Forum:In-universe website page names: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "{{Forumheader|The Panopticon}} {{first pic|Www.levenshulmepride.org.uk.png|www.levenshulmepride.org.uk or just levenshulmepride.org.uk?}} Simple topic here: '''how should we format the page titles for in-universe websites?''' Specifically, websites such as www.ratmonthly.com or www.levenshulmepride.org.uk. There seems to be some inconsistency in whether these page names keep or truncate the "www." at the start of the URL. I don't think we should keep the...") |
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
== Discussion == | == Discussion == | ||
Just a quick note: in the real world, at the time that many of these references were made, "www." ''was'' considered an important part of the URL, and was also oft-repeated in conversations and advertisements alike. | |||
This was the convention in the early web, and I do believe it's technically a ''subdomain'' for webhosting. Nowadays, it's considered unnecessary, and while it ''is'' usually maintained as a redirect, isn't part of the "canonical" URL of most websites. But we shouldn't necessarily confuse that with the situation in the [[2000s]].{{User:SOTO/sig}} 20:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:52, 30 November 2024
If this thread's title doesn't specify it's spoilery, don't bring any up.
Simple topic here: how should we format the page titles for in-universe websites? Specifically, websites such as www.ratmonthly.com or www.levenshulmepride.org.uk. There seems to be some inconsistency in whether these page names keep or truncate the "www." at the start of the URL. I don't think we should keep the "www.", which A) isn't really part of the site's name per se, and B) is often not included when websited are promoted - for example, when referring to this site by URL, I'd only need to say "tardis.wiki", not "www.tardis.wiki" or "https://[...]".
Although this is a fairly niche topic, it's probably best that this is debated formally, especially as some may disagree with my (admittedly not overly strong) stance. Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 20:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Discussion
Just a quick note: in the real world, at the time that many of these references were made, "www." was considered an important part of the URL, and was also oft-repeated in conversations and advertisements alike.
This was the convention in the early web, and I do believe it's technically a subdomain for webhosting. Nowadays, it's considered unnecessary, and while it is usually maintained as a redirect, isn't part of the "canonical" URL of most websites. But we shouldn't necessarily confuse that with the situation in the 2000s.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 20:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
