Talk:Web page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Internet (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
High traffic

Web page has been linked from multiple high-traffic websites.

7 July 2010 Reddit Link See visitor traffic
13 October 2010 Reddit Link See visitor traffic


Most web browsers understand more than straight HTML (which is in essence a subset of XML). The most common of these extensions is CSS, which allows the author better control of the browser's presentation of the HTML.

A subset of XML? XHTML may be, but HTML is descended from SGML. -- Aupajo 23:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Other extensions that can add interactivity of more complex features to pages (often referred to as client-side scripting) include:

However if the author wishes to maintain compatibility with the widest range of browsers, it is best to stick to standardised HTML as defined by the W3C.

Active pages[edit]

Often, pages served to the browser will need to be active (i.e., generated on the fly, for example presenting contents of a database to a user). The pages that arrive at the browser are still normal HTML. This is usually referred to as server-side scripting. Examples include:

Anatomy of a webpage[edit]

Each webpage has a HTML header, and a body. The header is composed of elements. An element is also sometimes called a tag, and looks like this:

<head> <!-- The start of the header. -->
<title>Foobar</title> <!-- The title. -->
</head> <!-- The end of the header. -->
<body> <!-- The body -->
<h1>Hello world!</h1>
<br />Hello world!<br />

All the elements end with another tag, apart from <br /> which denotes a new line. The text between <!-- and --> are comments. If you typed that into a text editor and then saved it as "index.html" (without the quote marks), you will have a new webpage all your own.

Different tags you can use[edit]

(see also HTML tag)

I <em>did</em> clean my room!

The <em> tag will mark text as having emphasis (usually renderd as italicized)

<strong>Job</strong>, not <strong>Jeorb</strong>.

The <strong> tag marks text as being "strong" (usually rendered as bold text)

<img src="insert an image address here"/>

This tag will insert the image located at the URL in the "src" attribute.

<object src="type an address" type="choose a type"/>

This can insert not only an image but other media objects as well.

<a href="insert a webpage address">Write here what the link should say</a>

This makes the text between the opening and closing tags a link to the page or object located at the content of the "href" attriute.

CSS and the new standards[edit]

HTML is governed by the W3C, and the new standard is XHTML 1.1, which uses CSS, short for Cascading Style Sheets, which is a way of changing the appearance of pages, while keeping content and appearance data separate.

XHTML 1.1's position is contested against amongst web designers. There are still issues which hold back from implementing it properly. It might be a W3C recommendation, but it probably shouldn't be promoted as the ideal. -- Aupajo 23:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

External links[edit]


There's an interwiki, is:, at the bottom that isn't linking correctly. Does anyone know how to fix it? Everyking 01:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I've got no clue about these things, but I saw it before I came to the discussion page. Pulled it for now: [[is:Vefsí<eth>a]] If someone wiser comes along, please put it back. --Schulte 21:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page needs a cleanup![edit]

The abbreviation 'e.g.' appears no less than seven times, usually embedded within sentences in the text. There are 22 occurrences of the '(' character, and many other parenthesised comments not placed in brackets. It addresses the reader directly with 'you' or 'your' six times, and then there's the 'etc's inside sentences... --Nigelj 22:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I've cleaned this up a fair bit, taking out all 'you', 'your', 'e.g.' and 'etc' references. There are only 2 items inside parenthesis now, and only to abbreviate phrases. Sources cited. Superwad 08:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Capitalizing "web"[edit]

My Canadian Oxford Dictionary has World Wide Web and Web, but web browser. I think capitalizing every instance is awkward. "The Web" is a proper name, but the adjective used in web browser and web server isn't capitalized. Michael Z. 2006-08-11 16:53 Z

