Talk:IT disaster recovery

message: Disaster recovery can be generalized.  A corporation could have a disaster recovery plan for what to do if there is a fire at the main office, etc. RJFJR 17:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cleaned-up. Computerjoe 18:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: The term 'Disaster recovery' is used in both these sectors, but with different meaning.  Currently the article mix the two domains together, with emphasis on BCP.  It would be preferable to make it explicit. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 09:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Business continuity planning]] vs. [[Emergency management]] 

message: I recently added a link to a site that gives in-depth information on Disaster Recovery for IT systems (which is the topic of the "Disaster recovery" page). As the creator of the site that was linked, I realise now that I should have first suggested the link on this page rather than adding it myself. Note however that I made sure that I was signed in when I added the link and so was not attempting to hide my connection to the site.
Shortly after adding the link, an anonymous user with IP address 81.159.231.84 removed the link as self promotion, which I understand. However I strongly believe that the site does provide relevant and useful information to somebody researching Disaster Recovery. The site does not sell any products or promote any companies or individuals, although it does have Google and Amazon links (although the site is clearly not just an advertising portal and it does not contain an objectionable amount of advertising).
I would like to ask that user IP 81.159.231.84 and the community looks at the site (www.disaster-recovery-guidance.com) and if in agreement that it adds value to someone searching for more in-depth disaster recovery information and that it meets the quality guidelines for an external wikipedia link, that the link be added back.
As a general note, I have edited and made contributions to the Disaster recovery wikipedia entry over the last year and believe I have added value to the article. I am not attempting self promotion - I really am trying to add value to this Wikipedia article by providing a link that gives in-depth information on this topic.
Please post your comments (for or against the link) on this talk page once you have reviewed the link.
Eagarg (talk) 10:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I deleted it because you added a link to your own website, and indeed, at the top of the links section with what read like sales blurb. This is not acceptable as you now appear to understand. If the site is suitable, it will be added sooner or later by the community. Your best policy is surely to keep your own self-interests away from your edit activity completely. Even if you have the best of intentions it is bound to be interpreted otherwise. In your position I would step back and maintain my reputation as an editor first and foremost.  81.159.231.84 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link Query 

message: The current state of this entry is pretty sad. Looking through the history, it has had some major changes over time but I don't feel that any have really done justice to an encyclopedic entry for disaster recovery.
The first problem that I see is getting agreement on the term 'disaster recovery'. It seems that in North America the terms Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery are used interchangeably with both terms referring to planning for all aspects of the business (IT, staff, supply chain, premises, etc). In a large part of the rest of the world (notably Europe) there is more of a distinction. Business Continuity covers all aspects of protecting the business, while Disaster Recovery is understood to be a subset of BC, covering the technology aspects only. 
So I see one of two ways of fixing this. I would suggest that the disaster recovery article refers to the technology aspects only, but in the introduction it makes clear that it is a sub-set of business continuity (and I have already made this distinction in the introduction). The alternative is to get rid of the disaster recovery page as it is now (since if BC and DR are the same thing, there should only be one entry for them) and instead we use the IT Service Continuity page to discuss the technology aspects. If we're going to use the IT Service Continuity page to discuss the technology aspects then the DR page should just provide a brief explanation and links to the business continuity and IT Service Continuity pages.
To get this to be a really good entry is going to be tough and I'm quite certain there will be many disagreements along the way. But I hope that we can all agree that at the moment this page needs a lot of work (too much of a how-to than it should be, lack of references/citations, etc). Anybody up for the challenge?
Dr-pro (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the distinction is important and yes, DR is a part of BCP I believe. I also think that the Disaster Recovery is such a ubiquitous term (especially here in Europe) that it merits its own page. Kmcnamee (talk) 10:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's improve this entry 

message: In the current version of the article (September 2010), there is a section titled "General steps to follow while creating BCP/DRP". While this section provides good advice, it is not really fitting with the objective of Wikipedia. 
The following is from the Wikipedia article: "What Wikipedia is not"
Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style owners manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes.[5] If you are interested in a "how-to" type of manual, you may want to look at wikiHow, How to Wiki  or our sister project, Wikibooks.
Unfortunately this section does read as a "how-to" and so I feel it is not appropriate.
Dr-pro (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion re "General steps to follow while creating BCP/DRP" 

message: This appears to be a somewhat subjective and idiosyncratic approach to the subject. As far as I am aware there is no generally accepted need or process for this. Risk management proposes a hazard/threat approach for the potential sources of disruptions (hazards being natural and threats being man-made) but also takes into account the likelihood and impact of such potential risks. Disruptions can therefore have a myriad of causes (sometimes very complex in nature) therefore to classify "disasters" in this way is artificial and nonsensical.   Isoron27000 (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classifications of disasters 

message: The author cites "research" on the return on investment following investment in DR with no reference other than to a publication from a US educational institution which itself merely states such a claim with no references. This should be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isoron27000 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance of disaster recovery planning  

message: There are major problems with this article (see earlier Talk comments) and no attempt has been made to remedy the problems for some considerable time.Isoron27000 (talk) 10:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generally a poor quality article  

message: In order to clarify the subject matter the title of the article should reflect the fact that this is about IT disaster recovery - or more specifically Information and Communications Technology Disaster Recovery (as telephony and communications technologies are inherent in much of what is undertaken with information technology).
Title should therefore be changed to ICT Disaster Recovery and should be a sub-article of IT Service Continuity, which itself is a sub-set of Business Continuity.Isoron27000 (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Disaster recovery. 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/20130111203921/http://www-304.ibm.com:80/partnerworld/gsd/solutiondetails.do?solution=44832&expand=true&lc=en to http://www-304.ibm.com/partnerworld/gsd/solutiondetails.do?solution=44832&expand=true&lc=en
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116112225/http://content.dell.com/us/en/enterprise/d/large-business/mistakes-that-kill-disaster.aspx to http://content.dell.com/us/en/enterprise/d/large-business/mistakes-that-kill-disaster.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What is the purpose of listing vendors? Disaster recovery is not something that can be bought off the shelf. It would be more useful for readers to know what vendors can help with in the area of DR.
16:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove/replace vendors section