Talk:VPN service

Color-coding in tables

It's not very clear what the purpose of the red/green/beige coding is in the comparison tables. In some cases, Yes/No are coded red/green, elsewhere the coding is green/red. It would be helpful to provide a brief explanation for non-tech savvy readers, who cannot easily discern how the features are represented as pros or cons for each service. Thoughts? jxm (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree - there should be a key to rationalize the meaning of the red/green/beige coding

Enquire (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Article title: does it need to be more specific?

At first glance, it appears the lead section of this article (i.e. ‘VPN service’) is a normal encyclopedic one; after scrolling down to see the comparison table, though, parts off it could be seen more as part of an advertisement.

Article history:

1. At least part of this article, if not the entire thing, may have previously existed at:

‘Comparison of virtual private network services’ (redirect link page).

That page was later renamed to ‘Comparison of VPN services’ (redirect link page).

Both are now redirect pages.

2. On June 14, 2021, that content was merged with this article.

Text of the 14 June 2021 revision of VPN service

(‘diff’ comparision to previous revision, showing specifically what was changed on 14 June.)

Question: As all currently listed services appear to be commercial (i.e. service in exchange for payment or other value, not necessarily operated by ‘for profit’ companies), should the article title be changed?

Example new titles:

Commercial VPN service, Commercial VPN services, or VPN service

VPN service providers or VPN services and providers

Subscription VPN services or VPN service

~ ~ ~ ~

(See also: WP:IBA and WP:PROMO)

In the meantime, adding an {{Advert}}* template to the article may be warranted.

* (or several {{Advert inline}}/{{Promotion inline}} templates, to various sentences/paragraphs)

- Jim Grisham (talk) 18:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@PhotographyEdits: Why was the comparison information merged here? Should it be moved back into a comparison article and, if what was in this article before the merge doesn't deserve its own page, should it be moved to Virtual private network? Guy Harris (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jim Grisham: @Guy Harris: I think that a "VPN service" is different from a "virtual private network". Yes, they might use the same technologies, such as TLS and OpenVPN, but the way of operating is different: with a VPN service, you are not accessing a remote LAN, which is the common use case of a virtual private network. VPN services are sold as a glorified proxy service. I wanted to use the lede of this article to explain more about the unique aspects of those services, and include more text in later paragraphs. There is a good paper about the history of the commercial services that is already included, but could be utilized more. I prefer to keep the articles with the titles as they are now. The virtual private network article is best used as an explanation for the different technologies and aspects used for site-to-site VPNs in enterprise IT environment, not so much by regular consumers. I think that WP:READERS who are not knowledgable about VPN technologies are better served with a separate article about these commercial services than a subsection in the virtual private network article. I don't think this article is an advertisement, since there is a strict requirement on all services needing to meet the WP:GNG. Please elaborate more if you disagree about this part. I think pruning some information would be reasonable. PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Some other editor removed quite a bit of content about the legality and critisim, I have reverted that edit because I think the content belongs here. Though it should be expanded more. PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Considerations when choosing a VPN service?

Too many bad providers out there. Article needs to address this. Newb787 (talk) 08:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Presumably you're not recommending that the article be more of a guide to choosing a VPN service, as that's not what Wikipedia is intended to be. Guy Harris (talk) 08:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Remove & Merge Availability Table

I propose removing the Availability table and merging Linux support into the above Technical features table. Number of connections is not a notable feature of a feature and is more of a sale items. Number of servers and countries are constantly changing and most of the numbers appear wrong. I would argue that any VPN that is notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia will have a sufficient number of servers and country locations, and that services with small numbers would most like also not meet the general notability guidelines. DecorumForum125 00:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• I've made this update. DecorumForum125 22:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Common Misconceptions

I think this header is misused here. What is listed are not misconceptions but counter points to common misconceptions 142.59.70.191 (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 15 September 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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

---

VPN service → Virtual private network service – Article was moved for no reason by @PhotographyEdits: (undiscussed move, WP:RMUM). Eurohunter (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

No, I simply reverted the undiscussed move back to the long term stable name. But it's fine to now have a proper discussion about it. PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

No, simply article was created under wrong name long time ago and even in lead there is "Virtual private network service" since creation. Eurohunter (talk) 09:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I just checked and confirmed that the current title "VPN service" is the long-term stable title. There was an undiscussed move on 30 August 2023‎ by Eurohunter that was reverted by PhotographyEdits less than 24 hours later. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I do want to note that this is only about the procedural aspect of moving discussions. The fact that a name has been stable for a long time does explicitly not mean it is the correct one, just mean that a move should be discussed with that name as the original name. In this case, I do believe the name is correct. PhotographyEdits (talk) 07:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, per MOS:ACROTITLE. A 'virtual private network' is overwhelmingly referred to by its abbreviation VPN. The abbreviation VPN is not commonly used for something else, so it's the correct thing to use the abbreviation in the title per the Wikipedia styleguide. PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
  • @PhotographyEdits: Than move virtual private network to VPN first. Eurohunter (talk) 09:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
    • Comment: I forget where it is expressed, but somewhere in Wikipedia's guidelines or policies it is stated (or at least used to be stated) that although an abbreviation may be spelled out for the main article on a subject, it can be preferable to use the abbreviation in longer titles on related subjects. Two examples of this are Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation, which are abbreviated as "CIA" and "FBI" in many article titles but are spelled out in the titles of the main articles on the subjects. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose and move virtual private network to VPN. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per above Parham wiki (talk) 08:07, 24 September 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.

Use of VPNs in China

VPNs are popular in China as a means to bypass China's Great Firewall. Also, I understand that some VPNs are owned by Chinese investors which, if true, raises the possibility of "man-in-the-middle" split VPN tunnels. In any event, some VPNs simply do not work in China - presumably the Chinese government has found a way to disable these VPNs. It would be most helpful if there was a section that discussed which VPNs are effective for users in China and which might pose risks. Similar issues also occur in other countries, such as Russia, Iran, etc. In any event, I think that this wikipage could be expanded to address such considerations in nations with such Internet restrictions.
Enquire (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)