Jump to content

Talk:Dropbox

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.34.210.83 (talk) at 17:16, 8 June 2012 (→‎Dropbox Privacy Scandal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Notability

I wrote a stub article that was flagged for speedy deletion within 60 seconds of entry. I immediately went back to put a {{hangon}} note at the top, but it was already deleted. I still have the text and I have written a more complete entry. However, before I post an expanded version of the article, I want to make sure it doesn't receive the same speedy deletion treatment. The article should survive the speedy deletion criteria for the following reasons:

  • The entry was not an advertisement. The content was informational. I am in no way connected with the company.
  • The entry is necessary to clear up confusion between Dropbox the storage service and Dropbox the rock band. The page for the band currently has a link to Dropbox (storage provider) but there was no article.
  • The article is noteworthy, and similar storage providers such as Mozy or XDrive have pages.

Peter (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like sound reasoning to me. If you recreate the page, there shouldn't be a problem. In the future, consider writing the page locally, for example in your word processor, so that it has a bit more content, then publishing it, to avoid confusion like this in the future. Thanks for your contributions! Happy editing! Pip (talk) 05:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Pip. Peter (talk) 03:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deletionism is a plague. This is why I don't submit new articles to Wikipedia. Get rid of those control freaks.--87.162.10.120 (talk) 11:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fo real. 128.208.95.191 (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

License

I updated the license label in according to the COPYING file found in the source package of DropBox. user:vuln —Preceding undated comment added 04:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

  • I would not say that Dropbox is GNU-complient. The website says: "dropboxd is a per-user closed-source daemon process that makes sure your $HOME/Dropbox directory is properly synchronized with your other computers and our secure backend. nautilus-dropbox is a GPL'd Nautilus plugin that connects to dropboxd (via a pair of Unix domain sockets) and presents a GUI based on the information dropboxd provides." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.99.21.83 (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dropbox is licensed under GPL v3 on both client and server, as it use GPL v3 libraries.
  • source code for linux client is available on website. so it shouldn't say closed source on licence info...

Limitations

On the current article it's written: "The major limitation of the Dropbox system is that only files in the Dropbox folder are backed up and synced.".... how is that a limitation? that's the way the program it's supposed to work. You have a box.. you drop files in it.. and they go into the internet... so the fact that the program does what it's supposed to do is a limitation?

And you can actually get around that with some googling, just did. :) http://lifehacker.com/5154698/sync-files-and-folders-outside-your-my-dropbox-folder

85.225.146.44 (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thats true. I've done it too and you CAN make symlinks :) The software comes with the app! whiskers75 17:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


But that doesnt work on Windows since you cant make symlinks... Luka666 (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The limitation is that you can't back up program data, since the program itself more often than not chooses where to store the files for you. So, that makes backing up things like email, and application preferences impossible without something like the previously mentioned symbolic links. Also, Luka666, you can make symlinks on Windows; it's actually the first example in that Lifehacker article. Anunnakki (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the program is not supposed to work as a backup service. It's a storage service on the cloud. I don't understand you should say the program has a limitation about something that is not supposed to be a feature from it. Hey... Dropbox as a limitation because it can't make me breakfast! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.247.230.156 (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, think about what you're saying. You're just playing with semantics here - "storage service" and "backup service" are indistinguishable. Yes, one of Dropbox's primary features is the easy access of your selected files from places other than where it was created; but to say that it's not intended as a backup service is just absurd. Online backup is one of the main features Dropbox touts, as seen on the home page, and the tour page.
Dropbox isn't limited in implementation (nobody has said or is saying that), it's limited by its fundamental design - that is, only the files in your designated folder are synced (backed up), rather than choosing arbitrarily which files to upload. With that said, that limitation isn't a downfall, it's just a design decision. It makes keeping track of all your backed up stuff much easier; and you don't have to manually choose which files to upload - it's all decided by what's in your Dropbox folder. So please, calm down. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History and alternatives

