Template talk:CcTLD

Adding <br> tags

If you are getting one long line that is not word wrapping, it is either a bug in the browser or a bug in the CSS for the page. Either way it should be able to be fixed with CSS changes.

Adding <br> tags actually makes it look much worse for everyone else. For example, with the 03:20 29 Sep 2004 revision, with these extra tags, it looks like this for me:

.ad .ae .af .ag .ai .al .am .an .ao .aq .ar .as .at .au .aw .az .ba .bb .bd .be .bf .bg .bh .bi .bj .bm .bn .bo .br .bs .bt .bv
.bw .by .bz .ca .cc .cd .cf .cg .ch .ci .ck .cl .cm .cn .co
.cr .cs .cu .cv .cx .cy .cz .de .dj .dk .dm .do .dz .ec .ee .eg .eh .er .es .et .fi .fj .fk .fm .fo .fr .ga .gb .gd .ge .gf .gh .gi .gl
.gm .gn .gp .gq .gr .gs .gt .gu .gw .gy .hk .hm .hn .hr
.ht .hu .id .ie .il .in .io .iq .ir .is .it .jm .jo .jp .ke .kg .kh .ki .km .kn .kp .kr .kw .ky .kz .la .lb .lc .ld .li .lk .lr .ls .lt .lu .lv .ly .ma
.mc .md .mg .mh .mk .ml .mm .mn .mo .mp .mq
.mr .ms .mt .mu .mv .mw .mx .my .mz .na .nc .ne .nf .ng .ni .nl .no .np .nr .nu .nz .om .pa .pe .pf .pg .ph .pk .pl .pm
.pn .pr .ps .pt .pw .py .qa .re .ro .ru .rw .sa .sb .sc .sd
.se .sg .sh .si .sj .sk .sl .sm .sn .so .sr .st .sv .sy .sz .tc .td .tf .tg .th .tj .tk .tl .tm .tn .to .tp .tr .tt .tv .tw .tz .ua .ug .um
.us .uy .uz .va .vc .ve .vg .vi .vn .vu .wf .ws .ye .yt
.za .zm .zw

The problem with this approach is that everyone's browser is a different width, and many people use different fonts or font sizes. Therefore what looks good on your browser will look bad on someone elses. So basically, please fix the HTML so it word wraps independent of screen size, rather than adding <br> tags. --kjd 15:09, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've noticed that there seems to be many similarities between the ccTLDs in the "deleted/retired" and the "renamed" categories. For example, why are .su and .zr in different categories if they are under essentially the same circumstances? I suggest that these two categories be merged somehow. --Zippanova 18:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Even though this is almost 6 years old, it does seem to answer my question. Good to know this, because I was just about to do the same thing. -38.116.200.70 (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting changes

I've reformatted the template:

lost a bunch of white space at the left and bottom, so it's now 7 lines deep, rather than 13
removed the vertical bars, which make it harder to read along the line; they aren't really needed in this kind of template, because it's clear that each word is a separate link
increased the font size, because it was hard to read at 82%

Given all this, I'd appreciate knowing why I was reverted :) sjorford (?!) 09:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In Opera, and IE, it's showing up as one massive line for all "Active" and then everything else on the next line. Horrible mess. Will revert again - sorry, but something's wrong here. Shimgray 01:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, so it is. That'll teach me for using Firefox :) I suspect it could be to do with the width="100%" attributes - investigating. sjorford #£@%&$?! 08:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, should be fixed now - it was the dots at the start of each word that was causing the browsers to run them together as a single word. I've added   before each dot to fool it. Can anyone confirm that this works in Opera, I don't have it installed right now. sjorford #£@%&$?! 10:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good in Opera and IE. Thanks! Shimgray 12:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

.gb

Should .gb be moved to the "retired" category? This TLD is already disused and all the subdomains have moved to .uk. --Der yck C. 05:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i just came on this talk page to ask the same question. my answer is "yes", so i'm doing it now. tomasz. 13:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double domen

.bv is Active and Allocated/unused. Mistake? Leonarh 12:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed in "active", according [1] (the link is from IANA site). Cate |_Talk 09:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.um status not correct

The t/p currently has .um under the "deleted/retired" heading. This isn't correct. According to the ICANN report on the change:

ICANN's view is that this would be an appropriate action, and would not prevent a suitably qualified operator from running .UM in the future if they met all the normal criteria for delegation of a ccTLD.

The Chair said there might be side effects if people are using software that tests for the existence of valid country-code domains. He added that as long as there was widespread notice of the re-delegation, then this should not be an issue.

Paul Twomey pointed out that this would be the first country-code domain to be removed from the root that wasn't the result of ISO 3166 changes caused by a country changing its name or dissolving (such as Zaire and Czechoslovakia). Kim Davies clarified that this would bring the list of undelegated country-codes to five, the others being Montenegro (ME), North Korea (KP), Serbia (RS), and Western Sahara (EH).

In other words, .um has not been deleted. It's now unassigned. If what i'm reading is correct; .um could be headed for a comeback if someone meets the rules to operate it.

Again, according to the ICANN report:

Following this discussion Susan Crawford moved and Rita Rodin seconded a request for a vote on the following resolution:

Whereas, the .UM top-level domain was originally delegated in December 1997 <http://www.iana.org/root-whois/um.htm>.

Whereas, the currently assigned operator is the University of Southern California's Information Sciences Institute.

Whereas, the .UM domain is not in active use, and the current operator no longer wishes to operate it.

Whereas, ICANN has reviewed the request, and has determined that the returning the domain to unassigned status is the appropriate action to reflect its status.

Recognizing, this would not prohibit future delegation of the domain to another party that meets the regular ccTLD delegation criteria.

