Talk:Website

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Website article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. Internet Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Internet culture. For more information, visit the project page. B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Very first website 2 Requested move Web publishing 3 Requested move 3.1 Survey 3.2 Discussion 4 Discussion 5 History of the term 'website 6 Media does NOT use "website" 7 Web site vs. Advertising/Malware 8 Oh no! It's uppercase! 9 The image 10 History 11 First ever Web site 12 Losing Web sites 13 Game Sites 14 Reverting Edit 15 Website layout 16 website layout 17 Categories 18 External links 19 Spelling section 20 find singapore employer 21 Best site ever!

[edit] Very first website

Wasn't the very first website SYMBOLICS.COM in 1985?

-G

http://www.iwhois.com/oldest/ --134.155.69.125 (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move Web publishing

"Web publisher" and "Web publishing" are redirecting to website, the correct is a article for it (a specialized part for Publishing article).

See also demands on:

• Content management system (CMS)
• Publication
• Publishing
• Desktop publishing
• Web template system (Web publishing tools)
• Mobile publishing

-- 16 November 2006

[edit] Discussion

When I've taught web site design, I always began by telling the students that a web site consists of three elements:

• the address, like http://www.edpoor.com
• the server, where the content resides
• the content, which is what the user sees

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 08:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

---

"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)

---

What about communities or forums as a type of a website? --Ajvanari 21:38, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Web site is two words and Web is capitalized.

This is correct. Would anyone object if I moved this page to Web site? Jason One 23:54, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See discussion below re: consensus/google. --Overand 20:22, 13 May 2005 (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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] Media does NOT use "website"

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".

http://news.google.com/news?q=website

http://news.google.com/news?q=%22web%20site%22

Googling 'web site' Will return google suggesting you search for website instead. Looks like there isn't a very good consensus here.--Overand 20:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Also worth note is the difference between the google results of Web site and website. Microsoft.com's Web site as opposed to the Python Language Website. --Overand 20:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

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? Theshibboleth 21:53, 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 | Talk 16:26, 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!

Straw dog arguments:

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. KnowBuddy 21:34, 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 | Talk 21:45, 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. ~ UBeR 01:49, 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 | Talk 15:48, 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. ~ UBeR 21:45, 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 Loosley 02:45, 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. ~ UBeR 03:42, 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 Loosley 04:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Tried, but gets reverted. ~ UBeR 20:32, 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)

[edit] Web site vs. Advertising/Malware

There's a bit of discussion about the pitfalls of modern Web browser, cursor trapping, etc. I think this stuff should be moved to a seperate article, linked to from this one, such as Web site Hazards or Web browsing hazards. --Overand 20:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

---

[edit] Oh no! It's uppercase!

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)

Agreed. I've removed it again. Please discuss it here before reinserting it. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 19:39, 16 September 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.

It shouldn't be there at all. violet/riga (t) 08:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

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. Lenny 15:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

So shouldn't the title of this article be Web sites (based on Lenny's comment)? ~ UBeR 21:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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. --Galaxiaad 01:46, 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.

[edit] 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. Adam 03:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First ever Web site

Although this is hard to determine precisely what were the few very first Web sites out there? 86.129.71.11 15:38, 18 April 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. Lenny 15:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The first Web sites were used in CERN to share information helpful to particle physicists. The Web was invented by an Englishman, Tim Berners-Lee. Stephen B Streater 06:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Losing Web sites

The StrongFans Web site won't work for some reason. Does anyone know why it can't be displayed? Gm1121983 20:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

chekking this intersting site out :)

[edit] Game Sites

I removed "and the MMORPGs EverQuest 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.

[edit] Reverting Edit

Revision at 17:36, 12 November 2006 by user Wangi, reverting edits by uBeR, creates inconsistencies throughout (uses both "Web site" and "website," etc.), grammatical and vocabulary errors, and double internal linkings. Nevermind fixing these, as he will simply revert and vandalize it, as per usual. Moreover, is there any consensus at discussion of the Web being capitalized and discussion of the title? ~ UBeR 01:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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/wangi 02:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Website layout

There should be information in the article about a general layout of websites (menu positioning, information, logo, sitemap, bottom textual menu), and maybe some things on web standards and web accessibility. --70.111.218.254 15:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Web site layouts are quite dynamic and completely under control by the discretion of its creator. ~ UBeR 20:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] website layout

Join us in worth,ill were everyone is friendly we have lots of activities and sports. You also get good education.(join us know)

[edit] 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. :-( Poweroid 20:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. --Ronz 16:25, 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)

It violates EL and SPAM. Please see WP:COI as well. --Ronz 18:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling section

What happened to the section over the spelling of the term? Peace. (MuzikJunky 06:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

[edit] find singapore employer

Go abroad to work and make fortune. Shan Xi Wai Lian Employment Consulting Services Co.,Ltd. is for the information consulting services in the integrated enterprise.The main business of our company is to provide overseas employment information and personnel information consulting services abroad; Providing organizational, economic and technological information advice for the units who has right to operate overseas project.

    Our company lies in the old city Xi’an which has deep culture and enough labor resources.From the company established till now,the workers we sent out get on well without any serious action,they work actively.And they are admired and awarded by the employer.We now has stored hundreds of labor resources involve in wide areas like the dining industry,mending ,printing,cleaning,maiding and so on.We pay more an attention to the moral personality and the mind education in the process of organizing workers ,which has utterly improved the quality of the workers so that they can be fitable to the life and work aboard,completely admired by the employers.

The Theory of the company: People oriented. Integrity of others. Cooperate honestly,

                       Win mutul benefit 

The aim of the company:Create happiness to people,Share the burdens for the courtries.

Contact Us: Ad:Xi Hai Building No244,Youyi East Road Xi’an City ,Shaanxi China. Tel:+86-29-62285510 Fax:+86-29-62285510 Web:www.wl126.com E-mail:wailian126@yahoo.com.cn

     Shanxiwailian@126.com

SKYPE:sxwl126 MSN:wailian126_zhang@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.181.66.100 (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Best site ever!

Here is the best cool site ever Just click here bestcoolsite.webs.com !!Have a BlasT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.49.228 (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)