From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee .info was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
February 11, 2012 Good article nominee Not listed
WikiProject Websites / Computing  (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Low-importance).

Asterisks suggest possible copyright volation. Andy Mabbett 17:42, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't think so. I can't find a source using Google anyway. Nor for the similar .coop by the same editor. Both articles need a lot of work, however. --Zundark 17:59, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)


I reverted edits by User:Mononoke, removing this incoherent section called Law & Domains:

  • In January 2005 a French Court Cour D´ Appel de Paris convicted a German owner of the domain to hand over to the Agence France Press and pay up to 2000 Euro for publishing this news. The domain was registered in Germany for the Agency for Private Schools belonging to the domain's owner through the company Afilias Limited situated in Dublin, Ireland. Heise News

Someone with some knowledge of the subject might want to make sense of that and rewrite it.


I like to Google a lot, and when I do, I sometimes run into spam sites ending with .info. Should someone write about how this also is used by spammers? 02:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Alot of spammers also use fake? email from the .info domain such as

Content on .info domain continues to be a problem. 99.75% of all blogs hosted on these domains are spam. In other words 1.65 Million blogs were spam as opposed to only around 4K authentic blogs!(2007 splogosphere study) This certainly deserves mentioning. .info is lost to spammers, nobody uses it for real sites anymore.-- (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
And what's the percentage of spammers in other top level domains? Is .info better or worse on that account? *Dan T.* (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
It's popular with spammers because it's cheaper to register than others. (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
What Unix V6 Linux people are talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
This is personal research, so it can't go in the article. But: about 30% of my spam email over the last several months comes from .info email addresses. Typically I get two emails, one right after the other, from the same email domain (not necessarily the same "person"), and then (afaict) I never get any more spam emails from that .info domain. For awhile I was putting these domains in my spam filter so I wouldn't see them, but I gave up on that when I realized there were only ever two from a given domain. I wonder if there's a citeable story on that? Maybe the ebiquity source mentioned above? (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Dead link[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) 14:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2[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) 14:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Czarkoff (talk · contribs) 18:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The article meets the quick-fail criteria: two {{citation needed}} tags are in place since July 2009. I put this review on hold for 3 days (until 19:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)) to see if this issue will be addressed. If the citation would be provided, the actual review will be performed; otherwise the nomination will fail. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added a citation, and removed one sentence because I couldn't find a citation. oyasumi (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, passing to review. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

The article has a long way to go before it can become GA.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The lead was supposed to summarize article; in this article it used as an unnamed section instead. As significant textual changes are required to address this problem, the prose was not checked. Still I would note, that link to Sunrise Challenge Policy (SCP) in the infobox leads to an unrelated page. The references are malformatted, use citation templates to make references satisfy WP:MOS.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    The article is virtually unreferenced; I'll tag statements that has to be referenced. As of this edition the URL of reference 3 leads to location change.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Talk page contains a referenced information about the usage of .info domains for spam purposes; why doesn't article reflect it?
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall: