Talk:Amazon Web Services/Archive 1

Archive 1

other meanings for AWS?

i hear this acronym used for other things? What else it stands for? StupidFrog 03:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

AWS has the answer for you. --Shepard (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Stub

I think this page is too big to be a stub replaced it with expand --Abc518 (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Removing "Similar or related services"

The content in "Similar or related services" doesn't belong on this page; it should be on a page about web service providers if there is one. I'd like to remove it. If there are no objections, I'll remove it in a few days, if I remember. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamGomaa (talk • contribs) 19:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Critical criticism

Since when was OK to cite defunct blogs as sources of criticism .. power outages, spam?? come on! if you can't spot the fraudulent character behind these criticisms then it's not your call to make the necessary changes to this article. I'm deleting this section until someone else steps in and clear this up.

Just to make my point replace "Amazon web services" with whatever service you can imagine the resulting criticism is equally true. In my mind that's singling out one service for something that has been present in any service sometime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.69.54 (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2010‎

Please don't call my blog defunct. My criticism was real, and I have records on said blog to back up the criticism of this service (some screen captures even). Also, please note the criticism placed on wikipedia, was not written by me. The original articles are still accessible here http://www.spambotsecurity.com/blog/archives/2009/04/entry_36.php and here http://www.spambotsecurity.com/blog/archives/2009/07/entry_52.php . If someone else wishes to revert and place the links back up, I would not be in the least bit offended. 66.119.63.132 (talk) 02:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Zaphod

Needs reorganization ; reads like bad code

I suggest (and i'll volunteer later tonight/this week) that a re-org be done on page structure. To wit, the list of services.. Alphabetical just sends the reader all over the place changing gears.. If the services were grouped by basic or general purpose/functionality (eyeball services, dba services, consumer, grid, enterprise, etc) - it would make the article a lot easier to parse. As it stands right now, I'd rather just go to the aws site and hope that they have a better explanation than this page. We can do better.. --Badboyjamie (talk) 18:52, 28 Feb 2011 (UTC)

Amazon S3 prices lowered

On November 28, 2012 at AWS' "R: Invent" web developer conference in Las Vegas it announced it was targeting large companies as cloud storage clients. It will further cut prices in its new "Redshift" storage service launching in 2013 to customers with long-term contracts, with prices per-Terabyte-per-year being slashed from the low $20,000's to around $1,000. These prices are according to Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/29/amazon-cloud-enterprise-idUSL1E8MSE4520121129

This article in The Register is titled, "Cloud storage giant Amazon cuts S3 prices, waits for rivals to die." http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/29/amazon_s3_price_cut/

AWS touts as customers academic organizations, government organizations like NASA's JPL Mars Rover, and companies like Samsung, Netflix, and Shell. Google recently announced a reduction of its cloud storage services.

DonL (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Written like an advertisement?

This article has the 'advert' tag on it, so I thought I'd try to clean the language up. But, frankly, I'm not seeing any advertising language to fix! Can a more experienced Wikipedian point me to the language in this article that is "written like an advertisement"? Or is the tag out of date? Sloc melb (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

AWS Region Map Out of Date

Current update of the regions offered by amazon web services: http://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/rande.html there are now two regions in europe, eu west and central. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12usn12 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Improvements to Introduction Section

Hi, my name is Kevin Goddard – I’m the Amazon Web Services (AWS) Social Media Manager. I noticed that two WikiProjects have noted that this page’s quality could be improved and also that the page has a flag for improvements to the introduction section.

If there is information that the community needs to improve this page, please let me know and I’ll see if it’s available. I would also be happy to work with an editor or editors to provide them updates for when we launch new services or other announcements if it would help improve the overall community.

Please note that we are very respectful of the neutral tone of Wikipedia and do not want to use it as a platform. We just want to provide information that we believe can be useful for the Wikipedia community.