Agreed... from User talk:DylanW#Web_page_vs._web_page:
"Since the beginning, "web" has existed with a generic, non-proper lower case "w" - indeed overshadowing any capitalized "Web"s - It'd probably be nice to use "Web page" the first time it's mentioned, but using it throughout is goofy-looking at present and would have been in the past, too. ¦ Reisio 11:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)"
¦ Reisio 18:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The way I understand it is that there are some (mostly in the US, I think) who say that THE Web and THE Internet must be capitalised, as there's only one of each. Most UK newspapers and publications, and those in some other countries, have now dropped this convention and use 'internet' and 'web' exclusively. But even having said that, there are millions of web pages, web servers and other web-related things that are not a part of THE web (or Web as some may still want to print it in that sense). This may either be because they're not live yet, or because they're private and never will be or for any other reason. So all those capital Ws should go and are inappropriate in the general case. --Nigelj 14:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
These are my sentiments too. After a big debate, Internet stayed with a capital I even though many publications use lower case. However, web is less significant and the balance in my mind is for a lower case w. Stephen B Streater 22:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to have to greatly disagree here. When you say Web, you are referring to the World Wide Web, which is a name (and therefore capitalized). Ergo, when using something that relates directly to the WWW, it should be capitalized (e.g. Web page, Web site, Web server, or simply the Web).
". . .the Associated Press Stylebook, Reuters, Microsoft, academia, and dictionaries such as Oxford and Merriam-Webster use the two-word, capitalised spelling 'Web site'. This is because 'Web' is not a general term but a shortened form of 'World Wide Web' " (Web site). Therefore, Web Site is the preferred way spelling in the majority of news outlets and dictionaries.
In addition, "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 []. 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."
I hope this clears up some things with its standard/formal/proper usage. ~ UBeR 02:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Internet, too, is a proper name for the popular network most often used, and should always be capitalized when referring to the Internet. An internet, however, can exist.
No, it's a matter for debate when talking about THE internet and THE web, with many UK newspapers and other media standardised on lowercase spelling. When talking about web pages, web sites and web servers, there is no real debate as these things can easily exist on, for one example web developers' personal machines, in a way that is utterly separate from THE web and THE internet. So it is wrong to try to "clear up some things", invoke "standard/formal/proper usage" or to claim special usage "Among the educated, at least."(UBeR on Talk:WWW) What Wikipedia has to do is accurately reflect that, in some cases it is a matter of debate and change. --Nigelj 23:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not a matter of debate when talking about THE Internet and THE Web, because both are proper names. Unless you are not adhering by the rules of the English language, proper names are always capitalized. More correctly, World Wide Web is the proper name, the Web is simply a shortned version of this. Nevertheless, it is still a proper name and always capitalized in English.
From a Web site devoted to English errors:
“World Wide Web” is a name that needs to be capitalized, like “Internet.” It is made up of Web pages and Web sites (or, less formally, Websites).
From the article Web site: (Spelling section)
Although "website" is commonly used, the Associated Press Stylebook, Reuters, Microsoft, academia, and dictionaries such as Oxford and Merriam-Webster use the two-word, capitalised spelling "Web site". This is because "Web" is not a general term but a shortened form of "World Wide Web".
From the discussion at Web site:
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".
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 []. 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.
To go back to your claim (whether true or not, which I'm sure isn't) about how most UK papers use website, this was was also discussed:
[claim] 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.
''[Answer]: False. Media publishers (commercial or not) are a privileged 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.
[claim] 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.
[Answer]: 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.
[Answer]: False. All over the Web and in interpersonal communications, there are accelerating occurrences 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
~ UBeR 00:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I think in this instance you are wrong. The W3C and other standards organisations do a good job of laying down standards as to how the web should work, not how it's spelt. Newspapers and other publishers often have their own internal style guidelines that lay out how their staff should write, and these change over time. Currently most UK newspapers' style guidelines seem to recommend 'internet' and 'web', including The Times, The Guardian, The Financial Times etc etc. On Wikipedia you will find this discussed at Internet#The name Internet, and a whole article on it at Internet capitalization conventions. This was endlessly discussed here a few years ago, with many people around the world trying to find more examples in attempts to 'prove' it one way or the other. Most editors have settled down now to an understanding that it's a matter for debate in the big, wide world and that WP should reflect that fact rather than any group or nationality of WP contributors trying to be prescriptive either to other editors or to the readership. Copy and pasting the same argument onto the Talk pages of all the other articles that mention the WWW is unlikely to help either. Human language moves on and develops all the time - none of us could stop it if we tried - and it certainly isn't Wikipedia's (nor any international standards organisations') job to try to stop it from doing so. --Nigelj 23:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
You've failed to make/prove any point other than Wikipedia should not try to stop human language from developing, which has nothing to do what I've mentioned. You're case on the Internet says nothing to me, as both articles you have linked to use Internet as a capitalized proper name, as it should be. Both note both media that use internet and media that use Internet as their preferred spelling. To be as clear as possible, my goal is not to try to make Wikipedia hinder to the human language, as you might suggest I am doing. I'm simply trying to point out its correct usage. Shall we all be typing our Wikipedia articles in 1337 or other Internet lingo simply because it is common among some users of language? Shall we disregard common applications of language and its grammar because a few sources choose to do so on their own? I do not think so. Conformity is not retardation. ~ UBeR04:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not. But if man had not evolved he'd still be swinging in the treetops. Who decides what is correct usage for recent additions to the lexicon? I'm for -- "been web surfing for a while now, but my net browser seems slow so the Internet isn't as rewarding as I expected". Chaucer might be aghast, but this is the 21st century. Moriori 21:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

