![]() | The contents of the Mobiforge page were merged into .mobi on 9 October 2021. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
.mobi article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
How does .mobi break the principles of device independence? -- WikiFan04 Talk 1:47, 29 Jul 2005 (CDT)
World Wide Web creator Tim Berners-Lee has criticized a plan to create a new Top Level Domain (TLD) for mobile devices, warning that a new .MOBI domain will break device independence and separate the Web into two parts. [here] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.197.253.53 ( talk • contribs) 08:38, 5 October 2005
Which organisation and by what means is going to enforce the type of content is put on the .mobi websites? This is not yet clear from the article at the moment. The only hint that it may indeed be enforced is the fact that it's a sponsored TLD; however registration is fairly open. -- 195.244.142.202 14:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Mister mtld.mobi, it is not at all necessary to entirely eradicate publicly added material to to this wiki entry to further your corporate spammy efforts. Look around you, do you see .com doing this?, NO. Keep in mind that you are stepping on the heels of the very people who support the .mobi initiative. "Mister mtld.mobi, it is not at all necessary to entirely eradicate publicly added material to to this wiki entry to further your corporate spammy efforts. Look around you, do you see .com doing this?, NO. Keep in mind that you are stepping on the heels of the very people who support the .mobi initiative." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yesofcourse ( talk • contribs) 16:26, 4 January 2007
Here is a good read for you tregworth at digg in regards to deleting the .mobi only search reference of an interactively educational custom search for wikipedia users by the above loosely titled spamming spam eliminator...
Wikipedia is full of corruption reminds me of the time i posted about the mobionly search engine (it doesn't get any more relevant) to the .mobi page, and then this editor comes in and revamps the whole entire page deleting mobionly.mobi and continued "seoing" it towards mtld.mobi and even plugging it with anchor text as "dotmobi". it still exists this way today as I don't even bother.
Yesofcourse 01:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Although .mobi boasted that they were going to be different it is business as usual. The only sites that will be strictly enforced as far as standards will be those Premium names that ".mobi" has chosen to sell to the highest bidder. In other words the company with the deepest pockets will win. This is Mobi's idea of a level playing field?
To quote Pinkard Alan "Pinky" Brand, Director, New Markets, dotMobi (mTLD Top Level Domain Ltd) "There is also no requirement that any specific type of content be published, except there may be certain content obligations and restrictions placed on selected dotMobi Premium Names that we expect to allocate in 2007 and 2008."
The promise by dotMobi in its inception was that is was going to be different than the "dot.com" fiasco. They stated in their early press releases and company information that they would not allow domain squatting, and standards governed by W3C would be enforced across the board. Now after all the registration has been done and the money collected they have amazingly back peddled and allowed the speculation to continue. BREAK Let the greed continue... ( OloObatala 19:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)) UNHAPPY Mobi domain owner
mTLD's logo is outdated. Current logo can be viewed here - Please update it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottyslist ( talk • contribs) 14:05, 24 January 2007
User 84.94.181.141 insists on self-promoting their site mobiways.com in the external link section. If you continue to abuse Wikipedia for your own commercial purposes, you will be blocked and banned. This is your only warning. Removed: * [http:// www. mobiways .com dotmobi mobiWays] - dotmobi domain information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.143.125 ( talk • contribs) 22:33, 9 March 2007
You can use the .mobi emulator to see how a .mobi website displays on a mobile phone. This comes off as linkspam, but it's one sentence in a larger section that's not an external links section. I wouldn't want to put up a {{ spam}} or related template there... Morgan Wick 10:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
"This domain (.mobi) will have a drastically detrimental effect on the Web."
