Talk:country code top-level domain

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The list of all TLDs doesn't include .fx, even among the obsolete ones. As I recall, this used to be reserved for Metropolitan France (i.e. continental France rather than its overseas territories). Equinox 18:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to [1], FX is "exceptionally reserved" by the maintainers of ISO 3166: "This applies to certain code elements required in order to support a particular application" according to [2], but FX is not used otherwise. Use as a TLD is one of the applications of ISO 3166 per [3], and "[i]n fact ICANN (or IANA) have created a few ccTLDs (.ac and .uk) which are not based on official list of country codes but on the list of reserved ISO 3166-1 code elements", according to [4], but I don't see anywhere that .fx is one such. According to a Web site the accuracy of which I can't vouch for, "[t]here used to be in ISO 3166-1 an 'FX' code for 'Metropolitan France' (many contry[sic] lists still have this entry); someone (being unsatisfied with the way the .fr domain was managed) tried to convince Jon Postel to create a .fx ccTLD, but failed." See also [5].—msh210 18:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.


country code + top-level domain. -- Prince Kassad 10:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we have this only as an expansion for ccTLD, but it's unnecessary for it to be a single entry. Even country code seems SoP, except for the contrast with The Country Code. Equinox 12:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting encyclopedic topic. Wikipedia already has it so we can safely delete it. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.​—msh210 (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; wholly encyclopedic. bd2412 T 17:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, redirect to a glossary of internet domain name terminology. bd2412 T 17:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you mean we should use {{only in|{{in appendix|...}}}}?​—msh210 (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but do we have the appendix handy? There is also the listing below for generic TLD's. bd2412 T 17:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, {{only-in}} would seem ok if/when we have such an appendix. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]