Talk:.zip (top-level domain)

Internet Low‑importance

	Internet portal 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.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computer Security: Computing Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security 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.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance).

Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with:

Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information...

Review importance and quality of existing articles
Identify categories related to Computer Security
Tag related articles
Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests)
Identify articles for improvement
Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

On 19 November 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to .zip. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Requested move 19 November 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:SNOW. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bobby Cohn (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

.zip (top-level domain) → .zip – .zip presently redirects to ZIP (file format) but with this being appropriately disambiguated with the full capitals, the .zip here being the top-level domain, this is the COMMONNAME and can be appropriately disambiguated with differences in the title with appropriate hatnotes as existing on the article presently. Bobby Cohn (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - I think there's a better change for WP:SNOW at earths core before ".zip" is not synonymous with the zip file compression. Raladic (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Computing has been notified of this discussion. Raladic (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (STRONGLY) per above. It would absolutely WP:ASTONISH the vast majority of readers to end up at the top-level domain instead of the file-format when typing in ".zip". The only versions I'd support would be (A) the status quo (in which ".zip" redirects to the file format), or possibly (B) where ".zip" goes to a disambiguation page. Like, imo, either the file format is the primary topic, or there is no primary topic — but, either way, the top-level domain definitely isn't the primary topic. Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The widely used file format using this extension is the primary topic. The rarely used TLD, whose biggest claim to fame is its risk of confusion with the other topic, is not the primary topic. (By the way, I appreciate your work in creating this article.) Adumbrativus (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (same logic). But I've added a {{redirects}} to ZIP (file format) per convention, which should mitigate the risk of confusion. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Crisco 1492 talk 17:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that despite security concerns about the top-level domain .zip, researchers found it contained slightly less malicious usage than the general internet?

Source: Deacon, Alex (July 17, 2023). "The .zip TLD: Ripe for abuse, but so far so good". DNS Research Federation.

Reviewed:

Moved to mainspace by Bobby Cohn (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Bobby Cohn (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Not a review, but the hook rather buries the lede somewhat. Assuming they check out, I suggest ALT1: ... that the release of the .zip top-level domain was condemned by cyber security experts?--Laun chba ller 02:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was a case where I was steeped in the source material and after reading nothing but negativity about the subject, it was the fact that made me go "huh, actually less you say?" But I agree, this is an appropriate summary of the article. I may have also been trying to avoid the pitfall of being too negative, something that came up in my last DYKN. Nonetheless, though I'm not familiar with the process, I endorse the ALT1 in addition to my own phrasing. Bobby Cohn (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall:

ALT1 works better in my view, as it reads better to a general audience. Article looks god to go. Sounder Bruce 06:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]