Talk:Cisco Systems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cisco Systems article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Way too many redlinks

This should be cleaned up, as well as certain other aspects that blaxthos mentions :) the--dud 13:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

looks like someone came in and removed most of the redlinks. I still raise my call for a rewrite. I'd like discuss before complete removal of the rewrite tag... and again, I offer my services if anyone wants to partner with me on the rewrite. /Blaxthos 19:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Call for Rewrite

I'd like to call for a rewrite of this article... it's light on information, and without being too critical, the diction and grammar syntax don't read easily or convey meaningful content. I'd be happy to partner with someone to rewrite the information, and to provide more detailed insight into what cisco does, etc. ~blaxthos


I just expanded the introduction and cleaned it up a little bit. I'd be glad to collaborate on a rewrite if you are still interested.-Ryan0 12:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If a rewrite is in the works, I'd like to suggest reconfiguring the redirect on the cisco page to link with the disambiguation for cisco rather than taking one to the Cisco systems entry. Cisco Systems is a brand name while other usages (particularly biological uses) are at least a few centuries old and no less than deserve parity with a commercial trademark. Peter3 14:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I haven't had time to work on a draft. I hesitate to say "go for it" regarding the redirection... I have not (yet) looked at policy, but my common sense tells me that we should go with whatever term is most likely to suit the largest number of people -- is it more likely that someone typing 'cisco' to find something about networking hardware, or a fish (or whatever else it might be used for). I do not know the answer, but I think we should try to find out before making the change. Just my $0.02. /Blaxthos 16:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I held off on the disambiguation because I couldn't find clear guidance in policy and guidelines. A rather unpleasant debate took place around naming conventions related to the use of "Great Lakes" that I felt ended in a decision that undermines the proper role of an encyclopedia to offer complete and informative articles on the actual meaning of terms that may mean more than what a person assumes.

I guess I don't know what most people would equate with the word cisco. In an on-line environment that is probably the company. In the wider world I suspect the fish (which is consumed by a lot of folks) would be more widely recognised. Since the actual company name is Cisco Systems (or Cisco Systems Inc.), I suggest that a query for the full company name should go to the company's entry and a query on "cisco" should go to a disambiguation. If I don't hear any objections I'll make the change, otherwise I'll leave it for the time being. Peter3 19:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Cisco the company has an undoubtedly larger presence on the Internet; a Google search for cisco +router turns up over four times as many pages as cisco +fish (both turn up quite a few results). The entire first page (10) of results for Cisco are about the company. I'm not saying this alone justifies the current redirection, but in general my suspicion is that most people looking for "cisco" on Wikipedia are looking for the company. For a similar situation, see Intel. It currently redirects to Intel Corporation, with a link to the Intel (disambiguation) page. — Aluvus t/c 20:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I will also object to changing the cisco redirect to a disambig page. Reasons listed above. /Blaxthos 04:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. No surprise. The present configuration is undoubtedly consistent with the existing Wikipedia community's cultural biases. I would note, however, that the only uses of intel on the disambiguation page referred to by Aluvus that are not references to the company or its products are a slang contraction of the word intelligence (not a word in its own right), and a fictional entity from a television miniseries. As such, they have more in common with the use of a corporate name fragment (derived from two syllables of a four syllable place name) than with the use of a proper centuries-old word, however lightly used by the technologically literate community that still dominates internet use. Anyway, no big deal.Peter3 20:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More talk

Another source says, "To begin with, Cisco was a garage company run by a married couple. They sold their shares at a relatively early stage, and missed out on billions, although they are still massively well off."

Storing the above here, pending verification by GayCommunist who is probably right for all I know. --Ed Poor

The story is factual as far as I know. I read about it in Newsweek somewhere, and at one point saw a TV documentary about the company. The couple began making simple WAN routers for university campuses (they were among the first to come up with the idea), and expanded very rapidly. There is a hillarious video tape of them making a sales pitch in their garage, when an earthquake hits. They were forced out of the administration once the company got really large, and sold their shares in disgust. The company continued to grow, so it turns out they lost billions (I think they were left with about one billion dollars). The wife runs a chain of floral shops today. User:GayCommunist

Here's some backing: [1]

Thanks, here's a key excerpt:

