Talk:.mobi

message: 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
:For the record, this source is from  May 19, 2004. --78.3.3.201 18:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism and warning from Berners Lee

message: 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)
replies: text: It may simply represent, short sweet relevant, fits inside mobile device resolutions, numerically navigational, cache'd. etc...Yesofcourse 05:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content of .mobi websites 

message: 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
: Please see Wikipedia:External links for Wikipedia's policy on external links for an article. —tregoweth (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, read it. The link is highly relevant, and interactively educational for readers of this particular entry. Yesofcourse 01:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: 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)
thread_title:  Premium names only, regular Mobi users mean nothing to us... 

message: 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  or related template there... Morgan Wick 10:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just remove it. ffm ✎talk 15:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Wikipedia adopt a new in-line template? 

message: 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? --Ckatzchatspy 00:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article cleanup 

message: 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)
thread_title:  mTLD global registry 

message: Seriously, what the fuck?
:An anonymous person's cursing commentary about their opinion on this TLD is not particularly on-topic for the discussion section for a Wikipedia article. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  .mobi is BULLSHIT 

message: 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)
thread_title:  .mobi as browser default 

message: 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!
* http://mtld.mobi/mobilenet/release_032807.html
** In .mobi on 2011-05-20 22:31:25, 404 Not Found
** In .mobi on 2011-05-31 15:02:20, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: 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!
* http://mtld.mobi/company/about/directors
** In .mobi on 2011-05-20 22:31:25, 404 Not Found
** In .mobi on 2011-05-31 15:02:28, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: 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!
* http://mtld.mobi/mobilenet/about_investors.html
** In .mobi on 2011-05-20 22:31:26, 404 Not Found
** In .mobi on 2011-05-31 15:02:37, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 3 

message: 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!
* http://dotmobiz.com/nieuws/nieuws.php?actie=nieuwsbericht&nieuwsid=77
** In .mobi on 2011-05-20 22:31:26, 404 Not Found
** In .mobi on 2011-05-31 15:02:46, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 4 

message: Cannot find any significant coverage on this subject.  Should be merged with its parent organization article Rogermx (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Klbrain (talk) 09:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Mobiforge]] into [[.mobi]]