This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
.xxx was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " In the news" column on March 21, 2011. |
Shoudln't this be updated? .xxx is now in use. Saxsux 19:31, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
The article has been updated. As a matter of fact, the official .xxx domain is not in use yet, and won't be for several months at the soonest. Only New.net's hack is "in use" at this point. All of which is explained in the article, I might add. Tverbeek 20:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The Onion scooped us. It got rejected. savidan (talk) (e@) 18:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I always thought .xxx got rejected, and WON'T be used. Dan Leveille 22:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[1]==.sex== Is the .xxx TLD in any way related to the .sex scandal from a few years ago? -- NEMT 01:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
¾ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.235.138.151 ( talk) 22:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC) anup
4:08 AM 4/15/2012 Presently it appears that .xxx cost an enormous amount of money. On Godaddy it's $99.99 a year, while .com is $9.99. Discussion of impact should exist, but a quick google offered nothing. Obviously no small-time pornographer will pony up an extra $90.
May I suggest a screenshot of cnn.xxx which has a black background and the text "This domain has been reserved from registration. Copyright 2011 ICM Registry LLC"
Additionally, note that cryptome.xxx is an example of what is likely a "protest-type" use, likely to become more common as people believing filtering/censorship of access shouldn't be easy move their journalist-type sites to .xxx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.15.52 ( talk) 04:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
References
According to the BBC today .xxx will finally happen: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/technology/10412765.stm Robirrelevant ( talk) 11:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the whole idea of a separate .xxx domain is very risky. It would be easier for governments to ban the domain entirely. It's opening Pandora's box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.145.211 ( talk) 02:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC) The article should talk more about the risks involved with introducing a .xxx domain.
Having just read 2004's RFC 3675: .sex Considered Dangerous, I'm firmly of the opinion that the notable concerns raised there about the merits and feasibility of .sex, which has since morphed into .xxx, need to be outlined in this article. I say "notable" because RFCs are issued by people who know what they're talking about when it comes to the plumbing of the internet, and are not coming at this debate from a simplistic and irrelevant "is porn bad?" perspective as seen in some press coverage. I don't have the technical understanding to incorporate the RFC into the article in summary form without the possibility of misrepresenting it, but I'm sure there are many Wikipedia editors who could do the needful. Also, we need a redirect from .sex to this article, since the issues someone looking it up needs to hear about are the same: it is essentially the same proposal under a different name. 82.32.186.24 ( talk) 12:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article include the arguments over the creation of the domain including opposition from social conservatives and anti-porn feminist as well as from governments such as the Obama administration. Also missing is the the response from certain governments over it's creation such as Indian promising to block the .xxx domain country-wide. -- Cab88 ( talk) 07:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I see this page is categorised only in the porn categories, not in any technology or Internet categories. I'm not very familiar with how categorisation works on Wikipedia, but surely an article about a gTLD should have some computing categories applied? TRiG ( talk) 18:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Czarkoff ( talk · contribs) 00:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
This section is supposed to be edited only by reviewer(s). Please put your comments to the Discussion section below.
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
| |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
| |
2c. it contains no original research. |
| |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
The article doesn't provide enough information about the actual usage of the TLD. Do the main pornographic content publishers use it? Did it affect the amount of pornographic content in other TLDs? Actually, the landrush started too recently for this article to cover the details, necessary for this criterion, so I doubt it can become a GA soon. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. |
| |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. | This is a rather brief overview of problems. The real showstopper is the fact that not enough time have passed since the registration within this TLD became possible. As this event, which was vital for the article's topic, has already occurred, this article is supposed to inform readers of the impact, which is yet unknown. |
These comments reflect the revision 476927480 of the article.
