This is an archive of past discussions about Website. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This article is fundamentally incorrect, due to a common misunderstanding. Web sites ARE NOT the pages, but the location -- the site -- at which pages run. They are a unique combination of hostname:port, on which HTTP or HTTPS, and (X)HTML are served. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.229.103.1 (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Those are domain names. DNS and domain names existed before the web, as they were parts of the internet pre-dating the web. They weren't as well known, but were used for services like email and file transfer. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
History sections is very muddled. Is it saying this this site itself is the first Web site?
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Website → Web site — Based on English grammar rules and disucssion on talk page, prior to proposal. As explained within the article itself, Web is short for World Wide Web (a name, and thus always capitalized). Common usage Web seperates Web from what the thing it is connected to. For example, Web page, Web site, Web server, Web browser. Each has a space in-between. The title does not present that, at its current state. UBeR20:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Survey
Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
Both versions are widely used (with for example "website" being used by the BBC and UK government sites), and typing either will get you to this article - there is little distinction to be made and this is just splitting hairs. Oppose. Thanks/wangi20:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. You can make a fairly strong argument that "Website" is now a widely-used word in the English language, and that usage of both is equally correct. Titoxd(?!?)22:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Both are in common use. To flesh out the points about other uses made above, we also have webcam and webcomic and webhead, etc., as well as proper names such as Webdings. Furthermore, the inital capitalization is totally irrelevant to the naming of this particular Wikipedia article; the "s" should definitely be lowercase, whether preceded by a space or not. The "w" isn't necessarily capitalized; some do and some don't, and you might be able to say it is wrong not to capitalize it if you talk about a World Wide Web–site, you don't have quite the same argument for website. Gene Nygaard14:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose I've been involved in most aspects of websites for a long time, I don't know anyone who uses "web site". Even Google asks you - Did you mean "website" - when you search for "web site". Capitalization isn't necessary either in my opinion, "website" is just fine. —B33R Talk • Contribs 01:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose, just to make my position clear. Both forms are equally valid, there is no persuasive argument to move the page IMO, I am not aware of any relevant 'English grammar rules' (especially if the BBC use 'website'). -- zzuuzz(talk)02:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose neither is "correct" or "incorrect." They are both widely used and both valid. Until all the grammarians of the world unite and say "Website is wrong and web site is right!", keep as is. — Frecklefoot | Talk17:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Website is now more popular and you're likely to find soon that Web site is rarely used. Website has now become the majority spelling and anyone using Web site makes it seem like you can't adapt to changes in common usage. Leenewton20:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - the word may not have been right at one time, but it now is. Much like internet was once Inter net (capitalization and space), now website is a standard usage word. Both seem to be used equally frequently. Patstuart(talk)(contribs)21:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Discussion
Add any additional comments:
Additional comment: based on disucssion within this discussion page, the article Web site, and original research:
This is rather original research. I just want to point out that many of these sites use both versions. For example w3.org Quality Assurance Interest Group uses "Web site" four times, and "website" three times in one short page. Microsoft also uses "website" a lot. No doubt there are other examples which would show that 'support' is not overwhelming. -- zzuuzz(talk)02:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Discussion
When I've taught web site design, I always began by telling the students that a web site consists of three elements:
I'd argue all of those. You make no distinction between a single file and internet content. A single file on a home users computer is a website. So is a e-mail. An e-mail has content. A server can be any machine you want, in this case it is an e-mail server, and the e-mail has content. Whats more the e-mail program is a website. It has an address on the computer, it is on a server(you refered to a server as a computer and not a program, and any machine can be considered a server as long as it is serving information; therefore a server program always resides on a server.), and since the program requires space, and space==content(even if it is binary, you didn't mention any requirements, just content) you have a website... I'm not trying to be mean, just saying you may want to revise that to avoid confusion in the future. Even if you changed the first on to `web address', or URL, I can still point a URL to my e-mail server's location.
Capi Crimm, that definition is ridiculous. The previous poster is correct.
"The limit of a website is the limit to a computer's power and the limit of copyright": this should be rephrased, as it ignores that many people illegally violate copyright on the internet. --Daniel C. Boyer
Should acknowledge that content can be included on a website that is not inline (though maybe this belongs in another article), such as PowerPoint presentations. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:24, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
How long does a website last? I've heard the typical lifetime of a website is between three and six years, but I can't find any research about the subject.
@Capi crimm: - Capi, this course you taught in the past, did Many students get their money back? You quickly and summarily confused a website with a webpage- you said "a single file [...] is a website." Quite incorrect. A single file is a webpage. A website or fine, web site or even "Web site" is the entire experience and generally encompasses all the pages (files) that fall under a single domain. (Pass the crack.) ;-) From Peter aka Vid2vid (talk) 07:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC).
History of the term 'website
Does anyone have any information on why the word 'website' (or 'web site') was chosen, or how it came into usage? It seems like a bit of a dated phrase to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.211.19.70 (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Media does NOT use "website"
The AP Stylebook officially changed "web site" to "website" in April 2010. The main wikipedia entry needs to be updated to explain this detail. Otherwise it is very confusing for people. The entry refers to "website" as if it was always "website", which is not the case at all.24.148.23.218 (talk) 02:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The use of "website" by "newspapers and other media" is utterly incorrect. Most newspapers and other media use "Web site". AP Style, as well as several other authorities, forbid "website". The only mainstream media that uses "website" that comes to mind immediately is WIRED Magazine, which made the controversial change relatively recently. (Forgot to log in. I posted this.)
