Talk:List of Internet top-level domains

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Zundark, why did remove the bullets from List of Internet TLDs GTLDs? Noldoaran 20:41, Nov 27, 2003 (UTC)

Because it looks better when everything lines up properly. --Zundark 08:22, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
It looks grea now! But the prefix dot is really not part of the TLD, is it?


Is the .sj domain not in use? Google lists one http://einkaritara.sj/ domain name. ᚣᚷᚷᛞᚱᚫᛋᛁᛚ 03:07, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

That URL doesn't resolve. See here. http://iana.org/domains/root/db/sj.html
According to Norid, to whom it is assigned, .sj is not in use. I get a DNS look-up failure for einkaritara.sj, don't you? Google lists three .sj pages, but it has no cache of these pages, and none of them work for me. Further experimentation shows that Google lists pages with TLDs that don't exist at all. It has no cache of such pages, of course. Perhaps non-existent pages are listed if there are links to them (though I can't find any such links at the moment). --Zundark 07:23, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] .something links

Why some TLDs are links and others aren't?

Because those with links have articles regarding that particular TLD? I don't think there are articles for most TLDs, and if they were all links it would be a big sea of red. --kjd 06:54, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Assigned but not used

How come .eh (for Western Sahara) is not shown here? - FrancisTyers 20:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no .eh, as can be seen by querying the root nameservers. (It hasn't been assigned either. This is clearly stated on the on the IANA website, and while I don't really trust the IANA website these days, I'm pretty sure it's correct in this case, because there is no organisation to which .eh could reasonably be assigned given the political situation in Western Sahara.) --Zundark 19:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is there no listing for ".nt", which was assigned to the Neutral Territories between Iraq and Saudi Arabia?

Jim Welch

There is no .nt, as can be seen by querying the root nameservers. (Nor was it ever assigned. I think you are confusing it with the corresponding ISO 3166 code, which did once exist.) --Zundark 10:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Converted to table

I've recently written quick programs to convert text data presented in tabular form into tables to improve accessibility. Here's the program I used on this article:

 // File:    convert-tld.cpp
 // License: Public domain
 // Author:  Ardonik
 #include <fstream>
 #include <iostream>
 #include <string>
 using namespace std;

 void generate(istream& in, ostream& out) {
   out << "{| border=\"1px\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"2px\"\n";
   out << "|- style=\"background-color: #a0d0ff;\"\n";
   out << "!TLD!!Country or entity!!Notes\n";
   out << "|-\n";

   string line;
   while (getline(in, line)) {
     // If the line begins with [[, the TLD is linked, and we need to find the
     // end of it.  Otherwise, search for whitespace.
     string tld, remainder;
     size_t tld_start = 1, remainder_start;
     if (line.substr(tld_start, 2) == "[[")
       tld = line.substr(tld_start, line.find("]]", tld_start) + 2 - tld_start);
     else
       tld = line.substr(tld_start, line.find(" ", tld_start) - tld_start);
     remainder_start = line.find_first_not_of(" ", tld_start + tld.length());
     remainder = line.substr(remainder_start);
     out << "|" << tld << "||" << remainder << "|| \n"; // Will fill in 3rd
     out << "|-\n";                                          // columns by hand
   }
   out << "|}\n";
   if (in.fail() && !in.eof()) cout << "Could not read from input\n";
   if (out.fail()) cout << "Could not write to output\n";  
 }

 int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
   if (argc != 3) {
     cout << "Usage: " << argv[0] << " [infile] [outfile]\n";
     cout << "  If infile is \"-\", input will be read from stdin.\n";
     cout << "  If outfile is \"-\", output will be written to stdout.\n";
     return 0;
   }
   string infile = argv[1], outfile = argv[2];
   if (infile == "-" && outfile == "-") {
     generate(cin, cout);
   } else if (infile == "-") {
     ofstream out(outfile.c_str());
     generate(cin, out);
   } else if (outfile == "-") {
     ifstream in(infile.c_str());    
     generate(in, cout);
   } else {
     ifstream in(infile.c_str());    
     ofstream out(outfile.c_str());    
     generate(in, out);
   }
   return 0;
 }

To use it, copy the tld text from the pre-table version of the page into a text file. Run convert-iso on it and the Wikified table will be printed to stdout. You'll still have to copy the parenthetical information into the third columns by hand--they were too inconsistent for me to automate their parsing without expending more than a minimal effort. --Ardonik.talk() 01:32, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] New TLDS