An image used in this article,
File:Xxx tld logo.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Xxx tld logo.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 16:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC) |
Is it worth having a section on "preventive domain squatting", whereby addresses like "vatican.xxx" are purchased specifically to present them being misused? DS ( talk) 13:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand the link under see also... What does this have to do with Operation Choke Point? Nulbyte ( talk) 18:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Vhjbvcc 27.55.79.40 ( talk) 07:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
.xxx was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " In the news" column on March 21, 2011. |
Shoudln't this be updated? .xxx is now in use. Saxsux 19:31, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
The article has been updated. As a matter of fact, the official .xxx domain is not in use yet, and won't be for several months at the soonest. Only New.net's hack is "in use" at this point. All of which is explained in the article, I might add. Tverbeek 20:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The Onion scooped us. It got rejected. savidan (talk) (e@) 18:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I always thought .xxx got rejected, and WON'T be used. Dan Leveille 22:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[1]==.sex== Is the .xxx TLD in any way related to the .sex scandal from a few years ago? -- NEMT 01:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
¾ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.235.138.151 ( talk) 22:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC) anup
4:08 AM 4/15/2012 Presently it appears that .xxx cost an enormous amount of money. On Godaddy it's $99.99 a year, while .com is $9.99. Discussion of impact should exist, but a quick google offered nothing. Obviously no small-time pornographer will pony up an extra $90.
May I suggest a screenshot of cnn.xxx which has a black background and the text "This domain has been reserved from registration. Copyright 2011 ICM Registry LLC"
Additionally, note that cryptome.xxx is an example of what is likely a "protest-type" use, likely to become more common as people believing filtering/censorship of access shouldn't be easy move their journalist-type sites to .xxx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.15.52 ( talk) 04:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
References
According to the BBC today .xxx will finally happen: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/technology/10412765.stm Robirrelevant ( talk) 11:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the whole idea of a separate .xxx domain is very risky. It would be easier for governments to ban the domain entirely. It's opening Pandora's box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.145.211 ( talk) 02:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC) The article should talk more about the risks involved with introducing a .xxx domain.
Having just read 2004's RFC 3675: .sex Considered Dangerous, I'm firmly of the opinion that the notable concerns raised there about the merits and feasibility of .sex, which has since morphed into .xxx, need to be outlined in this article. I say "notable" because RFCs are issued by people who know what they're talking about when it comes to the plumbing of the internet, and are not coming at this debate from a simplistic and irrelevant "is porn bad?" perspective as seen in some press coverage. I don't have the technical understanding to incorporate the RFC into the article in summary form without the possibility of misrepresenting it, but I'm sure there are many Wikipedia editors who could do the needful. Also, we need a redirect from .sex to this article, since the issues someone looking it up needs to hear about are the same: it is essentially the same proposal under a different name. 82.32.186.24 ( talk) 12:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article include the arguments over the creation of the domain including opposition from social conservatives and anti-porn feminist as well as from governments such as the Obama administration. Also missing is the the response from certain governments over it's creation such as Indian promising to block the .xxx domain country-wide. -- Cab88 ( talk) 07:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I see this page is categorised only in the porn categories, not in any technology or Internet categories. I'm not very familiar with how categorisation works on Wikipedia, but surely an article about a gTLD should have some computing categories applied? TRiG ( talk) 18:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Czarkoff ( talk · contribs) 00:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
This section is supposed to be edited only by reviewer(s). Please put your comments to the Discussion section below.
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
| |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
| |
2c. it contains no original research. |
| |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
The article doesn't provide enough information about the actual usage of the TLD. Do the main pornographic content publishers use it? Did it affect the amount of pornographic content in other TLDs? Actually, the landrush started too recently for this article to cover the details, necessary for this criterion, so I doubt it can become a GA soon. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. |
| |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. | This is a rather brief overview of problems. The real showstopper is the fact that not enough time have passed since the registration within this TLD became possible. As this event, which was vital for the article's topic, has already occurred, this article is supposed to inform readers of the impact, which is yet unknown. |
These comments reflect the revision 476927480 of the article.