Correct. Most news media do indeed use "Web site".
I think the momentum is with the term website however. I think the other form comes from a relatively technologically illiterate time when it was also more common for the web to be capitalized because it was considered to be a specific singlular entity, thus being a proper noun. I never understood this usage--why for instance isn't world capitalized? Theshibboleth21:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
The internationally recognized official Web standards are established and published by the World Wide Web Consortium or W3C and can be found at the site [1]. It must be acknowledged that the standard (i.e correct) is always a capitalized W whenever referring to the World Wide Web in any form, including: Web, Web site, Web page, Web server, etc. Furthermore, it must be remembered that no search engine (or company), including Google, represents any authority on what any standard is or should be. Anyone should realize that the Internet and Web contains as much (if not more) misinformation as information, as many errors as facts, and a lot of intentional deception (a manifestation of anarchy). Only the foolish believe everything they see, hear, or read, and likewise only a fool would believe that everything and anything one might find returned by a Web search engine must therefore be accurate, or in any way held up as a standard. Google functions are based on statistics, not truth. Enough said. --KnowBuddy
"Only the foolish believe everything they see, hear, or read" ...including the above, I assume. KnowBuddy, the W3 standards don't apply here. While they may set standards forth, they can't enforce them, and they don't hold a copyright on the word "web." And the "standards" to which the non-Internet media adhere to vary widely. Wired, as mentioned above, stopped capitalizing "Internet" several years ago. While I think it still should be, different publications choose whether or not to cap it. Conversely, I don't think "Web" should be capped, for the simple fact that Web != Internet. There are thousands of intranet sites that consist of "web pages" and "websites", but aren't part of the Web. Therefore, to be more general, we should just refer to websites in lower-case, since they do not always refer to THE Web.
As for website or web site, I prefer the former, but that is just me. I know what is meant when "web site" is used.
AFAIK, Wikipedia does not have a standard for whether to use Web or web or Internet or internet (for the latter, I always change internet to Internet whenver I see it, but the same is not true for the former). Anyway, if anyone else wants to chime in on this, please do.
Finally, KnowBuddy, please sign your posts. I added your sig above, but you can do this with 3 or 4 tildes (~~~ or ~~~~). The latter is prefered, since it also adds a timestamp. — Frecklefoot | Talk16:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the discussion and instruction on using the name/time stamping feature here. I'll see if I can apply it this time.
Now what a nice pack of straw dogs you've presented!
1. (Implied) Some parts of the Web or Internet are enforceable.
A: False. The Internet and its Web content, by design and implementation, are under the control of no authority or governance,
therefore the issue of "enforceablility" is bogus and irrelevent to this discussion.
2. (Implied, following from 1. above)
a.) An unenforceable standard or law is not worth existing, acknowledgment, or adherence.
b.) A condition of unenforceability, justifies ignoring or violating established standards or laws.
A: False. Structured systems such as the Internet, and civilized society in general, function and succeed, based
on well established standards, protocols, definitons, principles, and yes, even rules (laws). To abandon those leads to confusion,
anarchy and dystopia.
3. (Implied) Somehow copyright (law) applies to global international standards in general, or words in particular.
A: False.
Copyright applies only to created works or intellectual property, not to words or linguistics, AFAIK.
A word or phrase may be trademarked for commercial purposes, but that doesn't make a trademark any kind of a standard
for anyone else outside that commercial entity.
Furthermore, the concept of copyright is irrelevent to this topic of international standards or syntax of technical terminology.
Example: It's ludicrous to pose a question of whether or not there is any copyright on a technical term such as "Internet" or
"CPU".
4. Syntax and capitalization of terminology somehow has something to do with technical equivalence of terms or components.
(Web does not equal Internet)
A: Again, irrelevent. The global standard IP does not equal the standard TCP/IP (of which it is a component subset), but that
technical fact has nothing to do with whether or not either globally recognized term is capitalized correctly. Likewise, whether
or not the standard term Internet is correctly capitalized (or not) is irrelevent to whether or not the standard abbreviation Web
should be capitalized and adhered to.
5. Because one or more established commercial media publishers (Wired was a paper periodical before they expanded to
e-publishing on the Internet.) may change their corporate style manual or ignore their own established standards and practices
at any point in time, that somehow makes them a public authority on standards useage outside their individual company.
A: False. Media publishers (commercial or not) are a priviliged subset of society that is able to compose, publish, and somewhat
enforce their own style manuals, intended for internal application. It is society at large, or else certain industry specific
consortiums which must choose, establish and attend to any designated authoritarian entity on standards. Countless many of those
exist, e.g. SI, ASCII, etc., and apply to global society as well as to technical realms including the Internet. As
stated in the intro to this Wiki article, it is the Associated Press which society (at least in America) recognizes as the current
standard bearer for journalism (including e-publishing on the Web). Wired can freely do as they please, without being burdened
unjustly as any kind of standards bearer.
6. Somehow global Web standards don't apply to this Wikipedia Web site, or the work of the W3C doesn't apply to what we
are doing here.
A: False. W3C standards are intended for the entire WWW and are globally acknowledged and applied to most sites both public
and private. Wikipedia is a public site on the WWW and functions because of W3C standards and protocols (among others).
And yes Wikipedia does have published standards, if not a set style manual.
