Talk:.xyz

.xyz gTLD

Resolved

the .xyz generic top level domain has become one of the fastest growing new domains in 2014. Should there be a page on that gTLD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dermato1 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. How popular it is. (See also Alphabet Inc. who using the domain name abc.xyz.) --Love Krittaya (talk) 04:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the extension is notable. Marking this section as resolved. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Growing source of spam

I recently noticed a growing volume of spam messages originating from the .xyz top level domain landing in my inbox. Has the domain for some reason become highly attractive to spam mailers during 2015? The situation may bear watching, and if this proves to be generally true, the article might be updated to reflect this information. — Quicksilver^{T @} 19:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally with a gTLD with high levels of discounting or free domain registrations, spammers will use these offers for disposable domain names that can be used for spamming purposes. Jmccormac (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've rarely seen a .xyz domain used for anything that wasn't shady. I firewall it out. Most of the newGTLDs are useless. Jeffery Thomas 02:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable websites"

This is a bizarre subsection, which I strongly recommend removing.

The citations indicate that the three websites mentioned use the .xyz domain, but not that they are particularly notable for doing so (in comparison to any other website that does). In addition, a single newspaper article hardly establishes that an event is notable.

It seems an arbitrary list, inappropriate to say the least and verging on WP:SPAM. Can you imagine comparable lists of notable websites using the .com, .net, .org, or .uk domain names? No, because there are far too many websites on any domain to make any one particularly notable. Clean Copy (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google's use of abc.xyz is notable even if you don't think that it is so. It was covered in quite a few newspapers which are considered reputable sources (RS). The New York Times is just one of those newspapers. Perhaps you are not familiar with Google's choice to regroup using as Alphabet as a holding company [1] and the effect it had on the public profile of the .xyz gTLD. As for the notability of domains and websites, there is a list of the earliest .com domain names in the .com article. Jmccormac (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There might be a case for Google, but the preceding section already mentions Alphabet.xyz and that this had an effect on the overall profile and use of the domain, with citations supporting this. See WP:UNDUE (two mentions of the one company in a very, very short article).

Neither of the others is notable here. I suspect that even the earliest use of the xyz domain included far more sites than can be listed here, but if you want to include the first site to use .xyz, feel free. It would make more sense than choosing apparently random sites.Clean Copy (talk) 10:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the Hooli example as notable and is supported by a reliable source. The UK's Guardian newspaper is generally considered reliable and it was covering the use of the gTLD website in a notable TV series. Early usage where supported by a reliable source is notable. The other example was not supported by any citation though it does actually include the website as a link in the Starship Technologies wikipedia article. Notability and Reliable Sources, rather than personal opinion, are important aspects of Wikipedia. Both abc.xyz and hooli.xyz are notable examples and supported by reliable sources. Perhaps you don't understand this whole domain name thing but the first site to launch in most new gTLDs is generally that of the registry (the company that operates the TLD). The normal practice on Wikipedia articles on TLDs lists this site in the TLD article's infobox. Most large companies do not commit to using websites in unknown and unproven new TLDs. Thus most early websites in a new TLD are non-notable small websites. Large companie do tend to register their domain names in these new TLDs but generally maintain their primary brand .com website along with their various ccTLD websites where they exist. It is unusual to find companies using a new and unproven TLD for their primary brand or parent company and where one of these is a multi billion Dollar company with a Search market share of up to 90% in many countries along with other things, it is certainly notable. Merely suspecting usage is not enough. Wikipedia requires notability and reliable sources. Jmccormac (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two of your comments about my understanding of domains come off as slightly condescending, incidentally; I have been using computer networks since 1973 (PLATO and others). In any case, you did not address the problem of UNDUE; to address this, I have merged the two mentions into a single one. If you prefer to have the merged mention in the second section, that's fine, but ABC should not be in both. Clean Copy (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most people have no idea how usage develops in new TLDs. You did not seem to understand that the first website in any new TLD is generally the registry website or how new TLDs struggle to gain acceptance. Sometimes it is better to explain the reality of the situation because Wikipedia is not the place for opinions and suspicions. Google's use of abc.xyz kickstarted interest in the gTLD and it gained both registration volume and media coverage as a result. The new gTLDs are still very much in their early market phase and some have not gone through their first full year of open operation. Many of them are struggling for registrations and are insignificant in comparison to established TLDs like .com and long established ccTLDs like .uk. The article itself is somewhat dated as .xyz is, by registration volume, the largest of the new gTLDs. Jmccormac (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

.com lists symbolics.com, not the registry website, as the oldest .com domain. I was proposing something similar here. Clean Copy (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be pointless as things have changed since .com was launched. Back then it was effectively first come, first served. Most new TLDS have a Sunrise/Early Access phases where trademark holders were able to register their domain names in the TLDs as can be seen on the ICANN website launch schedules [ https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/sunrise-claims-periods ] and on the trademark FAQs [2]. There was no world wide web when the .com launched. Jmccormac (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why "xyz"? What does it mean?

Seems like an odd choice. Equinox ◑ 03:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably just the last 3 letters of the alphabet. bgeron (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

in many languages, this stands for something completely arbitrary or for something that is too unimportant to define further. Similar to "etc. etc. etc." or "blah blah blah". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.77.225.44 (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Defamation clauses

This page contained the following text:

On .xyz domains, it's forbidden to defame: Justin Bieber, Oprah Winfrey, and Daniel Negari (CEO of XYZ[2])

Then User:Nyttend removed that text, because "Pure trivia, and anyway the terms require the defamation to be illegal, something that's prohibited by most websites".

I reverted (readded the text), because I don't think it's a trivia: it's a fairly arbitrary list and it may cause some people to avoid buying in this TLD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgeron (talk • contribs) 14:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a highly unusual policy for a TLD to have, and worthy of note for that reason alone. This is a matter of public interest 2601:204:D87F:E8E0:4A7:CF7:8DE5:EB44 (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]