Talk:.com

.com = common ?

Note that many think that .com is for "common" and it's becoming more and more popular and accepted point of view. There are even rename talks... Would adding that be NPOV violation? (posted by Muxec, noted added by Fudoreaper)

Please cite sources. .com has ALWAYS meant commercial, since it's very creation. Can you provide any evidence that .com = common? Until you can, i will regard this as a misconception propagated by misinformed and confused internet users, not so closely tied to the internet. &ndash: Fudoreaper 02:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I've seen people alleging that it should stand for "community", too, but the latest official designation is still RFC 1591, which says it's "commercial". Anything else is simply an ignorant misuse, a sign of the dumbing down of the Internet. (Hey, why not make it stand for "Communist"?) However, despite the rampant misuse of the domain, I haven't seen such attempted redefinitions of it actually catch on as popular designations of its meaning, used widely in discussion, description, and registry/registrar marketing; people still either know it means "commercial" (even if they ignore this fact when they decide what domain to use for their noncommercial site) or they're totally clueless about what it actually means (but still think it's "cool", despite the dot-com crash of 2000). I don't think you'll find any widespread sentiment to the effect that it actually means "common", so it's a neologism on your part. The widely-marketed misuse of .ws as WorldSite or WebSite has more tangible support than your claims about .com as common. *Dan T.* 03:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

1] Just supposing that there was a siginificant movement for this renaming- what the hell would they mean by 'common'? That the subject of this site is common? That the site is "the most commonly used"? Ignoring idiocies, the only intelligent interpretation I can see, is that it would mean common, as in 'the commons' (property of the people), a.k.a public domain, therefore at total opposition to use by businesses and those agressively guarding copyrights and patents.

2] If it was to mean community, this would also be at total opposition to current uses. What do they expect, for Coka Cola to switch to .biz and let coke.com become a forum site (which i expect would be full of critism of Coke's ethics)!?!

Clearly neither have been thought out beyond the next pint, therefore should be ignored, except possible inclusion in a 'Misconceptions' section, if that was ever to be viable. I do 'thou notice the irony, in that given the way they act, you'd think that the whole of the American web industry believe .com = America. --Myfanwy 01:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Help 2402:8100:3913:6D3:A66F:3EAE:E7E:7D14 (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually, it IS just for US companies -- but no one pays any attention to that, save for some UK companies (why do you think they made .co.uk?).

The Editor 2 21:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I used to think it stood for company.--Canadianshoper 00:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It's becoming a part of popular culture to call it the "common" domain. You'll find it hard to get a well documented citation for this, but if you go talk to the common (no pun intended) internet user who is not savvy about it's history, nor anal about it's intended (yet unenforced) usage, they will likely refer to it as the common top-level domain, meaning, it's the most commonly used. - Spaldam (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Early entrepeneurs

Wasn't there a smart guy who earned a good sum by quickly registering websites such as mcdonalds.com etc, and later being able to demand millions of dollars by the company? Similarly I come to hink of the old whitehouse.com pornsite... 85.226.122.237 20:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

As I recall, Mcdonalds.com was registered by a journalist to show that he could, for the purpose of mentioning it in an article, and he later turned it over to McDonald's for token compensation. Whitehouse.com started as a political site, soon became a porn site, and continued that way until the domain was sold recently; it's now got a "temporary" page with ads on it with a "people search" site supposedly coming soon. *Dan T.* 20:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:VeriSign.png

Image:VeriSign.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

--87.110.58.132 17:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)^{Superscript text}felicita

Old .com not on list

Stargate.com was registered in August of 1986, but is not on this list. --Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It was on the list, but someone removed it on the grounds that the website says the company was founded in 1989. However, that's not a valid reason for removing it, as domains can be transferred, and so can pre-date their current owners. So I've restored it, as the whois does say 05-Aug-1986, and this should be reliable. --Zundark (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Who 'owns' .com?

I came to wikipedia to try to find our who 'owned' the .com domain. I wasn't able to work it out from the article. Is there a definitive answer to this? (This was prompted by the NYTimes article about a UK travel agent having most of his .com domains switched off by US government order and the subsequent discussion on Techdirt). Seems like a point that should be addressed? --Darrylxxx (talk) 10:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The Domain Name System as a whole is currently governed by ICANN, and VeriSign operates .com under contract from ICANN. But I wouldn't say that either ICANN or VeriSign 'owns' .com (or any other TLD) - it's more a question of (temporary) control rather than ownership. --Zundark (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Random comment

Why is the following comment in the section about people using .com when they don't have to;

(including the Moroccan Consulate in Bordeaux)

This seems a really arbitrary example that isn't needed and is given too much precedence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.108.174.66 (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Emit McHenry

Why is Wikipedia hiding or not stating that Network Solutions Inc (NSI) was owned and founded by a black man Emit McHenry? Why is Wikipedia not giving credit to him for creation of these domains? 96.225.87.5 (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Have you read the article on Network Solutions? Jmccormac (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Internet invented in the US??

Why does this article state the obvious falsehood that the Internet was invented in the US? 78.17.251.228 (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

GTE

The DOD contracted the domain maintenance to GTE and GTE subcontracted it to SRI 2603:7080:4DF0:8C90:6152:A224:5954:28C2 (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)