7. Somehow common malpractice in public forums represents justification for further neglect, abuse, or malpractice,
particularly abandoning widely accepted standards.
A: False. All over the Web and in interpersonal communications, there are accelrating occurences of individuals failing
to use capitalization, punctuation, or even automated spell-checking. that doesn't make it tolerable acceptable beneficial
admirable or even comprehensible does it do you intend to emulate that common practice as well
OK, moving on, some may think it inconsistent (self contradictory even?) that you choose to capitalize Internet, but not Web.
I'll just grant you that as freedom of personal choice.
I could go on, but have run out of time. One more point (this one of merit) to address later, perhaps tomorrow if I have time.
KnowBuddy21:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Knowbuddy, you've presented a lot of arguments here that you've tried to back up, but, in truth, Wikipedia doesn't have to abide to any of them. If we decided to spell web site as "WeB sIghTT," we could and no one would come along and slap us in jail for not adhering to a standard. The truth is, you prefer Web site, while some of us don't. In the meantime, I'd appreciate you wouldn't going through articles (as you've been doing) and only making the change of "website" to "Web site." It's unnecessary and it doesn't adhere to any standard we have here on Wikipedia.
Now, if you want elevate this, I suggest you bring it up on one of the Village Pumps where these types of things are discussed and resolved.
And, yes, Wikipedia does have a WP:Manual of Style, but I don't think "web site" vs. "Web site" vs. "website" is covered in it yet. Maybe you could be the impetus to get it covered (via the Village Pump, for starters). — Frecklefoot | Talk21:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Web site is simply short for World Wide Web site. Very few people would argue World Wide Web should not be capitalized. It's a proper name, and like all proper names it is capitalized. Likewise, I don't know of anyone who would write World Wide Website. ~ UBeR01:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Quote "If we decided to spell web site as "WeB sIghTT," we could and no one would come along and slap us in jail for not adhering to a standard." This is true but it is not within the interest of wikipedia and its' community to use the site to monopolize the use of words and to bring new words into the english language. The name "web site" is fine and it's just plain lazy to use "website" or to try to bring it into existence by having it as this sections title. I really think it would be better to say "web site (also referred to as 'website' by those in the technologies industry)" this in effect is true , most normal people call it web site and you will find only people involved with technology and web work in general would call it the other (which wikipedia is edited by a vast number of these techies and thus it is biased). I'm sure you'll edit this out as I'm not a member of your arena, but please consider your ability to influence the english language and your positions as custodians of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.47.106 (talk)
I won't edit your comment out—that's just plain rude and un-Wiki. But I still don't understand your opposition. The English language is dynamic, as are most other modern languages. Why oppose the introduction of new words to an expanding world? The word "computer" didn't exist 50 years ago, but I don't think any of us would contest its utility. "Website" is a perfectly valid term, though it is a conjunction of two previously separate words. The issue of moving "website" to "web site" was brought up and opposed. So, I'm not the only one who feels this way. — Frecklefoot | Talk15:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Using misinformation to support a fallacious argument most definitely can only hinder credence and intelligibility. Computer has been around since at least 1650. Frankly, you're few hundred years off.
Needless to say, the English language is dynamic. But it has a set of rules. It's called formal language, and it's nothing short of expected in an encyclopedia. This precisely why articles at Wikipedia aren't written in a slang, Internet jargon, or the likes. It sets up a certain amount of formality expected from browsers at an online encyclopedia. And the unsigned comment brings up an interesting point in which it's quite possible "techies" are biased toward the single worded version of Web site; ergo it's prevalent within this article. In academia, however, this is not the standard. Nevertheless, I've realized it is mostly a culture difference and therefore a trivial and moot in arguing within the context of a Wikipedian discussion. ~ UBeR21:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I write articles and contribute to press releases that get published in technical journals, and I can confirm that the standard usage is to captialize "Web" as a proper name (abbreviation of World Wide Web) and to write "Web site" as two words. I agree that many people do use the colloquial form "website", but in an encyclopedia I expect to see correct usage given precedence. I am surprised to see this issue still being debated, in the light of the very convincing arguments presented above by KnowBuddy. Chris Loosley02:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Although oft quoted as not being a democracy or not favoring majority, that seems to be exactly what the case is here with Wikipedia. It's quite clear they favor quantity over quality. They willing accept numbers over rationality. ~ UBeR03:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
But can't we just correct this with an edit at the page level, together with some redirect pages to re-route any links to "website" to the page renamed as "Web site"? Chris Loosley04:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
From a morphological/phonological point of view, website is one word. There is a difference of accentuation between two-word compounds (e.g. black board, blue bird) and one (blackboard, bluebird). When there are two words, the accent falls on the second one; if it is only one word, the accent falls on the first (I'm talking of one-syllable words). The way website is (now) pronounced, it is clearly one word. 216.16.236.133 17:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Marc André Bélanger. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.16.236.133 (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
What is the deal with the warning at the beginning of the article? I deleted it once, but it keeps getting re-inserted. ALL Wikipedia articles begin with caps! We don't have to warn users that it's normally lowercase. Most topics in Wikipedia are normally lowercase. Should we go through ALL the articles that are normally lowercase and warn users about them? It's usage in the openining demonstrates that it's normally lowercase: it's lowercase there. Can we get rid of it for good now? — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:53, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Disagreed, consult basic English rules regarding beginning of the sentence and pronouns. Unless website is referring to a specific website there is no excuse as to why it would be posted in uppercase. As long as the template that allows the limitation note to exist then this page will intentionally look inconsistent with other articles that note the normally lowercase. Quadra23 September 17, 2005.
