Talk:TkWWW

... tkWWW, released May 1993, was the first X11 HTML editor.

Nominated. mabdul 01:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Gave additional reference for the hook. mabdul 14:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Will post more when I come across them. If you have trouble viewing postscript and need them converted to pdf, let me know and I'll email you the pdfs.Smallman12q (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

again: thanks for you're really good help. I do not have any problems with ps. (at least I code use the htmlized version of google ^^) mabdul 06:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

User:Roadrunner wrote the browser...so perhaps he'll help out=D.Smallman12q (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

• old mailarchives at [1]
• RFC 1580 - tkWWW is mentioned

"mentioned" in a list, with no other information TEDickey (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

X-Windows     info.cern.ch
              /pub/www/src            tkWWW Browser/Editor

• The Phoenix Project: Distributed Hypermedia Authoring, (postscript)
• Experiences in Writing a WYSIWYG Editor for HTML, (postscript)
• Mosaic and the World Wide Web, (pdf)
• Which Way Now? Analysing and Easing Inadequacies in WWW Navigation, (pdf)

• Screenshot on Flickr can't be used of license
• mailinglist is defunct ;(
• EOLAS, removed again since I found any other reference for that "hook" mabdul 14:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I went through the citations for this article and they really fail WP:RS... Sorry Mabdul... you seem like a seasoned editor and I'm wondering why you would put citations like these into the article? As such, I'm also not seeing what makes TkWWW notable as it is also not passing WP:N. Please help me understand? Pmedema (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm a bit confused. You said in the summary of the edit that

(citations are broken or not related to the material or outright fail WP:RS Please fix - if template is removed before fix then article will go to

--> neither of the reference were broken as I added them. --> but as you said the article fails RS, then please give me the help and say which references fail. All citations are (at the moment) from universities, primary sources, part of the application itself or pioneers of the WWW like Berners-Lee or Cailliau. So since all are related/official published what fails? mabdul 05:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Citations in order...

1. Is a message/forum thread - fails WP:RS

2. Is an text overview from a university course that does not show WP:N

but it is (primary) source - and not a university course! - this is/was something like a project homepage (original at the cern homepage)

3. Is about Mosaic and is a passing mention - fails WP:3PARTY

NO! this was a conference named "mosaic and the world" (see World Wide Web Conference)

4. Closest to WP:RS so far.

5. Broken

again: here working!

6. Is a one line web page from a university course with no real context

7. From www.w3.org with no real context other then we tried it, you can edit http with it, and you can get it at so and so location. Joe Wang is mentioned but he does not have a wiki article - WP:N?

no real content? that were news in 1993! that the web was 17months old o.O it was written by Tim Berners-Lee (and I doubt that he fails RS)

8. PS file... sorry don't want to go through the learning curve to open/read it.

but legal - for easy use take pstopdf.com or search the full link in google and take the html version

9. Is a couple lines of text, again from a university course that says "this is what it can do"

10. Seriously... a ToDo list!? from the same university course as the other cites?

what is wrong with that to show what the develop planed for the future? I mean - as the article noticed - there were plans. Nobody said something against a bugzilla link from mozilla, or?

11. Is an email/forum announcement for it's release - no WP:RS or WP:N here.

I can also provide for every release the full changelog on the "university course page" - but as you would say it fails also. Are the changelkogs in the released zip packages ok? o.O

12. Same thing as 11 but for a different release - fails WP:3PARTY

13. Same thing as 11 again but for a different release- fails WP:3PARTY

14. Same thing as 11 again but for a different release - fails WP:3PARTY

15. System requirements and "what is in this release" - fails WP:NOT

16. Is a info/news release that fails WP:3PARTY

same as 11

17. Release of another version. [WP:3PARTY]]

18. same as 17 but newer

19. same as 17 but newer

20. ftp site that would not load and fails [WP:RS]]... possible security risk?

why saecurity risk? nearly every web browser/os can load ftp. again: here it loads without problems!

