Talk:Synology

Untitled
Admin/Mods-

If there is something offensive or is against Wikipedia Policy, please let me know which statment is in error. Please do not delete the page and say G11, it doesn't help me figure out what is offensive.

Thanks!

Franklin Hua franklinh@synology.com 2006.11.16.2306 UTC

—

The article should provide more information about the company. Where is it headquartered, is it privately held and if not what are some of the financial data.

There's too much advertising parlance. I guess every other sentence is too "advertisy", which makes it pretty ambitious to name every occurrence. Rygel (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

--

I wouldn't say that. Yes, the page should be about the company itself only mentioning product details on the sidelines. This is a very technical overview of the products. Nonetheless, this was actually exactly what I was looking for when googling synology, if that counts for anything. /andsens — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.185.47.73 (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Remove Flags?
To Admins, Mods:

As the article has been updated - may I request that the "morefootnotes" and "advert" flag is removed at the top of the article? Thanks! Huaf822k (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Delete?
Doesn't seem to have acceptable sources...  Tu rk ey ph an t 23:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree --82.81.246.4 (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

This really seems like a big advertise.
Personally I'd vote for deletion. --82.81.246.4 (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree. I have read lots of articles about many different companies and products on Wikipedia, and this one is not one of the worst. I guess that there are many people around who, for some reason, dislike the company and/or their products. If that's the case, and if they have good reasons for that dislike, it's worth discussing it.
 * For example, it's a good addition to explain that there was a Synology-specific 'hack' (virus? worm? Trojan?) back in 2014. It would be better if that paragraph could add how Synology fixed the issue (or if they never bothered to do so); but alerting the audience that there are no 100% secure solutions is always important, especially when there is a real (and not merely hypothetical) example. It also shows that the whole article is not a 'big advertisement' — no sane company would be happy to advertise its security breaches, given the option... last but not least, I'd raise some eyebrows at a vote from an anonymous user with an IP address from a company offering cloud-based data backup services that compete with SOHO NAS solutions ;-) -- Gwyneth Llewelyn (talk) 00:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

IMVHO the "corporate communication" should be out from this kind of articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.27.142.67 (talk) 11:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)