Talk:.na

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Africa / Namibia (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Namibia (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Internet (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

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) 15:05, 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) 15:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3[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) 15:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This article was out of date, and did not appear to have a neutral POV.

Controversial sections have been removed (the references to them did not appear to be much other than references to potential competitors unreferenced assertions.

The article could probably be improved by a NEUTRAL PoV reference to the contentions various parties, including governmental actors, who have, over the years, expressed a desire to take over .NA, but the old article appeared to lack even the basics of neutrality.

Nigelroberts (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)