Jump to content

Talk:Galeon/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

Removed the claim that Galeon is "fast and light". These terms are of course quite subjective, but in my subjective day-to-day use of Galeon, I don't find the program to be either of these things. Perhaps Galeon is "fast and light" compared to, say, Netscape Navigator, but that really isn't saying much. --Ryguasu 11:23 Dec 2, 2002 (UTC)

  • No problem, but if we take that route, the only browsers that will be able to make that claim are Links, ELinks, and Lynx! --Ardonik.talk() 19:57, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Screenshot

I just made a screenshot of the Galeon webbrowser for the german Wikipedia and uploaded it to the commons. If you wish, you can implement it. 84.60.50.207 18:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... A bit late now! Anyhow, thank you for uploading. I switched to this one, because it has proper licensing. ~Linuxerist L / T 05:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I just changed this back because the screenshot previous to your change showed the Wikipedia home page, the "standard" for web browser screenshots. That image is dual-licensed as GFDL/CC-BY-SA. Mike Dillon 22:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Article deletion?

This is a historical article about a web browser that pioneered many features present in modern browsers. The article should not be deleted. 20080724 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.248.190 (talk) 09:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Cite or reference that in the article please. As it stands it fails WP:RSand by extension fails WP:N--Pmedema (talk) 08:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And yes, the browser was there in 2000. It was in Debian around 22 Sep 2000.[1] --Kjoonlee 04:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

All unsourced, but...Galeon is notable as the first significant development effort to wrestle control of Gecko from Netscape's interests. Competitors with similar goals existed (such as K-Meleon), but Galeon was the most active and feature complete. Unfortunately, the program jumped the shark in the 1.1 -> 1.2 -> 1.3 transition with the change in vision from "the web and only the web" to "Mozilla, emacs style" to "GNOME browser with no features". I, like most of its fans, held onto a decaying release until it was no longer feasible to use. Fortunately, not too much later Mozilla gave us Phoenix, a web browser that eventually became Firefox. Phoenix was so much like the original Galeon in vision and execution that one must wonder where upon the Mozilla team drew inspiration... Whelkman (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

May be it could be merged into Epiphany (web browser)? There already are some references to Galeon, and these browsers are closely related? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I extended the article, added several references and removed tags. As of now (revision 460940278) it is nearly 4 times bigger then it used to be and has 15 references, of which 4 are primary sources and 11 are third party, including references to such well-established news sites as OSNews, Linux Planet and LXer. I think that the problems of notability, verifiability and reliable sources are now solved. I will further extend it as far as my spare time allows me. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks a lot better now. I did some copy editing and found one ref that you hadn't already added. More history would be great, but finding refs is the usual issue! - Ahunt (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I've made a rather controversial edit I would like to be reviewed, commented and (if needed) reverted before I actually continue editing, so that there would be no future need to merge further edits. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Which edit? If it was your last one it looks fine to me! - Ahunt (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Database solution?

Does galeon use the same very I/O heavy backend for databases as firefox does? This is a question you would expect to find answered on this page and on the home page but it's on neither... 88.148.209.67 (talk) 07:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Assessment

Nice article! I'm assessing B-Class. There are some problems based on dependence on unreliable sources, and I've tagged them. Since they're for minor, supporting facts I believe the article passes the spirit of WP:BCLASS #1, provided those individual facts are removed or the citations improved.

I'm responding to the assessment request Czarkoff posted at WP:COMP/A. – Pnm (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Removed ref

