Talk:Zoom Video Communications

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 1 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Saghakian, Mylatayl, Engrachel, Benjammr.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Product article?

I am wondering to myself whether it is appropriate to create an article on Wikipedia about the product itself (Zoom Cloud Meetings) rather than speak about it extensively on an article that's supposed to be focused on the company itself. What does anyone else think about this? Meşteşugarul - U 20:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mestesugarul:I have written some advice for this at WP:ORGVANITY. Basically I use WP:LENGTH as a guide. If a single product has a large-enough body of source material such that covering it here creates unreasonable weight or length on the company page, we can create a separate article on it. Otherwise we consolidate them under whichever is most notable (the company or product). CorporateM (Talk) 20:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! According to WP:ORGVANITY, it is wiser to let time pass instead and remain with both the product and company consolidated. There's just not enough material to merit such a separation. I appreciate your clarification on this. Meşteşugarul - U 21:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem! Lots of good advice on there for org pages. BTW - the Reception section could probably be trimmed a bit. I'm not sure a "commentary"[1] is really a reliable source. CorporateM (Talk) 21:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Article reads like it was written by Zoom's PR people

It really does. IMO. Boscaswell talk 09:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it does -- either official PR or an unappointed Zoom "Fanboy". I might have made that worse by my new paragraph about supported platforms. My only connection with Zoom is that I am a new user (new today!) of their software and have not yet discovered if I will be a fan or not. I included what I did because it seemed relevant to me when learning about their product. IF there is some bias there, it is that I am not writing about any competitors that I chose not to use.

Question for more experienced wikieditors: Is the natural inclination of editors to write about things they like a forgivable bias, or one that must be rooted out? Truerivertoo (talk) 09:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The receptions are all positive and, while it's possible that most like it, I doubt that there was no critique reception at all. Also no Critique section exists - again possible that no relevant critique has been raise but again hard for me to believe ;) Florian Finke (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

For anyone who would like to take action on the neutrality of this article, my suggestion would be to remove the Recognitions section (or merge into Reception as prose where appropriate). I was going to suggest adding critical reception to the Reception section, but only do so if you feel there is notability (and there is already a section on security vulnerabilities).Tar-Elessar (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm working on this. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 12:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Obsolete / Updated Reference(s)

Ref 40 is not a broken link as such, because the link still works. It is obsolete because the blogger has updated the entry with a more up to date assessment of "the best 5 solutions", which no longer include Zoom this time round. I could not find any trace of the 2013 post on their blogsite - perhaps others will be more lucky. I am not sure how this should be addrfessed and I leave it to others with more experience to mend it Truerivertoo (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Request Edit: some proposed changes

Zoom has had a number of changes we would like added to our page, including an entirely new product in an entirely new market (Zoom Voice), and other milestones. When we have tried to make these changes ourselves, they have been deleted. As such, we are hoping administrators may place the changes themselves or give us guidance as to why they have been rejected. Please see below for updates with references. Thank you!

PRODUCT SECTION:

• Zoom announced that it enables PIPEDA & PHIPA Compliance, thereby setting it self up to serve Canadian healthcare organizations
• In December 2018, Zoom ranked 2 out of 100 large US companies in Glassdoor’s 2019 Employees’ Choice Awards honoring the Best Places to Work
• In January 2018, Zoom partnered with OpenExchange to provide a new joint video conferencing solution designed exclusively for financial services organizations. Also in January 2018, </ Zoom entered into an Europe distribution agreement with Ingram Micro, the leading global distributor of technology products and services, to expand its reach into the IT and AV channel. Under the new alliance, channel partners across Europe will be able to source Zoom’s suite of video communications and conference room solutions from Ingram Micro.
• Missing from offices list: Zoom also has offices in Paris, France and Amsterdam, Netherlands.

RECEPTION SECTION:

• In June 2016, PCMag reviewed Zoom’s features, such as HD video and audio conferencing, group collaboration, H.323 compatibility, webinars, and integrations, pointing out that “A plethora of features are available through Zoom, which can help with group collaboration, call clarity, and seamless integration with existing business applications.”
• On August 2nd, 2018, UC Today wrote a Zoom Meetings Review, noting that “with a selection of tiers to suit any company and even businesses from specific verticals, Zoom certainly provides its customers with one of the most advanced solutions for video conferencing.” The review focuses on Zoom Meetings’ tiers, features, and prices.
• In July 2018, TrustRadius compared top web conferencing software, and Zoom (at 8.8) was a leader, followed by its competitors with the scores of 8.4, 7.8, and lower. All the scores are based on a 10-point scale.
• In September 2018, Zoom was named a leader in the 2018 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Meeting Solutions for the third year in a row. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farshad408 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC) 38.99.100.6 (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Reply 22-JAN-2019

  Unable to review edit request  
Your edit request could not be reviewed because the provided references are not formatted correctly. The citation style predominantly used by the Zoom Video Communications article is Citation Style 1 (CS1). The citation style used in the edit request consists of bare URL's. Any requested edit of yours which may be implemented will need to resemble the current style already in use in the article – in this case, CS1. (See WP:CITEVAR.) In the extended section below titled Citation style, I have illustrated two examples: one showing how the edit request was submitted, and another showing how requests should be submitted in the future:

Citation style

Bare URL reference formatting: The Sun's diameter is 864,337.3 miles,<ref>https://www.booksource.com</ref> while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.<ref>https://www.journalsource.com</ref> The Sun's temperature is 5,778 degrees Kelvin.<ref>https://www.websource.com</ref> Displays as: The Sun's diameter is 864,337.3 miles,[1] while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.[2] The Sun's temperature is 5,778 degrees Kelvin.[3] References 1. https://www.booksource.com 2. http://www.journalsource.com 3. http://www.websource.com In the example above there are three URL's provided with the claim statements, but these URL's have not been placed using Citation Style 1, which is the style predominantly used by the Zoom Video Communications article. Using this style, the WikiFormatted text would resemble the following: Citation Style 1 formatting: The Sun's diameter is 864,337.3 miles,<ref>{{cite book|last1=Sjöblad|first1=Tristan|title=The Sun|url=http://www.booksource.com|publisher=Academic Press|date=2018|page=1}}</ref> while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Duvalier|first1=Gabrielle|title=Size of the Moon|journal=Scientific American|issue=78|volume=51|url=http://www.journalsource.com|date=2018|page=46}}</ref> The Sun's temperature is 5,778 degrees Kelvin.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Uemura|first1=Shu|title=The Sun's Heat|url=http://www.websource.com|publisher=Academic Press|date=2018|page=2}}</ref> Displays as: The Sun's diameter is 864,337.3 miles, while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles. The Sun's temperature is 5,778 degrees Kelvin. References In the example above the references have been formatted according to Citation Style 1, which shows the author, the source's name, date, etc., all information which is lost when only the links are provided. As Wikipedia is a volunteer project, larger edit requests such yours are generally expected to have this formatting done before the request is submitted for review.

Kindly rewrite your edit request so that it aligns more with the second example shown in the collapsed section above, and feel free to re-submit that edit request at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions about this formatting please don't hesitate to ask myself or another editor. Regards,  Spintendo  17:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Notes

References

Edit request follow-up 27-FEB-2019

@Farshad408: I'm afraid that the citation style used in the edit request still does not align with that used by the article. You may find information on adding references using Citation Style 1 at HELP:CS1. Regards,  Spintendo  20:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2020

to the certificates and compliance sction please add GDPR per https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/360000126326-Official-Statement-EU-GDPR-Compliance 71.254.10.141 (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done {{SUBST:replyto|Can I Log In}}^{Copy and paste the code to reply}(Talk) 20:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Mention if it costs money to use

Mention if it costs money to use, or how they make their money. Jidanni (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I made a brief mention with this edit. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Open source and security

80.1.217.212 (talk · contribs) seems insistent in including the statement "Zoom is not open source" in the "Security Issues" section of the article. This appears to be an assertion that not being open source presents inherent security threats. I reverted and edit warring occurred resulting in the current temporary page protection. If anyone has sources to suggest that the proprietary nature of Zoom's software has actually led to security threats, please feel free to provide them. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 12:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

