Talk:Amazon Web Services
WikiProject Computing (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Internet (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Amazon Web Services - Market Competition and Services

Amazon is the most profitable unit among web services around the world. It achieves this by investing in larges scale data and computing centers that are more efficient than other companies. All the major computing entities around the world provide two main types of basic services. These two services include Infrastructure as as Service and Platform as a Service. Amazon Web Services clientele for computing infrastructure include: Comcast, Hess, and Central Intelligence Agency. [1]-- Preceding unsigned comment added by Thhe0682 (talk o contribs) 04:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


  1. ^ Wienberger, Matt (07/22/2017). "The cloud wars explained: Amazon is dominating, but Microsoft and Google are striking back". Business Insider. Retrieved 03/20/2018.  Check date values in: |accessdate=, |date= (help)

Source for Object and Identifier Prefix section


The entire Object and Identifier Prefix section relies on one source that leads to a dead link. I can't find a source for the table that is in this section either, but I can find a source to back up most of the rest of the section. I think that the table should be removed unless a more reliable source is provided, and the link should be replaced with this link[1] Any thoughts?

Thank you,

--Nako1890 (talk) 00:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Quick additional comment, there are a few minor errors in the Availability and topology section, such as cities missing from the list that are in the source, missing slashes, etc. I think that section would be worth cleaning up.
--Nako1890 (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Names and IDs for all Objects - Amazon Machine Learning". Retrieved 2018. 

List of products Discussion

Do not really know how to handle this situation in wikipedia, maybe Resource: Dispute resolution. List of products is being removed from main article. I guess some discussion should be preceded to find a consensus. Seems like most of companies have a section with list of products, for example: Google Cloud Platform, Firebase. Amazon list is pretty big so maybe a solution would be to move it to a new page like List of Google products, a page more than 6 years old. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Tech201805 (talk o contribs) 10:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Product catalogue & other junk

A recent edit by Grayfell removed AWS's product catalogue. I support this removal; it is completely UNDUE detail, as if resource was here to be AWS's marketing department. However, it has been reinserted with the edit summary "open a discussion before deleting this content available for long time and passed many review already". This edit summary makes no sense; it has not "passed many review" (sic), as far as I can see. It appears to have quite rightly had an advert tag added in July 2016 which was intentionally left intact in September 2016 with the summary "rm most adverts (but still in ad format)", which is hardly a ringing endorsement nor an exhaustive review process.

As to the rest, merely because that catalogue has been there for a long time does not make it any more appropriate.

The rest of the article also needs attention for general peacockery (eg "a full-fledged virtual cluster of computers"), long self-serving quotes from Amazon, and also the tables entitled "Objects and identifier prefixes" and "Region and region names table" which seem to serve no purpose; I invite comment on those issues also. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, well said. There has been no "review", and having been in the article for a long time is not a valid reason for preserving otherwise unacceptable content. WP:NOTCATALOG is policy, and is listed under one of Wikipedia's core policies. Any argument for inclusion of this material should also be based on policy. Grayfell (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is full of company pages with it product list or even specifically product list pages suchs as List of Google products, describing them do not make article a catalog. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
That's a poor comparison for several reasons.
For one thing, List of Google products is a dedicated list of Google products. Almost all of those entries have existing articles, which is common practice for list articles on Wikipedia. The article is named specifically as a list, and non-list information is strictly supplemental.
For another, all information on resource should be verifiable, which means that it should be supported by reliable sources. Each of the Google articles should have reliable, third-party sources. If any don't have sources, those articles will need to be fixed before they are listed, and if they cannot be sources, they should be deleted, but that should be discussed there (Talk:List of Google products), not here.
This article is not a list article. It is an overview of one subsidiary of Amazon. Most of the entries to the list did not have articles, and therefore there were very few reliable, third-party sources involved. Many of the entries only had press releases as sources, while some appeared to have spam sources, and none of this is acceptable.
All of these are serious problems, and all of them would need to be addressed for this to be an appropriate addition to the article. Grayfell (talk) 09:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
And while there are many company pages with product lists, this is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. These pages are bad too - usually as a result of shills for the company editing them, I fear - and the answer is to fix them, not to keep the catalogue here. Pinkbeast (talk) 09:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Keep it. If sources are missing should be resolved but not deleted. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:193E:8800:14B0:52A9:B183:E9B9 (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
The contention is not that it's missing sources but that it simply doesn't merit inclusion. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. If this had halfway decent sources, there would be a different discussion, but that still wouldn't necessarily justify this level of minutia. Grayfell (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, when two IP addresses from Thessaloniki "agree" with each other, it raises issues of WP:SOCK puppetry. This is especially concerning since we have a documented history of editors using multiple accounts for this same edit, per Resource: Sockpuppet investigations/Tech201804. Grayfell (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Three, now. All of whom have no previous edits, mention consensus in edit summaries (indeed, even know _about_ edit summaries, unusually for new anonymous editors), know about talk pages but don't know how to sign edits there. I hear quacking. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Keep it. Not a catalog but a description of services. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep content, but move it to a new page. (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not a poll and even if it were, see Resource: Polling is not a substitute for discussion. You need to explain why this huge mess of information is valuable for the encyclopedia. Grayfell (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