21. Again another "announcement - fails WP:3PARTY

I'm not going to go through all of them at this point. I think I would like to reverse this and other then #4, is there anything else that does not fail the basic policies of Wikipedia and shows both WP:RS and WP:N I acknowledge that tkWWW exists but I really don't see anything that makes it notable. - Pmedema (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

generally: announcements through email are quiet common and are primary source and don't failed RS since the mails were from the developer itself.

no that would be an argument: but it is quiet common to post email announcements as

the "university course page" as you mentioned were a project homepage a few years ago. original were at cern, but they closed their engagement on the web. nether then less: what fails as a rs there on a general available published page to document the development history for the browser? there are no claims that there wrong!

mabdul 19:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't see any real problems with the references. The sources referred to as forum releases are either being published directly by MIT, or with an MIT email address. That should be enough to meet WP:V.
--Gyrobo (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

well, there are 3-4 types of sources. Most are pointing to release notes by Joseph Wang, to support relatively minor issues and features. On the website, those are linked in a chain. It would improve the topic if most of those were discarded, and replacing them with an external link are the bottom, e.g., "Release history" in further reading. Generally the features that support tie-ins to other topics (to show how things are interrelated) are really interesting. One except to that would be features mentioned by a reliable third-party source as being innovative. There's also a lot of clutter with incidental sources (doing not much more than defining terms or events which probably should be replaced with wiki-links to existing topics). If that were done, the list of sources would reduce by about 3/4. Once that was done, then some serious attempt could be made to cleanup the description, and point out why it is notable. TEDickey (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict)I understand some of the concerns brought up...notably the fact that usage of primary sources. These primary sources are however laregly published by reliable institutions such as MIT. The sources are being used to reference statements of a technical nature, and unfortunately, other reliable sites which might have once held similar reviews are no longer available. WP:3PARTY is an essay, not policy, as such I ask that you use common sense when evaluating the references for this article. A few sources may be unnecessary, but largely, they appear okay. If you have further concerns, you can start a thread at WP:RSN.Smallman12q (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

A lot of the repetition can be eliminated for instance using this (more useful) link: http://www.mit.edu:8001/afs/athena.mit.edu/course/other/cdsdev/html/tk-www/help/ TEDickey (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's a directory index...Smallman12q (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Of course it is. The material "published by MIT" happens to be just a webpage with various cdrom contents, with no commentary or analysis. What we're talking about is more like the contents of an attic than a library. However, there's no gain here in reproducing the general effect of the attic TEDickey (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

• I agree with Tedickey's remarks. Mind you, I'm a newbie at this notability thing, so if I mess up some of this, hopefully someone else will jump in to correct. But notability is a big deal and it's a technical hurdle. To establish notability, the rules ask that you find secondary sources, which usually means finding articles written by other people talking about the topic. I think you can cite articles by people connected with something to establish technical details, etc., but not to establish notability. That's why none of the Wang citations help with notability, leaving your article a little vulnerable if someone nominates it for deletion. Your best citation for notability is the Cockburn article. Your second best is the Lord article, but that only mentions TkWWW in a passing way; it's certainly not about TkWWW. Best bet, imho, is to see if you can find another secondary source. Good luck. I hope I was helpful. Msnicki (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't believe an afd of TkWWW suggesting it fails WP:N would be successful. A simple google books search shows that though the browser wasn't the most advanced, its following was sufficient enough to warrant an article. In addition, it was the first X11 WYSIWYG html editor, and one of the first robot/agent/crawlers. I applaud mabdul's largely solo efforts and believe that sources asserting notability can always be added later if the need arises.Smallman12q (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I understand your thinking. I misunderstood the notability question that way myself until just recently. Even though it seems like common sense tests like the number of Google hits should be relevant, they aren't. (See WP:GOOGLEHITS.) It's just the way the rules here work. As far as waiting for the need, my take is that it arrived the moment your article got tagged with {{Unreliable sources}} and {{primary sources}}. Again, what I would do if I were you is track down one or two of those secondary sources that talks about TkWWW and add the citations. That will pretty much make your problems go away. Google hits will not. Perhaps someone else with more experience can offer their advice. Msnicki (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

As smallman stated correctly. The article is not finish at the moment. I didn't search for books and journals at the moment that would come after the articles ground structure will be finish --> if I add the primary sources information and changelogs/announcements. I know that the article has issues (at the moment) but nothing to solve - hence the article is one week old! Do think that I have no time this weekend - but at least next week I will add new and better references. mabdul 12:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't see a problem with having an article on tkWWW at this point. The reason being is there seems to be aspects of notability. In the aforementioned statements, it was suggested about a hyperlink area, which would reduce the cites by 3/4... good suggestion. Further to this, I don't think that the article needs to be as large/indepth as it is... the subject does not warrent it. With that in mind, I'm going to follow the WP:INCUBATION (although normally done through Afd, etc) time that is needed and see what happens. - Pmedema (talk) 04:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't see any problem of going into depth (this is an encyclopedia), provided the article length is kept in check (which in this case it still has lots of room to go). Smallman12q (talk) 13:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