I really don't think we need to keep expanding that list of alternatives. There really don't need to be more than one or two examples. I'm not even sure "alternatives" should be a part of that section. For readers that are curious about alternatives to Dropbox, the link to the list of backup services is at the bottom of the page. If there are no objections, I'll remove the "alternatives" part of that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anunnakki (talk • contribs) 22:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. I would have performed the same action. ThemFromSpace 21:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Security

I don't understand what "Zero-knowledge proof encryption" means. The phrase only gets 3 hits on Google and they all come from this article, which makes me think that this is just nonsense. Please explain better what this is supposed to say. -- LM 2010-01-12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.173.130.126 (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you click on it and read the article? That worked pretty well for me. If there were any concern over the inclusion of it in this article, I would say it's the lack of a solid reference. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Anunnakki (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

22 April 2010 Revisions

I revised a few things today, mostly the recent additions by User:218.248.46.85. Here is a general summary of the changes, and the reasoning for them where necessary:

  1. Changed reference about Drew Houston and Arash Ferdowsi founding the company
    There was no mention of them in reference provided.
  2. Changed the non-free NY Times reference regarding Freemium model + 2 GB free to Dropbox's official pricing page.
  3. Changed the TechnoSpot reference regarding Dropbox's competitors to an article that speaks of its competition mainly in prose.
  4. Moved the "Sneakernet" sentence to the Features section, and reworked the sentence.
  5. Removed sentence - "Files in the Dropbox folder may then be shared with other Dropbox users or accessed from the web."
    Sentence is redundant, as this is mentioned in the previous sentence, and in other parts of the article.
  6. Removed sentence - "The company received seed funding from Y Combinator and Sequoia Capital." and added {{expand section}}
    Sentence does not belong in Adoption section, and it was recently added to the introductory section.
  7. Removed the "Alexa rank" part of the recent additions
    I'm not sure what this is, but there is either no parameter in the Infobox template for that, or the user got the syntax wrong. Besides that, I'm not so sure it's relevant to the article.

–Cosmopolitan (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions from edits on 23 April

  1. Removed "award-winning" from the intro, and the added citation. Both were unnecessary.
  2. Removed the extra citation for the free 2 GB (unnecessary)
  3. Rewrote the History section for grammar and according to better sources.
  4. Removed "Dropbox's servers have successfully stored around 1.3 million gigabytes of data." Although interesting, this figure will constantly change, and will be impossible to maintain.

–Cosmopolitan (talk) 08:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

26 April Revisions

  1. The sentence about the company's founding really doesn't need 3 citations.
  2. The "Financials" section is unnecessary; and not only did the "Features" section make it sound way too much like an advertisement, but all of that info is mentioned elsewhere in the article.
  3. Revisions to various citations.

I also want to point out a couple of things to User 218.248.46.100 (I will post this on your talk page as well, but as you are not a registered editor, I am not sure if it will reach you there) – I am confident that all your recent edits over the past few days have been well intentioned, but there are some basic guidelines you should be aware of when editing articles:

–Cosmopolitan (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of the "Reception" setion

I think the "Awards" section should just be expanded and turned into a general "Criticism" section. If someone wants to get the ball rolling on that, that'd be great; otherwise, I'll start it when I get a chance. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 08:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On some thought, I don't think this article really deserves an entire section to discuss its critical reception. The only reception this type of software would receive are praise, or a statement of preference toward another similar service—and both of those situations could not really be formed into the neutral discussion required by such a section. This is circumstantially evidenced by the current state of the "Reception" section. So, if there are no objections, I will shorten that section into a generalized sentence and move it into the introduction. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with the removal of content from that section: It helps "establish notability" and helps the article avoid deletion. While I agree it might be very hard (or impossible) to keep the reception section "100% neutral", it is very common practice to include "criticism" sections in articles, in fact, I think "reception" is much more neutral than "criticism" and we can list there "good" and "bad" things. But I do not oppose a merge of the section in the article (at the end, for example). --SF007 (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cosmopolitan. The "Reception" section has no added value and reads like an advertisement. In addition, if some journals have been positive about dropbox then where are the references?--Bertbiker (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking in China