BeCauSe s0m3tim3s ThInGs L00k cHiLdIsH wh3n tHeY ar3 not uSeD pr0p3rlY. ~ UBeR 01:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Usually when written by children. Moriori 02:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Case in point. ~ UBeR 20:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Ahem, it was you who wrote "BeCauSe s0m3tim3s ThInGs L00k cHiLdIsH wh3n tHeY ar3 not uSeD pr0p3rlY". Now, when are we going to vote on Web v web? Moriori 20:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Little did I know the level of discourse this discussion would attain, after I posed what I thought was a simple question.

Anybody who argues that there's an absolutely correct way to capitalize these words is simply wrong. There is no Academy of the English Language, as there is for French, and the W3C publishes technical standards, not orthographic ones. In English there is only prevailing usage, and often that is not clear.

Most dictionaries since the OED try to reflect the prevailing usage.

  • Canadian Oxford Dictionary (2nd, 2004) has the headwords "web (also Web; usu. prec. by the) = World Wide Web", web browser, webcam, webcast, web-enabled, webmaster, web page, web ring, website, World Wide Web, abbr.: WWW.
  • The New Oxford American Dictionary (2005, in Mac OS X) has "web ... (the Web) short for World Wide Web", Web hosting, Web page (also web page), Web site (also web site or website), web-enable, webcam, webcast (also Webcast), weblog, weblogger, Webmail (also webmail), Webmaster, (also webmaster), Website (also web site or website), webzine.
  • Unabridged (v 1.0.1): "web ... 14. a network of interlinked stations, services, communications, etc., covering a region or country. 15. Informal. a network of radio or television broadcasting stations. 16. (usually initial capital letter) Computers. World Wide Web."
  • American Heritage Dictionary (at "web ... 5. A complex, interconnected structure or arrangement: a web of telephone wires. 6. often Web The World Wide Web. ... Usage Note: The word Web is usually capitalized when referring to the World Wide Web: Many sites on the Web have information about used cars. In this use, however, the word is increasingly found lowercase, and this usage may become dominant. In any event, the word web need not be capitalized when it applies to technologies that are typically but not exclusively used with the World Wide Web. A web authoring tool, for example, might be one used for the creation of documents using the HTML markup language, for whatever purpose."
  • Wordnet (at "web ... 5: computer network consisting of a collection of internet sites that offer text and graphics and sound and animation resources through the hypertext transfer protocol [syn: World Wide Web, WWW]"