Let me ask you something. Do you think the template should be at the beginning of Dog, Cat, Umbrella, or any other article about a common, lowercase word? What's different about Website?
Let me also ask you whoever writes Web (as in Web site) as a pronoun as demonstrated in the second entry on the top of page? That for one shows an inconsistency with the idea of website being assumed lowercase. Unless it denotes a specific website or part of the name of one, there is no reason that is in caps either. I suppose that's the majority of what I see wrong with the removal of the note -- fix that and I'll agree that the lowercase is assumed. Quadra23 September 18, 2005.
We use Web site when we are specifically talking about Web sites overall. When we talk about a specific website (for example Wikipedia) we use website. Lenny15:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
So.. could Wikipedia have the main article be for "Website" but have disambiguation pages point there/here from "website" and "Web sites" and "websites" and "Web site?" Follow-on tickler of a question, if a person goes directly to a page with disambiguated words pointing at it, will they still see a small banner at the top, mentioning all those other "article pointings?" Things that make you go, hmm (disambiguation: Redirected from hummm and hmmmmmmm). ;-) From Peter aka Vid2vid (talk) 07:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC).
The image
I object to the self-referential image. This is not an article about wikipedia. Its an article about websites. We should use a screenshot from a different website. savidan(talk)(e@)05:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Everyone would want their website featured as the "official" website of the wikipedia article. May I suggest Google?
I like the image; it's recursive! Anyway, it's not of the Wikipedia main page, it's of the article the person is currently viewing. It's only advertising something they're already reading anyway. Google would be neutral enough, but any other website I can think of would indicate endorsement. --Galaxiaad01:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I would say take some ancient browser (NSCA Mosaic or something; at least anything not IE/FF), browse to the 'first web site made' already linked in this article and make a screenshot (on Windows, press ALT+Print Screen to only capture the browser screen). Then slap it up there with a nice caption like 'The first {Web site/website} viewing in a web browser'. :) That's neutral, informative and helpful.
(Strange, somehow 1-2 persons above did not sign their post(s).) While I am somewhat on the fence about using a self-referential image, and think it's totally humourous to use a screenshot of a Wikipedia article about Wikipedia and say, "Here you go, here's a sample of (from?) a Website," I DO wholeheartedly agree Y with this last commenter that an early say akebono.stanford.edu/yahoo page and showing the browser controls at the top, might be best suited ..and appreciated! ;-P From Peter, aka Vid2vid (talk) 08:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC).
History
Could someone knowledgeable write a small history section? When did the website come into existence? What was the first website? etc etc
I'm prepared to bet that in a few years website (one word, lower case) will be the standard spelling. Usage dictates correctness, not vice versa. So let's stay ahead of the curve. Adam03:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
The first Web sites were by the military to relay signals and information to each other, once technology advanced they stopped it and the Internet as we know it today was born. Lenny15:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
@Gm1121983: Why are you posting here about StrongFans?? I clicked the link and while the site is still there fine, the specific news article #'ed show_news.asp?NewsID=1152 does not exist. Try emailing the webmaster! Ahem? There's dozens of workarounds. Try searching your url as-is at www.archive.org .. Hope this helps. From, Peter. Vid2vid (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Game Sites
I removed "and the MMORPGsEverQuest and World of Warcraft''because the term Game site refers to a site where I actually log into to play a game. While World of Warcraft and EverQuest are both popular games, they both use their own interfaces allowing players to enter the game world... they do not go through a traditional site to log players in as a lot of the card game sites that have appeared all over the web in the last 5 years.
I simply reverted things to their existing state - any inconsistency has existed for a while already. You have requested a rename of this article to "Web Site", please wait until this matter it resolved before mass editing the article to match your desired naming convention. Thanks/wangi02:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Web site layouts are quite dynamic and completely under control by the discretion of its creator. ~ UBeR20:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Categories
Do we really need all those categories? I mean, we've even got "wedsite" in there now as a site that deals in wedding related info. We've got category bloat. :-( Poweroid20:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
External links
Hi, I had added an informative article on this page with the title Defining a Website. The extrenal link stayed www.templatesfactory.net/blog/2007/01/what_is_a_web_template.html for 1 month or so and now it is gone. Can I please know the reasons for it? Thanks, Hasan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hassansaleem (talk • contribs)
As the editor that contributed it, it is your responsibility to justify it's inclusion. Without your providing the diff of it's inclusion or removal, I'd guess that it was removed because of WP:EL or WP:SPAM. --Ronz16:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Sir/Madam, I haven't spammed or anything. The link stayed on wikipedia for like 40 days or so. I would request you to please consider it again as it provides extra knowledge on the subject and is valuably different from what has been mentioned there. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hassansaleem (talk • contribs)
Regarding the removal of the link and info for homeowners association website central, this is clearly a type of website, and a relevant link that explains indepth portions of information on hoa websites. Again, the page never mentions a product to buy or a company. mar 17thEdenrage (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edenrage (talk • contribs) 14:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
@Hassansaleem: - Good evening @ Hasan! I wanted to weigh in on this topic as it involves sharing in a somewhat 'shortcut fashion,' to say a few things: 1] If a Wiki contributor or editor believes that a URL is a good source of material for the current article, it FAR better behooves said Editor to read and learn from then somewhat transport some of the ideas/thrust/contents of said URL into the Article in question; This is how Wikipedia truly improves. 2] The External Links section should not be used as a compendium of bookmarks nor a sea of SeeAlso's - otherwise, the External Links section grows up to be a Google Search Results Page! 3] The spirit of Wikipedic contributing IMHO is more to enhance content, and if that means re-writing material from a URL ala being inspired by a different website where said material appropriately improves the encyclopedic worthiness of an article, then again, that is the proper Spirit of Wikipedia and how it is to be used. EVEN better, use the ideas then end your contribution with a ref/cite citation, riiiight? ;-) 4] I trust that you understand what the persons above were instructing and guiding you about WP:EL and WP:SPAM and WP:COI. 5] Lastly, and most importantly, based on your pleading? arguing? tone? ..just because an edit survives 15 days, or 40 days, or even 3yrs ..and is then reversed, undone, or removed,.. surviVing says ABS ZERO about its worthiness, significance, or usefulness; It likely means your edit / URL contribution flew under the radar undetected. Hope this helps. {PS. Fair full disclosure? I went through too many periods where my Wiki contributions were merely URL additions to "External links" and "See also" sub-sections, so I see from where you were coming Hasan!} Peace. From Peter aka Vid2vid (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC).
