Talk:Fluid website

I'm not sure about who until now created fully fluid websites, but I, Guus Ellenkamp from Active Discovery Designs would like to be remembered as the first person to have created fully fluid websites. If anyone else has experimented and implemented fully fluid websites, I would be happy to know. I know you can do similar things with Macromedia Flash, but we do more in making pages fully fluid.

Please let me know if there are other people who have been doing this. I'm doing this for more than two years now.

Guus Ellenkamp 03:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the hangon: "Fluid website" is a general term for a website that adapts to the screen in a certain way, so even if I advertise my company, the terminology is a general one.

Guus Ellenkamp 08:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking for sources, I'm only finding use by websites promoting themselves with a new buzzword. To get an article, the term needs to be notable meaning there need to be sources about it - if you could find a newspaper article or similar reliable source discussing the term, it would help a notability claim.  --Milo H Minderbinder 13:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have been looking for a term for what we are doing and ended up with "fluid website" through the Internet, which term describes what we are doing. I think through the same sites as you saw now. I ended up putting it in Wikipedia, as I don't know any other sites where to discuss this.Guus Ellenkamp 02:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The main problem with that is that you seem to be using Wikipedia as a place to publish information that hasn't been published elsewhere, or original research. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a tertiary source, only for information that has already been published in reliable sources elsewhere. If this is a new technology buzzword, a neologism, then the requirement for reliable sources indicating current use would still apply.--Kchase T 14:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

liquid layout
How is a fluid layout different from a liquid layout? If they really are different, the differences should be noted in both places. If they're the same, they should be merged. Herorev 19:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * They're most likely the same, this page seems to be a neologism page created by a spammer. I doubt anyone would object if you redirected this page over there.  --Minderbinder 19:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We should probably just delete the fluid website article. It doesn't have any references to establish its notability, and is probably not a widely used term. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Does it need AfD, or would it qualify for speedy? --Minderbinder 19:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)