Talk:Timeline of web browsers/Archive 1

Archive 1

Page launch

The table I posted was the result of myself trying to get a handle on when the various browsers were released. I could not find a single source that listed all these browsers. It seems that most authors lost interest in the subject when the "broswer wars" cooled off. The formatting of table is rudimentary. Feel free to import the code into your html editor and reformat (with CSS). --Mikebrand 21:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Camino

Anyone against adding a camino timeline? I can try and dig up the dates for the major releases if you like...or I can email mike pinkerton and have him edit this page. Erik.hensarling 07:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I was not familiar with Camino, but it has a good article in WP and a Google search for "camino browser review" returns over a 1 million results. The only reason I included the phrase "most popular browsers" in the first sentence is that is what the table consisted of when I first created it. As less popular browsers are added, that wording can be changed. So, I vote, yes, please do add Camino (and the necessary dates seem to already be conveniently listed in the Camino article). --Mikebrand 12:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good Mike...This will be my first major edit so please forgive me if there are some obvious mistakes. Any feedback would be awesome. Erik.hensarling 22:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is an interesting talk given about Camino and the history behind it, if anyone is interested. It spurred my interest in this article. Open Source Developers at Google Speaker Series: Camino

I am adding the Camino timeline this evening. Erik.hensarling 06:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

SeaMonkey

Is SeaMonkey popular enough to be included in this page? 132.205.93.63 03:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No popularity threasholds have been set. --Mikebrand 04:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Safari

Why exactly do we have two different versions of Safari? Both Mac and Windows version use the same rendering engine and keep the same version number. That makes the difference the same as Mac/Windows/Linux/etc. versions of Firefox or Opera, yet we don't have different columns for them. I suspect the reasoning was based on the two different IEs, but they use different rendering engines and a different versioning system, thus justifying two separate entries. --ADeveria 11:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Perhaps it would be better to place an ^ (or other symbol) on (Mac)Safari for Jan 2007 with ^ at the bottom of the table indicating that was the date Safari for Windows was launched based on the same rendering engine and with the same version number. Then the WinSafari column could be deleted. --Mikebrand 12:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I second (third?) that. --Fred Bradstadt 12:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Firefox changes name...

It starts as Firefox, progressing to Firebird, morphing to Phoenix, and resting with Firefox. Even though the name changed during development, why doesnt it stay ONE name? And why does it start with the final version name, Firefox, and go to the pre-alpha names, and returning to the final name? I ask for a uniform name. Thank you. - I am in a public computer, and dont feel comfortable logging in. I am "FoolFromHell" --59.92.75.27 10:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)FoolFromHell

I think it should stay as is as the first heading is so people can find it easily and if they don't know about its previous names. I don't see what is wrong with the name changing as it reflects the history, so unless you want to create unnecessary columns for older versions I don't see whats wrong with the name changing.Robotboy2008 (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Early Web Browsers

The same info on early web browsers is displayed at top and bottom of the article in nearly identical format. Only once is sufficient. I'm inclined to keep the bottom table and delete the top "Up to 1997" table. Any thoughts? --Mikebrand (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Netscape Navigator

The first version of Netscape Navigator I used in December 1994 was Version 0.96. Also when did it morph & change it's name to Netscape Communicator? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acb58 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Google Chrome

Chrome is added despite a mere 0.26% usage in Q3 2008 share from only a single analyst firm (Net Applications) that I can see here. That's on the small scale where other rare browsers may potentially be more common. Is there at all an inclusion policy here? Shouldn't an included web browser at least have something like 1% usage share? Otherwise we can just arbitrarily add new browsers to this table. — Northgrove 15:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be an inclusion policy beyond having a Wikipedia article. I think a policy based on percentage share would be particularly bad because (a) it's hard to measure, (b) it would discount historical browsers (unless we manage to dig up data for the past), (c) some browsers may be notable despite not being massively popular. A figure of 1% would also discount Opera based on that data, which is certainly a notable browser with a long history. I suspect that Chrome is highly notable too (as determined by 3rd party references).

If there are other browsers that you think should also be mentioned, please feel free to add them. I don't see any reason to restrict what browsers are included - we're not exactly running out of space.