We now seem to be in the frankly absurd situation where one editor who has never touched this discussion keeps restoring it without any actual rationale for doing so. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not weighing in on this content-wise, but I protected the page from anon edits for two weeks. Note this isn't taking sides with the logged-in users, it is to stimulate discussion without the edit warring. To the IP (and any others), if you work for AWS and don't understand what's going on here, contact Jeff Barr. He can put you in touch with me or others who can help. tedder (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, i already explain my view in List of products Discussion section. Do not really understand why you opened a new one instead of using that one. Thanks. Tech201805 (talk) 12:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be much there except WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This product catalogue isn't really improved because other company's product catalogues have managed to sneak in. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Page creation follows a approval flow in Wikipedia, so if those page exist and are not removed is because resource community has decided is a valid and useful resource content. Tech201805 (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
That is simply not true. Some pages are created via the Draft/AFC process; some predate it, and some are created without using it. None of the pages you mentioned above appear to have been created via the AFC process.
Furthermore, while you should not take this as encouragement to re-add the list with trivial edits, the best of those pages are differently written. Google Cloud Platform says "A sample of products are listed below; this is not an exhaustive list". It's not a mess of external and red links, and the entries are short and written in a more neutral style rather the material here which seemed often to be excerpted directly from Amazon's own marketing (eg "AWS Systems Manager gives you visibility and control of infrastructure on AWS and on-premises through a unified user interface to view operational data from multiple AWS services and automate operational tasks across AWS resources." vs here "AWS Systems Manager gives you visibility and control of your infrastructure on AWS. Systems Manager provides a unified user interface so you can view operational data from multiple AWS services and allows you to automate operational tasks across your AWS resources" - this isn't copyvio, but it is inappropriate, simply regurgitating what the vendor says.)
Firebase, frankly, is full of exactly the same kind of junk and needs a trim, and List of Google products should be reduced to only notable ones, but is at least mostly in a more neutral and terser tone.
If this content was moved to a new page it would have to be trimmed to only notable entries, like most resource list pages (with care taken about non-redlinks that link to subsections or redirects), and rewritten for neutrality. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I am totally agree, so best it to try to fix it, or remove it, but not remove all the content. Tech201805 (talk) 08:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
then lets move it to a new page and fix it whatever need to be fixed, but do not remove it please. Tech201805 (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
It's not clear to me who is going to do that. I'm not, and in all candour I am dubious as to your capability to do so. Pinkbeast (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Tech201805, do not insert your comment into the middle of other people's comments. This makes it very confusing for other editors to keep track of the conversation. See WP:TPG
I am also very skeptical that such an article would be good for the encyclopedia. The existence of other bad articles doesn't mean more bad articles should be created. Are there any reliable, third party sources specifically dedicated to listing products and services from Amazon? If so, let's see them and we can go from there. Grayfell (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with this also. My previous reply should not be taken as an indication that I think it's a good idea to attempt it to begin with. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

  This article uses material from the Wikipedia page available here. It is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.



Connect with defaultLogic
What We've Done
Led Digital Marketing Efforts of Top 500 e-Retailers.
Worked with Top Brands at Leading Agencies.
Successfully Managed Over $50 million in Digital Ad Spend.
Developed Strategies and Processes that Enabled Brands to Grow During an Economic Downturn.
Taught Advanced Internet Marketing Strategies at the graduate level.

Manage research, learning and skills at defaultLogic. Create an account using LinkedIn or facebook to manage and organize your Digital Marketing and Technology knowledge. defaultLogic works like a shopping cart for information -- helping you to save, discuss and share.

Visit defaultLogic's partner sites below: : Music Genres | Musicians | Musical Instruments | Music Industry
NCR Works : Retail Banking | Restaurant Industry | Retail Industry | Hospitality Industry

  Contact Us