Talk:Comparison of content-control software and providers

Computing: Software List‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

Is SafEyes really supposed to link to XXXChurch? Possible longstanding vandalism? --Thomas B♘talk 23:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

organization

Covenant Eyes: removed because its accountability software (other accountability software entries were moved some time ago when that article was made)
OnlineFamily.Norton: changed to other/cloud-based. should it go back to Windows section because it has a windows client? Or does it make a new category. Other potential cloud-based entries are around too.
Untangle: moved to Hardware. its certainly not a windows app. when you run the installer from an ISO you download, it takes over the whole machine
Mobicip: doesn't seem appropriate to dedicate an entire section to one entrant, especially when there's other similar ones. moving Mobicip to "other". gives feeling of remarkability undue per WP:NPOV
OpenDNS is not a hardware solution per se, it gets filtered not on customer hardware, but as a service by OpenDNS (through providing alternative DNS service on a "protected" computer)
Clavister Security Gateway removed, as its not notable nor are its products primarily for content control.
Websense moved to other section,. can't figure out what system it runs on or if its stand-alone, or what it is from Websense's own website. and since its not cited, i'm moving it out of Windows section. Even if someone knows that it is Windows software, we need a citation from a reliable source that proves it.Retran (talk) 09:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WinGate since its primarily an old fashioned NAT type application, not specifically designed as content-control software. Retran (talk) 09:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Baracudda remvoved because its again, an old fashioned firewall/nat thingy type devicesRetran (talk) 09:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hardware section

This section seems somewhat problematic because there are so many NAT/firewall devices, and most are not bought and/or used for the purpose of web filtering. Yet they have that capability. Your run-of-the-mill WiFi gateway/router has the capability to block IP nos and URLs. The distinction I suppose is if the device has the capability to subscribe to an ongoing human maintained list, and/or has some sort of heuristics to do filtering. But even if the device has that capability, are those devices bought and deployed for that purpose? If they're not already notable for being bought and deployed for that purpose, then their inclusion in this page would serve only as promotion, a violation of WP:NPOV. To decide what should be included will require a bit of research and not just relying on the idea that it's been cut and pasted into this list. Some citations in here would also be useful, to establish a particular hardware device's notability in content-control. I tried to eliminate ones that were obvious to me. I need some help though, in any direction (re-adding or removal).Retran (talk) 09:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a hardware section even included on a "software" list page? (araffals 16:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Araffals (talk • contribs)

removal of gateway/firewall/nat software that is not notable for the purpose of content-contol

I am removing hardware and software titles that have been placed in here without having notability as to their content-control features. If you are adding a new one, you should probably cite the reason why its being listed HERE (other than it being promoted as such). If you cite it, it will be easier for me to understand the rationale.Retran (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip, Retran. Tried to cite the most recent addition correctly with the product that directly fits into content control, but new to this so I am not sure if there is some additional citing that is needed. Appreciate your comments. LindseyEKerr (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for contributing. What entry did you add in?, and what was the citation you wanted to use? Maybe you had trouble so you can paste the links in here and let me have a look? Retran (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a horribly written/arranged article

I do not know anything about Wikipedia formatting, therefore I'm not of much help, but I just wanted to point out the obvious and say that this article needs better info and structure. Whoever can do it, please do so as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ FireWire (talk • contribs) 04:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

interesting comment but this article's purpose seems to be just to list the notable content-control software titles. The article about content-control is separate. There's not really much else to be done with a list that is obvious to me. Does anyone know of best-of examples for this kind of list which differ from this? Retran (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured lists is probably where you want to start if you want examples of what lists should look like to become the list equivalent of Featured Articles. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 16:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]