Jump to content

Talk:.cx

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled 2006 comment

[edit]

what is TLD? --Jeroenemans 20:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top-level domain. *Dan T.* 22:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The site on Zyprexa is on .ath.cx, which is a subdomain on DynDNS. T3h 03:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goatse

[edit]

This article is about the TLD, not the domains contained within it. .com does not have info on google.com, .us does not have info on del.icio.us, why should .cx have info on goatse.cx? I have removed the reference once again from the .cx page. -Henry W. Schmitt 06:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because when one thinks ".com," lots of associations come up, not just one specific site. If you ask someone about the .cx domain, at least 90% of the people who have heard of it will only know it from goatse.cx. I think that makes it notable. I won't edit this now, but is there actually anything resembling a consensus to keep a reference to goatse.cx off this page? Rwald 10:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally I first heard of the .cx tld from my days on the gcn.cx chat network. If 90% of people think of goatse when the cctld is mentioned, so be it. Introducing new people to goatse via this "encyclopedia" page does nothing worthwhile. This tld belongs to a territory where real live people live. I think it is in the best interest of the 1,500 residents of Australia's Christmas Island for no mention of an anal cavity stretching man on a page in reference to them. --Henry W. Schmitt 17:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It may be in the best interest of the 1,500 residents of the Christmas Islands, but even though they "own" .cx in an economic fashion, it is the truth that they do not "own" it in a sociological, phenomenological fashion. That is to say, the concept of .cx has moved beyond them. Maybe linking to goatse does a disservice to the less-than-2,000 residence of the Christmas Islands, but not linking to goatse does a disservice to the much larger population of people for whom .cx = goatse. Would you say that the Spam (food product) article should make no reference to Spam (electronic communication), because for the workers of Hormel, electronic spam has nothing to do with their product? The idea of "spam" has moved beyond Hormel, though they may not be happy with it. Likewise, the idea of ".cx" has moved past the Christmas Islands, though they may not be happy with it. Rwald 18:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If a user already knows of .cx because of goatse, why tell them again? If any disservice is being performed it is against the non-goatse savvy web-users. Why introduce them to such an absurd subject matter? --Henry W. Schmitt 19:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Continuing my previous comment) In particular, you've personally removed references to goatse.cx from this page eight times in the past six months. I think that if you wanted a clear-cut sign that this TLD is associated with a particular site in a way that .com or .us aren't, there you are. Rwald 10:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just compare to the .nu page. "Nu" means now in Scandinavian languages and nude in Portuguese/french. So what about the poor Niue people? (They are only 1,500 too). Are we saying they are naked??? Of course not.--Scrd 13:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nudity is natural, stretching ones anus is not. -Henry W. Schmitt 21:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok. It's still notable. Actually if it was "just ordinary nudity" probably it wouldn't be notable because the 'net is full of it already. The goatse guy is only found at .cx. That's a good reason for it to be mentioned.--Scrd 00:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi again. Thanks for not reverting this time but putting citation needed instead. Well if we look at the stats first perhaps, they get 6000 hits in July. I think we can suppose most hits are not from "returning visitors", right? I sure hope it's not so. The mirror goatse.cz had 18k in August. Of course the cz is a mirror and there are many more, but the cx one is the page's name that everyone thinks about. Anyways, these are quite some hits. If no one is cheating the stats this would mean that goats.cx gets known by a lot of new people every day, a hell lot in a year and it's been around some time now, and quite some many times as many new vistors every month than the population of Christmas Island. On the page about Shock sites you can see that it's one of the most known shock sites. So what would be more infamous than having one of the nets most high traffic shock sites? I'm sure there are better sources too but i think this could help as a start.--Scrd 02:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)--Scrd 02:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am confused what your point is. This is the silliest discussion ever. Adding silly trivia and links to dubious wikipedia pages is not constructive. --Henry W. Schmitt 05:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well my point is that the statement which you want to remove, "The most infamous use of the .cx code is Goatse.cx", is in fact true and relevant. Dubious Wikipedia pages? Ehhhmm, Shock sites is definitively present on the 'net and most if not all frequent Internet users have been subjected to one or more of them at some time or other. Documenting them are highly relevant. There is no rule that Wikipedia should only report on nice things. It's the same as with history books, they would be a lot shorter and more pleasent to read if we just didn't write the bad stuff. There are millions of Internet users who have been disgusted by this page and many of them remember what TLD it is registered in. But the number of Internet users who have accessed .cx-domains for other than goatse content are not as many. So while the domain is *intended* for Christmas Islanders to check out their local shops and government agencies and the usual stuff, the actual use is in part this shock site. Of course there are other domains in .cx with some users, but they are (1) not nearly as well known and (2) not so shocking. The actual use is almost more important than the intended use. Niue inhabitants are probably less than promille registrants of the .nu domain. The most well known use for .to domains is stuff like "jump.to/" and "cr.yp.to", torrent sites, Toronto-related sites and so on. The pages actually related to Tonga are very few. The .cx is mostly infamous from the Goatse site. Again, you think this is silly trivia but it's the actual use of the domains stated. Maybe we get all this trivia because the population of these countries are "trivial" and there are therefor few local domains? --Scrd 02:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The Internet is serious business, etc. The fact is, if someone remembers the tld because of goatse, good for them. If they visit this page they may think "oh yeah like that goatse site". Indeed I am sure many of the additions to this page including goatse are by this same group of people. Just yseterday I removed "Levees in popular culture" from the levee pages. When someone thinks of levees they may think of a certain event and feel others need to know this too. They do not. I cannot think of any rational reason why anybody needs to know about goatse if they do not already. --Henry W. Schmitt 05:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that goatse.cx is the fourth result in Google should one simply search for .cx. 72.147.134.134 (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said before, putting a reference to Goatse adds nothing to this article. If you happen to know this piece of trivia, so be it. Keep it in your head. US Weekly is number one on Google for a query of "US", out of eight billion pages. --Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One could argue, however, that simply searching for "US" will bring American websites from all over; not just from the .us domain extension. "cx" is not a common string, and has nothing to do with Christmas Island aside from their TLD. 72.147.134.134 (talk) 08:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reference to Goatse.cx seems to me to be clearly relevant to a top-level domain whose only well known domain is that particular website. ImperviusXR (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Don't you think you're stretching it a bit? There is a gaping hole in that logic. 128.104.164.112 (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I object to using the web archive links as a reference. From WP:Reliable sources: "Primary sources are not considered reliable for statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion unless the that [sic] specific interpretation, analysis or conclusion is explicitly stated in the primary source..." The date is not given on the page itself, and the conclusion that the page has existed on that page since that date is something that comes from analysis of the URL, something which from my personal experience can be exploited, since archive.org URLs sometimes automatically redirect to the nearest available date.

As well, the majority of the references are to archive.org, implying that the topic has no notability itself. If this was the case, then it does not deserve its own Wikipedia article. If it's not the case, why are 75% of the references on this page about a topic which has its own Wikipedia article? Those references would belong on that page, not this one, with a link at the top of the relevant section indicating that the main article, which goes into more detail than the section itself, is at that page.

In closing, the archive sources are not reliable, and even if they were, they don't belong on this article, as they give WP:undue weight to a specific topic which already has a much larger article. --68.161.138.123 (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

pronunciation close to "sex"

[edit]

Note any possible attraction of sex sites to chose .cx domains because the pronunciation of "cx" is close to "sex". Jidanni (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:.cx&oldid=1194780257"