Last removed content:

=== Blocking in China === In May 2010 Dropbox users in [[People's Republic of China|china]] were unable to access Dropbox. Later Dropbox confirmed that Dropbox had got [[Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China|blocked]] in [[People's Republic of China|china]]. However many considered this to be a proof of Dropbox's rapidly rising popularity and international user base. <ref>{{cite web | url = http://stuff.techwhack.com/8815-dropbox-4 | title = dropbox banned | publisher = techwhack | accessdate = 2010-4-15}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.neowin.net/news/china-blocks-dropbox-cloud-storage-service | title = dropbox blocked | publisher = neowin | accessdate = 2010-4-15}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.geek.com/articles/news/china-has-blocked-dropbox-20100511/ | title = dropbox blocked | publisher = geek.com | accessdate = 2010-4-15}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url = http://shanghaiist.com/2010/05/11/another_one_bites_the_dust_file-sha.php | title = dropbox blocked | publisher = shanghaiist | accessdate = 2010-4-15}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.mingtiandi.com/entrepreneurship/20100511/idiot-proofing-dropbox-and-the-gfw/ | title = dropbox blocked in china | publisher = mingtiandi | accessdate = 2010-4-15}}


I realize that that this is an upsetting issue, and it's truly unfortunate that the Chinese government has decided to block Dropbox. However, this article isn't the place to discuss Chinese politics. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I agree that this is not a place to discuss Chinese politics, but the fact that Dropbox is blocked in China is certainly an important information for those who live in China. Just as important as which operating systems can be used, and much more important than the reception section. The fact that Dropbox is blocked in China should be in the article. 219.234.148.181 (talk) 03:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (2010)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dropbox (storage provider) → Dropbox — This is the most used page with the name. In May 2010 so far, Dropbox_(band) has 1,134 views, Dropbox_(album) has 411 views, and Dropbox_(storage_provider) has 24,223 views, and this is surely to increase since the band with the same name separated in 2006. Gary King (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Votebox

Should Dropbox's feature suggestion system, votebox, be mentioned in the article?--Earboxer (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I believe it should be, as it is a value added service to the dropbox product. -- OtterNZ (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. As above; its something they offer in the mix of services. --Jimthing (talk) 04:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simpler name

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dropbox (storage provider) → Dropbox (service) — Simpler name for the class of which Dropbox is part, making article easier to link. --Pnm (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: I don't see why not. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I just removed a referral link from a "example" url. Reading the history for the page it appears I'm not the first one to have to make this fix. Is there a good solution to this general problem? Worst case maybe ask Dropbox to redirect links that come from Wikipedia to their signup section just to the generic home page and remove the incentive to spam their links for the extra free space? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.84.180.231 (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should do something, because it seems to happen very frequently, and it's getting frustrating. I'll email Dropbox about it. If all else fails, we may have to request that the page be semi-protected. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 02:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall, there is a list of blacklisted URLs. Don't know if this would fit the criteria, but fell free to research. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean, but Dropbox support emailed back asking for a list of the referral links, and that he would "take care of the accounts." I don't know if this will solve anything for the prevention of further instances of this, but if it continues, as I said, we might just have to make the page semi-protected. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just got an email back from Dropbox's Customer Support Lead, and she has informed me that all referrals that have been edited into the page have been invalidated, and that future abuses will result in full account bans for them. I commented in a warning stating such in the article wherever the link to the home page appears, so hopefully this will be enough to deter future abusers. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 00:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just made a request for referral links to be added to the blacklist: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#www.dropbox.com/referrals. —danhash (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References in client section