My two cents: Google pulls 1.48 billion results for "website" and 439 million for "web site". This means that people currently refer to Web sites as websites. It's great that The Chicago Manual of Style still suggests Web sites, but that's not how the majority writes it or searches for it. I think we should consider using website across the board for Wikipedia too ;D Strictly Business (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
For other technical terms, I have tried using Google to decide whether a term should have a space or not, but on closer examination of the Google results realized that anything computer-related skews strongly toward the spelling that eliminates spaces for at least two reasons. First, many coding scenarios are more likely to break if you use spaces, so devs eliminate the spaces in a URL, directory name, XML tag, etc. Then, those devs document or blog their work, crawlers index their URLs, visitors send the URLs, and along the way all become habituated to the spelling that lacks a space. It's not that it's correct, it's just familiar -- i.e., WP:ILIKEIT. My conclusion has been that I'm on firmer ground not using Google, and also not taking Wikipedia article names as authoritative because those spelling battles tend to be won by the most persistent editors. If I want technical rigor (and I always do for my particular purposes), there's one approach that lets me drill down past the loud voices to the reliable sources that have carefully reviewed the origins, history, and usage of the terms and passed them through the filters of knowledgeable, impartial panels. Currently, this article contains a great example of such information: "The Associated Press Style book, Reuters, Microsoft, academia, book publishing, The Chicago Manual of Style, and dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster use the two-word, initially capitalized spelling Web site." Thirdbeach (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the section on 'spelling' is approaching the issue from the wrong angle. Admittedly, if you were writing a piece of text, the question you would ask is 'how do I spell it?' However, 'Web site' is the free use of two separate words; it is short for 'World Wide Web site' or 'site on the World Wide Web.' So long as those two words exist, 'Web site' cannot be wrong. The only real question is, 'is 'website' a word?' and it seems that most dictionaries say it is. Thus, so long as you are satisfied that 'website' is a word, it would not be wrong to use 'Web site,' 'website' and even 'site' in the same piece of text. (Although it would be best to keep to one as a matter of style.) Pololei (talk) 12:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Overview is garbled
The sentence on line 6 of Overview is not intelligible.
"It could not be the work of an individual, because its harder to do a business or other organization and is typically dedicated to some particular topic or purpose."
I have no idea what it is supposed to mean, so I cannot correct it. Soler97 (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
The definition of 'web site' in lede was poor and in fact incorrect. A web site is more defined by its pages' common domain name in the URL, than being on one server. In fact, many busy sites employ large server farms with dozens or hundreds of servers at different IP addresses possibly. The article contradicted itself in mentioning that the homepage is usually on the same server, implying the site might not be on just one server.
In addition the following definition of a web page is also imprecise in that it is not 'written in HTML'. It is written in plain text or even other formats, HTML is only a markup of the text to specify formatting. A web page consisting of only text without any markup will be displayed just fine.
The home page of a site is not a common URL, i.e., it's not contained in all page URLs, but is a 'simple' URL usually.
The term 'web traffic' has little to do with the navigational aspect of the page, but navigation causes web traffic for sure.
The term 'intranet' was incorrectly attached here to sites that require authentication.
I would like to get feedback on how example websites are determined for each website type. This seems like a rich area for wikiSpamming or non-neutral treatment of one website over another. Though this applies to all categories my particular interest is in the Commerce examples. Amazon.com is an obvious choice because there is no one else in their league. The inclusion of CSN Stores who is ranked #83 (2008 Data) on Internet Retailers top 500 list (http://www.internetretailer.com/top500/list.asp) and Overstock.com who is ranked #30 (2007 Data). The top three ecommerce websites are Amazon.com, Staples.com and OfficeDepot.com. I would suggest either not providing any examples (my least favorite option) or having an agreed upon system for who can appear here based on some objective criteria. Thanks! Morganeason (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I revised the ecommerce category to be more specific, a site is generally only called an ecommerce site if it actually performs transactions online. I don't think WP needs to provide examples for this extremely common type of site anymore, to avoid favoritism and following of current popularity trends. Kbrose (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Contradiction
WP articles should not contain contradictions. The lead section refers to "website (also spelled Web site..." yet the Spelling section's first mention is "The forms website and web site are the most commonly used forms." Although both statements include "website", one contains "Web site" but the other contains "web site".
