Talk:Content Disarm & Reconstruction

Untitled
The recent change to mention ODI is great, but it would be nice to keep the list in alphabetical order to make it fair to all vendors. Also the addition ends abruptly, and lacks spaces around the punctuation. It really should have some kind of reference too - at least a web page link - to help readers. SimonWiseman (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Company list removal
In the absence of secondary sources mentioning those companies in conjunction with the page topic as a set, the section cannot justify it's WP:WEIGHT. It's also borderline WP:PROMO. There may be reason to include companies in these articles every so often, but not sourced solely to their own websites (see WP:PRIMARY). 74.73.224.126 (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm open to suggestions on how to improve. This is a niche topic about a type of product primarily used within the government space, for which few public sources exist. Pointing to existing implementations is probably one of the most helpful things that this article could do at this point. 173.46.67.114 (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Helpful is rather squishy, people often disagree about what's helpful, and what's cruft/trivia/etc. Could you point to any policies or guidelines that support the section? Do you have any secondary sources for us to consider? 74.73.224.126 (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This article is unfortunately one of the few non-vendor mentions of the technology available publicly. The only other is a quick mention in the CISA TIC.
 * Would it be better broken down into a table of implementations similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_browsers? 173.46.67.114 (talk) 00:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You know what, I give up. My mental health isn't worth trying to make a random Wikipedia page better by updating a section that has been present since 2016. It is clear I am not part of whatever clique gets to decide what is and isn't allowed. 173.46.67.114 (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's more than borderline promotional: it's non-notable companies/products with commercial company links. Removing such content is obviously not vandalism. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Look the content might belong somewhere, but it's a matter of sourcing and weight policies linked above . Plausibly there's an appropriate list somewhere, but we tend to avoid providing information an companies sourced solely to their own websites. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks 74. I think you know that the convention on Wikipedia is that we'll list notable ones--meaning with Wikipedia articles--and not non-notable ones, and certainly not if the only "verification" is basically a spam company link. Drmies (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)