I only did some basic referencing on the new client section I added, so that there was information for those who needed it, and so it wouldn't get deleted. At some point over the next few days I'm going to change the formatting of the references to match the rest of the article, unless someone else does it first. The access date for the references was July 5, 2010 GMT+12, and it was not long after midnight, so July 4 if the reference date is going to be UTC - OtterNZ (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's not just a matter of properly formatting the citations; it's a question of whether or not the article really needs a bulleted list of each individual user-end clients Dropbox offers. It really does not—the "Cross-platform" bit in the infobox relays all necessary information about that. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 07:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to Steven Walling's note, I think because of the API, it might be worth working into the prose elsewhere in the article (similar to the various usages listed in the last paragraph in the Functionality section), but a bulleted list of every single client is not necessary for the article. If the API Dropbox released causes an explosion of available clients, then such a list might warrant its own Wikipedia article, but until then, we don't need to list every client, and especially not in the main article. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is clear precedent for including lists of apps used to access a service with an active API. The open client ecosystems of Twitter and countless other services including Dropbox, are a subject that is both important and verifiable. Millions of people use these clients, and there is no reason not describe in detail the variety of clients that can be mentioned with decent sourcing. As you seem to be the only one fighting this, with multiple people adding it, I will be reverting. Steven Walling 22:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While the open client ecosystems of services like Twitter are most assuredly notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, the precedent for tabulating each individual client for a service like Dropbox, that is purely for personal data storage, is not. Twitter is undoubtedly an important and relevant service, so much so that it is nothing short of a modern-day cultural phenomenon. That is why the United States Library of Congress is cataloging it in its entirety.
Keeping these facts in mind, it is baffling to me that you are placing Dropbox anywhere near the same level of significance. Even as important a topic as Twitter is, even its own article barely mentions anything at all about the cornucopia of clients available for its use outside the web site itself. For this purpose, there is a wiki that is solely dedicated to listing all the notable clients. The most the main Twitter article says in this regard is

The service's Application programming interface (API) allows other web services and applications to integrate with Twitter.

This, or perhaps a sentence or two, is all Dropbox needs to point out about the comparatively small number of clients that are available thus far.
Secondly, it been less than two days since OtterNZ added the section, so I do not believe you have allowed enough time for holding the whopping two-editor majority opinion as reason for blithely bypassing discussion of a controversial addition. I will not continue edit warring with you, but you should settle the topic here before continuing edits to the section under controversy. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel that "cross-platform" is suitable as the only description of the scope of dropbox clients. One of the reasons that this service is so popular is because of the wide range of client options. Mozy is also listed as "cross-platform", but according to their website only have a windows and mac client. So that's 2 clients vs 11 that we've listed so far for dropbox. Sugarsync is also "cross-platform" but only has 6 cliets vs 11, and no linux version.
These examples help to show that dropbox's client options are significantly more impressive than other services, and deserve a mention. We could even go a step further and list the html access via the website as another client too, making it 12.
If we had to come to a compromise, I would be open to reducing the list, with things like reducing seperate bullet points for each mobile client to something along the lines of "Mobile - There are compact mobile clients available for iPhone, Windows Mobile, and Android that allow XXXXXXX functionality, with another being developed for blackberry" and "Desktop - Graphical front ends are available for Windows, Mac, and Linux (Gnome 32/64bit), which provide XXXXXXX functionality. There is also an unofficial client (KDropBox) to provide similar features for those running KDE in Linux" - Faded_Mantis (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You talk of Twitters many clients. I agree that dropbox doesn't have enough to warrant making a new page as a list of clients, but it does have too many clients to brush them all aside with "cross-platform". You said maybe it should be reduced? I also mentioned the possibility of that above, maybe an agreement with something along those lines could be come to? - Faded_Mantis (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it does have an impressive array of client options available, especially in comparison to similar services, but that is already mentioned throughout the article, albeit in generalized form. I would not be against expounding the article on its varieties of clients, but a bulleted list of every single one is just not necessary. The addition should be in prose somewhere in the intro, or somewhere in the Functionality section, something along the lines of

In comparison to similar services, Dropbox offers a relatively large number of user clients across a variety of desktop and mobile operating systems. There are a total of 12 clients, including versions for Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux, as well as versions for mobile devices, such as the iPhone, iPad, Android, Windows Mobile, and Blackberry.

