Talk:Mobile web

Untitled
Mobile Internet shouldn't be redirected here. Mobile internet is a service to connect to the Internet thru mobile network. Mobile networks can be used by mobile devices like cellphones, notebooks, PDAs, but also by desktop computers. Because mobile internet redirects here, the reader will have the assumption that "Access does not require a desktop computer." though it is a completely different matter. Kidnotkidding 10:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Needs more wiki, reads like an advertisement. I'm deleting some lines to clean it up. Mathiastck 00:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It was full of speculation, and forward looking possiblities, great for a blog entry, bad for an encylopedia article. Mathiastck 00:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Capitalisation
Is there are reason the first letter of "web" is capitalised in the title? It seems like it should be in lower case. Jecowa (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the World Wide Web is a proper noun and should be capitalized. I am curious as to why "Mobile" is capitalized? Noz92 (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Limitations original research?
The last paragraph of the Limitations section doesn't sound very encyclopedic. I'm not sure if it's just the exclamation points or the non-standard citations, but it could use some polishing. I don't know how to do proper citations on wikipedia, so if someone could show me how, I'll fix it, otherwise if you could fix it that'd be cool too. PabloSus86 (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that almost the entire Limitations section is out of date. Nearly every one of the specified weak points has been worked on and significantly improved all of our new and old phones. (Not sure if this goes here, I'm just now learning how to 'Talk'. L.F. Khael (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Pablo and Khael, the limitations are incorrect, for example it is possible to open more than one page at a time using 'Opera' (alternate web browser used on many mobile phones now) and pages can be viewed in the sequence they were originally accessed. Weathk (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Various
I think the first section is mostly debatable, or wrong. There is a confusion in what is written between Internet (capital I) and Web (capital W). fwiw I don't consider WAP/WML to be part of the Web. It's not accessible using a standards compliant Web browser, which to my mind is the test of whether something is part of the Web or not. Specifically, I think that the Mobile Web is a sub-set of the regular Web in which content has been designed to be sensitive to the user's mobile intentions (which are typically different to those of a desktop user) and designed to take advantage of specific mobile features - such as location awareness, or ability to originate telephone calls or SMS messages directly. Additionally content is typically designed to be easily navigable and readable with small screens, limited input mechanisms (typically no mouse) and limitations as to the size of the pages that can be accommodated by devices, and transferred to the device in a reasonable time at a reasonable cost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.46.123 (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Content is borderline incoherent; Mobile Web 2 section is completely [incoherent].
I find the article's phraseology to be confusing and comprehensibility to be lacking.

Give it to me straight: If a cellphone gets the "Mobile Web," is it able to receive regular web pages [albeit at slow speeds and with all the other page-navigation difficulties]? In that case, isn't such a device essentially regular-web-able, and the label "Mobile Web" simply a marketer's method of warning potential customers that webpages are going to render really slowly and otherwise be challenging to navigate around?

Previous definitions of the Mobile Internet that I’ve considered include that it is: I’m realizing these definitions are all wrong.
 * A segment of the internet
 * A parallel but completely separate internet-type system, populated with limited webpage-type content which is provided by the cellphone-signal provider -- separate from the internet, and without actual access to the rest of the internet.

I'm starting to recognize that the term "Mobile Web" is not a definition of any available content. Instead, it is a description of mobile devices with their limited connection-speeds and limited webpage navigation capabilities. I.e., “Mobile Web” only describes hardware (such as web-capable cellphones).

I would recommend frequently adding the phrase "Mobile Web devices" into the article. That is proper use of the term. That it refers to hardware, not web content, would be a good, initial point to begin the description.

The next point might be that there are specially-designed webpages intended to benefit Mobile Web devices because of these characteristics:
 * They are small webpages that are able to load without too much delay -- even with the slow connection-speeds of a cellphone-provided internet connection, and
 * They are designed to be navigable with only a wheel, since Mobile Web devices don't have mice.

Again, I would emphasize that there is no internet-type system whose name is “The Mobile Web.”

And a final dis-ambiguity: Webpages written especially for Mobile Web devices can be received on standard PCs (and Macs, if you must), since they are simply small webpages available on the same, usual web that we’re used to inhabiting. Conversely, webpages written for standard PCs can be received on Mobile Web devices, although complex, graphic-intensive, large-file-size, java and web-gizmo-intensive webpages will suffer from agonizingly slow download speeds before the full webpage is completely received, and there will probably be problems with display, navigation within such complex webpages, and advanced functions (such as, possibly, Java) contained therein.

