Talk:Cloud computing

Raise the Importance Level

Importance should be increased to Top or High but something better than Mid

First off I think it deserves it because Cloud computing is a growing trend, and two because the analytics tools proves that this article is generating a high amount of visitors. Plus it is basically qualified to be of Top Importance because in essence it is a form of a Operating System.

Increasing the Importance level would attract more highly skilled editors which would make this article more attractive and more meaningful. --Ourhistory153 (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Couldn’t agree more with this comment, but I am not sure how it is done. I was preparing a post on this myself, and I was going to look at traffic comparisons between the Cloud Computing article and some high-importance computing articles such as programming languages. I will post more supporting information when I have done this. Fcalculators (talk) 00:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, just some quick comparisons. The Operating system article itself has approximately half the traffic of the Cloud computing article, and similarly for specific articles such as Linux. The Programming language article has fewer than this, and articles on specific very common languages like C++ have even less. So if traffic is a factor in determining importance, then Cloud computing should rank very highly. Of course, the topic is also being discussed very widely by many people connected with IT as consumers or practitioners, and many organisations are moving into the cloud. Fcalculators (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Fcalculators, I suppose we need to identify all the editors that are playing a proactive part in the articles formation and get them involved. Also find the editor who put in the legal section and invite them to set up a new article. Do you know who that is? And the other players? I've never been able to communicate with other editors effectively with this system and sure I'm missing out on some better methods .--Ourhistory153 (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be an automatic way of finding contributors of specific parts of the article, and the only method I am aware of is to painstakingly search through the History pages. Fcalculators (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This may be helpful. Haven't used it myself but it looks like what you're looking for. --Kvng (talk) 04:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I went to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computing/Assessment#Assessment_requests and put in a assessment request. Hopefully that will attract some attention to some expert editors. Also I think we should start linking cloud computing with other computer related pages where ever appropriate. Follow what I do for this Cloud Computing article and I will follow you. Whenever there is a talk session it seems a good idea to have someone else backup what you are saying.--Ourhistory153 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I have added to your request at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing/Assessment page. Fcalculators (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, I have requested a B-Class quality rating assessment. Fcalculators (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I've assessed the article as requested. Importance has been raised to Top reflecting the huge buzz around the topic at present. If it turns out to be just a fad, we can adjust downwards later. Quality is borderline B or C. Refs are abundant and tidy. There's a lot of room to improve accessibility and remove repetition. I tagged the lead as being too short. --Kvng (talk) 04:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

link and "lock"

Show wp "lock" please, and wikilink Telecommunications Industry Association for TIAonline.org

99.181.130.155 (talk) 07:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Vertical Market Removal?

The Vertical Market section was removed. I would like other editors to comment on this rather than leave one editor to make this decision. My intention was this was going to expand into different verticals with links to different articles. I request the opinions of other editors on this issue before I restore it.--Ourhistory153 (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Technical Gibberish

This article is written by a technician for other technicians--not for an ordinary consumer-user. I counted more than 50 terms that I was unfamiliar with, and several areas that I thought I didn't need to know to understand what the "cloud" is (my original intent for accessing this page in Wikipedia.

The first paragraph should start out with an easily digestible definition of what the cloud is and how it affects individual users. Then, that first paragraph should contain a bulleted list of what follows.

The rest of the article should be edited for relevance to end users and grouped accordingly: ordinary readers such as myself/extraordinarily-aware groups of users. Language has to be simplified in the areas not targeted for the more knowledgeable group; and if the "ordinary readers" group has almost nothing here for it--as I think might be the case--then relevant areas of the text should be adapted for it. (British English should be left in--we understand it, after all, and this article has far worse things going on with it.)

I didn't understand what the "cloud" was before I accessed this page, and felt so talked down to, that I never did realize my goal at the end.

(Sudarat64 (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC))

The criticism is valid. I don't believe the article deserve a B rating. I have taken it down a notch to C. I will try to find time to give this some love. --Kvng (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Minor Content Mis-match - Servers and the Cloud

Just a minor point...

The current diagram shows "servers" outside the cloud. However, this referenced content statement within the article - Cloud computing extends this boundary to cover servers as well as the network infrastructure.[28] - indicates "servers" are now considered within the cloud. Perhaps a revised diagram could resolve this "inconsistency". I suggest something showing servers both internal and external to the cloud since servers, at times, are like as other "user access devices" and are also cloud components...along with a brief explanation.

Nealct56 (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Towards an improved intro for this article

Generally, the intro should be shortened and made more concise. Here are some specific points:

• "Cloud computing is a marketing term": Well by now, it is more than a marketing term. It is reality in many peoples lives and it is big business.

Done --Bikeborg (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• (I like the analogy with the electricity grid. Makes the concept better to grasp for non-experts.)

Somebody wiped it out. I will eventually restore it. --Bikeborg (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Reference 4 "cloud computing defined" appears to be a scam to generate clicks on somebody's web page. The cloud computing definition should be here on Wikipedia and not elsewhere. Should be removed.
• The remarks on thin client applications and screen sharing are too specific for the introductory part of the article.

Maybe we need a separate section where we can go into more detail about certain cloud aspects. Maybe into the Characteristics section?

• I am not familiar with the term "converged infrastructure". Is that a Wikipedia notable concept or a marketing term?
• Reference to US government initiative: There are many many cloud initiatives in business and administration across the world. We should not discuss them here in the introduction.

I was bold and removed it. Please let me know if you disagree --Bikeborg (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

--Bikebot (talk) 11:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Good list. I have replaced the unreliable ref. Converged infrastructure is definitely notable. --Kvng (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The more I study the article the more it appears to me to require an overhaul. For example:

• The characteristics section talks more about the benefits than the characteristics. Should we separate benefits (value prop) and characteristics into two sections?
• Section 4.1: Looks like a Google afficionado entered the examples. Seriously: Devices specifically designed to be cloud clients are still the exception. Most devices are multi-purpose. I will try to clarify the policy on product examples.(see Wikipedia:spam)
• Section 4.5: Server: Isn't the server part of the infrastructure layer? As well as the network?
• The list of references needs a major review. There is a lot of them that are more incidental than fundamental reference literature.

--Bikeborg (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Revision of Layers Section

I am currently working on a revision of the Layers section. The main problem I see currently is that the current text does not prominently reflect the Service Models (IaaS, PaaS, SaaS) that everybody talks about and that are also defined in the NIST paper.

Also, cloud client and cloud servers are different beasts from the service models.

Therefore, I propose to do the following changes:

• Make one section called Service Models describing IaaS, PaaS, SaaS
• Make a separate section about cloud clients.
• Create a new picture

I am working on a draft text here - but it will take some time. Any help appreciated.

--Bikeborg (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)