Sandra Lerner ... With Leonard Bosack, she founded Cisco Systems (1996 revenues: $5.4 billion), one of Silicon Valley's biggest success stories. They created the first commercially successful router, a device that enables once-incompatible computers in far-off computer networks to communicate. In 1990 they walked away with $170 million after being booted by the professional managers the firm's venture capitalists brought in. [2]

[edit] Titling

It's usually not to bother with the "Inc." etc when the common company name alone is unambiguous, so I moved it. Stan 19:36, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I vote against this, and for an article named like the registered corporation. - Jerryseinfeld 20:20, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's almost never done though - take a look at Category:Fortune 500 companies, Category:Manufacturing companies of the United States, or just about anything under Category:Companies (the categories show actual article names, unlike lists which may be piped). Stan 05:56, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] merge

I am merging from Cisco Systems acquisitions as that seems like a too-narrow topic. DDerby 04:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why you cancelled this merge. It seems like a good idea. That said, the list of companies bought by Cisco is highly out of date, and anyway Cisco itself provides the canonical list of acquisitions on its web site... so why bother? mjlodge 19:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - to your first question - the acquistion page is already much too long to fit nicely on the main page and will likely grow longer. One possibility is to add a mini version of it to the main page, but it is usually bad to duplicate information. As to your second question, we need a wikipedia page of the acquisitions so that the stories of these companies and their technolgies will be linked properly. There are already reasonable wikipedia pages for the acquired companies StrataCom and Telebit, with more to come. Brholden 20:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A mention of the most notable acquisitions in the history section might be appropriate. But this isn't my article. DDerby 21:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] internal merge

I'd like to merge the two competing partial product lists on this page, but am not geek enough to know the hardware. Could someone qualified do this? DDerby 04:23, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DeNuccio

The comment "According to Vice President Denuccio the company sees itself as the "plumbers of the internet"" is very out of date and should be removed. DeNuccio left Cisco five years ago, and Cisco sees its role as much wider than simply providing plumbing.--Rollier 13:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


The DeNuccio comment has been replaced with the follow text, which more accurately reflects Cisco's current position: "Cisco's vision is "Changing the Way We Live, Work, Play and Learn." Cisco's current tagline is "Welcome to the human network."" --Ryan0 02:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Logo

I'm reverting the "new logo" change until it is verified... I can't find anything on cisco.com about it, and the only stuff i can find on the web about it all traces back to theinquirer.com (reliable?). /Blaxthos 16:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I have it on good authority that its not a hoax. But other than leaked/rumor sites, it's unverifiable at the moment. Regardless, its not the official logo as can be seen as the www.cisco.com site, so the logo doesnt belong on wiki till that changes.Dman727 23:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I was at Fry's today in San Jose and saw someone sporting the new Cisco logo on his t-shirt. I think Cisco has just started to phase this in.

The new logo's going back up. They have a banner with it hanging from the one of their buildings on Tasman and Zanker; that's pretty official. I'm sure a press release is coming soon. Or it's a really complex hoax with fake shirts and some crazy idiots putting up a banner... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.12.143.197 (talk • contribs).

Reverting... until there is a press release, or a verifiable source (other than an unsigned talk comment by an anonymous IP), it should remain the official logo. /Blaxthos 00:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Its on the corporate website now [3] Thats pretty official. Also theres a bit of a puffery about the makeover with a blub about the logo [4] Dman727 07:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Criticisms Section

The link to the internet censorship article was not, in my opinion, sufficient information about the issue. I kept a link to the main article but added a summary of the issue so interested readers can determine if they want to follow the link to the main article. Additionally, the class action lawsuit is a noteworthy news item, even though Cisco denied all wrongdoing. If you decide to remove the criticisms section I would appreciate an explanation of why you decide to do so on the discussion page. Thanks! --Rcragun 22:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the current lawsuit is more noteworthy than the 7 year old monopoly article. 7 years is a LONG LONG time in networking is almost not really relevant anymore. Juniper has come along way and taken a fair share of the core routing market away from cisco.Dman727 23:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
apology for my outdated knowledge. --Voidvector 23:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The same capability in a router that in theory allows the Chinese to censor its population also allows corporations to prioritize important information flowing across its network, impede the spread of viruses, and prevent security leaks. As stated in the article, Cisco doesn't add or limit these features for governments -- it sells the products as is.

