|This page was nominated for deletion on 9 November 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.|
|This page was nominated for deletion on 13 October 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.|
please help to check the spelling and formatting of my edit. I made a special care to describe the web 1.0 as conceptual evolution, a new discourse of web use. not chronological nor version update. should I further develop this subject or its clear enough? my first Wiki, hurray! Idan678 (talk) 09:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
As a Wikipedia user it seems to me that Web 1.0 must appear as entry in Wikipedia, If random users have no knowledge about the subject, they will miss an era in the World Wide Web development, that did exist, and doe's being talked about.
Additionally , As a software Web developer, I see in that era (the Web 1.0) a declared era. It's declaration (also web 2.0's declaration) included indicating it's name. If you put version 2.0 on a running task , that usually mean there was version 1.0 in some point, and in this case its the point where the World Wide Web began running. Also, a significant progress was done in that era, and important developments were done and acted as a inseparable basis of the developments done in the Web 2.0 times. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Re: revision 232875005 by Thumperward: "regardless, it's still a pertinent related topic"
How so? Gopher, although less popular than it was in the 90s, is still around and has a thriving community. It is in no way linked to Web 1.0 (not that there ever even *was* such a thing); grouping them together implies that the protocol has been replaced. --22.214.171.124 (talk) 11:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
overly 90s view
Just becuase the NetFlix guy describes this term that's sufficient as a reference for what it is? I question the need for this article. Should just point to WWW, or even Web 2.0. Angrysusan (talk) 11:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Its not just the Netflix guy who uses the term. and Web 2.0 was just a term invented by some O'Reilly guy Towel401 (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. "Web 1.0" does not mean anything in the sense described in the article outside of the context of the misnomer "Web 2.0." Have a look at the different HTTP versions—there is no such thing. The latest update to the Web was version 1.1 in 1999; the only thing that has changed in recent years is the popularity of certain aspects of the Web that already existed in the protocol's feature set during the 90s but were underutilized. Furthermore, bandwidth is not a property of the Web, nor is its upper-limit a result of different "versions" of the Web. "10 megabits" (I will assume this refers to "per second," though the quote doesn't specify a time period over which the amount of data can be transferred, thus failing to properly describe "bandwidth," which is a rate) is already realizable via Ethernet. If we go by this (seemingly made-up) definition, then "Web 3.0" would already be here. Since the article altogether lacks a coherent understanding of the topic it attempts to describe, I second a redirect to either of the proposed alternatives. --126.96.36.199 (talk) 11:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
A "Web 2.0" (and now 3.0) has to be preceded by "1.0". That being said, the term "Web 2.0" became popular for describing a particular period of transformation of the World Wide Web with the creation and adoption of new technologies (Wiki among them). Web 1.0 is only useful for describing what the World Wide Web was like prior to "Web 2.0" and therefore may not be worthy of its own article.--Scottdewing (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreement to move?
With the deletion today of Web 3.0, I have proposed that sub-sections are added to the Web 2.0 article for both Web 1.0 and Web 3.0, with the terms redirecting to those sub-sections. I have asked for access to the deleted article of Web 3.0 so that I can prepare that. I successful, I will then move the Web 1.0 as well. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hear Here. This article is a waste of space and a total mess to say the least. A total waste. I say move it too.
- Tommyhaych 16:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
All - I've nominated this article for deletion since the consensus on associated talk pages (Web 2.0's talk page, for ex) is that we merge 1.0 with 2.0. Octavabasso (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I can't believe that this article still exists. I thought we'd agreed to merge anything of value here into the Web 2.0 article and replace this by a redirect. as it stands, it is a disgrace. It is virtually unsourced and misrepresents just about everything and everybody that it mentions. --Nigelj (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)