The only reason I can see for discounting Chrome for now is if we adopt Mikebrand's suggested "Minimum inclusion criteria", in that Chrome has not been available for a year. But to be honest, I doubt Chrome's going to go away - removing it now only to add it back in in one year's time is just creating extra work for ourselves... Mdwh (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

early years

Why are the first years from 1994 to 1997 only in years not in months like the rest of the table? in the ie article are many information of releases! [User:Ice Ardor|ice ardor] made also a great timeline and there are also more information for opera... so why the heck forgetting information? mabdul 0=* 11:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

you are welcome to fill in those early year.--Mikebrand (talk) 12:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Maxthon

i would like to add maxthon browser which is 2 years old with its main base being in china. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zamadatix (talk • contribs) 19:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

mmh, don't know where I saw this. maybe a browser false. looks good! do you have a beta for the iemac(int. release)? --mabdul 0=* 19:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

hmm i was able to find a rough guide for maxthon but no month by month (found this on the maxthon site)

2003 - MyIE2 redefined the browsing experience 2004 - MyIE2 was reborn as Maxthon, expanding the concept of what a browser can do in ways that haven't been seen before 2005 - Maxthon users evolved into a growing community, and Maxthon harvested the first of many awards 2006 - Microsoft partnered with Maxthon for 2006 Consumer Electronics 2007 - We released a whole new Maxthon 2.0

ill try to find some more out —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zamadatix (talk • contribs) 20:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

i emailed maxthon so it might be.. 2 or 3 weks probably... before i get what the release dates where. how do i get comments to be signed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zamadatix (talk • contribs) 22:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

look in the svg code. there are many release notes! --mabdul 0=* 11:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC) [ah and ps: to sign use 4 ~] ah ok double thanks, i didnt even think of how obvious the svg was! Zamadatix (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

ok, added maxthon and got the latest info but if anyone is able to dig up the month release dates on my ie and my ie2 fell free to add them (the predecessars of maxthon) Zamadatix (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Archives

Archive 1 mabdul 0=* 11:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Minimum inclusion criteria

I removed Wyzo whose article is a stub and which is in Alpha development stage. To this point no formal inclusion criteria have been set. I would like to suggest the following:

• Browser is in production release stage
• Wikipedia article is substantive and has several authors
• The browser has a history of at least one year (or it is a platform-specific version of a browser with a history of at least one year).

Those are just some initial thoughts --Mikebrand 04:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the second of those "Wikipedia article is substantive and has several authors" is sufficient. Indeed, usually on these sorts of articles (such as "List of" articles), simply requiring that it has its own Wikipedia article is sufficient. If the Wikipedia article seems dubious, it should be proposed for AfD. (Note that the Wyzo article now refers to the company, not the browser, so it would no longer be sufficient. It seems unlikely to me that an article only about the browser would survive an AfD.) Mdwh (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested Browser

SRWare Iron? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.228.33.5 (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

hey, at&t Pogo isn't on here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.110.29 (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Lunascape? I'm not sure where/how it should be placed on the graph; it ships with both WebKit and Gecko, and uses whatever version of Trident is installed on the user's system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.187.34.16 (talk) 23:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Mosaic & Lynx

This article should include NCSA Mosaic, as it was the most popular graphical web browser in early days, and Lynx, the text browser that was most popular. 132.205.93.63 03:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to ad them. --Mikebrand 04:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

is it still open to add lynx? i think its the last browser important enough to be included in the table? Zamadatix (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

yeah why not. mabdul 0=* 11:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Mosaics left but we are out of space unless we can remove the mosaic part from the title of netscape in 1994 ro find another way to shrink it. Zamadatix (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not just shorten the title to "Mosaic"? Tedickey (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

im not good with browser history but mosaic was around really early and lasted until 1998 and netscape was just built off it (correct me because i know im wrong lol) so wouldnt it make since to shorten it to netscape? Zamadatix (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

or we could jsut make moscaic netscape into two lines *hits hand on head* Zamadatix (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

considering we now have space for one last browser what should it be? Zamadatix (talk) 00:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

We don't need to add one. the most important browsers are there now! maybe wait until a new is created. mabdul 0=* 17:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Order?

I think this page is a good idea. Just curious if there was any reasoning behind the order of the columns? It's not chronological, it's not alphabetical, it's also not in order of (current) popularity. I think only chronological makes the most sense. Thoughts? I always thought Netscape came before Opera - can anybody track down the exact dates of v1.0 for each? Can someone also add the other browsers out there (iCab, OmniWeb, etc)?