Capitalization is an important part of the spelling of this term, as evidenced by the fact that most discussions reported by Google include capitalization.
The contradiction between the lead and 'Spelling' sections should be fixed. I'm not WP:BOLD enough to choose, but I find this contradiction embarrassing in WP. If no one responds, I'll choose "Web site" arbitrarily. David Spector18:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi David, 1) my understanding is that the first letter's case is irrelevant in Wikipedia. 2) Personally I would plump for website as that seems to be the most frequent usage currently.
Chris
Why is it that this website article only focuses on the technical side of things? I think this is a common mistake in computer science, the users isn't put on the first place, just like it's not even mentioned in this article. I don't have a good suggestion about what to write in it, but, I would say that users are a very important aspect of websites?
Good thinking. Space is becoming a premium but maybe a good column to the websites table would be "Typical user". This then opens up a whole bunch of sections regarding user habits, needs, and relevance to the internet.
Chris
I am not sure it is a good idea to cite social networking websites as examples of websites requiring subscriptions, as the more well-known ones such as Facebook do not. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Portfolio websites
Could we consider adding a section to the table of website types for portfolios? Perhaps this falls under personal websites, but the text there indicates that personal/small business sites are "rare" which isn't the case among artists and designers.
142.1.32.124 (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
I had added an external link to wikipedia article .But that has been removed may I know why can't I give back links.
Thanks & Regards,
Sudhir Chaudhury — Preceding unsigned comment added by SudhirChaudhury (talk • contribs) 09:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Misleading examples; here's some real usage statistics
"Among major Internet technology companies and corporations..." That sentence implies that tech usage has radically shift, when it has not. The three carefully selected "tech companies" are not setters of tech style nor reflectors of it, they are users of business style with an overwhelmingly general-consumer audience.
Google Ngrams are very useful (when used properly) to illustrate mainstream English usage in (mostly-)professionally edited, non-journalistic publications (i.e., books).
This N-gram, using the search string "the Web site,the website,the web site" (without the "quotes"), is interesting (prepending "the", lower-case, prevents search results from including instances only capitalized because at the beginning of a sentence). The search, repeated with "his", "her" and "their" variants, demonstrates a strong, nearly 1:1 ratio between unspaced and spaced usage i.e "website" vs. "Web site or web site" (other searches demonstrated that unspaced "Website" was statistically insignificant, and another search showed that hyphenated usage, lower- or upper-case, barely exists at all). The averaged results of the "the/his/her/their" searches further show that the ratio between "website" and "Web site", without "web site" being factored in, is only about 1.5:1 (1.4:1, 1.5:1, 1.5:1, and 1.6:1, in each search respectively). This proves that the two-word usage isn't even nearing obsolescence yet and that the one word usage is not "standard", simply increasingly common. That said, the data is only current up to 2008, and the patterns can only be tentatively extrapolated into the future so far. It's still much better evidence than a handful of cherry-picked websites and style guides.
Even more interestingly, using "this" as the prepended word in the search produced the result that spaced use is more common than "website", by about a 1.1:1 ratio, among people authoring sites, i.e. techies, only about about a 1.35:1 lead for "website" over "Web site" by itself, throwing out "web site". To prove this point more fully, using "geekier" terminology essentially throws "website" in the trash can; searching with "Apache" as the prepended term produces a 2.4:1 majority in favor of "Web site" and almost 20:1 for spaced vs. unspaced! Using "Linux" demonstrates no notable use of {{anything but}} "Web site". Using "PHP" as the added term shows a "Web site" to "website" ratio of 1.6:1, and an unspaced total to "website" ratio of 2.1:1. Using "MySQL" produced 2.3:1 and 3.1:1, respectively, while changing the whole search to "a Web site developer,a website developer,a web site developer" produced a roughly even ratio between "Web site" and "website" (1.3:1 spaced total vs. unspaced), after a somewhat recent decline in the incidence of "Web site" (which lead 2.5:1 vs "website" in 2001) without any corresponding marked increase in "website" or "web site"). Removing "a " and swapping in "design" then "development" for "developer", produced patterns nearly identical to this.
An obvious corollary would have to be that corporate flacks would surely prefer "website", and they do: "our Web site,our website,our web site" shows a whopping 2.9:1 lead for "website" over unspaced use, with virtually no difference reported between "Web site" and "web site" (the proper name point is clearly lost on them). This sample necessarily also nets techies sites that refer to "our" site, but most such uses will be corporate, governmental, school or NGO (all of which lean toward business/journalistic style). Speaking of which, using "news" produced similar, though less marked results. Same goes for using consumer marketing terms like "friendly" that might be paired with "website" or "Web site".
Finally, replacing the entire search phrase with the very common parallel construction using "server" instead of "site", "the Web server,the webserver,the web server" (and trying variants like "their" and "a" being added) demonstrates that unspaced usage essentially does not exist, and that capitalized usage is in transition. Using "Web hosting,webhosting,web hosting,Webhosting" demonstrated only very low compounded usage. The abbreviated compound "webcam" was of course ubiquitous, since "web cam" and "Web camera" and the like essentially don't exist (much like "weblog" is barely a word any longer, having been supplanted by its abbreviation "blog").
