Talk:Browser engine

Goanna missing?

Goanna engine is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia Goanna_(software) and with so few truly independent currently supported/maintained, it strikes me that it should be listed in this page. In years gone by, I'd "be bold" and just plonk it in there, but Wikipedia seems much more reserved these days so I'm trying to be cautious to be sure I'm not stepping on toes/doing it wrong.. DigitalSorceress (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Disagree for two reasons. The section in this article focuses on the engines of major browsers; the lone exception being KHTML, which is historically significant as the origin of WebKit. But Goanna is only the engine of small niche Pale Moon and a few others (and thus has no historical significance). The other reason is that Goanna is not "truly independent"; years ago I followed its development for a while, which was heavily dependent on backports from Gecko for new functionality. So it shouldn't be listed here. -Pmffl (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

LibWeb

I don't know if we can properly consider LibWeb for inclusion here, the basis for Ladybird -- Joe (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't belong here since it's neither part of a mainstream browser nor is it historically significant. -Pmffl (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussion of recent proposed updates to “Browser engine”

Hi @Pmffl,

I noticed my recent edits were reverted. I’d like to briefly explain the rationale behind them for context, but I won’t be editing further; I’ll leave it to you and other editors to review.

- DOJ antitrust case (Chrome / Blink) – Documents regulatory scrutiny tied to engine dominance. Neutral, verifiable (Wired).

- Ladybird and Servo projects – Represents active efforts to increase engine diversity. Directly relevant to “Notable engines” and sourced to W3C. Omitting them leaves the section incomplete.
- AI integration trend – Shows how engines are evolving beyond layout and rendering. Neutral, factual, and sourced (Fortune).
- Blink dominance / monoculture – Provides context on security and standards risks of engine homogeneity. Sourced to reputable publications.

Taken together, these additions improve completeness and context for readers.

I’m curious: how would something like Ladybird be considered sloppy, irrelevant, biased, or tangential? Not including it seems like bias by omission, since it represents a key development and the future of browsers, with an alpha release planned for 2026.

Creating a browser from scratch is complex, often involving multiple teams and technical factors. The companies controlling these engines also control search or ad platforms, which is central to the monopoly concerns the DOJ is addressing. How is this irrelevant to the topic “browser engine”?

Omitting these facts risks whitewashing or implicit COI with Blink/Google, rather than giving a complete, neutral picture of the current engine landscape.

Cheers, Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

This article is for the browser engine, not the entire browser. The DOJ case is irrelevant here - that's about Google having both dominant Search and Browser, so not surprisingly, the Blink engine is not even mentioned in the article.

As for Ladybird, it's an entire new browser; LibWeb is the engine. Perhaps it will merit inclusion here after it's actually released which won't be until next year at the earliest. Plus, I addressed LibWeb in the prior section of this talkpage. -Pmffl (talk) 06:42, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

give some respect to wiki

if @Pmffl or anyone else tries to whitewash this article, all hell will break loose. This is Wikipedia, not a Google kiss ass group.

I've added a section titled "Market Consolidation and Independent Development" because the current article omits critical, well-sourced information about the browser engine landscape.

To ignore the legal scrutiny and the rise of independent alternatives is to present a distorted view of reality. Two facts back this addition: The U.S. Department of Justice has called out Chrome’s dominance, even proposing a full divestiture — reported by Wired.

Projects like Ladybird exist as direct responses to this consolidation — covered by Ars Technica. These aren't opinions. They're facts from reputable sources. Removing them would amount to bias by omission and whitewashing — especially when the article already includes less consequential details. If anyone wants to challenge the wording, fine — let’s talk. But if this gets reverted wholesale, I’ll make it known publicly that Wikipedia editors are suppressing sourced criticism of a major tech company. That’s not neutrality. That’s complicity. Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Your rant here is the actual non-neutrality. -Pmffl (talk) 06:39, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

When there are top publications talking about it, what’s the need to gatekeep? Ladybird is a nonprofit initiative taking on monopoly, so Wiki editors should know about it. It’s not a fork, but written from scratch and obviously about the browser engine.

I don’t have a COI, but if you do, you’re supposed to disclose it so the white washing makes sense.

Thanks, Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 07:09, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Refrain from attacking other editors, especially when they remove clearly ai-generated and WP:PROMO content you've added, following WP:BRD. glman (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@Glman,

When you reverted my edits earlier and another editor reverted it back, it was for the sake of Wikipedia. Don’t take it personally.