— Tim Berners Lee
You could then argue any quote is an opinion. The fact is TBL is a very credible source. There are many other Wikipedia articles with quotes. Should they be removed to? Hendry 11:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Small screen devices should be "targeted" with a handheld CSS media type. Encouraging markup targeted at mobiles goes back to bad old days of WAP. [1] It didn't work then and it won't work now. Hendry 18:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Dot mobi is all about making money selling their premium domains. See their Flickr stream [2] for a better idea of their competences. Hendry 11:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
How is my contribution under disadvantages "personal opinion" User:78.3.3.201? I've cited and reasoned. Perhaps you should instead concentrate on the advantages section? You're openly biased against the important fragmentation issues with dotmobi. Hendry 11:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I will try find a 'NPOV source' to back up the "bad practice" statement. Can you back up your statement: "a web page designed for a PC will not display well or at all?"? I don't think dotMobi has any W3C mandate considering TBL's article. Hendry 20:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you've cherry picked the sites and the UA (emulator). Hendry 11:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I took the time to test those sites [3] and they all work with:
Of course things like Flash which aren't Web standards don't work. Anyway, this is side issue. Can you prove to me that dotMobi has any W3C mandate? [4] CSS media queries is the standard how you should target handheld devices. Not by buying a dotMobi domain. Hendry 20:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
You could argue that most mobiles have WAP browsers and you'll probably be right. However there is a clear trend that the Web is being fully supported by handheld device UAs. Just because dotMobi says they are part of the MWI, doesn't mean dotMobi is an W3C recommendation of some sort! W3C is more credible here and they recommend media queries. I think the W3C's "bias" deserves a say in the disadvantages section. Hendry 17:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Anyone can pay to join the W3C, though it doesn't mean they are towing W3C policy and best practice. Hendry 10:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
You have the bias. I've tried to improve the accuracy of this article and you revert any additions to the disadvantages section. Even from other editors! Hendry 19:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
A third opinion has been requested on this dispute. I'd be happy to help provide a third opinion and guide everyone to a consensus. However, I'm not really able to determine what content each of you would rather see in the article -- it's largely a great deal of bickering and accusations of bias. If this is to be effective, I need a concise explanation of what the dispute is, so I can help. -- Darkwind ( talk) 00:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Have a look at User:Darkwind/.mobi rewrite and let me know what you think. I've done my best to include all of the material from the article as it stands, as well as Hendry ( t c)'s points. However, I didn't use the term "best practice" in regards to CSS media queries, since the reference you cite is still in CR status, it's not even an official W3C recommendation yet. -- Darkwind ( talk) 19:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Just had a quick look, thanks for the effort. I prefer the adv and disadv sections split up. Also I am worried by statements like "unsuitable for display on a mobile device without adaptation". Adaption usually mean "content adaption". The point I am trying to make it that *content* need not be modified for delivery on mobile/handheld devices. I hope that's clear. Content must have it's integrity and presentation can be tweaked with style sheets. Hendry 13:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Recently, Hu12's minor cleanup was reverted (twice). These changes did not dramatically affect the article, other than to remove content that doesn't meet the external links guideline. (For example, there is no reason to have an inline external link to the National Arbitration Forum when an internal link exists.) Looking at it more closely, there is a lot of content that fails other guidelines as well, such as the copy for each sponsor. Please don't just revert again; instead, post your objections on the talk page so that we can clean up the article properly. Thoughts? -- Ckatz chat spy 00:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
What use is it to have a company not exist and the registrar not exist if there is a requirement for that? Why are the beginings of these pages linked to something that does not exist? These are questions that confounded me. How is this verifiable information if these key structures of ICANN do not exist? I am putting Citation Needed on this copy. Mnemnoch ( talk) 03:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, what the fuck?
The article states that, "There is a possibility that mobile phone manufacturers may in the future default their mobile internet browsers to .mobi".
While it is true that this possibility exists, there are also a great number of other possibilities that aren't mentioned. For example, there is a possibility that mobile phone manufacturers may in the future restrict their mobile internet browsers to accessing only .mobi domains. In the future, anything is possible - however unlikely.
Which mobile phone manufacturers, in .mobi's 5 1/2 years, have actually implemented this default? Which manufacturers are currently discussing this publicly as something they want to do?