An image used in this article,
File:Xxx tld logo.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Xxx tld logo.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 16:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC) |
Is it worth having a section on "preventive domain squatting", whereby addresses like "vatican.xxx" are purchased specifically to present them being misused? DS ( talk) 13:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand the link under see also... What does this have to do with Operation Choke Point? Nulbyte ( talk) 18:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
The redirect .sex has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 3 § .sex until a consensus is reached. – CopperyMarrow15 ( talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 23:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
.xxx was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " In the news" column on March 21, 2011. |
Shoudln't this be updated? .xxx is now in use. Saxsux 19:31, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
The article has been updated. As a matter of fact, the official .xxx domain is not in use yet, and won't be for several months at the soonest. Only New.net's hack is "in use" at this point. All of which is explained in the article, I might add. Tverbeek 20:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The Onion scooped us. It got rejected. savidan (talk) (e@) 18:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I always thought .xxx got rejected, and WON'T be used. Dan Leveille 22:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[1]==.sex== Is the .xxx TLD in any way related to the .sex scandal from a few years ago? -- NEMT 01:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
¾ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.235.138.151 ( talk) 22:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC) anup
4:08 AM 4/15/2012 Presently it appears that .xxx cost an enormous amount of money. On Godaddy it's $99.99 a year, while .com is $9.99. Discussion of impact should exist, but a quick google offered nothing. Obviously no small-time pornographer will pony up an extra $90.
May I suggest a screenshot of cnn.xxx which has a black background and the text "This domain has been reserved from registration. Copyright 2011 ICM Registry LLC"
Additionally, note that cryptome.xxx is an example of what is likely a "protest-type" use, likely to become more common as people believing filtering/censorship of access shouldn't be easy move their journalist-type sites to .xxx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.15.52 ( talk) 04:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
References
According to the BBC today .xxx will finally happen: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/technology/10412765.stm Robirrelevant ( talk) 11:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the whole idea of a separate .xxx domain is very risky. It would be easier for governments to ban the domain entirely. It's opening Pandora's box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.145.211 ( talk) 02:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC) The article should talk more about the risks involved with introducing a .xxx domain.
Having just read 2004's RFC 3675: .sex Considered Dangerous, I'm firmly of the opinion that the notable concerns raised there about the merits and feasibility of .sex, which has since morphed into .xxx, need to be outlined in this article. I say "notable" because RFCs are issued by people who know what they're talking about when it comes to the plumbing of the internet, and are not coming at this debate from a simplistic and irrelevant "is porn bad?" perspective as seen in some press coverage. I don't have the technical understanding to incorporate the RFC into the article in summary form without the possibility of misrepresenting it, but I'm sure there are many Wikipedia editors who could do the needful. Also, we need a redirect from .sex to this article, since the issues someone looking it up needs to hear about are the same: it is essentially the same proposal under a different name. 82.32.186.24 ( talk) 12:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article include the arguments over the creation of the domain including opposition from social conservatives and anti-porn feminist as well as from governments such as the Obama administration. Also missing is the the response from certain governments over it's creation such as Indian promising to block the .xxx domain country-wide. -- Cab88 ( talk) 07:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I see this page is categorised only in the porn categories, not in any technology or Internet categories. I'm not very familiar with how categorisation works on Wikipedia, but surely an article about a gTLD should have some computing categories applied? TRiG ( talk) 18:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Czarkoff ( talk · contribs) 00:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
This section is supposed to be edited only by reviewer(s). Please put your comments to the Discussion section below.
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
| |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
| |
2c. it contains no original research. |
| |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
The article doesn't provide enough information about the actual usage of the TLD. Do the main pornographic content publishers use it? Did it affect the amount of pornographic content in other TLDs? Actually, the landrush started too recently for this article to cover the details, necessary for this criterion, so I doubt it can become a GA soon. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. |
| |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. | This is a rather brief overview of problems. The real showstopper is the fact that not enough time have passed since the registration within this TLD became possible. As this event, which was vital for the article's topic, has already occurred, this article is supposed to inform readers of the impact, which is yet unknown. |
These comments reflect the revision 476927480 of the article.
