Template talk:Generic top-level domains
|WikiProject Computing / Networking||(Rated Template-class)|
- Yes, probably. *Dan T.* 02:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be some things here that are less-than-serious proposals - certainly there are problems with the .berlin and .nyc articles that don't help their inclusion. I'd suggest only proposals that seem (or seemed at one time) likely to be adopted should get listed in this section. Radagast 17:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
.bzh - Proposed for deletion
An exit for children
The children proposals .kid and .kids are somewhat less notable than .xxx, and a similar (arguably bad) idea, the proposed section of the template could get out of hand if new groups adults for .xxx and related proposals are added. That's why I edited the template, somebody reverted it without stating a reason in the edit history or here. I'm going to reinsert these editions (= s/exit/oz/ + move kid(s) to other). --126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
onion, oz, i2p are private address constructs and not in any way connected with the official ICANN DNS root, which this template is documenting. Others might need to be examined as well. Kbrose (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- "This was one of several apparent "top-level domains" that were not actually in the Internet Domain Name System (DNS) root, but were sometimes used in addresses during the time when non-Internet networks remained in wide use."
- Well, this this argument you had to delete all the Pseudo TLDs. But i think that they are improtant and should be mentiont here, even if they are not actual TLDs. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Remove clos domains
Follow http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/delegated-strings for new domains. --Kirov Airship (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Geographic Top-Level Domains
I think that there should me a Geographic section within the Generic section. What do you think? Like Red Alert Series section within the Video Games section Template:Command & Conquer series --Kirov Airship (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Is this template meant to be complete or only for existing articles? There's a swath of new tlds created, which I think doesn't necessarily guarantee an article for each of them.
Out of 947 list in the db as of today, 620 of them are generic tlds
[EDIT]: Apparently the list has already exist in List of Internet top-level domains, which were not linked in the template before.
Clicking on some of the blue links, you can see that some of them are redirected to Generic_top-level_domain#New_top-level_domains, some of them are prodded, I don't know how many have been deleted, or waiting to be prodded. Therefore, the scope of this template needs to be questioned, as the number of generic tlds can only increase in the future.
To quote from newgtlds.icann.org:
"The expansion of generic Top-Level Domains (e.g. .COM, .ORG, .NET) in the Domain Name System is underway. Over 1,300 new names or "strings" could become available in the next few years."
- How should we handle this? A comprehensive listing isn't feasible any more - is there any point to this template? Should it be reduced to 'historical' gTLDs (.com, .net etc) and a link to the master page? Skuld (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Split out the original 3
.com, .net, .org were the original three gTLDs. Due to their significance, perhaps they should be in a separate section in the template? They are currently drowned out amongst the newer ones.S-1-5-7 (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)