Talk:List of domain name registrars

message: Agreeing with a huge percentage of posts of this talk page, I have added more d.b.a.s and a.k.a.s to the "top ten" list for the following reasons:
* Different ranking and reporting organizations use different names for the businesses. Follow the links in the article to see this in action.
* Rankings do not always use the name most commonly recognized by Wikipedia readers -- e.g. INWW.com is more commonly known as Melbourne IT, Schlund is more commonly known as 1&1.
* Gawd I don't want to go through the list of reasons again. Read the rest of this page.
Thirdbeach (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left out the links to home pages but restored the a.k.a.s etc. because the different published rankings -- DomainTools, ICANN, WebHosting.info, and RegistrarSTATS -- use different company names. Also, because historically the NameTools list has been least controversial, I've listed the names it uses first. I'm not saying I agree -- NameTools is the least frequently updated -- but it does have the benefit of not being a registrar itself. And at least with links to all four rankings people can evaluate for themselves. Thirdbeach (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Moved. Thirdbeach (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: a.k.a.s and d.b.a.s

message: Factual cases of Contentions and Disputes may be reported here.  --Connection 18:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contentions and Disputes 

message: Whoever decided to cut this article to replicate the top 10 list at registrarstats.com made a huge mistake. First of all, that information is copied straight from the website and may fall under copyright violation. And since the article offers no other information other than a top 10 list, its validity as a WP article is also questionable. If I were to nominate the article for deletion I'm guessing that it would probably get deleted. Looking back through the article's history, however, it seems that one editor (whose user page states that he was blocked by an admin and has left WP forever) was responsible for making this a top 10 page. The article used to contain a table of registrars, with pertinent details about their service offerings, which was maintained up until this time last year (see edits by Cburnett in April 2006). Since that table was the only encyclopedic portion of this article, I am going to do a huge revert back to that version and delete the top 10 list. The top 10 list will be linked as an external reference. If anyone objects to this and reverts it back to the top 10 list, please take fair warning that I will be putting this article up for deletion under copyvio and notability. VanishingUser 13:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to revert it yet, but I have to disagree with you. We cannot list every last ICANN accredited registrar out there. There are something like 800 of them, and that would be original research. At least with the top 10 list it was cited. GreenJoe 15:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not suggesting that it be a complete list, indeed I removed that terminology from the previous version of the article -- plus, a complete list already exists which is linked to at ICANN. Notability is the criteria for inclusion. The top 10 list was not just cited, it was copied. The problem is that this article contributed nothing above what was copied from its source, so you are basically mirroring data from a copyrighted webpage. Even if you don't like my alternative, the chances that this page would survive as its top 10 incarnation are very small. And what part of the new table do you believe falls under the  criteria of OR? VanishingUser 16:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you determine who gets included in that "table" and who doesn't? There's long list of ICANN accredited registrars, and that's assuming we're sticking just to those that are ICANN accredited. There are even more resellers. It will be too long if you include all 800 of the ICANN registrars. As for WP:OR, if you're not including all 800, then it's rather subjective, and can't be cited. The old list was cited, it said it came from Registrarstats as I recall. GreenJoe 05:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I ended up reverting it. I couldn't stand to see how bad it was. GreenJoe 15:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You do realize that eNom themselves are replacing the ICANN statistics with their own stats website.  ICANN data is likely to be more neutral for such claims.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by KillAllSpammers (talk • contribs) 03:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive revert and edit 

message: According to this page: 1&1 Facts & figures Schlund + Partner was aquired by 1&1, can anyone confirm/deny this and should the entry on domain name registrars reflect this? Thanks --Campbecf 03:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schlund + Partner 

message: It would be helpful to at least link to good summary comparisons of the top domain registrars, esp. if this article is not going to include comparison data.
A key thing to consider when choosing a registrar would be, How easy is it to transfer out, if and when you ever want/need to?  In the case of godaddy, it seems to be "medium" hard to transfer out, just some tedious hassle and confusion and delay -- at least they make the authinfo transfer code readily available.  Unless you have "issues" with them, in which case it may be very difficult/expensive to transfer out.  In the case of moniker, they seem to have a very strict procedure, that you can not learn about without actually doing a transfer out.  The authinfo transfer code does not seem to be available, until it is actually needed.  Maybe it is good, and not a problem, that they have strict transfer-out control procedures?
-69.87.203.98 (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparisons 

message: I've reverted the source of rankings from DomainTools and back to RegistrarStats for several reasons. First, the DomainTools list is over a year old and as a result its rankings are now incorrect. Second, the editor incorrectly removed Moniker, which is #8 on the DomainTools ranking and #9 on the more current RegistrarStats ranking. Third, this IP is a confirmed sockpuppet of banned user KillAllSpammers. Multiple admins have examined this user and have not only permanently banned the logins but also have placed extended semi-protection on eNom because of editor's IP-hopping. The editor's attempt to shift from RegistrarStats to DomainTools is not about accuracy, it's about this editor's abundantly demonstrated hostility to anything eNom (as stated in this article and on the RegistrarStats Web site, RegistrarStats.com is run by eNom). I've followed Aniani1's recommendation of using RegistrarStats because it's updated daily and is therefore the more widely used industry standard. Thirdbeach (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  DomainTools, RegistrarStats, and Sockpuppetry by banned user KillAllSpammers 

message: I revised the tagging of names at the top of the list. Although technically correct, INWW.com renders as INWW.com, which is not used by the company, rather than Melbourne IT, which is. Also, the Wikipedia community appears to be more comfortable using RegistrarStats as the authoritative ranking, and RegistrarStats lists the company as "Melbourne IT". Thirdbeach (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page rendering 

message: There seems to be a difference between the figures provided by Webhosting.info and the statistics provided by Registrarstats and Domaintools. The error is approximately 2 million domains. Registrarstats and Domaintools are in rough agreement so the error is in how Webhosting.info calculates its figures. Jmccormac (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Error in Webhosting.info Statistics WRT Registrarstats and Domaintools