Jump to content

Talk:.zip (top-level domain)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 19 November 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:SNOW. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bobby Cohn (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


.zip (top-level domain).zip.zip presently redirects to ZIP (file format) but with this being appropriately disambiguated with the full capitals, the .zip here being the top-level domain, this is the COMMONNAME and can be appropriately disambiguated with differences in the title with appropriate hatnotes as existing on the article presently. Bobby Cohn (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Computing has been notified of this discussion. Raladic (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (STRONGLY) per above. It would absolutely WP:ASTONISH the vast majority of readers to end up at the top-level domain instead of the file-format when typing in ".zip". The only versions I'd support would be (A) the status quo (in which ".zip" redirects to the file format), or possibly (B) where ".zip" goes to a disambiguation page. Like, imo, either the file format is the primary topic, or there is no primary topic — but, either way, the top-level domain definitely isn't the primary topic. Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The widely used file format using this extension is the primary topic. The rarely used TLD, whose biggest claim to fame is its risk of confusion with the other topic, is not the primary topic. (By the way, I appreciate your work in creating this article.) Adumbrativus (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (same logic). But I've added a {{redirects}} to ZIP (file format) per convention, which should mitigate the risk of confusion. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

[edit]

  • ... that despite security concerns about the top-level domain .zip, researchers found it contained slightly less malicious usage than the general internet?
  • Source: Deacon, Alex (July 17, 2023). "The .zip TLD: Ripe for abuse, but so far so good". DNS Research Federation.
  • Reviewed:
Moved to mainspace by Bobby Cohn (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Bobby Cohn (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • Not a review, but the hook rather buries the lede somewhat. Assuming they check out, I suggest ALT1: ... that the release of the .zip top-level domain was condemned by cyber security experts?--Launchballer 02:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This was a case where I was steeped in the source material and after reading nothing but negativity about the subject, it was the fact that made me go "huh, actually less you say?" But I agree, this is an appropriate summary of the article. I may have also been trying to avoid the pitfall of being too negative, something that came up in my last DYKN. Nonetheless, though I'm not familiar with the process, I endorse the ALT1 in addition to my own phrasing. Bobby Cohn (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]