Resolved (07.04), that the delegation of .UM be removed from the DNS root, and that it be returned to unassigned status.

The Board approved the resolution by roll call vote 12-0. In addition to the Board Members not present for the call, Steve Goldstein was not available to vote.

So, to sum up, .um is now unassigned. - Thanks, Hoshie 22:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.. but still, http://www.nic.um/ works!

um.                     172800  IN      NS      NS.UU.NET.
um.                     172800  IN      NS      NS.ISI.EDU.
um.                     172800  IN      NS      VENERA.ISI.EDU.

ZorroIII 23:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the IANA whois, .um is still assigned to the United States Minor Outlying Islands Registry. I think it will remain assigned until it has been deleted from the root (which, as ZorroIII points out, hasn't happened yet). --Zundark 10:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As of April 20th 2008, this domain has been removed from the root zone and so is now offically unnassigned. --Samspin; 14:10, 21 April 2008 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samspin (talk • contribs) 13:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.yu

Shuldn't .yu be moved into the Phaseout category??? Even though it is stated as active, I don't see why it is anymore less retired than .su
— ChrisDHDR^{FøřůM • €D!†$} 20:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it shouldn't. .su is listed by Iana as being phased out. .yu is not. ---80.144.97.3 23:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.dd

Shouldn't there be a link to .dd? I don't know which category it pertains... .dd was available to be assigned but was never indeed. In any case, there is a Wikipedia entry about it, so it should appear linked in the template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.40.24.23 (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.su status

.su is currently listed in the Active category. While this is true, ICAAN wants to get rid of it, do they not? So shouldn't it be listed in phaseout? Just wondering, Mnmazur (talk)

no, it's active with no planned phaseout in the visible future. Elk Salmon (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The domain SU exclusively reserved, also as EU. 78.138.171.140 (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tooltips are useful

I disagree with this [2] and reverted it. (missing paren (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The information is useful, if you want to put the country name in parentheses next to each code. Tool-tips are completely useless when the link (<a>) element occupies exactly the same screen area (over-riding the title attribute) and marginal in other cases. Screen-shot of your version [3]. The hidden message “Bahamas” does not actually appear. ―cobaltcigs 21:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot post a screenshot because tooltips don't appear on screenshots. However, if they aren't useful to you it doesn't mean they aren't useful to people using Firefox. (missing paren (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mine:

User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100722 Firefox/3.6.8

Are you saying the tool-tips of the outer tag supersede those of inner tag in your browser? I find that difficult to believe. ―cobaltcigs 01:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Format of IDN ccTLDs

If the correct format for any TLD is to write the dot before the TLD, the same rule should apply to the IDN ccTLDs as well. The current format of IDN ccTLDs in PersoArabic script has a few problems:

has a dot in TLD name;
the dot is written after the TLD, not before;
and because of that, the wiki links are incorrect.

I'm going to fix these. Please contact me if you have any objection. Behnam (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure which ones you refer to, but the practice of adding the dot, is rather problematic and it would be best to completely avoid them. The dots do not actually belong to the domain names, in fact the domain name system doesn't use dots internally at all, only in its external representation. If anywhere the dots for toplevel domains should all be at the end to designate the empty root label. It is an error in the DNS to use a TLD with a leading dot, causing a failed lookup. On Wikipedia the dot is only useful to disambiguate the short names from other common words, such as 'us', 'we', 'at', etc. Furthermore, per WP:MOS articles in foreign-language scripted names must use the transliterated English form, further complicating the usefulness of the dot. Kbrose (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the dots aren't part of the TLDs. But I am inclined to think the general reader of the encyclopedia probably doesn't know that (Dot-com bubble, not Com bubble). I suggest we would reduce confusion among readers by retaining the dots in this template. The articles are titled with dots, after all. Also, keeping the dot much more clearly distinguishes TLDs from country codes.

Regarding the order of name listing, WP:MOS#Foreign terms and WP:EN say to use the common English form of a name, so I suggest we switch back to Israel. I don't think English-speaking readers are as likely to look under "Y" for Israel as under "I". What do you think? — Cxw (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Defining “before” and “after” in this context might be helpful. If I understand you and this is just a display issue one probably could overcome it using right-to-left marks, the html dir attribute, etc. as appropriate. See Bi-directional text#Unicode support. ―cobaltcigs 18:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The W3C uses dots to the right of masr (مصر.) and the left of r-phi (.рф) on its IDN explanation page (just before the end of the linked section). (Another example of dot to the right of masr) I think the principle of least astonishment suggests we should follow W3C usage here, even though it isn't technically ideal, as Kbrose noted above. What do you think? —Cxw (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to make these changes. —Cxw (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For completeness, note this discussion at the Manual of Style about non-English characters in article titles for IDNS. —Cxw (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.p2p

Should .p2p be added? http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-based-dns-to-counter-us-domain-seizures-101130/ Terrorist96 (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.eu italicized

Is .eu italicized for a reason? Trivialist (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

remove .KRD ! 195.66.166.4 (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move or remove .krd, not part of ISO 3166-1

The ISO 3166-1 section currently includes .krd, the TLD for the Kurdistan region. While .krd is indeed a top level domain, .krd is not a part of ISO 3166-1^[1] which by definition only includes two-letter country codes. Even the Wikipedia article on ISO 3166-1 respects this definition.

.krd should therefore be moved to the Others section of this template. Rbksr (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.iso.org/iso-3166-country-codes.html

.ευ

Not EU. --5.43.86.137 (talk); 11:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Exotic" TLDs

Similar to the .p2p mentioned above, there are .onion, .i2p, .arpa and recently .alt. Should those get an own section? Cobn3a5 (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.iso.org/iso-3166-country-codes.html

[1]