Talk:Domain Name System Security Extensions

Requested move 31 March 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: There's consensus to use the full name of the protocol in the article title. Some editors expressed that many RS will give the full name of the protocol at first mention and then the acronym afterwards, and this style is considered better for Wikipedia, as well as being used in many related articles. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 13:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Domain Name System Security Extensions → DNSSEC – Per the Google Ngram viewer here, far less people are using the full name. Per WP:COMMONNAME, DNSSEC should be used. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. BD2412 T 00:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• Uncertain - In general I don't like to use acronyms for page titles, however I do understand the MOS:ACROTITLE principle, and in the case of "DNSSEC" I suspect that a very high percentage of visitors will search for the acronym instead of the full name. At this time I do not directly "oppose" this move as I have done over on the Talk page for "DNS". However, as I did there, I do question whether the Google Ngram Viewer is giving us the most accurate data to help us decide. If that tool is search books for both "Domain Name Security Extensions" and "DNSSEC", then it will naturally find few occurrences of the full name and many occurrences of the acronym because that is how authors write! Is there perhaps a different tool that could look at Google search volume or something similar? - Dyork (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dyork: Let me point out that searching for both terms gives me 60k results here , and only searching for the abbreviation gives 6 million results, see here, which implies that a lot of websites use the abbreviation without explaining the full name. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dyork: Please vote if you have made a decision about it. I'd like to note that you have linked it as DNSSEC on your own user page, contrary to Session Initiation Protocol PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - (Changing from 'Uncertain' to 'Oppose') I just went through and reviewed the other articles in the Internet Security Protocols template box and in the Internet protocol suite and in almost all the articles for other protocols, the title is for the full name of the protocol (with HTTPS and DMARC being two exceptions). I think for consistency with the overall suite of articles, and for reasons others have cited, this article should continue to be titled with the full name of the protocol. - Dyork (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reasons multiple editors have opposed at Talk:Domain Name System#Requested move 31 March 2021. Dyork is correct; many engineering and scientific documents use "Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) exactly once in the first paragraph and then use "DNSSEC" hundreds of times. Ngrams are a nice tool, but like all tools they have limitations. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I would like to point out that the name of this article was DNSSEC before, but it was WP:BOLDLY moved. See here. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. kbrose (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Question Why don't we have a redirect from (all caps) DNSSEC to here, rather than the existing one: Dnssec to here? ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Both redirects exist. See DNSSEC and Dnssec ("dnssec" is automatically included in "Dnssec"}. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I guess I don't understand Wikipedia's search algorithm, because typing D N S S . . always auto-completes to Dnssec, and unless you type the entire DNSSEC and hit return then you are led to the Dnssec redirect. I guess this is what I think could be improved; I don't think that the literature ever calls it "Dnssec". ---Avatar317^(talk) 03:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, our search function sucks. See WP:CANCER to see what we spend money on instead. One of the way it sucks is that it capitalizes search terms, which is how most people search. If I do a search on "DnSsEc" it should say "(Redirected from DnSsEc)" instead of "(Redirected from Dnssec)" --Guy Macon (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Avatar317: - do you have an opinion (either 'oppose' or 'support') on the requested move? You don't have to.. but I am just wondering if you do so that we can perhaps move closer to a consensus (or a lack of consensus). Just curious. - Dyork (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think we should treat this the same way we treat File Transfer Protocol and Secure Shell Protocol, for example, which is to use the full name. ---Avatar317^(talk) 03:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - In case anyone new is arriving due to the re-listing, prior to today the commentary since March 31 has been:

• 3 opposed
• 2 supporting

I would also note that a similar request to move was raised for Domain Name System on March 31, and the result was a consensus NOT to move the page to "DNS". I have already stated my opposition above, but I would further strengthen it by stating that I think this page should be consistent with the Domain Name System page, i.e. spelling out the entire name in the title. - Dyork (talk) 02:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I'd like to point out that the Internet Society says: "DNS Security Extensions, commonly known as DNSSEC" here. I therefor still think that the title should be DNSSEC. PhotographyEdits (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• @PhotographyEdits: It happens that I am the guy who wrote that particular page on the Internet Society's website.🙂 (That is my employer.) I do understand MOS:ACROTITLE, but I still oppose changing this Wikipedia article title. I think article titles should spell out the whole protocol name, as if you were encountering it the first time in a publication. And, in this case, I think that the article for DNSSEC should remain consistent with the article for DNS, where the full name is spelled out. - Dyork (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Dyork: Nice that you wrote that. But, the Wikipedia article title should refer to the commonly known name, and the first sentence should explain the full name. I think that the subject is primarily known for its abbreviation and that the same applies for DNS. Another example is IPsec, which is the common name for Internet Protocol Security, while the Internet Protocol article has a fully spelled out title. PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Feel like the article should be at the long name with the redirects as they are and not the reverse. Jessamyn (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support, however the lead section should start with the full name. I will also support the short names for HTTP, FTP and most other protocols. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

History section is very "lean"…

I'd go as far as to call it "malnourished". *When*, for starters, was DNSSEC-bis published? And where (which RFC)? And don't give me any "it's in other parts of the article" crap. An encyclopedia is not for reading completely, it's for finding info you're looking for (*especially* when you split it in sections), so the info one looks for MUST be in the section one reads/scans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.223.163.123 (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)