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 articles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Per WP:NOPAGE. I don't think that we need to have two articles on user agents; it's better for the reader if the article on the HTTP header and the concept of the user agent itself is handled in the same article, particularly given the microstub nature of the User agent article. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)19:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. One article being short doesn't really matter. Sometimes a nice, brief article is all that's needed. By keeping them separate, both the concept and the header get proper coverage. -Pmffl (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, for exactly the reasons that they were split to begin with. We don't now have "two articles on user agents" as a consequence of the split. We have one article about user agents, and a separate article about the HTTP header called "User-Agent". Merging user agent into the User-Agent header article makes as much sense as trying to merge the Web server article into a hypothetical article about the Server header—a superficial response to two distinct but similarly named topics. User agent either needs to be merged into the Web browser article with a redirect pointing there, or it needs an article of its own. Under no circumstances should it be merged with User-Agent header, however. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be opposed to merging the User-Agent header article into the browser sniffing article, where it can without much difficulty be given adequate coverage, but my fear is that if we were to do so, then a bunch of the stuff about the User-Agent header and its value would eventually be duplicated and make its way into the user agent article, which is exactly where it doesn't belong. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User-Agent header has many uses besides browser sniffing. Also, User-Agent header is not a reliable information source for browser sniffing, especially after Chromium had completed the User-Agent header reduction. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those other "many uses" for the User-Agent header should be in the User-Agent header article.
This is also not a question-and-answer or advice forum about effective browser sniffing, so the explanation in your second sentence is at best moot.
And I'm not proposing those two be merged. I said I wouldn't be opposed to merging them (and then listed one risk of doing so, however).
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
