Talk:.uk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] .net.uk

there is a strange website at www.net.uk, why is this and who put it there. the descrp just says it's for ISP's, what's it history 87.113.82.36 12:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] .k12

The end of Allocation of domain names is inaccurate. In the US, school districts, which can be likened to local education authorities, each have domains such as www.loveland.k12.oh.us (though many now use less buried addresses like www.lovelandschools.org). In this address, the US ccTLD comes at the end, preceded by the state domain (Ohio), preceded by the k12 domain. This .k12 domain is used like the .sch domain: for "schools, primary, and secondary education" – in fact, it's named for K-12 (Kindergarten–12th grade) education. Finally, district's domain may have subdomains for individual schools.

This section makes it sound like .edu is the only school-specific domain, but that schools have to register their own .com or .org domain. That's not true, although many schools do opt to do so, because .com or .org domains are much easier to remember.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 23:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Ireland/The six counties

Should the article mention that .uk us is bound to continue even if Northern Ireland ceases to be politically joined to Great Britain as part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? --81.105.251.160 10:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems a somewhat irrelevant point to make - the country would still be the United Kingdom. Shimgray | talk | 10:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah and the fact Northern Ireland leaving the UK is a minority position that is weakening every day thank God! We don't need any nationalist propoganda creeping into a UK article thank you very much. ``

Northern Ireland isnt going to leave the UK, unless it has a damn good reason to (If it is because it wants to be run seperately from the UK, it would just go back to Ireland. 'cliché') —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.246.56 (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] .me.uk

are you sure .me.uk is rejected, you can register domains under that name.. (have a look on 1and1.co.uk) 86.2.113.39 17:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently there were two different original proposals for .me.uk, and one was accepted and the other rejected, which is why it shows up in both lists. *Dan T.* 18:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Since it actually has been accepted wouldn't it make sense to eliminate it entirely from the "rejected" list? I understand that multiple proposals were made (according to the above statement), but the fact is, it has been accepted. Shouldn't matter how many rejections it went through on the way. It's like applying for a job. If you re-apply after you've been rejected once, and finally get the job, do you then still log that as a rejection? No, just took two tries. Crocadillion (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why the '.co' in '.co.uk'?

The article mentions that it is prohibited to register a domain name directly under .uk (such as .internet.uk), but it doesn't say why. Does anyone know? Because I sure can't find out.

Because, like a number of other country code domains, .uk has chosen to subdivide its space by category, separating companies (.co.uk) from organizations (.org.uk), and some other categories like .gov.uk for the government. *Dan T.* 00:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
But why has this strange decision been taken? And why .co and not the standard .com? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.53.80 (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why .co.uk and not .com.uk?

Some domains use .co (.co.uk, .co.nz) whereas others use .com (.com.au). Why use .co? I would have thought they would have just copied the ".com" and add their own domain after it - why drop the m?

It's just how that particular country code developed; the people in charge of Internet naming in each country get to make independent decisions, and didn't always decide it the same way. There is no "standard" about how a country code domain is to be subdivided. *Dan T.* 16:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Bear in mind that the use of ac and co dates back to Janet days too - and at the time, with a non-Internet network, what would be the rationale of following the American system? (especially as it took no account of other countries in its naming convention. .us remains somewhat of a minority TLD). In Janet naming, institutions had full and abbreviated names; many used two-letter abbreviated names (these were carried over - look at UK academic domains and many are very abbreviated). If the other elements are short, the second-level might as well be. JohnGray 01:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Also probably because 'Co' is a longstanding abbreviation for Company, as in 'Joe Boggs & Co'. cdv 14 Mar 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 10:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Usually .co. is used by a country that is made up of smaller united countries or automonous counties —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.246.56 (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ukraine

I remember reading a story in the early/mid 90's about the Ukraine making a claim for ownership of the .uk top level domain. I cannot find any reference to this now. The official 2-character ISO country code for Ukraine is 'UA', which makes this idea seem less credible, but I wonder if there is any reference to this story that would add value to this entry? --Davagh (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have heard similar stories and believe them to be true, but the only references I can find are blogs by people I don't recognise. By the way, I think Ukraine dislikes being called "the Ukraine". Certes (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Certain places seem to have wound up with the definite article before them in normal English usage, for some reason, including the New York City borough of The Bronx. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] .eng

There was also a proposal for England to have a separate internet address. It was supposed to be either .en.uk, .en or .eng (both en and eng were rejected because they are used to show when a webpage is in English). 80.192.246.56 (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Falcon-eagle200780.192.246.56 (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] .uk / .gb

It is somewhat contentious to say in the second paragraph that 'the use of .uk rather than .gb is due to pre-existing use in JANET'. 'UK' is also the correct name for the sovereign state (The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland); Great Britain is only a part of the state, and is not a formal entity of any kind, as far as I am aware.

It is arguably ISO 3166 which is anomalous. ISO say:

The codes in ISO 3166-1 are - wherever possible - chosen to reflect the significant, unique component of the country name in order to allow a visual association between country name and country code. Since name components like Republic, Kingdom, United, Federal or Democratic are used very often in country names we usually do not derive the country code elements from them in order to avoid ambiguity. The name components United and Kingdom not being approriate for ISO 3166-1, the code GB for the United Kingdom was created from Great Britain. (http://www.iso.org/iso/country_codes/iso_3166-faqs/iso_3166_faqs_specific.htm)

However, in general usage, no-one normally uses 'GB': to refer to the component countries collectively, people say 'the UK'.

JANET used uk.ac.university; I'm sure that could have been converted to university.ac.gb rather than place.ac.uk had .gb been the preferred TLD. I would expect people preferred to follow common usage rather than ISO 3166.

I suggest we revise the second paragraph.

– cdv —Preceding unsigned comment added by CDV (talk • contribs) 12:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Then why did ISO assign "US" as the code for the United States? "United" and "States" are the same sorts of generic components they're supposedly avoiding. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)