Talk:Domain hack

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

neologism claim / verifiability[edit]

I just made an edit that references secondary sources that explain the concept, rather than sources that use the concept, to address the neologism claim: Xonatron (talk) 14:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, this edit was to address the verifiability claim as well. Please move ahead with this if it is acceptable. Xonatron (talk) 14:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

bogus and dubious claims of invention?[edit]

The deletion discussion on this article at showcases very well that the claims of coining the term "domain hack" are not "bogus" or "dubious". There were never any claims about inventing domain hacks, so that's an invalid reason to delete content about coinage. Invention and coinage are two different things. Please do your research! (talk) 05:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a bogus claim because the term itself was in widespread use well before 2004. The expression "domain hack" is bogus as it was in widespread use before that and the link shows some of these domain hacks and e-mail hacks. The link dates from 1997 and is a mirror of a 1995 document. Citing what may be your own article on a website is not in Wikipedia terms a reliable source. The domain hacks search may be acceptable as a link. However the domain "" was in use in 2000 which would go some way towards establishing its use before 2004. Jmccormac (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Cite examples of all these claims. The term "domain hack" was used before 2004, but not to described "domain hacks" as we know them today as described by this article. "" was not used for "domain hacks" as we know them today, and was in no away associated with domain hacks until the current owner launched a website on it this month (October 2009). "Domain hacks" existed before 2004, such as, but were left unnamed and unrecognized, until "domain hack" was coined as a necessity in 2004. All of what I say here is true, and I am not sure why you think otherwise, but my guess is you have just made an assumption that this is all spammer-inspired too quickly. This is not the case. Please do your research... (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The fact that (S) some how went unregistered until 2004 and until 3 days before the name "domain hacks" was claimed and recorded to be coined is an indication that the term was not in widespread use well before 2004. Thought you may find that interesting since you are using the registration date of (no S) to make your case. (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
No. Plural registrations tend to follow the initial singular registrations (where a registrant does not register both versions at the same time). Perhaps in your attempt to attribute the coining term you neglected to look at the title of the article. It is "domain hack". I also checked the registration history of It is quite laughable that the same article on the site also claims to have coined the term "e-mail hack". As I pointed out earlier, a reference to what may be a self-authored article on a website with the intent to promote a website search engine is not what is considered, in Wikipedia terms, a reliable source. The term "domain hack" was widely known and used in the domain business well before 2004. Are there any reliable sources (please read the Wikipedia explanation of the term) that attribute the coining of the term to Matthew Doucette? If you are making a claim or attributing the coining of the phrase or term then you have to provide reliable sources to verify that claim. That's the way that Wikipedia works. Jmccormac (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
It does not matter if "email hack" did not take off as "domain hack". It does not matter if "" was registered before, as it was never used in this context. a "domain hack" before was security hack of a domain name. Do you realize that? Not until 2004 was "domain hack" popularized to mean something else. Whoever first used and sparked popularization of a term is the one who coined it. Isn't that how it works? You have not shown any sources before to have used the term (none exist). Correct me if I am wrong, PLEASE. I am not here to argue, I only want truth. You just seem to be making very bad assumptions with no evidence or research to back it up (which I have done.) (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
"The term "domain hack" was widely known and used in the domain business well before 2004." This statement is completely untrue. I challenge you to prove me wrong. (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
What is more reliable that checking the history of the Internet itself and finding no usage of the term before the 2004 search engine which claimed to coin it in 2004? I'm not sure what type of source you require to realize the claim is a truth (and not spam inspired). (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Here's a start (a google search showing no usage of the term, in the manner as we know it today, before 2004): (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC).
It is not a reliable source. Read the Wikipedia explanation of what constitutes a reliable source. If you want to claim that someone coined a phrase then you've got to provide reliable sources to verify that claim. All you've provided is what may be a self-referential article. Domain hacks have been widely used, especially in ccTLDs and they predate the claim to have coined the phrase. The term itself was also used in the domain and hosting business before the supposed coining in 2004. It is rather unfortunate that Google has missed the coining of the phrase in 2004. Jmccormac (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC) showing no activity before 2004: I could go on and on, as what I am saying is the truth. (You should start with me there, on this issue. Assuming I am not lying and we can solve this easier.) (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
You cannot accept that I am telling you the truth. Why not start there with me? "The term itself was also used in the domain and hosting business before the supposed coining in 2004." This statement is completely wrong. There is absolutly no evidence that the term was in use before 2004. I have done the research. Tell me what reliable source is needed in this case. (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I accept that you are telling the truth as you see it. The problem is that without reliable sources (read WP:RS) all we have is your word for the claim. And it seems that the domain was registered for the domain hacks search. So what have we got? A claim to have coined the phrase "domain hack". A site with a domain hacks search facility. A domain "" registered within days of the article being posted along with the claims of having coined the terms "e-mail hack" and "domain hack". And no reliable sources other than that article. Jmccormac (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
We have all that, plus proof of no usage before that article and search site. And wouldn't this fit into the Wikipedia guidelines as a reliable source, because was actively involved with the topic at hand? I don't think the article claims it coined email hack, as email hack is not popular, but I think it just says something to the effect of "we call them email hacks" and "we call them domain hacks" which is how terms get coined in the first place, if and only if they take off and become popular, which in this case they did. (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC) fits wikipedia's definition of a reliable source: How else do you get a reliable source about something someone did who is not recognized by third parties, when it clearly is the truth? (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Coming back to this many years later, I would just like to note we settled this argument off the record via private email. (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