Unless this possibility is actually a likelihood, I suggest it be removed. MedianOne ( talk) 02:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 15:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 15:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 15:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 15:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Cannot find any significant coverage on this subject. Should be merged with its parent organization article Rogermx ( talk) 17:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | The contents of the Mobiforge page were merged into .mobi on 9 October 2021. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
.mobi article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
How does .mobi break the principles of device independence? -- WikiFan04 Talk 1:47, 29 Jul 2005 (CDT)
World Wide Web creator Tim Berners-Lee has criticized a plan to create a new Top Level Domain (TLD) for mobile devices, warning that a new .MOBI domain will break device independence and separate the Web into two parts. [here] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.197.253.53 ( talk • contribs) 08:38, 5 October 2005
Which organisation and by what means is going to enforce the type of content is put on the .mobi websites? This is not yet clear from the article at the moment. The only hint that it may indeed be enforced is the fact that it's a sponsored TLD; however registration is fairly open. -- 195.244.142.202 14:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Mister mtld.mobi, it is not at all necessary to entirely eradicate publicly added material to to this wiki entry to further your corporate spammy efforts. Look around you, do you see .com doing this?, NO. Keep in mind that you are stepping on the heels of the very people who support the .mobi initiative. "Mister mtld.mobi, it is not at all necessary to entirely eradicate publicly added material to to this wiki entry to further your corporate spammy efforts. Look around you, do you see .com doing this?, NO. Keep in mind that you are stepping on the heels of the very people who support the .mobi initiative." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yesofcourse ( talk • contribs) 16:26, 4 January 2007
Here is a good read for you tregworth at digg in regards to deleting the .mobi only search reference of an interactively educational custom search for wikipedia users by the above loosely titled spamming spam eliminator...
Wikipedia is full of corruption reminds me of the time i posted about the mobionly search engine (it doesn't get any more relevant) to the .mobi page, and then this editor comes in and revamps the whole entire page deleting mobionly.mobi and continued "seoing" it towards mtld.mobi and even plugging it with anchor text as "dotmobi". it still exists this way today as I don't even bother.
Yesofcourse 01:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Although .mobi boasted that they were going to be different it is business as usual. The only sites that will be strictly enforced as far as standards will be those Premium names that ".mobi" has chosen to sell to the highest bidder. In other words the company with the deepest pockets will win. This is Mobi's idea of a level playing field?
To quote Pinkard Alan "Pinky" Brand, Director, New Markets, dotMobi (mTLD Top Level Domain Ltd) "There is also no requirement that any specific type of content be published, except there may be certain content obligations and restrictions placed on selected dotMobi Premium Names that we expect to allocate in 2007 and 2008."
The promise by dotMobi in its inception was that is was going to be different than the "dot.com" fiasco. They stated in their early press releases and company information that they would not allow domain squatting, and standards governed by W3C would be enforced across the board. Now after all the registration has been done and the money collected they have amazingly back peddled and allowed the speculation to continue. BREAK Let the greed continue... ( OloObatala 19:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)) UNHAPPY Mobi domain owner
mTLD's logo is outdated. Current logo can be viewed here - Please update it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottyslist ( talk • contribs) 14:05, 24 January 2007
User 84.94.181.141 insists on self-promoting their site mobiways.com in the external link section. If you continue to abuse Wikipedia for your own commercial purposes, you will be blocked and banned. This is your only warning. Removed: * [http:// www. mobiways .com dotmobi mobiWays] - dotmobi domain information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.143.125 ( talk • contribs) 22:33, 9 March 2007
You can use the .mobi emulator to see how a .mobi website displays on a mobile phone. This comes off as linkspam, but it's one sentence in a larger section that's not an external links section. I wouldn't want to put up a {{ spam}} or related template there... Morgan Wick 10:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
"This domain (.mobi) will have a drastically detrimental effect on the Web."