KevinJGoddard (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Is AWS the largest / most used service in its class? If so, is there an easy citation for that? It's an obvious tidbit for an introduction (if true). -- stillnotelf is invisible 17:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding – Forbes, CIO.com, TechRepublic, and Network World all recently published articles on a recent analyst report. Would one of those provide the information you are looking for? Here are the links:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/benkepes/2015/05/20/amazon-web-services-decimates-all-comers-bigger-base-faster-growth-more-innovation/

http://www.cio.com/article/2850375/cloud-computing/gartner-s-cloud-showdown-amazon-web-services-vs-microsoft-azure.html

http://www.techrepublic.com/article/aws-now-10x-the-size-of-its-competitors-is-the-cloud-arms-race-over/

http://www.networkworld.com/article/2925186/cloud-computing/gartner-amazon-s-cloud-is-10x-bigger-than-its-next-14-competitors-combined.html

KevinJGoddard (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

AWS huge outage

Well, then, AWS is down since today, and has taken with it 21 or so other services that depend on AWS, including IMDb. -Mardus /talk 14:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

(Amazon are apparently working on it[1]) -Mardus /talk 14:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Any details on what failed? One region or all? The whole catalogue or services or just DynamoDB? Did that service's failure affect the rest of the services (or some) in that data centre?

Any "huge outage" to this "huge service" is notable, but we need to get the details correct and sourced. Viam Ferream (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's their outage report tedder (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Missing Elastic Container Service

There is no mention of ECS (elastic container service) Amos Shapira 20:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amosshapira (talk • contribs) 20:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Acquisitions history

It would be interesting to see a list of acquisitions made by AWS. Amos Shapira 20:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amosshapira (talk • contribs)

Web Services are not the same as Cloud Computing Services

The opening sentence here says "...cloud computing services [are] also called web services". That's simply not true.

I am very familiar with both Cloud Computing and with Web Services and in all my readings and conversations I have never heard anyone call Cloud Computing a web service. Although the converse could *maybe* be argued, I feel it would only be in specific circumstances - not a true synonym.

Proof: There is a link in this very sentence to a "Web Services" Wikipedia article which can be readily contrasted with a highly-ranked definition on Google of Cloud Computing *Services* (canada.emc.com/corporate/glossary/cloud-computing-services.htm) Even a cursory reading of the the two articles makes it clear that Web Services and Cloud Computing Services are not the same thing. At best, Web Services are just a small part of the Cloud, which does not mean "also called".

Recommend: Drop the phrase "also called web services". It adds no value anyway. Just the contrary, in fact.

Back when AWS was founded, the term cloud computing was not regularly used so that is why the platform's name has "web services" in it. Cloud computing is a form of web service, so I revised the article to say "form of". --Frmorrison (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. We can't take it out of the AWS name, I have already taken it out of most categorisation (and been reverted repeatedly), and we should take it out of the text as you describe. I'd suggest, in this top-level article, a new para at the end of the lead explaining and linking to web services to cover the distinction and the introduction of the naming confusion, just so we can then drop it. Viam Ferream^Talk 09:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

April 6 Updates by AWS

Hi all, As documented below, I am the social media manager for AWS. We wanted to provide some new and updated information to the wiki, which I've done today. I've tried to keep the changes within Wikipedia's guidelines, however if anything is problematic, please feel free to either make the necessary changes, or notify me and I'll do it.

As I stated below, we are very respectful of the tone required for Wikipedia and do not want to use it as a platform. I am just providing information that we believe can be useful for the Wikipedia community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinJGoddard (talk • contribs) 22:58, 6 April 2016‎

Hi Kevin, make sure to put new topics at the bottom of the talk page, and sign your posts with four tildes. At first glance your material seems okay, or at least not flagrantly POV, but others should weigh in too. I'm curious what other Wikipedians think about calling AWS "AWS" instead of "Amazon", which is one of the changes you made throughout.

Naturally, be careful with promoting AWS or removing controversial content. Thanks for jumping on the talk page. tedder (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

August 8 Update by AWS

Hi! tedder thanks for the feedback! I thought I did the four tildes, but alas! Anyway, today we've added a new Infrastructure map that depicts our regions and availability zones. We thought the page may benefit with something more accurate? Again, if this is an issue or we need changes, please let me know and I'll make them happen.

KevinJGoddard (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for getting the infra map through legal. I know it took a bit. Anyhow, thanks for including it. tedder (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Merge from Amazon Simple Notification Service and Amazon Simple Queue Service

I think those subarticles have trouble with stand-alone notability, and would benefit from being merged here. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Have you used AWS? The first menu is a list of icons that looks like Minecraft. There is a metric shedload of various services available from them, and more growing all the time. Trying to merge them all into one super-article would be an utter useless mess.

Also, why pick on these two? Sure, SNS isn't S3, but SQS is a long-established and very important product within some big corporate infrastructures. Don't let "simple" fool you.