We should mention as well as, too very popular domain hacks. (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


I removed the reference because 1) it was a broken link or a link with a lot of extra unwanted content and 2) the reference is the orignal source of domain hack information. Original sources are more accurate, more interesting, and less spammy. (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Use Popular Domain Hacks as Examples[edit]

Shouldn't we use the most popular domain hacks as examples? Such as and, and then and for examples for 3rd level domains? (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

domain hacks can so easily be explained, directly right off the bat, by exmaples. i think we should do this, and use commonly used domain hacks as examples (as mentioned above) in the first paragraphs or in a table with larger text that showcases what they are immediately (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Code as expression[edit]

This section makes good points, but perhaps is not notable enough and another example should be used? 03:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the (spam?) with I do not see the point in using an unknown domain hack as an example when there are plenty of well known examples to use (,,,, etc.) 17:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
fair point, but is a English word and the point I was making with the project is that creativity is in the construction of new 'word objects' by using such devices like domain hacks. The intention of the domain hack was not expression (it's never beendiscussed as by Joshua), unlike The name was designed under the notion of expression and thus is a better example of 'code as expression'. I appreciate that you may see it as spam (I work on the datama project), but the project is a non profit exercise, very open and is a plstform to explore expression in code. If we keep refering to, the creative paradigms wont appear. I've reverted the text to include Please comment below before reverting again. Thanks. Zeroinfluencer 02:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I think what you are trying to showcase is great, but what I'm not sure about is how conveys that info better than I automatically assumed was some form of expression, but maybe I am missing your point. Maybe would be better? Do whatever is best for the article. (BTW, when replying use four tildas in a row to show your info.) 01:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC) is a bad example for at least this one point: it forwards to another URL. If the URL was so important, why is this happening? This really makes look like spam (not something you wish for I assume.) 01:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC) forwards to a wordpress account as we are try to keep the project as flexible as possible at present; maybe we'll move it to our own hosted environment at some point when we're a bit more organised, but we are talking about the domain name, not the hosting environments here.
Apols if it looks like spam (I really see your point about this - I withdrew/left the wiki entry on datama based upon this point). The domain name is different to or as it moves away from the instantly recognisable english or slang/nickname and begins to indicate that objects of expression can be born out of code. The pronouciation of doesn't conjour emotion like the word (try saying them both outloud and you'll hear the difference). This transferance of expression from object to human does make it unique - at least I haven't seen anything like it.
Being able to transfer emotion through code-objects is the nature of the project; on the other hand is far more banal, literal and maybe irrelevent considering the service that is currently delivers. also is an accessable word across many languages - it's simplicity/refinement is yet another case in mind when designing code-objects - (as stated in the Criticisms section) can be difficult to remember where the periods go, thus as a domain name it partially fails as at being as useful object. Perhaps I should use these points and expand upon the Code as Expression entry...Zeroinfluencer 02:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe there is a more notable (and used) domain hack to convey this same information? Is there? There are thousands of domain hacks registered (most of which are not used and/or not notable). I'm not sure if notability matters, but I think it does as it helps the reader understand quicker if they already have a piece of prior knowledge that places them one step in the right direction beforehand. 02:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
We've added a load new content to the site, so anyone clicking though should understand what 'code as expression' will mean by reading about the project. I wish I knew more notable examples too..Zeroinfluencer 19:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The point of using a notable example is to avoid extra research, isn't it? We should try to explain the information to the visitor as quickly and effeciently as possible. 17:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed this section from the article. More than just "original research", it seemed to me highly speculative and un-encyclopedic. Fluff, to put it bluntly. John Kugelman 13:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Should These Domains be Added to Domain Hacks list?[edit]

domain hacks list deleted

Note: As per "List of active or registered domain hacks" section (in this discussion article), the domain hacks list no longer exists. 17:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