.xxx Pornography: http://www.estadao.com.br/tecnologia/internet/2005/jun/02/136.htm (BR Portuguese)
.mobi Cell-phones: http://www.estadao.com.br/tecnologia/internet/2005/jul/11/33.htm (BR Portuguese)

[edit] Discussion/controversy

Obvious lack when I see this table, is any background:

  • when and why a TLD was created
  • link to discussion/controversy

Historically interesting for TLDs like .org, but virtually essential for things like .mobi which are very new... --Snori 22:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

This sort of thing belongs in the individual articles on each TLD, not in this list. --Zundark 12:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Could we / should we also link to uncoventional usage such as in domain hacks? 24.222.121.193 17:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Again, this is something that's best covered in the article on the TLD in question. Actually, I'm not sure the Notes column serves any real purpose now - maybe we should remove it. When the Notes column was originally added there were hardly any articles on individual TLDs, but now every TLD has its own article. If we do keep this column, we should decide what its purpose is and what sort of thing should be mentioned in it. Currently it isn't used very consistently. --Zundark 18:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] .co.uk

What about .co.uk --209.29.87.15 05:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a second-level domain. --Zundark 08:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes but all uk domain names have to be .co.uk. So shouldnt .co.uk be listed instead of.uk, as .uk is not used? --Izax143 11:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
It's simply not true that all .uk domain names have to be .co.uk. Even if it were true it would not be a reason to list .co.uk instead of .uk - this is a list of existing TLDs, which .uk is and .co.uk isn't. --Zundark 11:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
You have .org.uk etc. Maxt 15:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
If the original poster had actually looked at the .uk article, they'd see where it has an extensive list of the second-level domains within .uk, including active ones, formerly-used inactive ones, proposed ones, and a few specific institutions that have managed to obtain their own second-level name (including Parliament and the British Library). It's certainly not limited to .co.uk by any means. At any rate, the article .co.uk exists as a redirect to .uk. *Dan T.* 16:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

.fr added- Only companies or persons in France have a right to use the .FR domain.

[edit] .nt

Where is the .nt? A lot of sites mention .nt as a now defunct TLD, .nt was intended for Neutral Zone. Its exact purposes remain unknown to me. Try searching Google for ".nt neutral zone", a list of pages should list TLDs, and include .nt. --[Svippong - Talk] 19:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

NT was the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code for the Saudi-Iraqi neutral zone, until it was withdrawn in 1993. No .nt TLD was ever created (which is not surprising, as it was desert region with no government, and even most real countries didn't have TLDs that far back), so it's incorrect to call it a "now defunct TLD". (There are lots of inaccurate TLD lists on the web. Some people can't tell the difference between ISO 3166 and TLDs, and they often use ISO 3166 lists that are about 20 years out-of-date.) --Zundark 20:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit history

Just to let you know, M79_Specialist started this article. It does not show up in the article's history. user:M79_specialist

No, the article you started was List of domain extensions. Your article was a duplicate of this one (which was started almost 5 years earlier), so someone redirected it here. The edit histories of both articles show the correct creator. --Zundark 22:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taiwan

Whoever labeled Taiwan a “Province of China” needs to get over it. Taiwan is its own country now. You might be offended by the fact they have more liberty than people on the mainland but your opinion does not change the fact that Taiwan is no more a “Province of China” than the Philippine Islands are a “Province of the USA” or New Zealand is a “Province of the UK.” Get over it, Taiwan is an independent country and apparently most Taiwanese want it that way.

"Taiwan, Province of China " is the ISO name for Taiwan/ROC. This article is merely repeating what they say as they indirectly name the ccTLDs. Your issue should be directed towards them not here. -- (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 00:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
But it's IANA, not ISO, that assigns TLDs - and IANA says "Taiwan". --Zundark 09:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
It appears that while IANA uses the ISO code for ccTLD it looks like they changed the name of .tw to Taiwan. I have changed the article to reflect that. I may have reverted too quickly here but that is due to the many changes made related to ROC/Taiwan that are incorrect. Some organizations use different names for ROC/Taiwan (ISO uses the name Taiwan, Province of China, IOC uses Chinese Taipei, etc.) and on those articles the name should remain as is rather than what we feel it should be. -- (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 16:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] .ws

