Template talk:Internet history timeline

Popular according to whom?

What (neutral) criteria defines a "popular" web service? --damiens.rf 00:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Important and popular operating system

Should we include important and popular operating system, which is important leading the development of Internet.

Example:

• Windows 95 (first popular OS with Graphical User Interface)
• Windows 95 OSR2 (first popular OS with web browser pre-installed)
• Windows NT 4
• Windows 98 (first popular OS have total integration with Internet Explorer Web browser)
• Windows XP
• Windows 7
• Mac OS X
• Linux
• Linux 2.0
• Red Hat Linux
• Red Hat Enterprise Linux
• iOS
• Android
• Symbian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.130.129.164 (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Examples of popular Internet services

@W163: Regarding this, there is still a key question: what is the criteria for inclusion in this list of examples and how have these met it? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The criteria I use are fairly simple. Is there a Wikipedia article about the service to indicate notability? Do editors feel that including the service on the Internet history timeline helps to give readers a better understanding of the development and evolution of the Internet? I think this should be judged in the context of the articles where the template is used rather than judging the Internet history timeline by itself. I think the addition of services to the timeline should be judged in the larger context of the timeline as a whole and the articles where the template is used. I don't think that services need to be justified individually as long as the services are notable. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@W163: Requiring them to be notable makes sense, but the rest seems like it's basically OR. List criteria should typically be unambiguous. What about just saying that if one of these sites is significant enough within the history of the Internet to be mentioned in the main article, it can be included here? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I guess I don't see the need to go that far. This is a template and not an article. It isn't a list article. The only article that currently uses this template is History of the Internet and that article doesn't explicitly mention each of the services, although it could. But one of the reasons to include services on a timeline in the History of the Internet article beyond putting the services into context, is so the article doesn't have to include each service separately. The Internet history timeline didn't start out as a separate template, it was just a sidebar in the History of the Internet article. The criteria shouldn't change just because someone chose to make it a separate template. The main criteria should be, does the material included make a good addition to the article? I think it does. We don't need to go further. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

A little more on this. I think of a timeline such as the one here as similar to a sidebar Navigation template or a See also section that is in date order. It can also be an aid to implementing Summary style. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

But a navbox that has editors pick and choose which, of countless examples, they think are important would be deleted. I'm happy to move this discussion to Talk:History of the Internet. The reason I said it could be based on what's mentioned there is that what's included there would be based some sense of historically significant services as determined by reliable sources. If there are no sources to back up inclusion, and no other basis for inclusion other than editor opinion, it's WP:OR. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)