There are currently two lists, both located off-Wikipedia:

As far as I know, these are still being maintained. -- 16:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC) Saccerzd 21:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not a domain hack. 22:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Dot_Cotton was a character in the BBC soap Eastenders. -- RND   talk  21:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying this because you believe that makes it a domain hack? It would only be a domain hack if the url was http://dotcott.on/ (which is not a possible example) or something similar where the TLD is a part of the title, and all the letters used are a part of the title. I see what you are getting at though. It would be like Dr. Phil using, where you are somewhat hacking the domain name system. However, only (or, etc.) would be considered a domain hack. It's important for all the letters to be used. 19:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps domains like could be considered "minor domain hacks". This would be along the lines of domains like being considered "perfect domain hacks" (as the periods are perfectly placed as word separators.)

That is like when I owned and used the email, Joseph Slabaugh

I'm not really sure that *.it or *.to using the words "it" or "to" would be a domain hack. is a domain hack, this is an expansion of "crypto", similarly if there were a, or (Warning: slashdot-themed suggestion) Thus propose to remove all those simply using the TLD as a word from the list. Chris talk back 21:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Domains like should not be domain hacks, as they are not the full title. However, domains like should be domain hacks, as they are the full title. Along with that type of classification, would be a domain hack. My two cents. 23:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC) lists as being operated through the same entity (Fortunecity V3) as most of the generic domains. There are many of them. -- 02:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I know, it's not strictly a domain hack in some definitions, BUT... It's about a language/toolkit combo named TCL/TK! Isn't that clever enough?

This fits the definition of a domain hack. 22:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
As a non-techie, this one makes no sense to me, so I'd like to remove it. If someone can find a way to integrate it into the article in an understandable fashion, that'd be great. Even on the talk page, I don't understand the 'trick'.. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, normally it would have to be called, and the domain hack version is That's all there is to the trick. Please let me know if I'm missing your point. 23:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Should be in the 'notable' list?

.to & .tv ccTLDs?

Perhaps the .to's and .tv's can be excluded from the list (whenever they are used as the word "to" and the word "tv") and described elsewhere with a few notable examples. They are almost too abundant to list and not quite as innovative and as rare as using the ccTLD for only a part of the word. So, listing .to's and .tv's, when they are used as full words, almost degrades the quality of the list. Thoughts? 14:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Probably not a strict "domain hack", but it was registered in 1990, when Glasgow University built the site to train UK Librarians to use JANET (UK's Joint Academic Network). The Bulletin Board for Libraries was hosted at the University of Bath, making it BUBL@bath.

If others think it fits, please add. 10 June 2006 is a list of caller ID numbers displayed on telemarketing calls - a consumer complaint site. It is notable enough to be worthy of inclusion here.

Registered to the net abuse clearinghouse but not actively in use. (.am is Armenia) -- 03:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirects to — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Company that hosts the German mirror of project Gutenberg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Most Popular Domain Hack[edit]

"The most popular domain hack is" — what's the source for this claim? My gut feeling is that is more popular, because it's been around longer and Dan Bernstein's tools (qmail, ezmlm, tinydns, etc.) are widely used. What's more, I'm not sure what the proper measure of popularity should really be. Given the nature of the site, I'll grant that almost surely gets more pageviews, but I have no doubt that has received (and continues to receive) far more unique visitors, most of whom simply download one of the tools and never return. -- 20:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I decided the most popular based on alexa rank. I anticipated that I might be wrong if there was a domain hack I was unaware of or if it were to be measured by different methods. The best is to explain exactly what you said. Give the highest alexa ranked domain hack, and also give the views on Perhaps only the most popular domain hacks should be kept in the list below. 03:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Also, I believe the article has this same comment in it, unless it has been changed. Just wanted to make a note of this while it was on my mind, as it is related. 03:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
And .us has the same comment about being the mose popular domain hack. 14:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I believe that might be more popular than because the average user/blogger/website owner may not have heard of their tools. Only if you get real into Mr. Bernstein's tools like I have or if you have heard of Qmail on a fora such as The Planet's fora. Simply put, while might be more established than, I urge all of us not to get on this and let's just let this be. The Coldwood 08:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

