Talk:Symantec

What do you want to discuss?

Hey, User:UnitedStatesian, what did you want to discuss? It's odd having a disambiguation page to distinguish between two different things when it's actually one thing, at least as I see it. Largoplazo (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not so: as of this week when the sale closed, if you go to https://www.symantec.com you wind up on a Broadcom Inc. page; NortonLifeLock no longer owns the Symantec name or brand, or any of the enterprise products that were sold to Broadcom Inc. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I had to read through it several times but now I get it. Largoplazo (talk) 05:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of SecurityFocus into Symantec

Stub unlikey to be further developed as an independent article MB 18:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge into NortonLifeLock – not into Symantec, which is a DAB page. No sign of independent notability for SecurityFocus, I doubt it would survive WP:AFD. Narky Blert (talk) 12:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

M&A

The Broadcom article says:

Broadcom purchased this business from NortonLifeLock (formerly known as Symantec) in 2019.

Clicking on NortonLifeLock redirects to Gen Digital. So I am confused as to who owned what business when, and who bought it from who. None of articles are clear on history unless I am missing something. User:Danbloch. -- GreenC 22:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's kind of a mess.

As I understand it Symantec split in the late 2010s. Broadcom acquired part of it, including the Symantec name (http://symantec.com is now a redirect to broadcom.com). The remainder changed its name to NortonlifeLock and subsequently merged with Avast to become Gen Digital, so both claims in the DAB are correct, with the possible exception of the date.

This ignores Veritas (which I think is fine), which merged with and later demerged from Symantec prior to that.

The sentence in the Broadcom article is misleading, since I'm pretty sure it was Symantec at the time, not NortonLifeLock. I'm also not sure the dates are right. Unfortunately the citation for the claim seems to be useless. Dan Bloch (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody still cares, I found a citation and clarified the statement in the Broadcom article. Dan Bloch (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I made some further clarifications. It's a little repetitive, but I think required because it is easy to conflate the corporation vs the product, which has the same name, and the word "acquisition" that could be applicable to both corporation and product. So I wanted to be more specific so it's clear there is difference between the product and corporation. -- GreenC 17:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

I suggest that the page be transformed into a redirect to Gen Digital (formerly NortonLifeLock), since there is only one page that deals with the Symantec topic, and it makes no sense to use disambiguation. However, if you really want to use it, there is Symantec (disambiguation). InterComMan (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that doesn't really make sense. The product line with the Symantec name that is familiar to most is owned and continues to be marketed by Broadcom. GenDigital is merely what was left of the company after splitting and sale of the product line. older ≠ wiser 17:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but then let's move to Symantec (disambiguation). InterComMan (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you address this sentence?

"the Symantec name that is familiar to most is owned and continues to be marketed by Broadcom"

Thank you. -- GreenC 18:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what there is to explain. The Symantec Enterprise Security software products are owned and marketed by Broadcom. To my knowledge, that is the only remaining software on the market bearing the Symantec name. older ≠ wiser 19:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And what does this have to do with the disambiguation page? InterComMan (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "let's move to Symantec (disambiguation)"? Symantec (disambiguation) already exists and is a redirect to this page.

It would be possible to make Symantec a redirect to Gen Digital put a hatnote there for Broadcom (or vice versa), but the usage is fairly evenly distributed between the two, so I have a mild preference for keeping the DAB. Dan Bloch (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean moving the content of Symantec to Symantec (disambiguation) and redirecting Symantec to Gen Digital. InterComMan (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is disrecommended in MOS:DAB#Disambiguation pages with only two entries.

What it comes down to is that if Gen Digital is the primary meaning, as you believe, then Symantec should be made a redirect to Gen Digital and a hatnote put there linking to the Broadcom section. If neither of the two meanings is primary, then the current setup is right. Dan Bloch (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But what's wrong with setting the page Symantec (disambiguation) this way?

"Symantec may refer to:

Gen Digital, an American consumer software company formerly known as Symantec
Symantec, a brand of enterprise security software purchased by Broadcom in August 2019" InterComMan (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from minor non-compliant MOSDAB issues, that is basically not significantly different from the current version. older ≠ wiser 19:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Danbloch, yes that is precisely right. It is a question of primary topic. Is the corporate history relating to the software company once known as Symantec the primary topic even though the assets have been divided and/or sold? older ≠ wiser 19:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And as far as moving the content of Symantec to Symantec (disambiguation) goes, if you make Symantec a redirect to Gen Digital then Gen Digital needs a hatnote, and having it point to a DAB instead of Broadcom just means a user has to click through an extra page. Dan Bloch (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Danbloch In my opinion, it's better to do as you say. InterComMan (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that you changed the page again to a redirect, I restored its state as a disambiguation page, because the question of whether either and, if so, which one, is the primary topic needs to be resolved. It seems unobvious to me that the operation that used to be called "Symantec" is primary and the software that to this day is sold under that name isn't. Largoplazo (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1258193450/1258194441 .. last warning before turning it over to ANI. -- GreenC 17:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]