Finally, if the NHS ran SNS rather than Exchange, we wouldn't have seen the UK's medical services lose email today. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose (see above) Aleccat (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

And now someone is tagging them as "adverts"! Andy Dingley (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

January 4 2017 Update by AWS

Hi! Just wanted to note that I've updated the Infrastructure map with our new regions. Also, I adjusted the text to indicate the number of regions is now 16 and update the Canada region, which is officially called Canada (Central) not Canada (Montreal). If any of these changes are a problem, please let me know and I'm happy to correct! KevinJGoddard (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I have also added an entry for Amazon Quicksight under Analytics, linking to the QuickSite web page. If this should link to somewhere else, please let me know. If the Wikipedia community feels that QuickSight should have it's own Wikipedia entry and I can be of assistance with information, please let me know! KevinJGoddard (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Please don't mark the edits as minor- unless they are truly minor, like changing "it's own Wikipedia entry" to "its own Wikipedia entry". tedder (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is already pretty spammy, so adding direct links to Amazon's websites is totally out of the question, per WP:EL. A careful review of WP:WTW and WP:BUZZWORDS might also be helpful. Grayfell (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I'll make sure to remove the link to the AWS page (if it has not been removed already). Noted on the "minor" edits as well. Again, to be clear, we would rather the community make these changes if they deem them appropriate - we respect the neutrality of wikipedia. I'm happy to suggest changes on the talk page and will do so moving forward.KevinJGoddard (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

September 12 2017 Request to update logo

Hi! We have just rolled out a new logo for AWS. We were hoping someone here would be kind enough to review the logo and change it with the old one. I have uploaded the new logo to my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KevinJGoddard Thank you! KevinJGoddard (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

That's fine, but I'm guessing the license you uploaded the logo with isn't blessed by AWS's lawyer types, and it certainly isn't your 'own work'. Can you sort those out? tedder (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• AWS seem oddly unfamiliar with a range of web issues, including URL stability and copyright. We used to have the AWS icon set on Commons, but they were deleted after AWS rearranged their site, broke the link to the licence for them, and then Commons did its usual foot-shooting idiocy and decided to delete the lot.

Kevin, thanks for uploading this. Maybe we can get it sorted properly, and restore the AWS icon set too. Might be easier to discuss at Commons though.

We need the following:

• Source URLs for where these images came from, added to the Commons file description page
• A free licence, referenced from both the Commons page, and the AWS source page, such as GPL, Creative Commons (-by or -by-sa), an Apache or Mozilla licence etc. It's much easier if this is a well-recognised and pre-existing licence, not a new one.
• If you can't get the AWS source page updated, then the same information can be logged by email, via OTRS. But putting it on the page is clearer and often quicker.

Thanks for the uploads. Any questions, please shout, here or at Commons . Andy Dingley (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Marking done as the logo has been updated; not sure who did it but we can clean this one up! Avram (talk) 06:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

history wrong?

Amazon says the services were launched in 2006 (compatible with what I remember). Why was this source neglected in favor of phx.corporate-ir.net? -- Smaffulli (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, the source being used for 2002 appears to be conflating Amazon.com (the online merchant business) product timelines with their Amazon Web Services launch. I'm changing the launch date to reflect the 2006 launch that is supported and referenced later in this article. -- cookingwithrye (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

On a Similar Note:

The portion of the history in 2007 "claimed that more than 0% developers had signed up" - I assume this is an error, the citation (23) also goes to a broken link on the aforementioned phx.corporate-ir.net site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwjc (talk • contribs) 15:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Do applications have a place?

Hi,

I am taking a "Remote Sensing of the Environment" class, and we were instructed to contribute Remote Sensing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_sensing) information to Wikipedia pages. Upon some first reads, I worry that this page does not intend to provide applications of AWS. Would this be appropriate and, if so, is there a preference? (i.e. Add a new applications section or add the specific applications under their existing categories?)