List of active or registered domain hacks[edit]

It would be nice if this information were placed into an easy to read table, which would take far less space, and not require scrolling to browse through them. 22:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think a table would be the proper solution, although I personally feel the domain hacks should be listed in a seperate article, like, say, list of active or registered domain hacks. jareha 23:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
That sounds like a very good idea (although I still like the idea of just linking to the website that maintains a list of them, instead of trying to keep a copy of that list here). — mendel  01:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, perhaps only the most popular domain hacks should be kept in this list. How do we measure popularity? See discussion on most popular domain hack above. 03:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I believe list of domain hacks should be the article. Should I go make it? Then, how do we decide what domain hacks remain in the orignal domain hack article? 19:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
A seperate list of domain hacks article has been created. jareha 05:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
This has been deleted and moved to Wikiasite:Internet:list of domain hacks.
As far .as I can .tel, the list on the wiki does include some which are registered but don't resolve? There's another anything that doesn't have any content (although some were marginal, like personal with a title page). -- 01:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

List of hacks[edit]

A few years ago I generated this list of possible domains, with a parser that looked for all valid english scrabble words that could be extended to a second valid english scrabble word with a TLD or SLD. I'd be willing to submit it to en.wp under PD, anyone think it could/should be incorporated? Note: That this is not a full list of all possible english TLD hacks, just ones that are valid both before and after the TLD is added. Also this is a list of only one word hacks. Even so, this list is rather large. Splarka (rant) 23:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Russian and .net sites[edit]

Domain hacking was at one time (cca 2000-2001) quite popular in Russia simply because "net" means "no" or "there isn't". So, we have sites like - "there are no jokes", - "there is no beer", - "there's no point" (slang term) and many others.

There is already talk of domain hacking in other languages in the article, so I do not see why this would be a problem to add. 23:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

oldest domain hack?[edit]

i remember, and from c. 1992, so might not be the oldest. Benwing 22:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

WHOIS results for those domains creation dates of:
  • 24-Nov-1992 05:00:00 UTC
  • 22-May-1995 04:00:00 UTC
  • 16-May-1997 04:00:00 UTC
WHOIS for shows 22-Nov-1992. The others could possibly be older, as their registration might have lapse and thus reset the creation-date when they were re-registered. Still, given our currently-available sources, seems to beat out by two days. — Saxifrage 23:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What about WHOIS shows registered on 17-May-1991.

Not a domain hack, in that JAnet = "joint academic network", so this one does keep ".net" in exactly its original meaning as "network" instead of cleverly re-purposing it to construct something unique. Certainly there are many possible plays on words with .net (naming a network, and the like is not a new idea - except maybe back in the dialup-BBS days) but I wouldn't group in with, et al. --carlb 04:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section[edit]

The "controversy" section doesn't really seem controversial... I mean, who's to say what good domain naming conventions are? In fact, the existence of this article proves that a variety of naming standards can work. But most of all, domains are anyone's to buy, name, and use... so what does it matter if they follow "conventions"?? The section seems more like one person's reaction than an actual "controversy"

Why is there no mention of the effects of domain hacks on web searches, specifically how they make it harder to narrow a search by adding a whitelist or blacklist of TLDs. For example, if I want to find information about sofas, but I'm not looking to buy one, I can search "sofa -site:com -site:biz", or to find scientific information on sex instead of pornography, I can search "sex site:edu". Isn't this an issue with domain hacks? Bostoner (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[edit]

Should be noted that GOATSE most likely an acronym for "Guy Opens Ass To Show Everyone", though most people read it as Goat Sex.