An image used in this article,
File:Xxx tld logo.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Xxx tld logo.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 16:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC) |
Is it worth having a section on "preventive domain squatting", whereby addresses like "vatican.xxx" are purchased specifically to present them being misused? DS ( talk) 13:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand the link under see also... What does this have to do with Operation Choke Point? Nulbyte ( talk) 18:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Vhjbvcc 27.55.79.40 ( talk) 07:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
.xxx was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " In the news" column on March 21, 2011. |
Shoudln't this be updated? .xxx is now in use. Saxsux 19:31, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
The article has been updated. As a matter of fact, the official .xxx domain is not in use yet, and won't be for several months at the soonest. Only New.net's hack is "in use" at this point. All of which is explained in the article, I might add. Tverbeek 20:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The Onion scooped us. It got rejected. savidan (talk) (e@) 18:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I always thought .xxx got rejected, and WON'T be used. Dan Leveille 22:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[1]==.sex== Is the .xxx TLD in any way related to the .sex scandal from a few years ago? -- NEMT 01:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
¾ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.235.138.151 ( talk) 22:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC) anup
4:08 AM 4/15/2012 Presently it appears that .xxx cost an enormous amount of money. On Godaddy it's $99.99 a year, while .com is $9.99. Discussion of impact should exist, but a quick google offered nothing. Obviously no small-time pornographer will pony up an extra $90.
May I suggest a screenshot of cnn.xxx which has a black background and the text "This domain has been reserved from registration. Copyright 2011 ICM Registry LLC"
Additionally, note that cryptome.xxx is an example of what is likely a "protest-type" use, likely to become more common as people believing filtering/censorship of access shouldn't be easy move their journalist-type sites to .xxx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.15.52 ( talk) 04:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
References
According to the BBC today .xxx will finally happen: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/technology/10412765.stm Robirrelevant ( talk) 11:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the whole idea of a separate .xxx domain is very risky. It would be easier for governments to ban the domain entirely. It's opening Pandora's box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.145.211 ( talk) 02:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC) The article should talk more about the risks involved with introducing a .xxx domain.
Having just read 2004's RFC 3675: .sex Considered Dangerous, I'm firmly of the opinion that the notable concerns raised there about the merits and feasibility of .sex, which has since morphed into .xxx, need to be outlined in this article. I say "notable" because RFCs are issued by people who know what they're talking about when it comes to the plumbing of the internet, and are not coming at this debate from a simplistic and irrelevant "is porn bad?" perspective as seen in some press coverage. I don't have the technical understanding to incorporate the RFC into the article in summary form without the possibility of misrepresenting it, but I'm sure there are many Wikipedia editors who could do the needful. Also, we need a redirect from .sex to this article, since the issues someone looking it up needs to hear about are the same: it is essentially the same proposal under a different name. 82.32.186.24 ( talk) 12:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article include the arguments over the creation of the domain including opposition from social conservatives and anti-porn feminist as well as from governments such as the Obama administration. Also missing is the the response from certain governments over it's creation such as Indian promising to block the .xxx domain country-wide. -- Cab88 ( talk) 07:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I see this page is categorised only in the porn categories, not in any technology or Internet categories. I'm not very familiar with how categorisation works on Wikipedia, but surely an article about a gTLD should have some computing categories applied? TRiG ( talk) 18:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Czarkoff ( talk · contribs) 00:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
This section is supposed to be edited only by reviewer(s). Please put your comments to the Discussion section below.
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
| |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
| |
2c. it contains no original research. |
| |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
The article doesn't provide enough information about the actual usage of the TLD. Do the main pornographic content publishers use it? Did it affect the amount of pornographic content in other TLDs? Actually, the landrush started too recently for this article to cover the details, necessary for this criterion, so I doubt it can become a GA soon. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. |
| |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. | This is a rather brief overview of problems. The real showstopper is the fact that not enough time have passed since the registration within this TLD became possible. As this event, which was vital for the article's topic, has already occurred, this article is supposed to inform readers of the impact, which is yet unknown. |
These comments reflect the revision 476927480 of the article.
An image used in this article,
File:Xxx tld logo.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Xxx tld logo.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 16:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC) |
Is it worth having a section on "preventive domain squatting", whereby addresses like "vatican.xxx" are purchased specifically to present them being misused? DS ( talk) 13:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand the link under see also... What does this have to do with Operation Choke Point? Nulbyte ( talk) 18:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
The redirect .sex has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 3 § .sex until a consensus is reached. – CopperyMarrow15 ( talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 23:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)