I also think the SVG timeline is a cool way to see this information (especially all the forking), I just wish the SVG was oriented vertically (with the dates increasing chronologically down the page/image). Jeff schiller 14:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the order of the columns was haphazard with the browser last added to the table going on the right side. You're chronological ordering is an improvement. --Mikebrand 03:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the SVG timeline, I have made an attempt at making a timeline illustration as well: User:Fred Bradstadt/Browser timeline. When finished, it might or might not be included in this page. Your comments are welcome --Fred Bradstadt 06:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

'Movehttps//wwww.polysolve.com' will solve for you to search about the browser .I give this link because you are in America ,it is Ok but you are Asia it is very difficult to find censored web .OK, let beginsthe Position of mac ie so we dont have a blank row?

i was thinking we should move the position of mac ie so we don't have a blank row down the middle of it or maybe replace its column with something which was release after mac ie stopped 'development.'

and maybe even put chrome below Netscape's column to save another row

Last comment was 02:00, 5. Dez. 2008 Zamadatix

so, yeah, I thought the same a few time ago. chrome and netscape would fit very well. but at that moment we had enough space, so i think we should change this only if a new browser is on the party ;) mabdul 0=* 00:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I am editing in my sandbox and expanding the earl years (information of the articles). feel free to use the sandbox at User:Mabdul/sandbox2 mabdul 0=* 01:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I would be against moving the MacIE column. The columns are sorted by start dates. Also, I would not want to put two browsers in the same column unless one is a descendant of the other. The color scheme changes look good. Regarding splitting the table: I don't see a problem with a very long table as anyone can easily scroll down. At some point it may get too wide and need to be split based on some relevant criteria at that time (current vs unsupported or major vs minor), but at this point the table does not seem too wide for most people's monitors. --Mikebrand (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

anyone mind if i change the color scheme a bit so there are more than 4 colors? Zamadatix (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

yeah thats a good idea. i will change this too! mabdul 0=* 14:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

i changed some colors and will work on getting them all different, it should be much easier to edit things this way also. (find and replace in notepad) Zamadatix (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

there are some color false! I expanded the timeline with the 1994-1997, adding ff links and add ns4.8; we should think about splitting this timeline in two or more section, beause it is getting very long!

mabdul 0=* 17:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

well it is a history of web browsers, i dont think we could split this into 2 without running out of space though; i dont mind how it is now really. what i cant figure otu is where the entry for safari 3.0 is! i tried finding it but i jsut cant and its cell isnt colored properly. Zamadatix (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

i finished changing the color scheme all should be different, if you want to change a color plese do i know some dont look os good but its much easier now since you can use replace all in a text editor.

OK I did it! Chrome went in the NS row and Camino went in the macIE row ... looks better now. mabdul 0=* 11:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

i see the width was a different edit for whatever reason i dont like it now :/. i think i preferred the chronological ordering more actually Zamadatix (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

yeah, the width was different. of course... but i think it is better now, because for the user that have a smaller screen (800X600) --> you edit your post! i saw the last and was confused now ^^ mabdul 0=* 17:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

9% of people have less than or equal to 800 x 600 while 57% have less than or equal to 1024 x 768, so with the current article it is to wide for about 60% of people so i think we need ot find a way to make it smaller. i really think we need to remove the new fixed width fo the cells. Zamadatix (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Which fixed width you are talking about? it is individual! in opera there is a option called "fit to width" --> then the table is shrinked y the ith of the browser-width! mabdul 0=* 19:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

i mean, for instance, how nothing in the lynx column is wide as its cells and how no matter what the contents all cells are equal length it makes it really wide. Zamadatix (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now i understand! Try to change you're resolution... and check the page again. the content should adapt... mabdul 0=* 20:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

60% of average internet users monitors arn't made for a resolution above 1024 x 768 and im one of the 6/10 :/ Zamadatix (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of the 4 rendering engines?