Just so you understand what’s happening here is that updates were posted from top publications. Now, if you check the references, they are functional and non primary.

So, just because someone takes it as an ego issue, it doesn’t change facts. If you stand up for a nonprofit, it makes sense, but not taking sides with a monopoly company.

LLMs don’t spew out content from thin air. All links were manually checked, and text validated. It’s allowed for copy editing. But then, think of the bigger picture and how volunteers are supposed to contribute and not blindly click revert without reading.

Nice to see you again here though.

Cheers, Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

LLMs are absolutely not allowed for generating text, which your edits include. Please see WP:LLM. glman (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@Glman

Maybe you should read WP:LLM, where it says the text and references have to be verified before use. That’s what was done.

If you continue to revert, other editors will see through it y No because the content is also there in the talk pages.

However, I’m not going to start an edit war. I’ve done my part.

Leaving personal differences aside, if you remove content sourced from top publications, that’s giving readers the incomplete picture. Good luck! Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Once again, as Pmffl has pointed out, your edits also introduced WP:PROMO and WP:BIAS to the article. You then responded with personal attacks here. glman (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@Glman You are entitled to your opinion. If I was talking good about Google, that’s promo and bias.

I’ve added info from Wired and other sources about the monopoly and alternatives. How can you say top publications are wrong? Even if they are, our role as a volunteer is to presents facts, not to judge and gatekeep. Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Market Consolidation and Independent Development

Hello editors,

Following the guidance in the section above, I'm opening a standard discussion about adding a new section to this article. The goal is to give our non-technical readers some real-world context of the browser engine landscape.

My view is that the market's consolidation around a single engine, and the major U.S. antitrust ruling that followed, are critical facts for a complete and neutral article. The current version, by omitting them, is leaving out the most important part of the story for a general audience. I think it's bias by omission.

I propose adding the following concise, sourced section immediately after the "Notable engines" section.

Proposed new section

Market Consolidation and Independent Development

In the 2020s, Google's Blink engine became the dominant engine for most web browsers, including Chrome and Microsoft Edge. Widespread adoption of the Chromium project gave Blink substantial influence over web standards and development practices. This dominance was central to a U.S. federal antitrust case, in which the court found Google had maintained an illegal monopoly through Chrome and related default-browser agreements. In response, independent engines and browsers such as Servo, supported by the Linux Foundation, and Ladybird, developed from scratch, have emerged. These projects aim to maintain a diverse and open web ecosystem.

References

I look forward to hearing everyone's thoughts. I know a likely counter-argument will be the technical distinction between the "browser" and the "engine." While that's a valid point for a deep-dive, our best sources—from The Guardian to the BBC—don't treat them in isolation. They explicitly link the browser's market power to the engine's dominance.

My goal here is to reflect what the sources say in a way that's useful for our readers. To be clear, this proposal is about achieving a more neutral article. My professional work relies on Google's products, so this isn't an anti-Google position. It is about ensuring we include facts that have significant weight WP:WEIGHT, as documented by reliable sources, without getting lost in technical details that obscure the bigger picture for our audience. Please also note - I've not brought up ChatGPT's new browser, Atlas, released 4 days ago, lest I come across as WP:NPOV.

Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

(Summoned by bot) @Niranjan Ramamurthy: I have closed your improperly-formatted "RfC". Please carefully read the procedures at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, paying close attention to § Before starting the process and § Statement should be neutral and brief. Read these procedures yourself; do not get an LLM to summarise or interpret them for you.

A properly-conducted RfC is a time-consuming process that can take up a lot of editor time and attention. I think your proposed new section can simply be discussed by interested editors without going through an RfC. If you participate in this discussion, do so by writing your own words, and do not attack other editors or bludgeon the discussion. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:01, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @ClaudineChionh,

Understood. Thank you for the clarification. I will proceed with a regular talk page discussion. Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. That discussion can just continue in this section as I have removed the {{rfc}} tag. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:44, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I see you duplicated your discussion below while I was replying to you. Would you mind consolidating these two sections so the discussion isn't fragmented? ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Done. I've consolidated the duplicate discussion into the original section above.

Thanks, Niranjan Ramamurthy (talk) 03:05, 26 October 2025 (UTC)