This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
I made a start at cleaning up the category since it was in a bit of a mess. My edits prompted these comments on my talk page:
Hi Alan, I see that you're cleaning up the Internet history category.
- Ted Nelson coined 'hypertext', so I think 'Internet history' is a valid category; 'history of the Web' or 'history of hypertext' would be more specific, but I don't know that there's a need for those categories.
- Arundel Elementary School says " Vice President Al Gore visited the school to give a press conference concerning the implementation of an Internet network in the school. Arundel was the first school in the nation to have such a network."--so that needs *some* category like 'Internet history' -- possibly 'places related to Internet history' (again, that may be too specific).
- For Hotline Communications and InterCon Systems, some reflection of their role in Internet history would make sense to me. Possibly 'history of Internet-related software' (i.e. web browsers, TCP/IP software, etc) would be helpful; this could be a super-category of web browsers.
Any thoughts? Jodi.a.schneider ( talk) 09:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
As with many other categories I find that there is a degree of over-categorisation where articles with only a passing relationship with the category topic are included. Incidentally, WP categorisation guidelines calls over-categorisation the creation of too many categories and makes no mention of added irrelevant categories to articles.
With respect to the articles above:
Categories are navigational aids and if they are cluttered up with disparate topics they are of less use. Categories are a yes/no, include/not included system. There is no annotation about the individual articles in a category. Information can only be gleaned for the article name. Therefore, all the articles in a category should have a very close association with the category topic.
Another article that I removed was Google. The History of Google article is a perfectly valid entry in this category of course!-- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 22:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, Alan, this is mostly toward you:
Hi Alan, Thanks for your earlier suggestions; they make sense. I think this could go back in to the category:
What do you think? Jodi.a.schneider ( talk) 08:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Begin with this text from the Category page:
The only entries in this category should be for the communications system. All the applications/services should have, if needed, their own History... and those history categories should all have the category History of software. History articles where a history cat is not needed should simply have the cat History of software. 69.106.238.83 ( talk) 03:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
I made a start at cleaning up the category since it was in a bit of a mess. My edits prompted these comments on my talk page:
Hi Alan, I see that you're cleaning up the Internet history category.
- Ted Nelson coined 'hypertext', so I think 'Internet history' is a valid category; 'history of the Web' or 'history of hypertext' would be more specific, but I don't know that there's a need for those categories.
- Arundel Elementary School says " Vice President Al Gore visited the school to give a press conference concerning the implementation of an Internet network in the school. Arundel was the first school in the nation to have such a network."--so that needs *some* category like 'Internet history' -- possibly 'places related to Internet history' (again, that may be too specific).
- For Hotline Communications and InterCon Systems, some reflection of their role in Internet history would make sense to me. Possibly 'history of Internet-related software' (i.e. web browsers, TCP/IP software, etc) would be helpful; this could be a super-category of web browsers.
Any thoughts? Jodi.a.schneider ( talk) 09:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
As with many other categories I find that there is a degree of over-categorisation where articles with only a passing relationship with the category topic are included. Incidentally, WP categorisation guidelines calls over-categorisation the creation of too many categories and makes no mention of added irrelevant categories to articles.
With respect to the articles above:
Categories are navigational aids and if they are cluttered up with disparate topics they are of less use. Categories are a yes/no, include/not included system. There is no annotation about the individual articles in a category. Information can only be gleaned for the article name. Therefore, all the articles in a category should have a very close association with the category topic.
Another article that I removed was Google. The History of Google article is a perfectly valid entry in this category of course!-- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 22:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, Alan, this is mostly toward you:
Hi Alan, Thanks for your earlier suggestions; they make sense. I think this could go back in to the category:
What do you think? Jodi.a.schneider ( talk) 08:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Begin with this text from the Category page:
The only entries in this category should be for the communications system. All the applications/services should have, if needed, their own History... and those history categories should all have the category History of software. History articles where a history cat is not needed should simply have the cat History of software. 69.106.238.83 ( talk) 03:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)