–Cosmopolitan (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that your summary there is quite good as a compromise between what we each seem to want. I would like mention of the web page interface (it's the 12th client). When I picked the service this was an important part for me, it allows me to access my stuff from friends/work computers etc that don't have a dropbox client installed. Another thing that I think would go good to include is mention of the KDropBox client for KDE. This is harder to find because it's a community project, and doesn't appear on the dropbox main page, and can be a bit hard to find on google if you don't know it's name. However I'm having trouble thinking of how to add KDropBox reference. Maybe:

In comparison to similar services, Dropbox offers a relatively large number of user clients across a variety of desktop and mobile operating systems. There are a total of 12 clients, including versions for Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux (official and unofficial), as well as versions for mobile devices, such as the iPhone, iPad, Android, Windows Mobile, and Blackberry, and a web based client for when no local client is installed.

Changes are marked in bold. The word "unofficial" would have an external link to the KDropbox client. I think that this addition would be suitable to add to the second paragraph of the introduction in place of "the service is cross-platform, with clients available for several different operating systems and mobile devices, as well as a Web-based client." - Faded_Mantis (talk) 06:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Dropbox has reserved the right to delete or remove any file from users' accounts if it violates the DMCA." And how do they know whats in the files? They are snooping on them? --IceHunter (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume they would only find out if they received a takedown notice from some company, like if someone put a music collection in their public folder, posted the links all over the internet, and the copyright owner found it. It's the same process for anyone, really; YouTube deals with takedowns every day, for people who upload rips of TV shows, movies, etc. Dropbox likely doesn't have the resources, or the interest, to "snoop" every user's files. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dropbox Privacy Scandal

Dropbox is making widespread, international news for allegedly lying to the public about its security procedures and policy.

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/04/21/dropboxs-new-securit.html

Miguel de Icaza noticed that Dropbox's new security terms of service allows it to decrypt your stored files for law enforcement; but Dropbox has always claimed that it did not store the keys necessary to do this. This has been used as both a selling point ("we keep your files so safe, we can't access them") and an excuse ("don't ask us for help if you lose your crypto keys, we don't store them"), but it was, apparently, a lie. De Icaza worries that a company that lies about its crypto and security policy may not be trustworthy when it comes to files containing sensitive information... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowicide (talk • contribs) 22:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think wikipedia shares your definition of 'wide'. 68.34.210.83 (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Old name

There is no reference to the site's old name, "DropBoks." I think it's worth pointing out in the article.72.84.139.116 (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC) JHunterJ (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (2012)

Dropbox (service) → Dropbox – Primary topic. Page views: service 53,750, band 741, album 255. If the "drop off" box used at banks and such is the primary topic then why hasn't an article even been created? There really isn't much to say about that subject. It's like creating an article about shower curtain rings. One sentence does not an article make. Entries like this are better suited to Wiktionary. Marcus Qwertyus 13:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The average person in the world has a mobile phone but does not have a bank account; much less a car to use a dropbox.[1] Another 10% has access to computers. I also doubt other languages even have a word for this arbitrary portmanteau.
The word calculator came from human mathematicians called calculators. Human mathematicians (7 billion) still outnumber electronic calculators. Does that make mathematician the primary topic? Marcus Qwertyus 08:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The word "Apple" is frequently used to refer to the company Apple Inc., that does not mean that because many people use electronics, that the company should be primary article, whatever the usage hits on Wikipedia. The world calculator used to refer to clerks who would calculate things, thus an archaic usage, however dropboxes are still used in everyday life, so is not an archaic usage. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my comments above and the comments by other editors in support of my comments. Anyone attempting a close should probably take a look at the previous discussions. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is no primary topic. An older, even more prevalent computing term is Excel which is not the primary topic for excel. This is a web-based encyclopedia so of course there's lots of coverage of technology, just like the web in general is biased toward technology. And though in recent speech, "dropbox" often means Dropbox, it's still not the primary topic. By comparison, a justified primary topic is Facebook, which is both extremely well known, and only competes with the quite obscure original facebook. – Pnm (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dropbox&oldid=496625805"