It is a potential security problem because any system that is used for communications which is not open-source, is potentially relying on security through obscurity and could therefore be in conflict Kerckhoffs's principle of cryptography. Vliegendehuiskat (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there certainly is that potential. But until there is a reliable source that confirms a security threat has originated from the fact the software is proprietary, such an assertion doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 27 March 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 14:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Zoom Video Communications → Zoom Video – per WP:Common name, now it's being used a lot more in schools and colleges 2607:FB90:5E98:B508:A914:F2F9:E509:EC4E (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC) 2607:FB90:5E98:B508:A914:F2F9:E509:EC4E (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The question seems to be whether this article is about the country company or about the app. The common name of the company itself is less likely to have changed. The app is generally just called "Zoom", not "Zoom Video". Dekimasuよ! 05:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Only that "zoom" itself is a disambiguation page. So "Zoom Video" would avoid a clumsy title like "Zoom (video)". ThomasPusch (talk) 10:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - this article is primarily about the company not the app. This title is the correct name of the company. -- Netoholic @ 11:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - article is about the company. XavierItzm (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – That isn't the name of the app either. As far as I can tell, the name of the app is "Zoom", not "Zoom Video", and the app can be used for audioconferencing and screen sharing without video. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - the article is about the company which offers products and services beyond just the video conferencing platform (and we should expand the products section perhaps). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as mentioned before, the article is about the company. as for WP:COMMON NAME, i deadass have never heard anyone refer to Zoom as "Zoom Video". MadameButterflyKnife yeah sure.talk 00:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I would not be against moving this title, but "Zoom Video" is not a good title. Plus I'm a student and I have never once heard someone say "Zoom Video" its just not the common name. I think moving to just "Zoom" or "Zoom (company)" would be an acceptable move. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - do you have sources showing that the company is commonly known as "Zoom Video"? I can only find references to the full name "Zoom Video Communications" or just "Zoom" - e.g. jamacfarlane (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

  The New York Times uses it casually in one of their articles [2], but that appears to be it. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: As others have already pointed out, I came here to say that the article is about the company, not the product. We typically look to companies' official names more than just the common name. Go to their homepage and scroll down to the bottom, "Zoom Video Communications, Inc." Then subtract the "Inc." part per MOS:TMRULES, as we do with other articles about corporations, and you get "Zoom Video Communications". – voidxor 22:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2020

In paragraph "1.1 2019–20 COVID-19 Pandemic", second section

change

through events such as "Zoom Blind Dates", Zoom Recess", and

to

through events such as "Zoom Blind Dates", "Zoom Recess", and

(added a " ) Sebas39 (talk) 12:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Zoombombing

I don't think we need a section on "Zoombombing", especially in the History section of the article. This isn't a major aspect of the company's history, or even distinct to Zoom's platform (this could potentially happen on Skype, GoToMeeting or any other videoconferencing tool). This seems very much a case of WP:RECENT. Thoughts? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

So far, the Zoomboming has as sources The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and a few others. The coverage by WP:RS seems very well established. Sure, it is recent, but we have no CRISTAL at this point. Better leave the sources standing and see what develops. XavierItzm (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

There's no doubt that RS have discussed the phenomenon, but I'm far from convinced it is a lasting thing worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Now there's an article on Zoombombing that largely repeats what's here. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Stand-alone articles routinely include content and sources already present in abbreviated form in other articles, and then fully expand on it with additional facts and sources that might not be germane. For example, the stand-alone article you mention includes examples that have occurred on other platforms (which obiously cannot and should not be at all mentioned on the Zoom article) and are backed by gold-plated WP:RS such as NRK of Norway which obviously cannot and should not be included here on the Zoom article. XavierItzm (talk) 04:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Why isn't Zoom video listed in ANY of the comparison charts or tables below?

Why isn't Zoom video listed in ANY of the comparison charts or tables below? do we need to correct this? can someone please advise??!!

• Comparison of cross-platform instant messaging clients
• Comparison of instant messaging protocols
• Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients
• Comparison of LAN messengers
• Comparison of VoIP software
• List of SIP software
• List of video telecommunication services and product brands

thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sm8900: If you think it should be included on those pages, go ahead and do it yourself. If it's not included it's likely because no one has thought to do so. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 06:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Rewrite of privacy and data security sections

Hi, I am planning to rewrite the privacy and data security sections. Please let me know if you have any objections or comments. Thanks, --Gnom (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

All I ask is that you look at all of the material from privacy and security that has been deleted in the last couple of weeks. In the guise of streamlining the article, a lot of WP:RS and clarification for the reader was left on the cutting floor. XavierItzm (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

"Free software"?

The article headline mentions that "Zoom is one of the most popular free software applications worldwide." When used like this, "free software" has, to me, strong implications of being FOSS, whereas Zoom is proprietary. Wikipedia's Free software page suggest that "Freeware" would be the name for proprietary software distributed at no monetary cost.

I'm not sure whether this is just a personal bias (though the Wikipedia article above seems to support it); would anyone else agree with changing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.159.55.125 (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, this is misuse of the word "free" in the context of software. 2001:1970:52E7:D000:0:0:0:F63A (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The phrase "free software" does not currently exist in the article. It simply refers to the fact that "Use of the platform is free for video conferences of up to 100 participants..." --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

It’s not free.😕 Amazing articles (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Zoom Password Error Code Message on Mac.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Possible attempt at presenting false information within the article?

There is currently a paragraph under the "Privacy" section of the "Criticism" segment which reads as follows:

"On 19 of April 2020 the FBI Research Unit announced that over the past 3 months the Chinese Government had been tracking biometric data on all users across North America and Europe. On 21 April, the Chinese Government claimed responsibility over COVID-19 initial diffusion.[73]"

The point of interest/concern is in the second sentence which states "On 21 April" and includes footnote [73].

At the time of reporting this sentence it is currently the 20th of April, 2020 - 18:18 GMT.

Initially I thought this to simply be an error by the person who wrote the sentence, or possibly related to a difference in time zones, but upon further investigation I found that the hyperlink provided in footnote [73] redirects to a pinterest buzzfeed article titled "Why Would You Die In A Disney Movie?" with a picture of Winnie the Pooh, and not anything related to the paragraph at hand.

This is the link to said article included as a source in footnote 73: https://www.pinterest.nz/pin/801007483694417810/

Is this an attempted at sabotage, or is it just negligence in ones editing/updating of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traveller from an antique land (talk • contribs) 17:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

New source about security criticisms

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/20/technology/zoom-security-dropbox-hackers.html --Tuxayo (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Zoom (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 27 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: I am closing this request early because of the high rate of opposition. JE98 (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Zoom Video Communications → Zoom (social network) – Zoom is clearly receiving a lot of attention for video calling right now due to COVID-19. No one refers to it by wanting to go on "Zoom Video Communications". Per WP:COMMONNAME, it should simply just be "Zoom". Now I understand if you may want something else in the parentheses, but "Zoom" is the simplest and most appropriate title. JE98 (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose it's not a "social network" In ictu oculi (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• I'd propose Zoom (company).--Ortizesp (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @Ortizesp: I would accept that. JE98 (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Zoom is not a social network. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Strong no Zoom is not a social network, it is a web conferencing platform. Zoom (software) would be a better title. Aasim 17:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - another misguided request which didn't learn from the prior RM. This article is about the company - not the app, not the "social network". The current title is accurate and WP:NATURALDIS. -- Netoholic @ 18:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - As stated above, Zoom isn't a social network, and the name of the company is Zoom Video Communications. So why should it be changed? --Interstatelovebong (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 28 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a consensus that Zoom (software) should be created as a separate article focusing on the product. (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist|wear a mask 14:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

---

Zoom Video Communications → Zoom (software) – I thought about a better term to put in parentheses, and I feel that "software" is more appropriate. Bottom line is, like I said before, that people do not refer to Zoom by its full name and it would be easier to have it as a simpler title per WP:COMMONNAME. JE98 (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support – Several users have pointed out that this article is about the company and not its product, but the company is only notable for its software and readers will find this article because they're looking for the software. I see nothing wrong with having detailed information about the company on an article about their software. The proposed title is recognizable and does not clash with any other article like "(company)" would have. – Thjarkur (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - another misguided request which didn't learn from the multiple prior RMs. This article is about the company - not the app, not the "social network". The current title is accurate and WP:NATURALDIS. I recommend that info on the conferencing software be drafted as a standalone article and that we impose a very long moratorium against any future rename requests of this article until some sort of official company name change. -- Netoholic @ 01:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for same reasons as Netoholic. This article is about the company. And Zoom Video Communications provides more products beyond the Zoom videoconferencing app. Feel free to suggest a new article about that particular software and we can move much of what is in this article to that new one, perhaps. (For comparison, consider there are Facebook, Inc. and a separate Facebook articles.) --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: two articles are required, one on the company and one covering the software (noting that there are now many press articles discussing the merits and limitations of the software) RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose and support creating a new article for the software: agree with notion this article is about the company. Also, Zoom offers many different software products; some of these may be separated into their own articles. For example: Slack Technologies and Slack (software). This article does not need to be moved wholesale, but some of its content might need to be transferred over. Given the activity from people editing this article, care must taken to avoid a POV fork situation. hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 07:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons listed above. The company is called Zoom Video Communications and so that is an accurate title. Incidentally I don't see why a separate article would need to be created for the software, since the software can easily be summarized in this one article.--Interstatelovebong (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose N – proposed move does not match the scope of the article. The article is about the company, not the software. I also oppose Zoom (company) per WP:NATURALDIS. cookie monster (2020) 755 19:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Split Zoom (software) from the article as it is independently notable. buidhe 08:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Split I agree with @Buidhe:, the software Zoom does for sure meets the WP:GNG and can be split into a separate article, so we can keep this article about the company history. The same exists as Skype Technologies and Skype, were the latter is about the software. Streepjescode (talk) 09:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Split The video conferencing software is notable by itself. funplussmart (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose move as current article is about the company. Support splitting into separate article about the software. We do have for example: Malwarebytes and Malwarebytes (software) as well as BitTorrent (company) and BitTorrent (software). - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose move as the scope of the article is much broader than the software product. What should happen is for the software to be split off to its own article, but that's got nothing to do with a move request. Schwede66 06:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• Split I came here to learn more about the software, not the company. I'd like to know, for example, why there is a blue border around whoever is talking when they use Zoom or something similar on TV.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• Split I'd oppose renaming this article, as it's clearly about the company. The product is certainly notable on its own. Thistle5er (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• Split This article is about the parent company. I'd support a split , as Zoom (software) would be a notable article on its own.confermusearename (talk, contribs) Have a nice day! 22:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• Split - The assertion that the company is not notable on its own is contradicted by the abundance of cited sources with significant coverage of the company. ~Kvng (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Avoiding PR insertions