— Tim Berners Lee
You could then argue any quote is an opinion. The fact is TBL is a very credible source. There are many other Wikipedia articles with quotes. Should they be removed to? Hendry 11:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Small screen devices should be "targeted" with a handheld CSS media type. Encouraging markup targeted at mobiles goes back to bad old days of WAP. [1] It didn't work then and it won't work now. Hendry 18:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Dot mobi is all about making money selling their premium domains. See their Flickr stream [2] for a better idea of their competences. Hendry 11:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
How is my contribution under disadvantages "personal opinion" User:78.3.3.201? I've cited and reasoned. Perhaps you should instead concentrate on the advantages section? You're openly biased against the important fragmentation issues with dotmobi. Hendry 11:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I will try find a 'NPOV source' to back up the "bad practice" statement. Can you back up your statement: "a web page designed for a PC will not display well or at all?"? I don't think dotMobi has any W3C mandate considering TBL's article. Hendry 20:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you've cherry picked the sites and the UA (emulator). Hendry 11:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I took the time to test those sites [3] and they all work with:
Of course things like Flash which aren't Web standards don't work. Anyway, this is side issue. Can you prove to me that dotMobi has any W3C mandate? [4] CSS media queries is the standard how you should target handheld devices. Not by buying a dotMobi domain. Hendry 20:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
You could argue that most mobiles have WAP browsers and you'll probably be right. However there is a clear trend that the Web is being fully supported by handheld device UAs. Just because dotMobi says they are part of the MWI, doesn't mean dotMobi is an W3C recommendation of some sort! W3C is more credible here and they recommend media queries. I think the W3C's "bias" deserves a say in the disadvantages section. Hendry 17:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Anyone can pay to join the W3C, though it doesn't mean they are towing W3C policy and best practice. Hendry 10:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
You have the bias. I've tried to improve the accuracy of this article and you revert any additions to the disadvantages section. Even from other editors! Hendry 19:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
A third opinion has been requested on this dispute. I'd be happy to help provide a third opinion and guide everyone to a consensus. However, I'm not really able to determine what content each of you would rather see in the article -- it's largely a great deal of bickering and accusations of bias. If this is to be effective, I need a concise explanation of what the dispute is, so I can help. -- Darkwind ( talk) 00:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Have a look at User:Darkwind/.mobi rewrite and let me know what you think. I've done my best to include all of the material from the article as it stands, as well as Hendry ( t c)'s points. However, I didn't use the term "best practice" in regards to CSS media queries, since the reference you cite is still in CR status, it's not even an official W3C recommendation yet. -- Darkwind ( talk) 19:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Just had a quick look, thanks for the effort. I prefer the adv and disadv sections split up. Also I am worried by statements like "unsuitable for display on a mobile device without adaptation". Adaption usually mean "content adaption". The point I am trying to make it that *content* need not be modified for delivery on mobile/handheld devices. I hope that's clear. Content must have it's integrity and presentation can be tweaked with style sheets. Hendry 13:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Recently, Hu12's minor cleanup was reverted (twice). These changes did not dramatically affect the article, other than to remove content that doesn't meet the external links guideline. (For example, there is no reason to have an inline external link to the National Arbitration Forum when an internal link exists.) Looking at it more closely, there is a lot of content that fails other guidelines as well, such as the copy for each sponsor. Please don't just revert again; instead, post your objections on the talk page so that we can clean up the article properly. Thoughts? -- Ckatz chat spy 00:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
What use is it to have a company not exist and the registrar not exist if there is a requirement for that? Why are the beginings of these pages linked to something that does not exist? These are questions that confounded me. How is this verifiable information if these key structures of ICANN do not exist? I am putting Citation Needed on this copy. Mnemnoch ( talk) 03:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, what the fuck?
The article states that, "There is a possibility that mobile phone manufacturers may in the future default their mobile internet browsers to .mobi".
While it is true that this possibility exists, there are also a great number of other possibilities that aren't mentioned. For example, there is a possibility that mobile phone manufacturers may in the future restrict their mobile internet browsers to accessing only .mobi domains. In the future, anything is possible - however unlikely.
Which mobile phone manufacturers, in .mobi's 5 1/2 years, have actually implemented this default? Which manufacturers are currently discussing this publicly as something they want to do?
Unless this possibility is actually a likelihood, I suggest it be removed. MedianOne ( talk) 02:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 15:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 15:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 15:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 15:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Cannot find any significant coverage on this subject. Should be merged with its parent organization article Rogermx ( talk) 17:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)