Talk:Google Chrome

Request for verification

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

Same. DCDuring TALK 01:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Add (deprecated template usage) Opera to the list. I'm afraid I created it purely because I was annoyed at Firefox having an entry :) Equinox ◑ 20:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm more sure that the 2-part names are uncitable than the one-part names under the attributive use standard for brand names. To me it matters not a wit whether a tradename is a placename, a demonym, a registered trademark, a corporate name, or a dba; or whether it is owned by a government, an NGO, or a private for-profit enterprise.

I also don't see why we have Category:Web browsers, which is entirely populated with items that need to meet the attributive-use standard and haven't. DCDuring TALK 22:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It comes down to what people want to see, really. The same applies to the terms glossed wikijargon. They probably don't technically pass, but there are enough wiki fans (and Web browser fans) that questioning them seems futile. Sadly! Equinox ◑ 00:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The question is really whether these meet Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Brand names. It seems very unlikely to me. --Yair rand 07:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 21:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)