Single domain

This page is kept for historical interest. Any policies mentioned may be obsolete. If you want to revive the topic, you can use the talk page or start a discussion on the community forum.

Compare Lean domain management

A single domain (single second-level domain) can be used to save costs and coordination time, as well as to increase usability.

This could be "wikimedia.org" or a new, shorter domain, subsequently denoted "W.org". This is a placeholder, not a suggestion to actually register w.org.

• costs: register and administrate domains for each project in each country
• limited recognition of wikimedia: everybody can set up a wikiSomething.org and run a MediaWiki there, if user do not look on the small wikimedia icon they might think to be on a wikimedia project
• images: browsers can be set to not allow images from other domains, then images stored in commons are not displayed on wikipedia etc.
• single sign-on: browsers can be set to not allow cookies from other domains, this is a problem for single sign-on

Via subdomains and paths the URLs will organize <project> and <language>.

• <project> could be:
  • books, commons, dict, news, (wiki-)pedia, source, species
  • a <countrycode> (for national organisations)

• <language> could be:
  • constant length language code (en:ISO 639-3)
  • or mixture of ISO 639-1 and ISO 639-2 as currently used
  • (See: Language codes)

• W.org
  • wikimedia.org or any other practical and available domain

• books.W.org/en
• commons.W.org/en
• foundation.W.org/en
• news.W.org/en
• source(s).W.org/en
• (wiki-)pedia.W.org/en

• en.W.org/books
• en.W.org/commons
• en.W.org/foundation
• en.W.org/news
• en.W.org/source
• en.W.org/(wiki-)pedia

• en.books.W.org/
• en.commons.W.org/
• en.foundation.W.org/
• en.news.W.org/
• en.source(s).W.org/
• en.(wiki-)pedia.W.org/

• books.en.W.org/
• commons.en.W.org/
• foundation.en.W.org/
• news.en.W.org/
• source(s).en.W.org/
• (wiki-)pedia.en.W.org/

To put the projectname in the path is less representative. In several search-engines you can restrict the search to a domain, not to a path, that means it would be better to have the language code in the path.

The most similar way to current URL structure, and also a way others do localisation (e.g. Yahoo.com with mixture of country and language localisation), would be "<language>.<project>.W.org" .

Yeesha, people, please read carefully before spouting off. He is not talking about actually registering W.org, as he explicitly states in the second sentence of the article. 75th Trombone 03:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main drawback to this is that it makes URLs that much less memorable, and harder to type. Although it is perfectly possible for any number of alternatives to arrive at the correct destination, in order for the stated advantages to remain true these redirections would have to be a) as few as possible (for ease of administration) and b) non-invisible - i.e. you type http://en.wikipedia.org, and your browser takes you to http://en.pedia.wikimedia.org, or whatever, changing the content of your address bar (in order that cookies, browser settings, etc, be loaded for the canonical domain). This rather defeats the "usability" objective, since users will then get used to the long, canonical, URLs (that's where their bookmarks will point, the URLs they copy into other documents; and thus, most of the links they follow...). For an example of how this "feels", visit the following nice short URL: http://h2g2.com/A516647; then browse around a bit, and try noting down your URL "for future reference"... - IMSoP 21:11, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think, the Idea to bundle all the domains in one second-level domain is very good.. This really would handle problems with single login and image-loading, as described above. It will also clearly show that a project is a project of the wikimedia-foundation.. just look at "www.wikicities.org" or "www.wikitravel.org" What IMSoP says is, as i think, exagurated. Even nowadays an url of a wikipage is somewhat complex, for example that one of this page: meta.wikimedia.org/w/Single second-level domain . Also m wikipedia (www.wikipedia.de) redirects me to de.wikipedia.org and again to de.wikipedia.org/wiki/article.

As the different projects are not all available in different languages (e.g. commons or meta) the subdomain should be used to determine the project, the subdir should be used to determine the language.

<project>.wikimedia.org/<language>/

In my case: wikipedia.wikimedia.org/de/ (no big difference to de.wikipedia.org/wiki/ ) The second-level-domains <project>.<lang> should be preserved and redirect to the subdomains - simply for prohibitung misuse of them.

www.wikipedia.de/article should then point at wikipedia.wikimedia.org/de/article and so on. (by now, this end up in such a page: "404 error: File not found / The URL you requested was not found. / Did you mean to type ..."

Regarding the registration of "w.org" - i think this will hardly be possible and very expensive.

He's not talking about actually registering w.org. Please reread the second paragraph of the article, along with my recent addition to it. 75th Trombone 03:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? w.org doesn't seem to be taken, and I hardly think one-letter domains cost more.

I don't know whether they cost more, but they're certainly only given out in "special circumstances" of some kind; do you really think it wouldn't be taken by now otherwise? - IMSoP 19:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

how about wiki.org ? last edited 2002-06-09, maybe wikifoundation could get it?

One letter 2nd level .org subdomains are reserved per ICANN policy [1]. Wikimedia is not that important to change agreements among ICANN and PIR. Suggestion: it would be easier to have TLD .wiki created for all wikis and have some prominent 2nd level subdomain there...

He's not talking about actually registering w.org. Please reread the second paragraph of the article, along with my recent addition to it. 75th Trombone 03:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, Wikipedia is quite good "brand" and I'd be against any attempt to move Wikipedia somewhere else. Problems with shoddy security practices in browser software should IMO be solved in the browser software. E.g. I can imagine Wikimedia-toolbar providing not only login, but convininet interface to all MediaWiki functions. Btw I think Wikipedia is "project of its users" as much as "project of Wikimedia foundation" and promoton of Wikimedia foundation at the expense of moving Wikipedia is not such a good idea. --Wikimol 18:48, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It may be possible to consolidate everything into one "wikimedia.org" site, and then having one giant wiki there. There would be different methods of viewing the same content (similar to how forks work on HFS — not simply namespaces), and one could select from any of these forks to view: Wiktionary definitions, Wikipedia entries, Commons images, Wikibooks, etc.; or different language versions. Everything would be consolidated under this plan, and accessible at something like "wikimedia.org/wiki/Subject", with project discussions in the "Wikimedia:" namespace. The problem is that this is such a break from what is already established, and that it would require a great amount of reworking of MediaWiki. But it'd be cool. « alerante ✆ ✉ » 21:12, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)