Thank you,

Jdiaz4302 (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thhe0682 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Source for Object and Identifier Prefix section

Hi,

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 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)

References

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 Wikipedia 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 2.85.215.174 (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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 77.28.17.167 (talk) 10:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep content, but move it to a new page. 217.73.133.118 (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

This is not a poll and even if it were, see Wikipedia: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 wikipedia community has decided is a valid and useful wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

Pinkbeast, Please keep discussion about the topic. Discussion about capabilities of editors are out of scope Tech201805 (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Speedy keep; Wikipedia policies and guidelines already cover this. Information must be kept per WP:EDIT, WP:PRODUCT, MOS:EMBED, and WP:SUMMARY. WP:EDIT, a policy, establishes that "Wikipedia is here to provide summaries of accepted knowledge to the public, as described in WP:NOT." A list of notable products of a notable company does not violate WP:NOT. Furthermore, WP:EDIT also establishes that, "generally speaking, the more accepted knowledge [Wikipedia] can provide (subject to certain defined limitations on its scope), the better it is." Adding a list of notable products fulfills that. The second rationale comes from WP:PRODUCT, which establishes that, "If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy." AWS is notable and so are its products. Moreover, its article on Wikipedia is not large enough to make the inclusion of its products unwieldy. MOS:EMBED establishes that the use of embedded lists on Wikipedia is OK. And finally, WP:SUMMARY establishes that "sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles, leaving summaries in their place." An embedded list of products leaves a summary in place of expanding the products themselves on the AWS article. If nominator does not like how the information is presented, he/she should then WP:BEBOLD and WP:FIXIT rather than remove the information from the article. That's a content issue, not a policy one. Pewpewded (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Glad you are familiarizing yourself with our community's many policies and guidelines. One of the core policies Wikipedia has is WP:V, which means that all content must be verifiable. When you say this information "must be kept" because it is notable, you need to keep in mind that "notable" means something specific on Wikipedia. The burden is on you to prove that this is notable. Just saying "it's notable" because you personally believe it to be notable is useless. You will need to demonstrate this through reliable, independent sources. Throwing around an alphabet soup of acronyms and essay (most of which are not policies) is unpersuasive. Grayfell (talk) 03:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:PRODUCT which establishes that "If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy." The guideline does not ask for notability of products, only of the company. Are you asking me to provide reliable sources that show that Amazon Web Services is notable? If so, just go to the references section of this very article. Pewpewded (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, none of the links I provided are essays. They are all policies and guidelines. Are you familiar with how policies and guidelines complement each other on Wikipedia? Pewpewded (talk) 04:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I stand corrected, but they are mostly guidelines, and guidelines are not policies.

I am familiar with WP:PRODUCT as a guideline. This guideline also says If the products and services are not notable enough for their own article, the discussion of them should be trimmed and summarized into a shorter format, or even cut entirely if the products are not significantly mentioned in reliable secondary sources. I am also familiar with how this works in practice. From this I know that extremely long lists of products like this do not usually stand up to wider community scrutiny, such as WP:RFC or similar. The burden is on you to provide those needed reliable sources. Since you seem willing to dive into the Wikipedia wonkery weeds, take a look at WP:WTAF. This will help explain a common attitude towards lists, and this attitude is especially common for long lists. If you would like to "FIXIT" yourself, do so in a sandbox and submit it as a standalone article through WP:AFC, but be aware that every entry will still need a solid, third-party source. Perhaps you already know that User:Tech201805 has started such a sandbox: User:Tech201805/sandbox/Amazon Products so you could discuss that with them. Since it is my opinion that a list of unsourced and very poorly sourced details damages the article, I see no benefit in preserving it just because it was moderate amount of work for someone in the past (perhaps an Amazon employee).

Pewpewded, considering that this specific issue has been targeted by sock puppets, and these are your account's first three edits, how did you come to familiarize yourself with this topic and these Wikipedia guidelines? Grayfell (talk) 05:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell: by your own argument and by WP:PRODUCT several products must be reinstated to this article because they are notable enough:

• Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud [2] (IEEE) [3] (IEEE) [4] (ACM) [5] (USENIX) [6] (ACM/IEEE) [7] (ACM) [8] (IEEE) ISBN 978-1449393687 (O'Reilly)
• Amazon S3 [9] (Oracle white paper) [10] (Tech Republic) [11] (The Register) [12] (Forbes) [13] (Wired)

I could go on and on, but it seems you are just being WP:DISRUPTIVE because you want to make a WP:POINT. Per WP:FIXIT, "If you notice an unambiguous error or problem that any reasonable person would recommend fixing, the best course of action may be to be bold and fix it yourself." It doesn't seem to me that you are willing to WP:DGF, because, otherwise, you would have added the reliable sources yourself since they are so easy to find. Pewpewded (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my questions about how you suddenly became interested in this obscure topic. Since you feel comfortable giving advice to other editors who are demonstrably more experienced than you, can you disclose if this is your only account? Sock puppetry is not generally permitted on Wikipedia.