[edit] Recent Commercial

On their new commercial, a brief shot of young girl looking at Wikipedia. I believe the page she was on was Asia, or something. It was a country. --66.218.14.28 02:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, its not Asia.
That commercial was the reason I had to find this article. My tv was too blurry to catch the text clearly [ although if I was near that laptop, could probably read from across the room since text was so large.. but that's obviously an overlay.. tangent..] -- when did cisco change their logo, oh well, not important. what was the phrase / ... "books aren't written by anyone" or everyone [ sounds better that way I guess]. I am sure I will see it again. but I am curious if cisco is working with Wikipedia and that's how it got there, or if some ad person thru it in. anybody know [ and if it's an obvious answer, I apologize, I don't follow wiki's politics, just visit occaisionally] --71.77.37.238 06:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Just saw it, the phrase was "where books rewrite themselves". FullMetal Falcon 02:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Commercial available here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x60pWzJvb9Q. Apparently Cisco paid wikimedia for use of wikipedia's "likeness". Wikipedia brown 19:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No justification for this article

As Sam Blanning (Samuel Blanning) has said, Wikipedia is not the place to learn about corporations. He has said it here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John hyams (talk • contribs) 09:50, November 10, 2006 (UTC)

The point he was making is that corporations are not inherently notable, not that all corporations should be removed from Wikipedia. — Aluvus t/c 15:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
(moving new topic to bottom) pardon me saying so, but that's nuts. Anything in the world - corporation, newspaper, school, rock, insect or rumour - that affects as many people as strongly as Cisco does deserves a wikipedia article. --Alvestrand 16:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Cisco was at one point in the last 5 years, the most valuable corporation on Earth. Not just telecom, but more valuable than any other company in history. Its dropped in value quite a bit as did the fortunes of many dot coms , but is still the 17th most valuable brand, ahead of BMW, Pepsi, Sony and many others[[5]]. In short, its a pretty durn noteable entity. Nonetheless, if you feel strongly about it, you can submit it for articles for deletion, although I suspect it would be closed via WP:SNOW Dman727 02:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I totally agree, tell that to Sam Blanning who deleted the article about RAD Data Communications. That was a totally unfair and thug behaviour on his part.—comment added by John Hyams(t/c)

So you're trying to make a WP:POINT on a totally unrelated page, using flawed logic? Do you live under a bridge? /Blaxthos 23:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RAD Data Communications, Wikipedia:Deletion review/RAD Data Communications. Just for info. --Alvestrand 06:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, as you can see (above) my dear Belaxthos, I've stated my point already on the relevent "Deletion Review" pages (and others), but to no avail. I did mention Cisco here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_hyams, as RAD is a notable data communications hardware manufacturer, just like Cisco (where are their "competitors"?). RAD perhaps is less known in the United States, but still, similar to Cisco. So please, no need for offending "Live under Bridge" statements, and don't bother to reply, since the bereaucracy and duplicity on this site makes me want to just give up my well-intended efforts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John hyams (talk • contribs).

Arguing that this article should be deleted because another article that should not have been deleted was deleted is a bit backwards and isnt productive. Your should be arguing, on Rad page, that Rad should stay because other companies like Cisco stay. Not that I think its a valid comparison. Kinda like saying that Bill's Auto Garage should have a page because Toyota has one. FWIW, I am familiar with Rad and have used their producs in the past and it should proably have a page...but THIS page isn't the place for that discussion.Dman727 03:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poor writing leading to confusion

I can't tell whether the sentence

While Cisco was the first company to develop and sell a router (a device that forwards computer traffic from one network to another), it did create the first commercially successful multi-protocol router to allow previously incompatible computers to communicate using different network protocols.

either seems to be missing a "not" (not the first company to develop and sell a router) or it is simply badly written. Its quite a big difference in meaning Talltim 10:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] iPhone

Cisco is sueing Apple, because they claim to have had the trademarked name "iPhone" since 2000. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Partapdua1 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

I removed the "iPhone Lawsuit" section. While it's an important event, the copy was stolen verbatim from a USA Today article (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2007-02-21-cisco-apple-iphone_x.htm?csp=34).Anthony71 16:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know...

That Wikipedia made an appearence in one of their commercials (a background computer has wikipedia on it)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkest Hour (talk • contribs) 15:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, it was a 7 year old girl editing the Cisco page. The background said "...And books will rewrite themselves...". What's funny is that a VERY small percentage of WP's infrastructure is Cisco, if I understand correctly. --BezkingTalk • Contribs 17:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/i/s/Talk%7ECisco_Systems_2161.html"