Talk:.fr

RFD discussion: November 2018–July 2021
And all the codes of. How is this lexical? --Per utramque cavernam 19:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's an abbreviation with a well-established meaning though. Keep  Purplebackpack89 20:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. These are not used with meaning in running text, only in URLs. URLs are outside the scope of a dictionary. —Rua (mew) 21:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep all We are not a normal dictionary, and these might be useful to someone. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We're not a normal dictionary, but we're still supposed to be a dictionary. Per utramque cavernam 23:19, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. These have no semantics, they are computer codes for DNS server software. Guldrelokk (talk) 19:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * They do have semantics, as noted below. This one is a domain name suffix meaning 'associated with France'.  Now, the names may be applied sloppily - google.fr may mean 'Google for French' rather than 'Google for France', and youtu.be has nothing to do with Belgium.  And they do occur in speech; I've compared prices on amazon.com and amazon.co.uk in a conversation.  We could argue that it's a suffix rather than an abbreviation. --RichardW57 (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Lots of domain names in .fr aren’t associated with France at all. They are sold freely, I could set up a website about Japan in Czech there if I would like. There is really nothing behind the .fr other than being a top-level DNS domain. Guldrelokk (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Setting up such a domain would be perverse. What would be the motivation?  The interpretation of the name would be that there was some connection with France.  --RichardW57 (talk) 11:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete; these are not lexicographic lemmata. Why not move that material to an appendix or to a sister Wikimedia project? —Born2bgratis (talk) 09:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep all. I'd expect some folks to come to Wiktionary to look these up. It is advantageous to Wiktionary to be a go-to resource for all kinds of semantic lookup. These clearly mean something, ie, a given country, in the context in which they are used. There is even a grammar in which these are used. Why should users have to learn the arcane rules by which we exclude such things? I'd be inclined to revisit some of our decisions to exclude, say, airport codes, telephone codes for countries and regions, etc. DCDuring (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Why stop at the top-level domains? amazon.com clearly means something, namely the company Amazon Inc., with which its subdomains are associated – in fact, much more consistently than those of .fr. Guldrelokk (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There are rules restricting company names on Wiktionary. But if we allowed amazon.fr, then its etymology would have to reference the TLD.  There would also be an SOP issue.  -- (late signature) RichardW57 (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, with POSSIBLE exceptions for the very commonly spoken ones like .com and .net: as a guy who has spent his entire life in an IT career. These are definitely erroneous: the dot is a separator. In a string like bob.users.example.com, the units are bob, users, example and com (which express a hierarchy) and the dots only serve to separate. In everyday slang people use words like but it is ignorant and foolish to include the dot as part of every TLD in general. It's like having a phone number "0123-456-789" and telling someone that your number is "-456-789" and including that separating hyphen, when you omit the local prefix. Equinox ◑ 02:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * To clarify: we could perhaps keep entries like fr, de, jp, but definitely not .fr, .de, .jp: that whole approach is so many shades of wrong. Equinox ◑ 02:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe that in normal parlance, where TLD is an unfamiliar TLA, the '.' is part of the expression, just as with file extensions (.doc etc.). I can certainly imagine, "He used a .fr domain for his Czech website about Japan!" How would you account for the '.' in a grammatical analysis? --(late signature) RichardW57 (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think ".fr" is analysable at all within the grammar of natural language. It's simply spelling out the suffix of the domain literally. It can be argued that the speaker has parsed the URL wrong, but that's a matter of the person's understanding of URLs, not their understanding of English certainly. —Rua (mew) 22:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: What about the phrase, "you're the bomb.com!"? Please note that "bomb.com" does not yet have an entry here. Johnny Shiz (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Does actually have any meaning there? I interpret the sentence as meaning exactly the same as . The  part doesn't seem to contribute anything to the meaning of the sentence, and one of the requirements of WT:CFI is that terms convey meaning. —Rua (mew) 22:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This reasoning is thoroughly, impressively flawed and reads like a willing misinterpretation of CFI. Why do we record kitty-cat when neither part adds any meaning to the other; why do we record pathway when it means the same thing as path; why do we record ninnyhammer when the "-hammer" adds no apparent meaning to the term ninny? bomb dot com, or bomb.com or however it should be spelled, is undeniably a "thing". That's not to say it should have any bearing on the status of .com on its own -- just that to deny it for this swiss-cheese reasoning is patently wrong. M. I. Wright (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes; I agree. Johnny Shiz (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, the POS should probably be a symbol. --Pious Eterino (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all words that just have senses meaning the TLD itself. .com and .org probably have actual linguistic, figurative meanings (it's my guess), but .az, for example, probably doesn't. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep all - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 20:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Non-linguistic content. Fay Freak (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Was going to vote keep, but then noticed that is out of sync (last update 5 years ago), so it's useless and potentially misleading. Delete. – Jberkel 16:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, given that we have so many other "country code top-level domains." Imetsia (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * RFD-deleted, or rather, in the process of being deleted. Though some other admin might want to take up the gauntlet on that. Imetsia (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)