I dropped in to this Wikipedia webpage by following a Google link for "Mobile Web 2." I must say the sub-section titled “Mobile Web 2.0” is the height of incomprehensiblity. For instance, it seems to start with "an example" without ever providing the actual definition, and which I was never able to infer. Please someone, provide a definition, even if it’s more marketing hype than technologically significant.

The patching that has been performed so far on this article has been obviously insufficient, and I believe the conclusion is that it can't be saved. Therefore, I hope that someone who is knowledgeable about this subject will do a complete rewrite of this article. Nei1 (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with you. This article appears very out-of-date and lacking coherence.  If nobody knowledgeable steps forward, I will edit this article down to remove anything that appears out-of-date, wrong, or incoherent.  Any better offers?

I just removed a link - it pointed to the Sy Bandergee's (author's) home page http://som.umflint.edu/sy/ rather than to his article about mobile advertising.

--HighKing (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Mobile Internet
Mobile Internet is much more than Mobile Web. This can include access to the Internet using cell phones and USB modem and tariff models (plain tariff). This is fundamental for the web. Why do you want mobile web if you cannot acces to the Mobile Internet because of hight costs ?. --Nopetro (talk) 06:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Limitations
"On mobile web, only one page can be displayed at a time, and pages can only be viewed in the sequence they were originally accessed." This is nonsense, my relatively simple Sony Ericsson K610i utilises a windowing GUI and tasks can be switched very easily - it even has a dedicated button for that purpose. Opera Mini opens tabs (if requested) and you can switch between web pages too. I suggest this be re-written in a past-tense or "historically..." term. KenSharp (talk) 03:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the whole section is pretty much nonsense. There's no references anyway. KenSharp (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Limits
The two points referencing "Banerjee & Dholakia, 2008" seem totally out of place here. How a user feels about adverts is not a limitation of mobile internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.206.196.109 (talk) 07:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus was reached, closing Tiggerjay (talk) 08:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Mobile Web → Mobile web – No reason to capitalise "web"; while something like the Semantic Web is a coherent movement, "Mobile Web" just seems to mean "the web viewed on a mobile device", here. McGeddon (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Oppose; "Web" is short here for "World Wide Web", which is a proper noun and thus properly capitalized. "mobile Web" would be correct usage in prose, but the initial capital is requisite for technological reasons.  Powers T 19:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? I'd assumed it had become a common enough standalone term, these days. Wikipedia doesn't seem to capitalise "web page", "web browser" or other usages of it in the same way. --McGeddon (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A terrible deficiency, but I'm not interested in compounding the error. Powers T 19:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think its Wikipedia's job to correct grammar. The real question is what term do reliable sources use.--174.93.160.57 (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, we have our own style guide and we follow it regardless of sources. If we went with sources, we'd have a weird mishmash of styles and no one would be able to know how a sentence should be styled without doing tons of research.  Powers T 20:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In the absence of specific style guide direction, Wikipedia follows the style used by reliable sources. Is web-vs-Web actually covered by Wikipedia's MOS somewhere? I had a look but couldn't find anything more than a few quiet, inconclusive talk threads. An overwhelming majority of articles (eg. those in Category:World Wide Web) seem to favour a lower case "web", outside of specific organisation names. --McGeddon (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * MOS:CAPS makes clear that we capitalize proper nouns, which World Wide Web is. Again, you're citing articles that I think are incorrectly titled, and I'm not going to support changing this one just because all those other ones are wrong.  Powers T 15:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm also citing WP:TONE. MOS:CAPS's very first paragraph says "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name; words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia." (which I assume goes both ways; like other sources, we don't capitalise, say, "klaxon"). Are you saying that in your experience "Web" is mostly capitalised in book and newspaper sources, or just that it's your personal feeling that a lower-case "web" is poor style? --McGeddon (talk) 10:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't taken account of how widely the term is capitalized in sources. But it is a unique creation that was given a name by its creators; that makes it a proper name by definition.  Powers T 22:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - Consistency. It is essentially a POV fork to capitalize here and not in the main article. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you consider "the main article"? Powers T 22:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * World Wide Web which mostly uses "web" in running text. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mobile Web vs Mobile Internet
As you may know, mobile Internet is more than just mobile web. Several mobile apps use internet. --167.58.191.206 (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mobile Web. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130509121758/http://bondi.omtp.org/ to http://bondi.omtp.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:39, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 3 May 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) – Ammarpad (talk) 06:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Mobile Web → Mobile web – Correcting capitalization. "Web" is not a proper noun. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, it has been years since I've seen someone use "Web" as a proper noun. – Þjarkur (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.