We've come a long way with this article since early March when it seemed be mostly a PR page highlighting corporate press releases. But recently it seems thers's been an increase in edits from random accounts trying to insert more PR-friendly content, such as this insertion and subsequent revert. I'm worried that PR teams have been hired to shape the article. What do other's think? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

Per WP:GNG and the comments above for my previous move request, I would like to follow-up and propose that parts of this article be split into a separate page called Zoom (software). JE98 (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• @ZimZalaBim, RobbieIanMorrison, Member, Buidhe, Streepjescode, Funplussmart, Champion, Schwede66, Vchimpanzee, Thistle5er, Confermusearename, and Kvng: Since you all supported a split in my previous move discussion, I invite you all to comment. JE98 (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I hope this information will be included in the article. I have watched several TV series where people were on some Zoom type software. In one case, it was the stars of two shows watching their own series and the other person's series. Whoever was talking, when all were on the screen, had a blue border around them. In a commercial, the border was green. Although what we saw may have been simulated in some way. I'm curious about how that works.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• It does not need to be discussed further as it’s been decided that splitting is the appropriate action. Schwede66 18:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Now that there is consensus to do it, the details of the split can be handled WP:BOLDLY AFAIC. ~Kvng (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a link to this article from Google Meet. I don't know how many other potential links to the new article there could be.

Also, there is not one word about COVID-19 in Videotelephony. If anything, that article is tagged as too long. I'm not sure what to add or what kind of source to use.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I handled it BOLDLY. Please see Zoom (software) if you would like to improve the page. Streepjescode (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Country portals

@ZimZalaBim:

Hi! I was being bold, so do excuse my edits. Anyway this is certainly related to the United States (or more specifically San Francisco Bay Area) because of where the headquarters are: San Jose (San Francisco area). In principle a company belongs to the WikiProject of the headquarters location and it should display the portal relevant to the HQ location.

China may indeed be relevant though if the company has significant ties to China. There is already a section talking about how much of its workforce is in China. In fact one could raise the issue on Wikipedia:WikiProject China. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

In my view, portals are meant for articles with much broader connections to the essence of their topics. We certainly don't link every company based in the US to the US portal, nor any article that happens to have some kind of tie to China. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@ZimZalaBim: Often we didn't need to link to every company based in the US to the US portal because there were multiple state and city-based portals. Lamar High School (Houston) didn't need a US portal because you could have a specific Houston portal, for example. However a lot of the smaller portals got culled, so the Louisiana portal for example no longer exists. Louisiana articles should link to the general US portal because no more specific portal exists. Portals and WikiProjects are about whats related and I think an issue is that articles about US topics are perceived as having no "national" ties when in fact they do. Anyhow, on another note, if the article has some connection to China and does not have a connection to Hong Kong, or if it has a connection to the Chinese national government or broader trends in China, it very much should have a China portal. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 23 November 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 10:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

---

Zoom Video Communications → Zoom (company) – Zoom is by far the WP:COMMONNAME, the "(company)" would only serve as a disambiguate. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The "Video Communications" serves as the more WP:NATURAL disambiguation. No need for an artificial qualifier. (It would also be ambiguous with Zoom Corporation, which is also a company.) Station1 (talk) 06:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Station1 as a natural disambiguation issue. While Zoom Video Communications far outweighs the other topics in pageviews, there are just too many companies in the way. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. While NASDAQ:ZM is probably primary among companies, it does not reach the Thriller (album)/Nirvana (band) threshold necessary to claim a primary WP:PDAB. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Current WP:NATDAB is far clearer about the article's subject. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.