Talk:DNS.com LLC

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the DNS.com LLC article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

United States: Louisville Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Kentucky portal This article is supported by WikiProject Louisville (assessed as Low-importance).

Web site is defunct

It's parked. Seems like they went out of business but I can't find any sources one way or the other.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite; domain "dns.com" now owned by Guangdong wangyu Polytron Technologies Inc in China; current domain is "dnsbycomodo.com" (per article). – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article Rename To DNS.com LLC Or DNS.COM LLC

The old "dns.com" domain is now owned by Guangdong wangyu Polytron Technologies Inc in China, however the company's name remains "DNS.COM LLC" per its web site copyright notice. I propose renaming article to include "LLC" to add distance between it's legal name and old "dns.com" domain, otherwise the current article may confuse. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; I personally found this article while researching the new DNS.com, which appears unrelated to the company described in this article. I wouldn't expect such a move to be controversial, so I've gone ahead and moved the article. —Zenexer [talk] 23:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]