i don't know if this would be in this article or as a separate one but what about a timeline of the major rendering engines: trident, webkit, gecko, and presto? cosnidering its only 4 if i could dig up the history it wouldn't be hard for me to make. Zamadatix (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh there are already more! there is icab and khtml/webkit! there is two big differences to creating a article: mostly there are no releasedates (exept gecko), version numbers, there isn't a clear difference between layout engine and browser (early years; presto -7; netscape/gecko). I had the same idee, but it isn't easy to make such a timeline... feel free ;) mabdul 0=* 05:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

if i run an old version of windows in a vm i could probably put the old operas on it and get the presto versions for each release btu i couldnt do the same for webkit (i dont have a mac or a good computer capable of emulating a good one. ill try to figure otu some more Zamadatix (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Use the SVG As the Main table?

instead of making a table wouldn't it make more sense and be more logical to use a vertically aligned svg (or just rotate the current one 90 degrees? not only would it be more eye appealing its much more compact and easy to follow, plus the current svg has a lot more information than the table. plus it not only shows time but it also shows where each evolved from and to. Zamadatix (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

you mean like the test-creatin in the section order (the link is given)? try to expand it and make it more user-freindlier than e can change it! mabdul 0=* 18:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I do prefer the SVG over the table for the reasons Zamadatix describes. It think the graphic is fine as is without a need for 90 degree rotation (seems that the text in the graphic would read better in the current horizontal orientation). I haven't found examples of other articles that use a graphic as their primary content. Is there any technical reason not to (such as lack of words to index)? --Mikebrand (talk) 03:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Mabdul, what do you mean test creation in section order?

Mikebrand, I imagine the main reason few articles use an image as main content is because not many could really pull off using one, an Wikipedia would complain about a low amount of words (but we have an opening article so I don't think it will be to much of a problem). edit: and I forgot about actually reading the SVG so I wouldn't want to rotate it 90 degrees either now.Zamadatix (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"User:Fred Bradstadt/Browser timeline" I mean this link! in Talk:Timeline of web browsers#Order?.mabdul 0=* 13:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I would rather just move the current SVG to where the current table is (simpler and easier).

should I change the table for the SVG then? Zamadatix (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor of trying it. The only downside I see to the SVG instead of the table is that minor release dates would not be updated, but I don't really see that as a problem. The browser-specific articles are a more appropriate place to document those minor updates as they occur. This Timeline article, I think, would be improved by showing the relationship between browsers as the SVG does. --Mikebrand (talk) 04:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

i did it, it looks much better and too many browsers shouldn't be a problem since they dont add height. i came up with another idea, identifying in way the major changes in the rendeirng engines on the svg to the version somehow. Zamadatix (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

how does one edit the svg??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zamadatix (talk • contribs) 16:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

eh? richtclickg (edit) source --> every wordpad is able to do this o.O mabdul 0=* 00:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I like the SVG at full size. It is much more useful than the table. It would be nice to have a scroll bar at the top as the image is so tall than the user must scroll the webpage down to the lower scroll bar, scroll right, then scroll the webpage back up to the see the later years of the browsers depicted at the top of the image. Is it possible to force a scroll bar to appear at the top of the image? --Mikebrand (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

never heard/seen! but that is not our problem. in some implementations you can scrol with you mouse or with the -> - key. there are any options (also buying a bigger screen :p) [pressing f11] or other different things. that isn't really our problem! mabdul 0=* 03:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

the scg is 2000 some odd pixels, less thatn 1% of all people have a monitor that big! i have to agree with mikebrand; it is too hard to navigate on standard computer equipment which is most important. if we rotated the text would be sideways (there isnt much anyway) but it would be much easier to follow the path of a browser than the current setup.

all in all it is important we make it easy to use for the majority of people which is why i think we need to do something about it. Zamadatix (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

i know i can edit in in notepad but what do i do when i have completed changing the code? Zamadatix (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

no! not so editing. there is a svg - code/tag that makes you able to rotate the whole picture as it is! mabdul 0=* 17:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

im not talking about rotating the image i mean if i edit new info for browsers (such as chrome 1.0 inot the svg) what do i do with the new code i have? Zamadatix (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

eh? what are you talking about? you downloaf the whole svg, read the editor-notes(is in the source-code, also tipps for add/editing new ones) of the svg, and then edit it correctly and the re-upload the corrected version. mabdul 0=* 21:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

thank you thats all i needed :D

I think that the table and the graphic can co-exist. Recently I have seen the table re-instated by one person (with the graphic unchanged) then edited by another then removed by a third. Different people (contributors and users) are going to have different preferences. As long as both are kept reasonably up to date (meaning at least annual updates to all represented browsers) then I think that having both adds to the article. The graphic gives a better overview while the table gives finer detail for fewer browsers. --Mikebrand (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mikebrand: the graphic is useful for seeing hte evolution but the table is useful for exact dates or an easy references.Zamadatix (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