Most likely " show everyone" is a backronym, see backronym and list of backronyms. There are many of these created as jokes, such as F.O.R.D. to be "Found On Road Dead" (cute, but actually Ford is a person's name)... -- 03:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[edit]

The .um TLD (US Minor Outlying islands) is not in active use, but due to wildcard DNS a long list of names like do (or did) resolve to the same one page. Typing into a search engine yields many of these, but are they of any real significance? -- 01:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The only reason they are in a search engine is because of this page. Myself and a colleague have applied for .um domains but the registrar are not taking registrations at this time. -Indolences 02:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
That site does have its flaws, such as listing second-level names for .tld's that only issue third-level, as well as listing some that are not internationally available or not available at all (.so, for instance, has been down since folded at the end of 1998)., as it does make a useful tool. -- 01:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


I removed this reference as the link no longer works:

  1. ^ CNN Tech. [ 9, 2007.

I did do a search on CNN Tech but couldn't find the original article anywhere.

As the reference no longer works, I removed this sentence from the article as it is not verifiable:

"The domain which together with a subdomain can be read as an entire sentence (,, etc) is up for sale for a reportedly unprecedented $250,000[2]."

Feel free to put the above 2 back if you can find another source. Erwinloh 05:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Undid revision 152917522 by (talk) - there is no reference to this and no reference 4, so I removed that line again. Erwinloh 23:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Shortest domain name on record[edit]

What does " the shortest domain name on record" mean? There are lots of SLDs registered that contain 1+2 letters, so that's not it. What is it? -- Jao 16:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The shortest existing TLD is two-characters, the shortest name under an individual TLD could be no less than one character. As such, there is currently no way to make a shorter domain name than "", although it is possible to create something of equal length like "" ('you knew' is a travel photo album) or "" («c'est là», a redirector - "it's there"). So yes, " the shortest name" but as part of what is inevitably a tie for first place. :) A short name is valuable if building a redirector or issuing subdomains, so as the shortest complete sentence in English, "" is perfect. -- 16:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I refer you all to: http://to/ a top-level domain, and url shortener —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
That domain is actually « » and is likely relying on individual browsers to attempt to add extensions to an incomplete address. -- (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The shortest domain name is "", it is only 4 mm long. The above mentioned domain "." is on the other hand at least 5 mm long :) Jens 16:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC) (talk). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenspeturjensen (talkcontribs)[edit]

New domain hack added; —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liquinn (talkcontribs) 07:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Tried it. Two days after its original registration, that domain still does not resolve. -- 23:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
It's dead, Jim. -- 01:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[edit]

A finnish comedy site, means "tank". (panssari means "armor" and vaunu means "vehicle" - "armored vehicle") —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of comedy, was made after the "Finding Judas" episode of House, taking its name from a line in the show that became a small meme. The meme isn't really notable, but that just provides an example with the .us ending. Zchris87v 19:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As a joke ccTLD, .us is almost too a target. It to host more domains than other two-letter dictionary word, including .it and .me -- (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[edit]

The most famous "Matt" on the internet has registered "". Richard W.M. Jones (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I put it in, got deleted, I just put it in again. I bet it's the second or third most visited domain hack on the net. Deserves a mention. (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's not you .. there are some real idiot power-tripping admins who have ruined Wikipedia. It's the reason why I hardly edit anymore. Richard W.M. Jones (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Added to this list... odd there's nothing else on there for .tt, but the high cost of registration there may be a factor? -- (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[edit]

I note that one user seems to have an axe to grind with respect to the inclusion of telemarketing consumer complaint site "" as a well-known domain hack. I did check Alexa, and that site does report "" as being near the top 40,000 most-used websites out of however million are online, so it would appear to be a notable example if it is indeed a domain hack. -- (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It is nothing to do with the site. It is just that there are many examples of domain hacks in the text. Alexa is not a reliable statistical resource as it can be influenced by anyone with the Alexa toolbar installed on their browser. A domain hack, to some, would be where the TLD is used to with the domain name to make a complete word. However it has been expanded to expressions (such as ""). If it means so much to you, then put it in the examples table rather than just linking to the DomainTools whois copy. Jmccormac (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
The table of examples is in the "other languages" section; is "" in another language? -- (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Domain hack Vs. Domain name hack[edit]

I propose that we keep expression domain name hack — the one used in the original article from Wikia — instead of domain hack which I think should be the one between parentheses given that the word domain can refer to many things and not just domain names and therefore can be confusing for people who are not familiar with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CDumier (talkcontribs) 16:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This article did not originate on Wikia. They are the ones who are copying info deleted on Wikipédia. -- (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Somehow this edit went back up and I removed it. To repeat a quick google search of "domain name hack" shows it is unused. To put it in this article makes no sense. It's just someone renaming something already named. However inappropriate you may feel "domain hack" is, it's what it was coined and what is now being used. I appreciate the want for a better name. (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC) it no more[edit] is dead. What happend?--Baruch ben Alexander - ☠☢☣ 21:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


This whole article seems to be a one sentence topic that is only growing longer because of the miracle of advertisement. I.e. 90% of article bulk is "examples." --Bxj (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. It seems unusual to include all these languages. They do not make the example any more easy to understand - and is in my opinion just advertisement and SEO. Atomicbre (talk—Preceding undated comment added 00:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC).