Is Samoa/W. Samoa correct for .ws? I've seen a U.S. site use it and thought it was a general-purpose TLD for "website." Update: I see on IANA it is Samoa, yet I'm still confused by the aforementioned use as well as the frequent "website" references. Perhaps it is changing? --Insomniduck 22:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can register a .ws domain (because the Samoan authorities consider this a good way to make money), and many people like to think of .ws as representing "website", but that doesn't change the fact that it's assigned to Samoa. --Zundark 08:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It is a marketing gimmick just as Moldova sells .md to medical doctors or Columbia at one time tried to sell .co as company. -- (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 22:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reserved TLDs

The title of the article does not indicate that only existing TLDs should be mentioned. But I do not see there ever was a discussion here how to handle the whole thing. Now I guess I should start it to get thins even. It looks to me that some user had the idea to make it that way but it never was discussed. I believe reserved TLDs should also be mentioned, but however, with the remark that they are just reserved and don't exist. What's wrong with that? The title of this article is "List of Internet top-level domains" and not "List of existing Internet top level domains". Those reserved TLDs are certainliy not in use. But you still can't call them non-existant since they are reserved. --Maxl 22:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The things that you were adding are not TLDs. Maybe they will be some day, but they are not at present. This list is one of the very few correct TLD lists in existence. (In fact, last time I checked, I couldn't find another such list - the web is full of incorrect TLD lists.) It would be a great shame to turn it into just another list of TLDs-and-things-aren't-TLDs. Also note that the current list is completely objective: either the TLD is in the root, or it isn't. As soon as you start talking about "reserved TLDs" this objectivity is lost (What does "reserved" mean? Who says it's reserved? Aren't all unused 2-letter codes reserved? Is .xxx reserved? Is .invalid reserved? ...). Please don't start adding things like this amongst the real TLDs. A separate table for such things would be OK, but it should be on a separate page - the list of TLDs is so long that people scrolling quickly to the bottom may not realise that they've strayed into a list of non-TLDs.
In short, a list of (real!) TLDs is an important thing to have, and this article is the obvious place to have it. By all means make a separate table, as a separate article, and add a link to it at the top of this article. --Zundark 08:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Name Change

I suggest that the article's name be changed from 'list of top level domains' to 'list of domain suffixes' as I do believe the term 'domain suffix' better describes a top level domain as the term domain is now generally accepted as a website's url and adding top level in front of domain confuses people that would be looking at this article. I do believe that the definition of 'domain suffix' is more widely accepted than 'top level domain.' Best, --M79 specialist 02:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

But "domain suffix" isn't the proper technical terminology (and it's not the ending part of many URLs anyway; if they have a path and filename in them, the last part will be a file extension, which is an entirely different thing). Top level domain is the correct term for a domain at the top level of the DNS. *Dan T.* 02:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] ".tel" domain?

Is there a reason this hasn't been added to the table yet? Vulcan's Forge 04:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Oversight. Thanks for pointing it out. --Zundark 07:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed TLDs

Is there a similar list for proposed TLDs like .sco, .bzh, .gal, .naa? And does anybody know whether the proposal for .naa (domain for content from/for/about North American indigenous peoples) still is effective? --::Slomox:: >< 14:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no such list, but you could make one if you like. But the four you cite were never official proposals as far as I know, so what exactly would be the criteria for inclusion in such a list? Would you include all the official proposals from 2000 (nearly 200 different proposed TLDs, often with several different proposals for the same TLD)? --Zundark 14:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I have no knowledge of the topic. I only saw the existing articles and wondered, where to learn more about other proposed TLDs. Well, if the unofficial proposals are noteworthy enough for an article, they are noteworthy enough for a list, I guess, but that's all, I can say ;-)
If you know, where ICANN lists the official proposals, this would be nice to include in the article, I think. --::Slomox:: >< 16:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] .bzh - Proposed for deletion

Hi,

I am proposing the article .bzh for deletion. Please see Talk:.bzh for explanation. Your input is welcome. --Amir E. Aharoni 07:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Only Estonians allowed .ie!

Not sure what the exact wording should be, but the article claims only Estonian companies can register Irish domains ;). I'm guessing this should be Irish companies (or individuals?) 194.73.121.7 (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some missing stuff

What about .localhost .example, .invalid, and .test? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.128.91.247 (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

None of those exist (see the IANA list). In fact, because of RFC 2606, they should never exist. --Zundark (talk) 08:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)