And apparently no one else cares...72.241.130.206 (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Its been a few days and the tally is 2 for keeping both and 0 for not so ill add the table for now but any late comers feel free to continue talk. Zamadatix (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Improvement

Perhaps at the right edge of document include names of browser again as this would lessen scrolling back —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.26.171 (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Google Chrome and Chromium

Chromium is the open source browser. Google Chrome is simply a packaged browser based of Chromium distributed by Google, so it could possible be labeled as Chromium / Google Chrome

Also an update for Flock, the new browser is now based off Chromium instead of Firefox AbsoluteMSTR (talk) 06:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Table

The 1993–2012 section looks more of unholy mess: it contains 13 browsers of different notability (certainly not the most notable 13), it is too long and not particularly helpful. Given the magnificent SVG image above, why do we need it at all? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Opera engine

Opera is not based on Presto now so the graph should have some different colors. \chAlx (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I would not think a change of engine should mean a change of color, at least in this case. The company have chosen to still release it under the name "Opera". —WOFall (talk) 05:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Maxthon versioning

In the past while, Maxthon's entry has been a bit cluttered. Version numbers tend to look like: 3.3.9:2000. I think we should decide on two things. Firstly, what to consider a "major" release. Looking at the table, x.x seems suitable to me (ignore x.x.1). Secondly, what format to write the versions: I'd prefer to knock off the final four digits, but I'm not familiar enough with Maxthon's versioning to know if it's appropriate. —WOFall (talk) 05:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

NetManage Chameleon?

NetManage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.160.198.228 (talk) 11:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Chrome's Position in Browser Table

Why is Google Chrome listed in the same column as Netscape Navigator? Chrome is independent of Netscape's development. --Frmorrison (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

We simply fill up gaps that are left behind by browsers that do no longer exist. The browsers within one column do not have to have something in common. --YannickFran (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Reconsider listed browsers

I think we should reconsider some of the listed browsers because it's not very clear to me what the actual threshold is before a browser can be noted on this page's Timeline (I mean that VERY big table). These browsers I think can better be dropped for the given reasons:

• Chimera/Camino: I don't see how this browser is notable in any way to be listed among the others. This browser has no serious market share, no unique feature of any sort and hasn't been a milestone in the history of webbrowsers as a whole.
• NetSurf: neither notable, it was listed in a list of browsers for Linux on "8" but that doesn't mean anything.
• Iron: this is just a fork of Chromium with some settings changed

Something else the table can use is some different colors. As I've got the feeling these colors are currently being choosen at random, it is perhaps nicer to change them to match the browser they are supposed to represent (blue for IE/Edge, orange for Firefox, grey for Safari, red for Opera, green for Chrome, etc.).--YannickFran (talk) 09:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I think we're not doing too poorly, considering we don't follow explicit criteria.

• Camino was somewhat influential and certainly very well known in its time. I would lean toward keeping it.
• NetSurf is very niche, but notable enough just for the custom layout engine.
• Iron should be removed, I have to agree.

I'll also bring up Vivaldi, which I think will be a strong candidate for addition when it gets a release. The colors were probably not picked by an artist, feel free to make changes. —WOFall (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

edge version vs. edgehtmlversion

hi, just realized, that some sources in www are using different labeling for the edge-browser. i found the following: "Web developers should keep an eye out on new version numbers for Microsoft EdgeHTML, rather than the Edge browser version. In a future version of Microsoft Edge, the EdgeHTML version numbers will be visible the Settings section of the browser."

on this page (Timeline of web browsers) the edge version is beeing used (38). mabe it makes sence to use the edgehtml version instead (14)?

see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Edge — Preceding unsigned comment added by WP.mike (talk • contribs) 10:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Great job!

I think that whoever made this did an amazing job, and the maker of the picture deserves a massive hand as well. I learned a lot! This article is hereby awarded: The Not-Yet-Properly-Formatted-Because-I-Am-New-Here WikiSquirrel Award for Very Cool Articles! (I will properly format it once I get an answer from the Teahouse) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiSquirrel42 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)