Talk:Dot-com company

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Acquisitions List Additions[edit]

Could add to the list. 17:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Amount Network Solutions was Aquired for[edit]

On the page Network Solutions, it states that the company was aquired by VeriSign for $21bil, however, on this page it states that it was aquired for only $15billion. I have no way to verify this so can someone clarify this for me? ^_^;; Pritchard 01:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I second the note about 15 bil vs 21 bil. It seems to be The largest acquisition? Is it? 14:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Verisign purchased Network Solutions for 21 billion dollars in stock. However, by the time this was completed, the stock was worth 15.3 billion dollars. Link: Link: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

'List of well-known dot-bombs' belongs on the article ' Bubble'[edit]

That's because on the article Dot-com bubble there is a section called: List of companies significant to the bubble with a warning For discussion and a list of dot-com companies outside the scope of the dot-com bubble, see Dot-com company.

This article is meant for companies that didn't experience the bubble which effectively ended on March 10th 2000.

I think that section should be moved EconomistBR 04:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This makes complete sense. I second this motion. All in favor say "aye".

I don't feel like modifying right now, though. I'm supposed to be learning finite element analysis.Chadoh (talk) 05:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC) redirect[edit] has no page of its own, but instead is redirected here. This seems strange to me. The other dot-bombs get their own actual pages. Chadoh (talk) 05:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirect needed[edit]

"dot com business" should redirect to this page.

Against the merger with Dot-com[edit]

This entry clearly shows three different definitions for a single term in different contexts. I think that's enough for "pure-play" to warrant its own entry page, if not also a disambiguation page. Certainly should not be merged into the dot-com article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Argantael (talkcontribs) 14:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


Digiscents has been labeled as needing a citation for a while. Never heard of it before but here is one article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrededits (talkcontribs) 14:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dot-com company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)