The removed ref, while being a personal website, was referenced from several reputable sources, though should enjoy the inherited reliability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The ref was reviewed and tagged as unreliable by User:Pnm on 18 December 2011, which was a week ago. I left it to see if he/she would come back and replace it, etc, but they didn't. In checking the ref it looks like an archive.org version of an old personal blog that is no longer on the internet. I checked out the author and could find no indication that he meets the WP:SPS exceptions (basically previously published in the field in question, other sources, reliable or not linking to his blog don't count) so, given it had already been challenged as unreliable, I saw no other alternative but to remove the ref and add "citation needed" tags. If you have some indication that it meets one of the exceptions to SPS, then we can put it back in, or we can locate another ref that is reliable. - Ahunt (talk) 18:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing the tagged citations, and especially for improving the citations. I put one of the tags back in this edit because I think it makes a significant claim about other browsers that's not backed up by the sources. It's original research if there isn't a second source which backs it up – maybe that would have been a better inline tag. I'm guessing it should simply be reworded. – Pnm (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
That's funny, because back in 2002 the terms "reliable source" and "source about Linux software" were mutually exclusive. I think that only O'Railly was then as established as it is now. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 06:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
If reliable sources have republished the information, cite one of them instead. – Pnm (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I didn't see it republished. Effectively, I found it in the archive.org because I found that several links lead there with wording like "see more details there". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 06:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
It turns out Linux Today (probably the most reputable online news site of that time) linked the material with cite. Re-added. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
And how did You, Pnm, come to idea to mark unreliable /. news item with links??? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
It's inappropriate to use this repost of the link as a reliable source. When I suggested another source I meant a reliable source which published the same information, not a source which linked to the blog post. Slashdot is not a reliable source, but I'm afraid I don't understand what you're asking. – Pnm (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
It's not inappropriate to use this repost of the link, as it is devoted to the link. This equals to republishing. Again You just don't like something. About /.: the story links to lengthy article by The Register, which discusses the fact in detail but uses wording "Mozilla" to address the group of Mozilla-based browsers. The ./ article not only links there, but also specifically states the connection between "Mozilla" and "Galeon". So it's a proper reference satisfying WP:V. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
The link doesn't confer reliability on the source, so I object using the full text of the article. However I suppose it's OK to use the portion of the contents that was quoted and republished by Linux Today. The citation should be to Linux Today, however, not the original source. – Pnm (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
What was the point of removing /. reference? You don't agree that "/." is reliable in determining that Mozilla-based Galeon can be accounted as one of the Ḿozilla browsers? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I object to ignoring WP:RS. When a blog quotes or links to a reliable source, it doesn't make the blog reliable. The source we can use is this one, and doesn't use "Mozilla" in a way that suggests it refers to the group of Mozilla-based browsers. It doesn't satisfy WP:V because Slashdot is not a reliable source. Sorry I didn't respond to your comment here – I didn't see it until now. – Pnm (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that Galeon used Mozilla as a rendering engine, so everything about Mozilla (except UI) was true about Galeon. I posted this issue to the WP:NOR/N, so let's see the outcome. BTW, could You please review my request there and add some notes if I failed to represent the issue in a neutral way or forgot something? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I think you're correct that the limitation is relevant to Galeon, but I think claiming it here gets into OR-land since the article mentions neither Gecko, "rendering engine," nor Galeon. How about adding information about online banking at Cross-browser and History of the web browser instead? – Pnm (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I totally agree with You that there is an element of synthesis. When I was adding this ref initially, I thought it is proper synthesis, but now I'm not sure, so I posted issue to WP:NOR/N. I didn't think about of other places to add The Register's article as a link yet. Thanks for hint! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I looked through these article and I can't find a good place for this link. Instead I would place it to Online banking#History and probably Mozilla Application Suite#Market adoption and project end. Opinions? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Citations needed?

I would ask everyone to specify all the claims that don't appear to have supporting references, as I failed to identify those. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, it is the dates that need cites, I'll tag them. - Ahunt (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
September 2008 is cited in infobox, I removed the {{citation needed}}. The target page doesn't explicitly states that software was discontinued, it links to the last 5-year-old release. If this is the problem, please change the wording instead, as no explicit discontinuation note was there. Still I think this link can be taken for verification of effective discontinuation. As with other date, I indeed don't see a suitable reference in this article. I'll add it and remove the citation request. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 Done 2002. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
OK. - Ahunt (talk) 11:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Galeon. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 06:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Checked - Ahunt (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Galeon. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 10:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Galeon GTK+1

I'm a bit tired of surfing the web in search of Galeon history coverage. If anybody happens to recall a good material on GTK+1 version of the browser, please update the Galeon#On the rise section or at least link it here so I could do it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Galeon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kaypoh (talk · contribs) 16:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Development history section does not mention most important detail. When did Galeon start? Many basic language errors. Please copyedit, expand, then renominate. --Kaypoh (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Galeon/Archive_1&oldid=1067534364"