Talk:Adtran

Advert

The current version of this article sounds like direct copy from marketing materials. Words/phrases "leading", "global", "widely deployed" etc are fine in the propaganda writings, but not in an encyclopedic article.

It helps a lot if you sign your comments. Anyway, I agree. This is marketing treacle, and needs to be rewritten. I know nothing about Adtran but I'm happy to put the rewrite flag on it. --Rhombus 22:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Applied editorial hatchet. ADTRAN really was and is an important player, but that was all glow, with a wee bit of show. Killed the product list, the company web site or online catalogs are great for that, and WP is not. Some of the corporate stuff was just wrong. Added some sourcing, and wp:SELFPUB sources for info about the company. It is a stub, but it is a mostly nice clean stub. I left in a bit of marketing glow that should be source-able or I'll kill it.- sinneed (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Might be worth adding with a source.

"According to market intelligence firms Dataquest and International Data Corporation, ADTRAN currently holds revenue-leading positions in integrated access, Frame Relay/DDS, ISDN extension and HDSL/T1/E1 network and access markets."

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ADTRAN. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071119084052/http://www.crn.com:80/networking/198701242 to http://www.crn.com/networking/198701242;jsessionid=JB41OBC4UUUHEQSNDLPCKHSCJUNN2JVN

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Adtran IP ranges

Looking back at the edit history I've noticed edits from IP addresses controlled by Adtran so I figured I would list them here.

CIDR	Range	Source
2620:4A::/48	2620:4A:: - 2620:4A:0:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF	Direct from ARIN
2620:106:A000::/44	2620:106:A000:: - 2620:106:A00F:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF	Direct from ARIN
207.229.96.0/23	207.229.96.0 - 207.229.97.255	Direct from ARIN
76.164.174.0/24	76.164.174.0 - 76.164.174.255	Sub from API Digital

I've added the {{IP COI notice}} template i.e. {{IP COI notice|[[ADTRAN|Adtran, Inc.]]}} to some of the listed addresses that have made edits. Note these are just some of the ranges I found while checking the edit history against ARIN. I haven't checked any of the other RIR so there could be more IP ranges that aren't listed. - Offnfopt^(talk) 06:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

January 2023 conflict of interest

Bamagirl90 (talk · contribs) seems to have changed the article into a straight PR article for the company. Based on the above, seems like this company doesn't have sufficient controls over keeping their agents from editing Wikipedia without disclosing their conflict of interest as required. I wonder who's supposed to trust them if, even after 5 years, they return to committing unauthorized access to other organization's servers. I've tagged the article. Closeapple (talk) 03:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Wow, that was a mess. I've made an effort at cleaning it up. I expect eventually they will notice and promoify it again. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 09:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 2 January 2023

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: moved. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

---

ADTRAN → Adtran – Not even the subject uses all-caps now. Even if it did, we don't allow subjects to declare their own all-caps promotion to be correct for Wikipedia: MOS:TMRULES is the standard. Closeapple (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

First comment by Atomicdragon136 already existed under the title "Capitalization of brand name" before the above move template:

The page is titled “ADTRAN” while the article spells it as “Adtran”. In the company’s website, they spell it in lower case (but formerly in all caps). They are still registered in Nasdaq as “ADTRAN Holdings, Inc”. While this article hasn’t really been updated with more recent sources, there doesn’t seem to be a more common name currently as I see both of them in online news articles published in the past year.

I’m leaning towards moving this page to Adtran. 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 07:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Support move per nom. O.N.R. ^(talk) 04:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

SUPPORT™ per MOS:TMRULES. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 09:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The company now uses Adtran vs. ADTRAN in all but financial documents.

The majority of the information on this page was out of date and incorrect. An attempt was made to update this information to correctly reflect the current company. Citations were provided for all information. Bamagirl90 (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was complaining about accuracy or lack of citations (I even made an effort to keep the new information you'd added while I was cleaning it up, instead of just mass-reverting the whole thing). The article was bad because it was a big fluffy cloud of corporate vision statements. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 20:18, 3 January 2023 (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.