- Used to be “Text”
- Someone recently added “Site” (seems reasonable if redundant)
- But is now “Texts”
This was always uncountable and should remain so.
imho this should be “Site Text”
3 Likes
”Site text”… let’s not adopt that US media style 
Don’t you english speakers use plural in this context?
I don’t agree (native UK English speaker)
1 Like
No, because text is uncountable. Simple as that.
Doesn’t matter how much text is on a site, it is still just “text”
1 Like
There are countable and uncountable forms: text noun - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced American Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com
If I say “ancient roman texts”, or “medical texts”, then I think we can agree it would be normal to have an ‘s’ on the end?
3 Likes
But this is just because it is a synonym for a book in this instance or a shortened “text book”, mutliple books = plural.
A collection of sentences hardly counts as “texts”.
A site is a single instance and has “text”. I agree if you upload multiple books or “text(book)s” it is countable.
2 Likes
On the Reading page of the British Council: “Texts include … messages, tips, notices…”
1 Like
That copyrighter should be fired. An absolute abomination.
6 Likes
Related reading: The Strunk cost fallacy
If you find evidence that you have a mistaken belief about language use – it happens to us all – then my advice is to heed that evidence. Instead of allowing your defences to reject the possibility that you’ve wasted your time learning and maybe promoting a falsity, embrace the opportunity to revise your beliefs. Don’t fall for the Strunk cost fallacy.
Put another way, for any of us there are probably more usages than we are aware of. Be generous in what you accept.
1 Like
I don’t “accept”. I remain of the opinion this is incorrect.
1 Like
Indeed if I send you a text. It does not mean I am sending you a singular word. Text is indeed already plural containing words(plural)
1 Like
That’s an interesting one.
I agree with you, but I would concede in that case that I could send you multiple “texts” that day? Although that’s at least in part because it is colloquial abbreviation for “text messages”
However, that’s different to “site text” which is imho a single body of a lot of text (just as a medical “text” is despite having figures with explanatory text, preface, footnotes, chapters, paragraphs etc.)
1 Like
Well in your example it is because you are sending more than 1 message.
One of the difficulties is how language changes over time. Add regional slang and things can be quite complicated even though everyone is communicating in the same base language.
When you send texts you are sending more than 1 message either to an individual or several different people.
While a t xt book is considered a collection of words in one volume
So we get now into a grey area. We could say discourse is one book so text makes more sense. However one could also say each TC and plugin could also be considered either seperate books within Discourse.
So then is discourse consider more of a book or a set of books like an encyclopedia set?
I think if we really wanted to have an interesting debate/discussions we would need to get input from the wider English speaking Ethnicities. To which could be quite interesting as there can be different groups within a single region.
We have observed in the past some having difficulty understanding an English member here due to their area’s speech patterns/word choices.
To which unfortunately many members were toxic towards them due to their own frustration in understanding their English.
3 Likes
I hope we don’t have to get toxic here.
I’m just defending standards (which imho are a good thing).
There is nothing wrong with people of all nationalities and backgrounds making mistakes.
But the reference standard should remain reasonably steadfast so those people wishing to improve that specific language have a target which is not moving 
I know from personal experience of those close to me that “uncountable/countable” is a source of confusion sometimes.
1 Like
I recall an interesting thing. In grade 6 the teacher asked one of the students to spell “zebra” because the classmate spelled it pronouncing “Z” as “Zee” she said it was incorrect. The class naturally got riled up as the spelling was correct. However “Zee” is the US pronunciation with here in Canada it is “Zed”.
So we could say that in this case with “text” vs “texts” are both technically correct. But maybe considered sloppy depending on where you are.
Discussions can often devolve due to individual frustrations & stubbornness.
But if we follow what is in About page and keep it constructive and not let ourselves make things personal. It should not devolve to personal attacks and other toxic behaviours. “Agree to disagree”. Know when the tlsubject has exhausted itself.
In this case we can always change the word to reflect our preference. 
2 Likes
Yes it can be very individual (what frustrates you).
The other one that often get’s my goat is “which begs the question” when they mean “which raises the question” - the former having a very special meaning which clearly the speaker didn’t consider
But I digress …
1 Like
The Oxford Learner’s Dictionary gives multiple entries for text, with both countable and uncountable usage.
I’m not a native speaker but I do find the countable form a good fit for the admin page, as it lists many small pieces of written text.
But that’s the point: many small pieces of text are still … text!
They are collectively site text
And btw, that’s what it used to be labelled as.
The only mildly convincing counter-argument here is about books, volumes of text which can each be counted e.g. “medical texts”, but a single medical text still contains just text (despite, titles, chapters, footers, preface, addendum etc.)
Seems like your linguistic intuition goes against the formal definition here 
1 Like
How so? On the contrary, I believe your reading of it is wrong.
Here are the examples of “texts” from your link:
* Her books appear on lists of recommended texts in universities.
* The book exhibits a close reading of primary texts as well as scholarly commentaries.
* We're studying dramatic texts by Mexican playwrights.
* It is one of the most difficult literary texts of all time.
* Students are requested not to buy texts prior to the first class.
* sacred/religious/ancient texts
* medical texts
As already discussed above, “texts” in these contexts are essentially volumes or books (aka text(book)s) and not applicable here.
all the other examples, including those supposedly marked “countable” have examples with just the word “text”. 
Counter examples from your link that are more relevant to this domain:
* Highlight the area of **text** on screen and press the ‘delete’ key.
* one of the best HTML text editors available
* When you point at the icon, a small text box appears.
* Use the mouse to move chunks of text from place to place.
* The program allows you to import text files from other word processors.
I’ve clarified the title.
libraries can have texts.
(web)sites do not have “texts” they have “text”.
(OK a website that stores uploads of books might have “texts” but that’s not the text we are talking about - we are concerned with the UI text)
2 Likes