Talk:SonicWall

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Business Stub‑class

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

i added that cencership post, hope u like it, probly got some grammer errors in it, im not much of a english student. ;)

Unfortunately, it's not appropriate for wikipedia -- all content has to respect WP:NPOV and WP:CITE. Reporting someone else's (notable) opinions about SonicWALL is fine, but simply adding your own feelings is not OK. Sdedeo (tips) 19:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i must concur with the gentlman on his post. it is quite understandable.

Fair use rationale for Image:SonicwallBlue thumb.gif

Image:SonicwallBlue thumb.gif is not being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where does SonicOS belong in this mix? The product lines are all links to the company website areas. Does this follow the same convention of other articles? 166.70.62.193 (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Limitations of filtering

I have again removed the section on limitations of filtering. It is in no way specific to this company, and it is unsourced. I see no reason to include it here (instead of, say, in a general article on firewalls). Huon (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the above section. Perhaps as Huon says it should be redrafted to be more specific to SonicWALL, but it should be included since consideration of the limitations of filtration is crucial to a full understanding of SonicWALL and this information may not be readily available to the layman. I would say if there is doubt about its inclusion then it should be left in rather than removed (or censored :) ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.137.6.159 (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but internet censorship has nothing to do with the subject of the article. It is a loose connection at best. Q ^{T C} 09:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, failing a separate article about the SonicWALL firewall this information is of relevance to a full understanding of SonicWALL. Agreed the early edits were advertisements. Suggest review http://www.sonicwall.com/us/products/5255.html#heading_5256. Is your objection that you consider internet censorship to be at national or supranational level rather than on a network by network basis? In any case my description re limitations in the last edit was more accurate than yours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.137.6.159 (talk) 09:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see the page, it's a list of things it can classify and filter. My objection is not about censorship or what it is/means, my objection is that it has nothing to do with the article about this company. Q ^{T C} 09:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how on viewing a list of some 40 plus categories of sites which this company's product disallows access to it is possible to conclude that internet censorship is not relevant to this article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.137.6.159 (talk) 09:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it relavent? This company provides an appliance that can filter things. What people do with it is beyond the scope of this article. Q ^{T C} 09:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is an intended primary purpose of the product, rather than something which it could be used for.

Consider an article about a handgun as an example. It would be relevant to note that it can be used to kill people or animals (since that is one of its primarily functions) but not relevant to note that it can be used as wall insulation, a back-scratcher or ship's ballast because these are not uses to which it would normally be put.

Where we are talking about something which (1) the designers had firmly in mind when creating the product; and, (2) is hyped massively at point of sale it should be mentioned in the Wikipedia article in furtherance of the spread of knowledge on the subject. 213.137.6.159 (talk) 10:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing that, however this article is about the company not the product. Q ^{T C} 10:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So in your opinion what is needed here is a new article on, say, SonicWALL firewall? I suppose this is one way forward, I had thought it might not be of enough substance to start a new page and could be included here. Since this issue has been recurring since the articles creation in 2006 though it does need to be mentioned somewhere. 213.137.6.159 (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly relevant to comment on the efficacy of the product in its article. Of course, general issues and their specifics can be linked to their main articles. 217.28.8.234 (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still strongly disagree with the entire "Limitations of filtering" section. It is mostly unsourced, and the sources we have don't mention SonicWALL at all - that's not surprising since the section itself isn't really SonicWALL-specific. It reads like a how-to guide guide, expressly discouraged per WP:NOT#HOWTO. It also puts an undue emphasis on a small section of SonicWALL's products - we have about as much information on how to circumvent one of their product lines as on all the company's product lines combined. It's as if the hypothetical handgun article 213.137.6.159 mentions above (or, more precisely, the article on the handgun manufacturing company) had as much information on bulletproof vests as on firearms. I also disagree with the "if in doubt, include it" motto - by Wikipedia's policies the burden of proof is on those who want content included, not on those who want it removed. Huon (talk) 13:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone agrees that the historic 'how to' style was inappropriate - we have wikihows for that and advertising is also no acceptable.

For clarity on the "if in doubt, include it" point - certainly where the information proposed for inclusion is not verified then the burden should be on those wanting it included to prove its validity - that's a given lest we abandon any notion of being an encyclopedia.

However the above is totally distinguishable from a situation where we are talking about a link to another Wikipedia article which has already gone through the burden of proof test.

In any case (1) there are at least two viewpoints on whether this point should be included (see history and discussion) ; (2) the content has passed the burden of proof test on another article so cannot be misleading; and, (3) even if you do not agree it adds anything to this article you must agree it doesn't detract from it either. Looking at this from a 'worst outcome' point of view it does no harm to include and it may do harm to exclude it.

As 217.28.8.234 says above it is clearly relevant and it should be somewhere on Wikipedia. I think the only remaining point of disagreement is whether it should be in a new article. I am inclined to think as I stated above that this is not sufficient for a new article but should be a header under SonicWALL, but I accept this is a matter of debate.

Perhaps we should consider this as a disambiguity problem? i.e. 'SonicWALL' and 'SonicWALL firewall product'?

A final comment is that it is in the interest of atleast ten Wikipedia users who have commented to include this information and who knows how many who have not and so this needs to be resolved and historically it's exclusion has not been a satisfactory means of resolution. 213.137.6.159 (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the shortened version by Q. The undue emphasis has been reduced, the irrelevant proxy server lists are gone, and it actually focuses on what the SonicWALL products can and can't do. Now a secondary source would be nice, but I doubt we'll find one. Huon (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is only best if a seperate page is written to include specifically the operation of the firewall product and its limitation. That said it is an imporvement on no mention at all. Thomascjackson (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]