Talk:.gov

message: Dotgov.gov seems to be unavailable. Does anybody know reasons?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.206.120.9 (talk • contribs) 2 July 2006
:dotgov.gov does indeed appear to be down. --Hm2k (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dotgov.gov 

message: In another article disscussion page a person said that anything in a .gov website is in the public domain and it was copied word for word into the article. is this copyright infringement ir is it legal? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krazee Kid (talk • contribs) 05:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In many cases it is true, but you should still check to see if there's a copyright statement. Even so, copying things wholesale is questionable. 68.39.174.238 21:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public Domain 

message: Kansas is www.ks.gov?
What's that about?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.155.65.226 (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  .ks.gov? 

message: Is there any evidence of this? --Hm2k (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: uj 2603:300A:700:DB00:29C9:92D3:8465:26F5 (talk) 03:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  operated by ZoneEdit 

message: I sure that other countries apart from the USA use .gov 
The UK for example: 
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/index.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.70.162 (talk) 10:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The website you reference is a gov.uk domain, which is different from .gov.  Only governments in the United States can us .gov domains.  The Government Domain Registration and Services website states ".gov domains are limited to United States government organizations at the federal, Native Sovereign Nation, state, and local level, and U.S. territories."  If you are interested, you should read this for more information.  Cheers!  --Andrew Kelly (talk) 09:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other countries 

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!
* https://www.dotgov.gov/help_qualify.aspx
** In .gov on 2011-05-20 21:42:29, 404 Not Found
** In .gov on 2011-05-31 13:23:08, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 13:23, 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!
* https://www.dotgov.gov/auth_letter.aspx
** In .gov on 2011-05-20 21:42:29, 404 Not Found
** In .gov on 2011-05-31 13:23:25, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 13:23, 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!
* https://www.dotgov.gov/final_rule_102.aspx#10217335
** In .gov on 2011-05-20 21:42:29, 404 Not Found
** In .gov on 2011-05-31 13:23:29, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 13:23, 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://california.gov
** In .gov on 2011-05-20 21:42:51, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
** In .gov on 2011-05-31 13:23:49, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
--JeffGBot (talk) 13:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 4 

message: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html
"Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to Better Serve the American People". United States Federal CIO Council. May 23, 2012. Retrieved November 30, 2014.
White house site is being modified.
Two new citations for that information:
* https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/05/23/presidential-memorandum-building-21st-century-digital-government
* https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digital-government.html
GravaT (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Link 

message: What does it mean by "The U.S. is the only country that has a government-specific top-level domain in addition to its country-code top-level domain." Is it saying that the US is the only country that uses its country-code top-level domain and .gov in the same link? Because if that's the case it's certainly false. Australia's country code is .au, and Australian government websites use .gov and .au in the same link. For example: https://www.ato.gov.au/ . Please forgive me if I've misunderstood the statement. 
Cockatiel16 (talk) 09:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: In Australia's case, the Australian country-code top-level domain ("ccTLD") is .AU, while Australia's governmental domain is the second-level domain GOV.AU. The claim that the article is making is that the US government is the only government which has a governmentally-specific (as opposed to a nationally-specific ccTLD) top-level domain in addition to its normal ISO3166-Alpha2 ccTLD (.US in this case, although that's lightly-used).  I don't know when that bit of the article was written, but it's a claim I'd be uncomfortable making without exhaustively surveying all of the ngTDs and making some determination as to whether each is governmental or not. Saying that .GOV's history is interesting in that it dates from an era before the international expansion of the Internet, when "GOV" could be assumed to refer to the United States government, specifically, seems worthwhile. But I don't think that any further claim needs to be extended. Bill Woodcock (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think some info may be false 

message: They don't add anything to the article, and don't directly relate to the .GOV top-level domain.  While it's nice that the states have second-level domains under .GOV, so do thousands of other things, so listing the states specifically seems gratuitous, particularly since their state domains are their state two-letter abbreviations, so the entire table lists nothing that couldn't be summarized with the sentence "The fifty US states and the District of Columbia each have second-level domains under .GOV, consisting of their canonical two-letter abbreviations."  And as for the list of countries that have GOV second-level domains, it says "several other countries" but then proceeds to list 87 of them. Not "several" yet also not all two hundred. That just seems like a poorly-made compromise to me.  I suggest getting rid of both tables, but if folks prefer, a three-way split would also work, with this article remaining about .GOV, a second article being a "List of geopolitical subdomains of .GOV" and a third article being a "List of GOV canonical second-level domains." Then people can argue separately about whether either of the latter are worthwhile endeavors. Bill Woodcock (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The bulk of the article are tables of state second-level, and other-government second-level domains.