So if the language authorities say anything about capitalization of web (World Wide), it is that there isn't a single correct form. Derived forms are capitalized less often than the canonical WWW. Michael Z. 2006-11-13 01:30 Z

These definitions bring to mind another way of looking at it. The Web is an example of a web of computer networks. Web page and web page are derived from the respective [W/w]ebs. (much like the AHD example of "web authoring tool, for example..." above.) Michael Z. 2006-11-13 02:11 Z
Web page is short for World Wide Web page. I don't know of anyone who would suggest World Wide Web should not be capitalized, as it is a proper name. ~ UBeR 02:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I know of someone: the chief editors of the Economist online, Guardian Unlimited, and the Times online. So you can't write that form off as stupid. Michael Z. 2006-11-13 02:18 Z
Another way to look at that: the World Wide Web is, self-evidently, a web. So web page isn't necessarily short for World Wide Web page.
In fact, maybe your "long form" is backformed, because I don't recall ever reading about any "World Wide Web pages". My dictionaries do not have the headword "World Wide Web page", and do not say that "web page" is an abbreviation for it. Michael Z. 2006-11-13 02:30 Z
My point isn't to say capitalizing "web page" is wrong, just to point out that there is no absolutely correct form. Once we all come to terms with that fact, then we can discuss which form we should use in the article. The only absolute here is that statements asserting the absolute correctness of one form or another are absolutely incorrect. Michael Z. 2006-11-13 02:36 Z
Thanks for pointing those out, Michael. Like I said, I didn't know of any. Now I do. As for the term World Wide Web site, I got it from the American Heritage Dictionary (a dictionary, in fact, that supports or prefers website): "The transition from World Wide Web site to Web site to website seems to have progressed as rapidly as the technology itself." ~ UBeR 02:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The fact that it comes from a proper noun is not sufficient to justify capitalization. Many words in the English language originally came from proper nouns but are no longer capitalized. Marc André Bélanger —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Web page vs. webpage[edit]

Is there a proper way to use these two words? Should they be joined or separate? 17:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

From a linguistic point of view, the question whether there should be one or two words hinges on the pronunciation: if there are two words, the accent would fall on "page" and on "Web" if there is only one (compare the accents in "a black board" and "a blackboard"). Personally I (still) pronounce it as two words, but there seem to be many who now pronounce it as one, like "website". Drmab 20:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Web page OR webpage SAVING[edit]

What was instituted within the Wiki architecture to stop a page being 'saved'? Who will take responsibility to allow us to own title to the understanding we imbue into the wiki project? I want to save pages as they are rendered, without qualification, for latter revision. Or is wiki 'For Sale' and shall we take our understanding elsewhere?

Thanking you in advance, User:The Nation Builder 2009 01 07 16:32 AU EST —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are referring to downloading web pages from the wiki project for storage in a particular location on your system then this is the wrong place ask about that. This page is for discussing the ARTICLE "Web page". I don't know what page you need, somebody else will probably know. Pages about wikipedia policy all have titles starting with "Wikipedia:". Zarano (talk) 01:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Can't you just use the "Save Page As..." function of your browser? Zarano (talk) 01:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Angel de la Rosa Newton Law Project[edit]

Newton's 3 Laws of motion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angeldelarosa21 (talkcontribs) 19:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is so meta[edit]

I love that picture. :D--KrossTransmit? 04:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is so stupid! Argh. All the n00bs who think they know anything about the internet! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

10,000 points for whoever thought to use a screenshot of this page as the example on this page. You are my new god. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Mine too. OMG this is so awesome!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
bravo, that picture is wonderful. paging Cliff Pickover --Kaini (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I have changed the picture File:Web Page.png to File:Commons.png because the former presented some confusing and atypical features of web pages: web pages don't typically have such a recursive nature of replicating the page within itself. Furthermore, there is no reason for making a self-reference (WP:WAWI) to Wikipedia here. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 03:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)