America-centric, perhaps, but what website wouldn't be *-centric? Some obscure gardening website would be garden-centric, and the issue there would be which gardening website to choose? Other gardening websites would be rather upset about Wikipedia promoting another gardening website and not their own. The same could be said for an .edu website. There are other concerns as well. Most websites that we could use as an image would be (1) under the owner's copyright, so it would fail WP:NFCC and (2) have competitor websites that would be (rather correctly) upset that we'd choose website X over website Y. The POTUS bio is US-GOV public domain, most other websites wouldn't be. - SudoGhost18:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Good points. But if it has to be -centric something, why politician-centric? Nonprofit would be best. How about NASA? Could we use that? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with Indian law, but would that website be public domain, or at least not under a restrictive copyright that would cause it to fail WP:NFCC? - Aoidh (talk) 08:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
According to this, the website doesn't use an ideal copyright license. It requires written permission to reproduce, which wouldn't be ideal for a website (like Wikipedia) which uses a CC-BY-SA sharealike license, meaning anyone can ideally copy the content from our website. One of the primary purposes of the WP:NFCC policy is to "minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content", so using the india.gov.in website wouldn't be ideal. - Aoidh (talk) 08:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC) (Sorry, apparently with Benadryl I am compelled to write "ideal" as many times as I can in a single sentence...) - Aoidh (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I thought it had been discussed before but I can't find any reference to that discussion, but I think it was changed from an image of Wikipedia per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid, but maybe not. Either way, I think the current image, the NASA website, is a good one because it contrasts well with Wikipedia itself; they're (presumably) visiting Wikipedia as a website, so it's not very helpful to include an almost recursive image of what they're already looking at. - Aoidh (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's true, but it's the #6 ranked site on Alexa and the only website in the top 30 with a CC compatible license. If we did the homepage (www.wikipedia.org) instead of enwiki it would also have several different languages displayed. The essay you link to says referring to wikipedia is okay if it's in a relevant context and I'd argue the #6 website is pretty relevant to an article on websites. If you still object, I can also suggest kernel.org which has a compatible license as well, although the cc website would make sense as well. Sailsbystars (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I have just modified one external link on Website. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I wish to raise a couple of points with reference to the third paragraph in the introduction section, which could be improved.
The statement "They may incorporate elements from other websites with suitable markup anchors." should best read to say ".. with a suitable markup anchor.", however, I trust that this statement is referring either to the referencing of content or, to the embedding of outside content and therefore in either view may be improved further.
The statement regarding access is not complete enough. Web pages are also accessible over further protocols, in fact the protocol used to access does not dictate that it is a web page. It should be simple enough to say that it is a web page if it is published HTML that is retrievable over the World Wide Web. Example of further protocol, SPDY.
Since the internet is no longer new, many terms that used to be two words have merged into one word in most common usage. For example, in the early to mid '90's, "web site" was the common usage, not "website." Now, this has changed, and "website" has become the standard usage.
I first did a quick check to confirm using Google Trends. According to Google Trends[1], "website" is used almost 100% universally, as opposed to "website". See the reference for more information, and details. (In case you're not familiar with it, Google Trends tracks the number of times a particular term (or phrase) is used in global web searches each day, and allows you to check that data. You can compare two or more particular terms or phrases and see which one is used most often, and where in the world terms are more common. It's very handy for researching issues like this.)
I did a bit of searching through the Wikipedia Manual of Style, but didn't see anything on this. (Perhaps I missed it, so if anyone knows of a direct reference, please let me know!) I did however see that in all of Wikipedia's official documentation, the usage is "website", not "web site".
All the official writing style guides such as APA, Chicago Manual of Style, etc., use "website", instead of "web site".[2]
It seems to me that we should go through the article and do a bit of clean up in light of this.
Does anyone else here have any objections to a bit of article clean up, to replace instances of "web site" to "website"? I'd be happy to discuss. Hannibal Smith❯❯❯21:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I think the opening sentence which mentions two usages, "website" and formerly "web site," would look fine and do well to then mention in parentheses something like, "(a.k.a. "Web Site" until circa 1998)," or similar verbiage; doing so would maintain the historical record, at which Wikipedia does a fine job. It does not matter if Google Trends says "Web Site" is barely used any more *in current html pages out there*, as Trends misses the text of millions of books, (Masters and phD) theses, paid articles in print, magazines, and the like. I would put a "(formerly a.k.a. Web Site)" mention in the opener, but it would just be immediately reverted by someone with a chip on their shoulder. Vid2vid (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Infobox image
We once had NASA. That was okay. Now we have White House homepage. Not so good. It's very Americacentric and politically, well..... I will restore the old NASA one. Can we find something more global? How about some org in Antarctica or something?
I will post below (and encourage others to do so too) some CC sites to consider:
Problem solved re what "lede" (?) main image to feature for this Article: Use a screenshot of a Wikipedia article about Wikipedia {as someone somewhat suggested above}. Because after all, what better website/"web site"/"Web site" etc exists in the Universe than the ahem Wiki[p/m]edia website(s)?? ;-) From Peter aka Vid2vid (talk) 08:17, 4 September 2019 (UTC).
This debate is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. A website is a website. Policy simply doesn't apply unless you're a gung-ho fanatic about it. 98.178.179.240 (talk) 02:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2018
This edit request to Website has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I want to implement your article in which some of the information is wrong and i will correct them by changing some Links and also i have a website link that will very usefull for our Visitor. Tech-ideas (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Here it says: "With Internet Explorer Mode (IE Mode) in the new Microsoft Edge, you’ll get a simplified experience that combines a modern rendering engine with compatibility for legacy websites. "
Also here: "...ITS moved all legacy websites whose..."