Half of those sources are routine listings which wouldn't satisfy WP:GNG, and at least one of them is (the Forbes "Contributor" article) is a blog post with virtually no editorial oversight or fact checking. Mixing a handful of borderline sources in with miles and miles of crap isn't helpful. This is heinously misrepresenting what the sources are actually saying because a large quantity of information you are trying to preserve is not not even mentioned by those sources. Using a source which mentions one of these services (in passing) to support the entire list is WP:SYNTH. Every entry would need a reliable, third-party source. If you want to work on the list, go ahead. Grayfell (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you serious? Those are highly notable journals which are considered independent reliable sources by Wikipedia... Do you even know what the IEEE and ACM are? Pewpewded (talk) 01:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, also, both of those are already mentioned in the article! There is nothing to "reinstate" since this is already mentioned. If you would like to propose how to expand on this in prose based on reliable sources, please do so. Grayfell (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Here are some more: Amazon Aurora [14] (ZDNet) [15] (Gartner) [16] (ACM) [17] (Computer World). Should I continue? Pewpewded (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

More: Amazon CloudFront [18] (TechRadar) [19] (Geekwire) [20] (ZDNet) [21] (Computer World) Let me know when to stop. Pewpewded (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Even more... Amazon DynamoDB [22] (ACM) [23] (TechRadar) [24] (ZDNet) [25] (PC Magazine). I don't see you posting reliable sources. Why not? Pewpewded (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

And more... Amazon RDS [26] (Computer World) [27] (PC World) [28] (Wired) [29] (Computer World) [30] (CNET) Why is it so easy for me to find reliable sources but not for you? Pewpewded (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

So aside from the fact that you're a _really_ obvious sock, you might be making a case that some of this stuff might be reinserted with short neutral descriptions. That is not, of course, the same as reinstating the previous wall of junk. Pinkbeast (talk) 06:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes. The article needs a lot of work, and an organic inclusion of these noteworthy products would be a great idea. Well, assuming it's added by someone who is editing in good faith. The point not to shove in a badly written, WP:SEH-attracting drizzle of cruft. The point is to provide useful information. Instead of regurgitating a few Google searches for Amazon's "solutions" here on the talk page, try to make a proposal based on these sources.

First, however, please confirm to us that you have read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. That's a reasonable starting point, no? Grayfell (talk) 07:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Link to press release broken, launch date of AWS might be incorrect

Reference #5 links to a press release from March 2006, but the link is broken (404). So I searched and there's a press release from March 2006 regarding AWS: https://press.aboutamazon.com/news-releases/news-release-details/amazon-web-services-launches-amazon-s3-simple-storage-service

I guess this is the same press release that had been linked to previously.

This press release states at the end: "Launched in July 2002, the Amazon Web Services platform ..." But this Wikipedia pages gives the launch date as March 2006. According to the press release that might be the launch of their cloud computing offering, but not of AWS itself.

Another source for July 2002 as the starting point of Amazon Web Services: https://press.aboutamazon.com/news-releases/news-release-details/amazoncom-launches-web-services

It might very well be that Amazon Web Services were incorporated as a company in 2006 as well. Not sure though if that can count as the "launch" of AWS.

98.249.97.243 (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Amazon Web Services Global Infrastructure.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

US-East-1 Region Power Outage Caused EBS Failure With Permanent Data Loss

• Nichols, Shaun (September 4, 2019). "AWS celebrates Labor Day weekend by toasting customer data in US-East-1 BBQ". The Register. Situation Publishing.

Conrad T. Pino (talk) 07:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

List of products Discussion

Do not really know how to handle this situation in wikipedia, maybe Wikipedia: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 • contribs) 10:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you provide professional services for our Aws Account bcoz when traffic will come to our application our application is loading too much time GoSuper11 (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Environmental impact

Hi, I'm a newcomer to this page. I wondered whether it would be relevant to include a discussion of environmental impact? The web services are not just something 'virtual', there is an infrastructure to it. Wikipedia sounds like a place that could provide reference to primary sources documenting the number of servers and providing reflections on environmental impact. Thanks & best --AlexisMichaud (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Other services from first generation era

See template on page requesting info added for various early services from the AWS first generation era. Several of these have their own page, so added list and linked to each. Expansion still needed but wanted to make a start. TyScienceGuy (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)