice screen

I've created a similar article at Web browser choice screen. Also, it should be noted that all the links go through microsoft, and as such microsoft will have a copy of all the statistics.Smallman12q (talk) 02:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above mentioned article is about the same subject and thus should be merged into this article, I've added the appropriate merge tags to both articles. 78.33.26.66 (talk)

Obvious duplication/merge so done. --Rumping (talk) 11:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following claim in this section is incorrect:

"The screen is presented only to Windows users whose default web browser is Internet Explorer."

I see the Web browser choice screen at http://www.browserchoice.eu/BrowserChoice/browserchoice_en.htm, when I browse there using Firefox 4.0.1 on my Mac.

Wikipedia's rule is "no original research" - that's original research. So what's the correct way to handle this situation? 86.133.61.201 (talk) 00:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You use common sense...something that appears to be heavily lacking....=PSmallman12q (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate Browser

In this edit, User:Lineplus stated that "Other browsers are not "alternative browsers"!" However, this is not the case. The whole purpose of BrowserChoice was to comply with the EU to show that there are alternative browsers. Such as stated in these articles:

Smallman12q (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uninstallable

Is it worth mentioning that the update which adds BrowserChoice to your computer is uninstallable after it has been installed? Certainly for less savvy users who choose to do nothing and stick with Internet Explorer, the damn thing hangs around on the desktop for ever more. Astronaut (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, people who want to keep IE will just pick IE in the list and the browser screen won't appear anymore. --Rafaelluik (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three screenshots

There is a debate scattered over various locations about whether three screenshots are better than one. In essense, form one point of view the screenshots are similar and are non-free so only one is needed, versus the opinion that the screenshots are different (in terms of logos and descriptions) and are needed to illustrate the first/second-tier slider issue and to avoid repeating the alledged bias by Mirosoft in making the second-tier browsers almost invisible. --Rumping (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 vs 1 is only one of the problems; apart from the minimal use clause, three images also fail the replaceability clause because the fact that the other browsers are accessed via the slider is perfectly explainable in text (which is of course free). Leading on from that, it follows that the images are not necessary to 'significantly improve' the reader's understanding of the article, and thus the necessity clause is also failed. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is one of the opinions. But I personally think it is less important than illustrating with the first picture that there was no indication apart from the slider that there might be more than five browsers, and then showing with the second and third illustrations that there were more and what they were. Without all three screenshots I believe many readers' understanding would be significantly weakened.--Rumping (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - But this can clearly be explained in text - and it is. I fail to believe that a reader could not understand that a webpage can be moved across using a slider without being shown two images of it. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Some readers can indeed all the points including the 12 browsers just by reading and visiting the external link (which may not be there forever). But others will get the key points more quickly with three illustrations. --Rumping (talk) 10:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't believe that the issue is complex enough for any reader that they couldn't understand the caption underneath the existing image. Furthermore, it's not central to the reader understanding the article itself (i.e. what the product is) - it's only a side issue of controversy. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:NFC is very clear here - "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created". Please do not re-insert the material until the issue is settled. Thankyou. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Not that I can undo your change as you have removed the images four times in 24 hours [1][2][3][4]--Rumping (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        How about as a compromise we replace the first image with a moving gif of all three?--Rumping (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Er - I hadn't thought of that. I'd have to check, but I think that would solve the problem, yes. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Try now--Rumping (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I've looked at this and I'm pretty sure it's fine. Well done for thinking of it! Black Kite (t) (c) 18:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

good compromise! looks good. good idea! mabdul 11:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revision

Do we have any press release for that? I see the changes on the homepage, but we should cite something! mabdul 15:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck finding anything compatible with Wikipedia policy. The statement is verifiably accurate (just go to the site), but the sources do not fit policy. There are comments noting the additions at [5] and [6]. The screenshot (19 August 2010) was before the change. The change had happened by 26 August 2010.--Rumping (talk) 10:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on BrowserChoice.eu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101030021348/http://flock.com/petition_to_the_european_commission.pdf to http://flock.com/petition_to_the_european_commission.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BrowserChoice.eu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140208004146/http://www.browserchoice.eu/BrowserChoice/browserchoice_en.htm to http://www.browserchoice.eu/BrowserChoice/browserchoice_en.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]