Those are just some examples. I am not sure what it refers to (maybe old or expired websites). It would be good to cover that. Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Anatomy of websites
As i tried to input a bit of extra website information, like how most of the websites are build following a structure. From atoms that represent buttons, labels etc. all the way to content rich pages.
It got flagged as "Blatant copyright violations". The web page i referred to has a CC4 license, so i thought i was allowed to use and share their information here. Now the owner of the website has told me he has sent an email to the Wikipedia permissions group according the information provided here: Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries, in order to grant permission for the information to be used. Now my question is, will the owner of the website gets confirmation from Wikipedia for approval to submit his content on Wikipedia and can i add it afterwards again, or does Wikipedia process this automatically after approval of the submission request?
I'm looking for consensus to add a chapter with information about the anatomy of website designs. As most websites are designed according a method that is related to science/chemistry, i.e.: the building blocks of a website consists of small items (atoms), that when formed together, represent the dynamics of a website, like a search field, a banner or a text box like the one i'm typing in now. It has first been flagged as blatant copyright violation, and after that the copyright owner has given permission to Wikipedia to use the information, and the person removing it in the first place for Copyirght violation has messaged to me that confirmation of permissions had been received. So i added it again yesterday. It got removed, with the note to get consensus here in the talk page. I will put the information i want to add below, for you all to review the value for it to be added to this Wiki page.
start of input
Websites are more often than not build via a consistent manner. This so called Anatomy of a Website Design[1] consists of building blocks that step-by-step, build up to a fully content-rich website. Interfaces are created from smaller elements, suggesting the ability to break entire interfaces down into basic building blocks and workout from there. That’s the fundamental gist of atomic style. Josh Duck’s hypertext markup language periodic table[2] provides an excellent breakdown of internet designers’ atomic components.
Atomic styling is a methodology for developing web design systems, with 5 distinct levels in atomic design:
Atoms
Molecules
Organisms
Templates
Pages
Atoms in the anatomy of website design, are the fundamental building blocks of matter.Molecules are teams of atoms secured together to form website elements, like a form.
Atoms
Atoms are the fundamental building blocks of matter. Applied to internet interfaces, atoms are our hypertext markup language tags, corresponding to a label, an input or a button. Atoms also can embody additional abstract components like color palettes, fonts and even additional invisible aspects of an interface like animations.
Molecules
Things begin to obtain a lot of attention and tangible once atoms are combined along. Molecules are teams of atoms secured together and are the tiniest elementary units of a compound. These molecules wrestle their own properties and function the backbone of our style systems. For example, a label, input or button aren’t too helpful by themselves, however mix them together as a form and currently they are able to really do impressive things together.
Organisms are teams of molecules joined along to create a comparatively complicated, distinct section of an interface. Like headers and banners.Templates are the wire-framed backbone of any website. All the organisms are sewed together to form the layout.
Organisms
Organisms will comprise similar and/or completely different molecule varieties. Let’s say, a “banner” organism would possibly contains numerous elements sort of an emblem, primary navigation, search form, and list of social media channels. However a “product grid” organism may include a similar molecule (possibly containing a product image, product title and price) continual over and another time.
Templates
Templates consist largely of teams of organisms sewed together to create pages. It’s the stage where visualization starts to the look coming together and begin seeing things like layout in action. Templates are terribly concrete and supply context to any or all these comparatively abstract molecules and organisms. Templates are also where clients begin seeing the ultimate design in place.
Pages are the end-result in the anatomy of website design. They represent the website as it is, including all elements and content.
Pages
Pages are specific instances of templates. Here, placeholder content is replaced with real representative content to provide a correct depiction of what a user can ultimately see. Pages are the best level of fidelity and since they’re the foremost tangible, it’s generally where the majority of people will spend most of their time and what most reviews revolve around. The page stage is crucial as it’s wherever we tend to take a look at the effectiveness of the website style system. Viewing everything in context permits the web designer to loop back to change the molecules, organisms, and templates in order to improve the context of the website styling.
end of input
Let me know if there are things missing, or need to be changed in order to reach consensus about this information.
The release of the content of the quoted web-site means that it can be included and not that is should be included. My reading of it is it is simply one persons analogy of how web-sites are designed. It is an analogy that does not seem to be noteworthy or that is widely used. In this particular case it is a personal blog and this appears to be about promoting two blogs. To me it looks like a simple personal opinion and probable promotion and because of that I would strongly oppose the addition of this material. VelellaVelella Talk 15:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Type of website suggestion: Honeypot
While the applicable page Honeypot (computing) is generic (any computing resource serving that purpose/not specific to websites) and descriptions usually refer to honeypot servers, it is implicit that many such resources are in the form of websites. Thus, I think it is both useful and taxonomically appropriate to include "Honeypot" in the list. Any disagreement? Zatsugaku (talk) 03:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Website as a work / creative work including in WP citations
with this last commenter that an early say akebono.stanford.edu/yahoo page and showing the browser controls at the top, might be best suited ..and appreciated! ;-P From Peter, aka Vid2vid (talk) 08:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC).
Done Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Not done You're too vague about what you want to be done. Besides, your link falls under WP:ELNO.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