See Also[edit]

Maybe one of the authors wants to mention as link under "See Also", i find this page very useful - but i'm not sure if this would be spam. (talk) 10:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[edit]

User left the following message on my talk page on 5 August 2011: "I see you originated the mention of "" on Domain hack. I've tagged it cn because I'm unaware of any intention of the word "mecca" by MEC. If they only meant it as MEC (their initials) + ca (ccTLD for Canada), then it's not really a domain hack and doesn't belong there. But if they also play it as a pun (e.g. advertising themselves as "the for sportsmen" or so, then it would be ok; hoping since you added it you'll know where to start..."

I replied on's talk page on 7 August: "Thanks for your message re Mountain Equipment Co-op and I have no inside knowledge of their marketing strategy, I only know what I can see on their posters (where they prominently give their address simply as "", with no www) and the fact that it's simply not credible to suppose they wouldn't have been aware of it. Of course it started because it happened also to be their initials, but there are plenty of other ways to make a URL out of "Mountain Equipment Co-op", and they chose this one no doubt largely because of the delicious conjunction with a well-known name that also had connotations of a centre to which people flock in large numbers. They don't need to make any more of it than that precisely because the connotation is self-evident. The fact that it's their name doesn't cancel out its value as a domain hack, as your comment suggested; if anything, it enhances it by providing an additional layer of pleasing coincidence. Google "Mountain Equipment Co-op" plus Mecca and you'll see that many reviewers of their products are also pleased by this coincidence, describing it as a mecca for outdoor enthusiasts etc. To require a citation is a bit like asking for a citation that Austin Powers is meant to be a spoof of James Bond. If you couldn't find a quote where Mike Myers says "Austin Powers is a spoof of James Bond" would you consider that statement to be unsupported or conjectural? No. It's self-evident"

But on 25 August went ahead and deleted my reference from this article anyway, citing "'s domain hack status not WP:V, removed".

The removal strikes me as petty because the requirement for some specific authority is, in this case, misconceived -- i.e. irrelevant to the nature of the information. What do other people think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathandore (talkcontribs) 16:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

International names section, ccTLD#Commercial and vanity use[edit]

In the international names section, there is a link "Further information: ccTLD#Commercial and vanity use" which currently points to a non-existing section in the destination article. Anyone care to dig out what it was pointing to and thus what the point of the reference is? Katana (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


The article says: «Family names in many Slavic languages end with ch (i.e. -ich, -vich, -vych, -ovich), so .ch (ccTLD for Switzerland) are very interesting to them.», on to which I added {{citation needed}}. The thing is, no Slavic language actually uses "ch" for the mentioned ending, but rather "cz", "ć", "č", "ч", or "ћ". Using the Swiss TLD in this manner makes only sense for emmigrants and their descendents in English or Spanish speaking countries, where said name ending is trivially assimilated as "ch". I suspect that this sentence in the article is nothing but original research, and a sloppy one, too. Tuvalkin (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


I'm sorry for coming out of nowhere with this issue. In my defense, I have to say that I have never wrote anything to the Wikipedia encyclopedia before. So if I came across in an inappropriate way, I would like to apologize at this point, but it's due to my lacking wiki skills. While writing this right now, I'm not even sure if this is directed to the expected recipient. I thought that wiki was the right source to pronounce this subject. I'm a media designer located in Germany and very interested in this theme. As you can imagine, I can not post or name a source, actually proving what I'm trying to define, because it's new. The term pictomain has never been mentioned in this, or any other context before. The possibility to create a so called "pictomain" has never occurred before! Therefore I would truly admire your companionship and innovative vision. The domains mentioned in the text are not commercial! To speak for ix0xi.islam in particular, it is a preordered domain, not officially available yet, but soon will be. It does not have any relation to religious orientation. I'm unaffiliated with any religion.

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piktomain (talkcontribs) 07:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Domain hack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)