• I notice there's lots of work going into this article and with it, new citations. But it doesn't look like any of them are actually about TkWWW. They appear to continue the pattern of incidental mentions, which don't address the need for secondary sources to establish notability. Have I missed something? If there are some new sources that are intended to establish notability, could someone please point them out? You had one already, the Cockburn article; is there another? Establishing notability should be the first (and perhaps only) concern right now, it seems to me, not more description of TkWWW that could all get discarded if someone successfully nominates this article for AfD. Msnicki (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

You're correct. The additional references were found like the others: by google. I worked through the search result and always add if I found something new. I'm now finish and will start to search for magazines and books, although this will not easy since google closewd many books by copy right... Maybe I have to wait some days until I get books from my university bib. mabdul 07:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I add some more references but I doubt that this enough for not getting an AfD, or? mabdul 14:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Some of the claims are just not appropriate for WP. You just can't cite the author for predictions about the future, e.g., that "tkWWW should replace rrn and should become a "swiss army knife" of networked computing." You also just cannot make the leap from "tkWWW was part of many Linux distributions" to "and thus was very popular." It should go without saying that putting it on the distribution and lots of people actually using it are two different things. Similarly, one (cryptic) post by a single individual does not support the claim in the section on the Eolas patent that "As the tkWWW community noticed correctly tkWWW and ofther web browsers were able to include external content before the patent." Matter of fact, it's not even obvious what that whole section adds to the article. Finally, you need to check your links to be sure they work; the very first one doesn't. Msnicki (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't have time this morning so a quick answer:

I do know that the first link is working! Maybe you have problems with ps files? If the cern server is not working, then normally you have problems (this is similar to google :o )

The Eloas patent is hard to implement correctly and I was already thinking about to remove it. mabdul 07:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm getting an error, "http://puschin.3x.ro/RHL50.HTM nu exista pe serverul de gazduire gratuita 3x.ro", if I click the link directly, though it does work if I go through an anonymizer like anonymouse. So perhaps you're right, it may be intermittent. Msnicki (talk) 07:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Now I have more time to answer.

I removed the EOLAS part since I can't find any other references for that.

The same think is with the Linux part: I found any reference for the popularity of tkWWW nor any market share results showing tkWWW.

Why can't I cite Wang about his further plans with tkWWW?

mabdul 14:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's possible you could state something like "The author, Wang, has stated that he believes tkWWW should replace ..." But you can't state his beliefs about the future as fact because no one can predict the future. Also, it's the author making the claims about his own work but you've sort of buried that into the footnote. Does that help? Msnicki (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK, good proposal. I changed the sentence.(is this ok so now). Now my question: is the article now so ok and can it be in wikipedia without any afd? mabdul 11:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I hope I've been helpful but at this point, I need to bow out, Mabdul. I'm pretty much a newbie and just plain not an expert on the rules here, so my opinion probably isn't very valuable; it certainly doesn't carry any weight. I suggest the best people to ask are the ones who tagged your article. But before you approach them, I would try to identify which of your sources are the ones you believe establish notability and point them out, e.g., here on this talk page but in a section asking for a review. You might even make those the first few citations in the whole article, just to make it obvious how you've established notability within the first few sentences. Don't make other editors who may have concerns dig through the whole article and all your citations trying to find the few that would answer this question. Good luck. Msnicki (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. - Pmedema (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I notice you're asking for feedback again, but I still don't see the sources for notability. Msnicki (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you mean that edit I must say: yes and no! I know that quantitative 29 weblinks as references are integrated, but I don't know if that is enough to remove ONLY the primary source tag. mabdul 01:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

The various cites for Wang are mostly redundant, and don't do the topic any good, particularly when it's using the same source for each of several minor points in a sentence. The Phoenix discussion says more than can be supported by the given sources. Aside from the Cockburn and Berners-Lee sources, I don't see any interesting third-party sources TEDickey (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Linking to "revision control system" without providing WP:RS relating the two topics is WP:OR at best. TEDickey (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, I guess we should just link the RCS disambig page then, it could be all those other RCS systems that the browser was providing support for way back when. Nevard (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

For those interested internet historians, most of the emails from and to the devs around 1992-1993 are available on an MIT web server here:

http://web.mit.edu/kolya/.f/root/net.mit.edu/athena.mit.edu/course/other/cdsdev/OldFiles/mail-archive/ Rsemmes92 (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply