Jump to content

Talk:Comparison of BitTorrent clients/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Comparison of BitTorrent clients
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) at 02:32, 31 December 2009 (Archiving 3 thread(s) from Talk:Comparison of BitTorrent clients.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Selected downloads

As we've all(?) seen, some torrent downloads contain multiple files. As an example, if you grab a torrent containing an entire season of a particular episode, it will usually have multiple files, one (or more) for each episode in the season. BitComet and TurboTorrent allow you to select individual files within the torrent, and set priority on them or disable their download. The term "selected downloads" seems to be the term to search for on Google, on this count. This would be really handy for someone who only wants to see a couple episodes out of a season, when individual torrents for the individual episodes don't appear to be available. If we add this to the list of columns (a simple yes or no would do), it should increase awareness of this feature and, hopefully, push developers to include it in more client programs.

He's got a point. Speaking of which, does BitTorrent (mainline) have this feature? Sweetfreek 08:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
the main table lists rtorrent as having this feature, but I don't see any sign of it in the latest version of the software itself ---- Sitaram 17:31 IST 3 August 2007

Software using BT

The GunZ international version also uses a patch distribution method similar to bittorrent, could someone research this? (moved from article) There seems to be a .torrent file that is downloaded to the GunZ directory that is openable in normal clients.

µTorrent search function

According to the 2nd table µTorrent has a torrent search function, which is wrong afaik.. it simply uses a internet explorer webbrowser API to access some tracker sites, so it should be relabled to "(yellow) Built-in webbrowser". This edit was already in place but was reverted. --89.49.239.197 15:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it counts as adware, since the ads are neither integrated into or bundled with the client. They're in an external website. Agree/disagree? 70.45.50.121 09:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who changed the malware field and added the footnote. I'm happy as long as the footnote stays. I think the question of whether or not it qualifies as adware belongs primarily in the uTorrent article, and any change there should be mirrored here. 59.167.22.209 10:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Removed footnote, 'cause the ads have been switched off.70.45.50.121 21:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hydranode is not present

I have not seen Hydranode client in the table. Is this on purpose? If not, can somebody add it?. Thanks. --Aimak 09:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody add it? Yes, anyone can add it. You can add it. Jump in! Gronky 18:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

BitTorrent Plus!

I just wanted to point out a BitTorrent client that isn't on this list -- BitTorrent Plus!. It is based on BitTornado, and it looks sexy. However, beauty may only be skin deep. I don't have any time right now to analyze the client, but perhaps someone else could? -- Masamunecyrus(talk)(contribs) 04:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

commnt of mine: page is down: this is history! Mabdul (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

GetRight

Since version 6.0 GetRight offers the possibily to download torrent files. So maybe someone might be willing to add GetRight to the list. - Jack's Revenge 07:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Last Update

How about a "last update" column, to see which of those client are still recieving updates, and which projects are abandoned?

Yeah I think that's pretty important. # Ido50 (talk to me), at 23:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Number of Users

Anyone think the approximate number of users could be a part of the table, or should it go with the client? Or should it not be put in at all? Darthnader37 03:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

How do you plan to calculate the approximate number of users? 80.202.192.141 23:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Without installation

I think it would be a good idea to add whether a client have a stand-alone version. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.11.182.1 (talk) 10:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

It`s also called portable version. Good idea, please add it to the list.
Added a note for the Halite client. 87.11.181.48 02:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There should be a column for freeware and shareware too.

There should be a column for Freeware and shareware too.
DJAikou (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

shareware????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.31.211.172 (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

why is bit torrent client column there twice?

???????

If it doesn't fit, separate them into two "charts" or something.....i think that's what they did in the web browser comparison charts. Edit: I noticed supports is separated into two places and stuff, why are they separated? why not have them together? Noian (talk) 00:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I splitted the table. It's ok if you declare me insane now, because I did it by hand! Even though I've worked a lot with markup code, that did took me a lot of time :p. And I didn't even checked in the first place if there are any tools available to edit wikitables more easily. Or to convert HTML tables to wikitables. Now that I searched for it however, those tools don't seem to exist. :-( Face 22:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks better now, At least it fits on the screen, must have been time consuming to split it though....Noian (talk) 01:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It's rather broken at the moment. Is it absolutely necessary to have it set up this way? Could it at least be set to a different color scheme so as to not induce epileptic fits if someone scrolls down through it quickly? --Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
......? do you want it to be split more obviously? or reverted? also, removed the extra row on the bottom, although if you think it should be there, feel free to revert it. Noian (talk) 02:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
When I had looked at it jut before then, the second table was broken due to something. It's not now. My other comments are directed at the colors to start with. Is it necessary to have it in bright neon pink and green? It seriously does hurt my eyes to look at, which is a bad sign for a wiki page. Also the "comments" section seems to be a largely unnecessary section with also breaks up the regularity of the table. Is it necessary to insert comments of "buggy" for clients that don't even have their own wiki, especially when the inclusion makes an allready bad table worse? Just constructive commentary. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't the one who made it so I can't really say for the comments section (which has some useful information and some useless) As for the colors, that can be changed easily, although last I checked, most wiki comparison pages use those colors so.....(or something close to) Noian (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I made some shortings: i deleted the broken ip v6 notes and marked them in the ipv6 column as buggy. maybe we should split up the table again. the first should only show on which os is supported, foss/freeware/shareware/licence/costs AND that there st adware/malware present, then the second and third table is like now! Mabdul (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

ok, done. look and feel good or edit them! ^^ Mabdul (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Unlimited torrents in the official BitTorrent client?

It's been a few years since I've used the official client, but last time I used it, each instance of the program could only run a single torrent, and for multiple torrents you had to start multiple instances of the program. If that's still the case, should it really be listed as unlimited torrent capacity? Sure, you can start as many instances of the program as you want (if you have enough memory), but that's not really the same as the more full-featured clients that let you use multiple torrents in a single window and selectively ration your bandwidth between them. If that's still how it is, maybe it should be listed as "1 per program instance"? Of course, if they've changed the client in the past few years, then just tell me I'm out of date. 4.226.111.130 23:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't used the Mainline client in a couple years either, but I just downloaded it, and the interface is completely different. It's no longer one torrent per process; it looks almost like a real, usable client now. --Nasarius 03:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Multiple torrents were always possible in the console version using btlaunchmany/btlaunchmanycurses at least as far back as 2.0; I did so frequently. —pfahlstrom 02:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
On the same topic, last time I checked, BitTornado and Gnome BitTorrent, both modelled after the old-style mainline BitTorrent, used the one download per instance model. Unless they have both changed recently I think the "max active" value is wrong for each of these. Pimlottc 04:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Extending selective downloads column

I suggest all the clients which support selective downloading but aren't smart enough to not create files unecessarily on the filesystem have their "selective download" support changed from green to yellow. There are really four levels of support in this category: no support, supports but creates all files, supports but creates some unwanted files (when pieces straddle file borders for the purpose of hashing), supports and (uses some sort of temporarily file OR removes unwanted files when stopping/removing/closing the torrent). Anyone who is interested in the selective downloads column should also be interested in this further information. --4.253.68.195 06:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Where is Ares Galaxy?

Ares galaxy supports bittorrent since v1.9.5

Great. Add it. VanishingUser 23:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What about Ants ?

May be there is some mention of Ants, somewhere else, but I saw no mention of it on that page... I know, it is still under developement, and its network is still small, but it is working, and considering the complete novelty of its concepts (and the total security of it : the concepter having opened a contest for hackers to break through its system!) I really believe that it merits some mention here... There was some years ago a first trial to use those principles (Kast: <http://konspire.sourceforge.net/howItWorks.shtml>), but, for some reasons, and inspite a very promising start, it never continued. So, I was absolutely pleased to see, recently that Ants was now working on those same principles (the ants quest for Pheromones)... (it is mentionned in Wikipedia France <http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANts_P2P> but there is a full explanation of it's working principles here <http://antsp2p.sourceforge.net/antsp2phelp/Default.htm>. Dsoslglece

You can add it if you really want and if its related to BitTorrent Clients....Noian (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

BitTorrent_index_comparison

"The result was delete." for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BitTorrent_index_comparison but with no rational for this decision. BitTorrent indexes account for 1/3 of all Internet traffic.! Why is Wikipedia not covering it? People calmed it was not sourced but all material is attributable to the websites them selves. I believe Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia with the article restored.

BitTorrent indexes account for 1/3 of all Internet traffic. The following is a BitTorrent index comparison:

Features

legal only is a tracker directory sortable one click download comments tracker amalgamation public private RSS specialization
AnimeSuki Unlicensed only No Yes Only new torrents No No No Yes No Yes unlicensed anime
BigTorrent No Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No Yes anime
BoxTorrents No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes complete anime sets
BiteNova No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No
Bitmetv ? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ? No Yes ? TV
BitTorrent Yes Yes No No Yes No No Yes No No No
BTMon No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
BTJunkie No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
BushTorrents No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No
DC Hubs No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No No
Demonoid No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No
Dinastar-elec Yes Yes No No Yes No No Yes No Yes Linux
Fenopy No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No
FlixFlux No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Film
fulldls No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No
isoHunt No Yes No Not new torrents No No Yes Yes No Yes No
MegaNova No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No
Mininova No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No
MyBittorrent No No Yes Not working Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No
NewTorrents No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No
Oink ? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ? No Yes ? Audio
ScrapeTorrent No No No Yes No No No Yes No No No
Snarf-it No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No
ThePirateBay No Yes Yes Not the top 100 Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No
TorrentBox No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No No No
Torrent-Finder No No No No No No No No No No other sites
TorrentLeech ? Yes Yes Yes No Yes ? No Yes Yes ?
TorrentPortal No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No
TorrentReactor No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No
TorrentSpy No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No
TorrentValley No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
Torrentz No No No Yes No Yes No Yes No No No

See also

It was deleted because it's unmaintainable and unverifiable. -Halo 12:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion only to the same degree as Comparison_of_BitTorrent_software. So I was asking for a specific comparison, but thank you for your input.--72.139.115.137 21:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, there is no Comparison of BitTorrent tracker software. That is, the tracker software itself not whatever sites are using it. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Chart Key

I do not know exactly what "S" means, and I do not see a key. I am guessing it means "some". Anyone think a key or explanation should be added? Laptopdude 22:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Interface

CLI is not as helpful as it could be. I'd like to see "curses" added for clients that support it. rtorrent, bittorrent, bittornado all have at least some kind of curses support. rtorrent is really what I'd have in mind though. An interface where you can add and control torrents like other GUI interfaces, not just a glorified full screen progress bar.

rTorrent is also compatible to run on the Apple TV !! Since the Apple TV runs 24 hours a day, thre is no need to run your computer, when you can be more green and run an appliance that only uses 17 watts per hour!

TPH —Preceding unsigned comment added by TinpanHarry (talk • contribs) 23:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Templates now sortable

I made the templates sortable. In order to do this, I had to remove the repetition of the column headers within the template, and I had to put all subheaders on the main level. Users can increase their screen resolution to solve the issue of forgetting which column is which. The subheader issue I think is not important. Whistling42 (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I made additional edits free space for new features for the tables (ie language support{how many}, or First public release, date, Latest stable, Date of latest, Cost (USD), Software license) Mabdul (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Tables

How about adding a big table that describes better the "last updated", etc.? I think of somethink like in this arctile: Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients Mabdul (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Vendor ID's (Two-Letter Codes) should be inserted as a column for proper identification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.79.98 (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Title of article

I'm not sure if I like the name of this article. It seems to be a table of BitTorrent clients and their features, not an explanation of what a BitTorrent client is. The title is misleading. Anyone think that it should be moved to something like List of BitTorrent clients and features, or something more grammatically correct? At very least, move it to BitTorrent clients. TIM KLOSKE|TALK 21:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but its really only a aesthetic difference......Noian (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merging_articles#How_to_rename_a_page for how to move it if you want. Noian (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Open Source

Hi. I'm the one who added the open source section. I think it is useful to know in regards to privacy. If it is open source "you", or someone who knows programming, can be certain the software does not spy on you etc. I am not good with Wikipedia, I couldn't figure out how to set yes or no to whether it is open source or not. But this I know: Deluge/Azureus is open source. µTorrent isn't. Can someone please edit that in? -81.191.11.71 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.191.11.71 (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC) ~ ehm, there is already< a coulum open-source: called FOSS (look at this article and read carfully!) mabdul 0=* 22:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't know that. I didn't know that FOSS meant what it meant. Anyway, I think we should keep open source instead of FOSS as open source is generally more explaining, and more commonly known (what it means). Any other opinions? 81.191.11.71 (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I dumped the last column. It had many errors BTW. I someone has more time to spare I'd suggest moving the Open Source column just before the Malware column. Llewelyn MT (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Last Column

In the general table... there's no title for the last column... what gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.115.177 (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Either that or split the article. All there is atm is a comparison table with a poor description of clients. There should be a longer description at least, maybe a distribution of the majorclients used, common features, etc. The infobox relates clients to this page, as well as table of clients. I propose to either add information on both in (not one), or split the article, like they do with internet browsers. Noian (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Why does torrentrelay deserve its own external link?

I find it odd that the same ip keeps making these changes to this particular "service" (that's not even a client). None of the other listings have external links on them and it's quite possible that this specific one isn't even worthy of being on this list. I changed it to match the current formatting on the list and was reverted. I'm bringing here to discuss any possible issues.Momo Hemo (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

BitRocket

What about bitrocket?-217.157.174.130 (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Page Revamp

The whole page needs to be revamped, since it looks like someone used a blender on it.

Chris122990 (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll help if I can.
ok, the start is made now. ow i need help. this topic was really annoying... mabdul 0=* 13:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Great. I'm removing the issues section for now. Software that has been known to fail on throttle and packet restricted websites...that's not really helpful to the general public. Heck, I'm a geek and it's not helping me either. XF Law talk at me 02:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Split...(again)

It seems that there is support of not splitting the article now, so I will propose again that the article be split. Now, that would most likely result in the reversion of this page to pre-merge (with some later changes re-added in), and undeletion of BitTorrent Clients. Also, comparison of BitTorrent Clients would be moved to Comparison of BitTorrent Software, as this includes Libraries. I feel that this is justified because:

A)BitTorrent Clients should mostly be about what a client is, not a chart of comparisons.
B)Having Libraries (and possibly later other BT related software) under the header comparison of BT Clients makes no sense.


If not,I feel the following should be done for obvious reasons:

A)A verified proper merger of the two talk pages (asking an admin) since the merges, moves, etc. has really messed up the history.
B)Moving this Article to 'BitTorrent Software'
C)Redoing headers so that Comparison is readded in as major sections.
D)Adding/Expanding intros for Client and Libraries to detail what they are.


Questions? Comments?

ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

HTTPS Tracker Support

Can we add this as a feature column? Tjwallace87 (talk) 08:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

feel free to add this ;) --mabdul 0=* 10:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

BitComet

BitComet adds the Software Update Checker application from AppHit. It does not ask for user permision to do it, the software scans local files and reports back to a mothership. Furthermore, the creators of AppHit refuse to offer a way to completely eliminate the software from one's computer. They only say to "disable" it, but there is no third party confirmation that it effectively disables Software Update Checker instead of simply disabling the user notifications while the software keeps working on the background. See [1]

190.141.252.2 (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC) JP

It asks permission during the installation of the application. Law shoot! 07:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it does not. You cannot separate AppHit from BitComet. There is no "uninstall" for AppHit. In anyone's book, that is Spyware behaviour. Somehow, the ref did not really show up, so here it is http://blog.bitcomet.com/apphit/post_21527/ 190.141.252.2 (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC) JP.

Should "With Wine" be a valid answer in the Linux/Unix support column?

Being able to run software under Wine isn't support, it's just good work by the Wine project.

Bratch (talk) 14:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that it should be valid, as it isn't a native Linux application. Using Wine is just a small degree of separation from saying that it works under a virtual machine. Rurik (talk) 11:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
i concur, it shouldn't be under linux/unix support.--Bodigami (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Encryption

Encryption is listed twice in the article: under General and under Features I. I think it should be removed under General, since it belongs more under features as under general. But maybe we should add a column under General about 'still under active development'.

Greetings,
Old Death (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

didn't recognized that anypbody add this(was some ip). so I reverted this edit now! if a client is not longer under deveopment you can change (please in every table) the rh-template to an rh2-template to indicate that it is discontinued (does anybody know the lisence of bt5?) mabdul 0=* 17:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Which programs are really spyware/adware/malware free?

For example, client "BitTorrent" wants to install a dubious program "BitTorrent DNA", a toolbar "Ask.com" etc. Same with other clients. The spyware column of the list is useless (except maybe for lawyers?) --84.189.70.107 (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

BitTorrent DNA imo is a security threat, but not a malware, adware, or spyware. The toolbars are additional things software vendors package on, and as long as it is not mandatory is not adware. Read up the definitions of spyware, adware, and malware. It would fall under unwanted/bloatware though. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I have updated the malware column with references and changes. Everything marked "Yes" without an inline citation has been certified 100% free or clean by Softpedia. Theymos (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind the little WP:IAR I did in partially reverting your reverting of a edit Theymos on Vuze, there really isn't adware in the classic UI, citation or not (I guess one could cite a image of the classic UI). That is, through updating the engine (Azureus), not through installing. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Softpedia's issue is that the Vuze installer installs a Vuze toolbar and changes the homepage by default, not that the program itself displays advertising. I use Vuze in classic view for all of my torrent downloads, and I wouldn't classify it as adware, either. However, I think that for consistency we should stick with Softpedia's definition of adware and list is as such, or at least list it as "disputed", with references to Download.com (which lists it as adware-free) and Softpedia. Theymos (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I felt a explanation instead of just two citations would have been more useful but that doesn't satisfy WP:V..... ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
There is no advertising in either view. The Vuze view has some advertising in the browser frame, but I wouldn't consider that to be adware (like ads in Firefox don't make it adware). So I don't think your explanation was necessary. No part of the Azureus.exe program is adware. It can only be considered adware if you count the toolbar that the installer tries to install. Since Softpedia does count that, we can't just put "Yes", and I think that "Disputed" is fairer to Vuze than a flat-out "Adware" listing. Theymos (talk) 10:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

uTorrent

The following discussion 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.

There is an active dispute started regarding uTorrent status as a trojan, citing a page from SoftPedia (site that makes money from advertising when people surf, profits by quantity of content) that only gives a "malware free certification" that is earned with "tested in the Softpedia Labs", with no mention of what methods are used in testing, and if they research known threats against said program. They also have no accountability as malware testers. The original citation that identifies the known threat is a well trusted source (Computer Associates Malware Database). 11:48, 14 March 2009 (EST) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|12.216.194.126 (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Rootopian]] comment added by 12.216.194.126 (talk)

I've removed the malware text from the article. The CA citation that you provided, here, seems to refer to a separate program that uses the same name as uTorrent, and utilized the same initial file name as one of uTorrent's releases, or is just an erroneous entry by CA. The actual uTorrent release with the same name, found here at FileHippo, is a known good program. The real uTorrent does not create the same files or registry keys that are evidenced by the CA entry. Finally, the release in question came out in April of 2007 - two years ago. Even if they were referring to the same application, the entry would be outdated and deprecated by a modern security entry. I've gone through various forums for details, and most just chalk it up to faulty heuristics (a widely known issue). The only place where it is noted that "uTorrent" creates those files and registry keys is ONLY on the CA site, reducing its notability in this case. And while it's OR, I just installed that version itself into a test environment and monitored its activity, which countered CA's entry. You are also applying a heavy dose of POV to this dispute by your post here, giving credibility to CA and removing credibility from SoftPedia through baseless attacks. There are numerous sites stamping that release as good, and only one showing that it's bad and giving results that are not in line with its actual usage and installation. Rurik (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Your reply includes original research, which is against policy, as stated at the top of this page. The statement about accountability is based on fact and not POV. The business of content based sites are to include as much content as possible for a viable amount of traffic. Each hit produces revenue from various forms of advertising. This contrasts from security databases published by major Anti-Malware vendors. False positives and incompleteness can negatively impact the companies revenue, as it is another product of the same research customers count on to protect clients from malware and security threats. There is no indication in SoftPedias' site that there is any accountability for what they may deem safe or unsafe. Wikipedia is built on neutrality, and should not be used as an advertisement for SoftPedia or any other site. I have nothing against SoftPedia, but its functionality is not such that it can be used as an authority for threat awareness. Heuristics is only used on what are not known threats. The presence of uTorrent as a named threat in the database signifies it as a known threat, as opposed to a faulty heuristics result in an end-users virus scan. As this dispute has not been resolved, the edit made by Rurik is reverted as it was prematurely marked as malware free-- despite the dispute. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|12.216.194.126 (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Rootopian]] comment added by 12.216.194.126 (talk) 04:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The CA page is a false positive. It is detecting uTorrent's NSIS installer, which is very widely recognized as being safe. You can see this in the "Also known as" section: "Trojan-Downloader.NSIS.Agent.ac".
Additionally, the CA page is obviously automatically generated and therefore not a reliable source. Softpedia manually checks everything that they certify. Theymos (talk) 06:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
On the basis of common sense, this information should not be in the article. Your attack on SoftPedia is baseless, as CA is also a company that makes money by making as many virus reports as possible, even if automatically generated and not relevant to an actual product. (I've worked with CA on responses before, I know their SOPs) SoftPedia has published my software on their site, so I know the detail of the testing that they perform. Many of the false positive reports on uTorrent seem to originate from their usage of an executable packer: a technology that allows smaller files but is also used by malware. Many AV are also hitting on NSIS, a valid tool that just happens to be used by many malware as well [1]. The virus claims are disputed various times over the years [2] [3] [4] [5]. I'd find more, but this is really unneeded. One scanner picked up one single version of uTorrent from two years ago and marked it as a false positive. This does not make uTorrent malware. Rurik (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Please state your sources. You state uTorrent "...is very widely recognized as being safe", without any source that can counterballance CA's authority. Your claim that the page was "...obviously automatically generated and therefore not a reliable source" is a statement of POV. There is no indication that the page has been automaticaly generated and has gone a couple years without any check made by a company much larger than Softpedia. Again, why is SoftPedia trusted without any accountability, while CA's authority is scoffed when CA has significant accountability through liability towards both their product and service?

Detects Program, not the installer —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|12.216.194.126 (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)Rootopian]] comment added by 12.216.194.126 (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

From WP:RS: "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article..." The only sentences on the CA page are boilerplate definitions of a trojan. Nowhere is it even stated that uTorrent is spyware. The assertion that uTorrent is spyware is not directly supported by the source, so the CA page is not a reliable source.
I said that NSIS was very widely recognized as being safe. Since it is used by hundreds of well-known programs, it had better be. uTorrent itself is also widely recognized as being safe. If uTorrent is installed on over 5% of all US computers ([6]), then why is CA the only site listing it as malware? You'd think that if a single bit of malware was installed on more computers than the Storm, Srizbi, Conficker, and Kraken botnets combined it would be bigger news. Theymos (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
You're right, nowhere is it even stated that uTorrent is spyware. In fact, Theymos's post here is the first mention of uTorrent and spyware in the same paragraph. Stay on subject, do not straw man. TiroGrande (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)TiroGrande
I am very disappointed with what I am seeing here. Some people actually need to use this website for information, and there has been a back and forth editing conflict with the discussion about the edit and dispute unresolved. I required a Torrent program recently, and because of CA I decided against uTorrent because of the Malware. A total of 5 different Malware programs found frequently, not just NSIS. As for the idea that a program with malware on it should be big news if used widely, I refer you to the Adobe family of programs, business applications I am forced to use by my various employers that are riddled with brand new forms of creative malware, used on far more than 5% of the nation's computers. And as for this idea that Softpedia is a trusted source for any security information, and should be trusted more than a security company, is terrible. And I am glad Rurik revealed his true motivations for trying to get an advertising volume publisher trusted over a security company when admitting they are publishing his software. Computer Associates, on the other hand, only publishes security software and is in the business of making sure all software is clean. Unless further evidence can be brought in to discount all five of CA's results for malware on uTorrent, a trusted security company's information should supercede a volume advertisers information.
Furthermore, while the issue is still in dispute, any attempt to edit the page as if the discussion is over just because you made a reply is in serious error. Do not remove the indication of the dispute until the dispute has been removed. TiroGrande (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)TiroGrande
Please keep your comments to the issue on hand and not try to invent motivations behind others' posts. Reading through your comment I now understand why pages here have to be treated carefully. There are numerous naive people who do not understand technology or software applications and are easily influenced the what is on WP. If a product is falsely labeled was malware it will turn people away from a trustworthy program and could cause libelous issues for WP. That said, I cannot emphatically disagree the anon user and you (a brand new account with a single edit, suspiciously right in the middle of the dispute when anon would have faced a 3RR) more on every single one of your counts.
  • You (and anon) are trying to label a current release of uTorrent as malware because a file released two years ago was, once and only once, screened as malware by a singular entity.
  • The modern version of this software has been trusted voraciously by numerous, independent sources.
  • There is no evidence, even first-hand by a computer forensics tech, that the actual uTorrent release of that era even closely matches the reports from this single entity. Though that is OR, there are numerous forum posts and responses from the developers and users of uTorrent that repeat this.
  • It is not worth the effort or trouble to verify or discredit the five results from CA. You don't even make clear what these five results are. There are four A.K.A.s, four registry keys that don't exist in that program, and a list of files that cannot be used to accurately identify a program (a hash would have to be used, such as an MD5 or SHA-1, which CA neglects to publish).
  • A singular source, even though a notable one, does not make a fact completely true and seems to be taking on undue weight here. CA has a history of other mistakes continually. The entire future of a software product cannot be labeled by a single page written by a single vendor from two years ago.
  • One final note: nmap is listed by CA as spyware.
To me, it sounds like an effort to insert anti-uTorrent POV into the article. Rurik (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Anon looks to be named "Rootopian". Not only did you miss that, but your wonderful bullet point post seems to result from one crucial thing, a failure to read the CA page linked here. More than NSIS are tagged as Malware and have come from uTorrent recently. I will not repeat myself anymore, and repeating your own points does not alter the fact that they were addressed. And bringing up spyware like Theymos to use a similar straw man is suspicious. NMap's classification and/or use as spyware is not being debated here, it is being debated elsewhere and you can go deal with it there. However, I thank you for the fact you refrained from changing the disputed section just because you made a reply and expected your reply to be final and binding. That is a good move in a more civil direction, and an improvement on Wikipedia as a whole. I was about to contact an admin, too. But I care a lot less now that the immature edit war is over. Thank you.TiroGrande (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)TiroGrande
Oh, and the pages you linked to of CA supposedly identifying friendly programs as malware. Both news articles state it was CA software flagging the anti-virus programs as harmful. This is a known and common problem among security software, that it usually identifies other security software as harmful due to their similar activities. This in no way reflects a problem with the company, but merely shows the company markets anti-malware that has the typical problems of anti-malware. Why would that make the company itself an untrustworthy source, if they have at least as good a track record as other companies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TiroGrande (talk • contribs) 00:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
There still has been no case made as to why that tag should be included and why there is undue weight upon the source. I am merely waiting for others to voice their opinions here before it is removed for having no merit upon the article or the software in question. I don't want to rush in to a 3RR :) If none are made within the next 24 hours, I will open it up to a noticeboard for a second opinion. The other "a.k.a's" against uTorrent do not have to be challenged. The claims of malware against uTorrent are based upon files and data that do not exist in the program, lending credence that the entire entry is false. There is no way to support or discredit it because the data does not exist. You cannot prove that the information is correct, even through OR, because the files supporting the malware claims cannot be found in the program. The only source for this information in the entire world is that one page, that counters the actual data itself that it is supposed to be representing. That is also the only, single, version of uTorrent that is called out by CA. Beta 1137 was released on 8 April, 2007. Earlier, Beta 1065 was released on 5 April, 2007. Afterwards, Beta 1170 was released on 11 April, 2007. So, even if believing CA in their claims, in the past 4 years of uTorrent development, for only 4 days there was a sketchy security alert. That alert never returned. 4 days while under ownership of BitTorrent, Inc. And therefore you wish to claim that the entire program is, has, and continues to be, malware? The facts don't add up. Thank you, Rurik (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
And that is reason to revert it as if the discussion were over? And now you yourself set a time limit, by what authority? You also have only Softpedia as your source, and have only been able to back up Softpedia by claiming a description of their business model is an attack. None of these are reasons to end the discussion and claim it is over. Continue to refrain from editing, even beyond your 24 hour imposed limit, until the discussion is over. TiroGrande (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)TiroGrande
You presume much incorrectly. I made no mention of time limits of removing the text, simply that after 24 hours I will voluntarily seek outside assistance to resolve your dispute with the content. There was no comment made by me saying that the discussion was over; in contrary, I would love for this to continue and to seek closure for those wishing to dispute the content of the article. You are also infatuated with the SoftPedia source, as was the anon poster above, when there have been numerous other sources provided in this discussion. I wish to protect the page from vandalism and POV. It wasn't until this week that someone altered the page to say that programs are malicious, yet refuse to back up that claim outside of a single link, instead choosing to attack the claims against a single source, causing this discussion. I will make no edits to revert this new addition until there are more opinions weighed here, since it seems there are some very vociferous supporters of the edit. Rurik (talk) 12:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I've asked about the reliability of CA.com at RSN. Hopefully they will help us resolve this dispute. Theymos (talk) 03:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Cute, Rurik. But there are still several premature edits as if the discussion were over, made by you. Why the 24 hour limit, why not seek this help right away? TiroGrande (talk) 12:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)TiroGrande
My edits were made on the basis of WP:BOLD and WP:COMMONSENSE. As an expert in this field, I saw the new addition as clearly wrong and removed it, multiple times. What you see as my finalizing a decision before a proper discussion was, in actuality, me treating obviously bad information as vandalism and treating it as such. I was not aware that people believed the information to be true. When it was clear that some were going to argue for their merits, a discussion was made here, as per overall WP guidelines. I try to give ample time for casual watchers of an article to respond before making a plea to the outside RfC, thus the reason for the 24 hour, which is an extremely minor point overall. Please don't personalize the edits and take offense with the actions. We are not here to argue over procedures, but to discuss the content itself. If you feel that I made mistakes in my actions, feel free to inquire to an admin for an outside opinion. Any further discussion over the actions and procedures here should take place elsewhere, as this page is already getting long and should be dealing specifically with the article content itself. Thank you, Rurik (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Is uTorrent Malware?

In regards to discussion above, is the source stating that µTorrent is malware legitimate for this table? Would that source warrant uTorrent's "Spyware, Adware, Malware-free" column be left as disputed or "No"?

Summarizing my comments above, I don't think that CA.com's virus encyclopedia is reliable in this case because it looks like it's automatically generated, the source doesn't directly state that uTorrent is malware, and it contradicts a large number of other reliable sources. Theymos (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Likewise, there is only one source saying that it is malware, and numerous sources claiming that it is safe. The one source claiming it is malware is dated from two years ago and only dealt with a single beta release that is completely deprecated. In regards to CA.com's entry method, their Malware Submittal form is used for these entries. This seems a case of someone downloading a viral copy from an untrusted source and then wrongly submitting it as the actual program from the actual source, which CA automatically included in its report. The items contained within CA.com's entry have not been found within the original same file from a trusted source, lending additional discredit to the source. For those reasons, I believe that this new source should be deleted and that uTorrent be reset to its original data of Malware-free. Rurik (talk) 13:23, 17 March 2009 (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.

Please take a look at this [7]. Rootopian —Preceding undated comment added 15:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC).

Thanks for the additional page, though this would fall under the same argument. It still pertains to information that is not actually part of the program itself, and is from a separate program that shares the uTorrent name. Even if it was correct, this site is even less notable than CA because it fails to even address the version of uTorrent. That's akin to saying that Microsoft Word is malicious, when actually it was a beta release of Microsoft Word 98 for Macs. I took a few minutes to search some more and found numerous more examples of the flawed logic: (false positive), ([that report was some patched/hacked version of a beta client"), (infected person realized he downloaded from an untrusted source instead of utorrent.com). CA.com even has a Knowledge Document explaining how to configure their firewall to work with uTorrent[8], which may seem odd if the program really was malicious. Please stop this ludicrous argument. At this point in time, uTorrent is not malicious, nor is there any reliable evidence that shows that it was released by its developers as malware in the past. Rurik (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

BitSpirit

Suggesting this client be added to the page.

http://www.167bt.com/en/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daily Activist (talk • contribs) 01:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Theymos (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
would somebody write an article which won't be deleted? otherwise we have to comment out bitspirit! mabdul 0=* 14:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
BitSpirit currently fails WP:N. WP:N doesn't apply to the content of articles, though, so whether is should be included here is a matter to be determined by us. I think that it contains enough features and sets itself apart enough to be included. Theymos (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
If it fail WP:N then there is not any reason to include this client here! mabdul 0=* 08:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
WP:N policies "only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They don't directly limit the content of articles." I think that even though BitSpirit doesn't have significant secondary coverage, it does have enough coverage from sites such as SoftPedia to pass WP:V and be included here. Theymos (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

CLI

An anon added uTorrent as featuring a CLI (whether it was intentional or not I'm not sure as they were correcting other things [9]). I've removed this as I don't think it is accurate. While uTorrent does have a few command line functions, as I suspect a number of clients, they allow very limited control. For example you can't pause torrents, change priority, change most settings, create a torrent etc. There's no source saying uTorrent has a CLI either. Do we have a consensus as to what a CLI is? Nil Einne (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that we have a common definition for that. mabdul 18:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Why not just use {{partial}} and come up with a definition?ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 20:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
ok! what need a cli to get a yes? mabdul 21:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Pause/Resume features

Many torrents cannot be successfully downloaded in one session. It seems common to store download status info in hidden places and/or unique formats. For LiveCD or portable usage, this means that the download cannot be resumed, rendering the whole process pointless....

Which torrent clients store status info in the same directory with the torrent itself (rather than some hidden location), so that it is easy to resume the download in a portable way? Do any torrent clients store such status data in interchangeable formats, making it possible to resume the download with a different client? -96.237.5.138 (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how torrents work. Status data isn't essential to resume a download. If you resume a download without status data, you will likely have to download some content again, data that has been downloaded but is smaller then the part size, but you'd usually get 90% or more of what you'd downloaded I expect. It doesn't matter what client you use, well unless the client is so brain dead it doesn't bother to check the file/s if it/they already exist. You may of course have some problem if the client gives the files an extra extention when they are incomplete but that is easily solved by renaming and is usually an option that can be turned off. Also status data isn't stored in a hidden location. It's usually stored with the program's config data, which is commonly stored in the user's (or all user's) application data folder in Windows or something like the .config in the user's home directory in Unix like OSes. Nil Einne (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia, you done uTorrent wrong!

Resolved
 – No problems with article, uTorrent is adware, as is Vuze ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The reference that supposedly identifies uTorrent as having adware says:

"Reasons why this program is marked as adware: Contains third-party services unrelated to the program's functionality, intended to generate income"

That's it. No identification of what these alleged third-party services are. Not to mention the fact that their definition of "adware" is dodgy; it includes things other than ads.

McAffee says there is no adware in uTorrent:

"In our tests, we found downloads on this site were free of adware, spyware, and other potentially unwanted programs."

http://www.siteadvisor.jp/sites/utorrent.com/summary/

Yampolsky Boris (Virus Analyst, Kaspersky Lab) says that it is a false positive, not adware:

http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=42548

Torrent Freak claims that at some unspecified time in the future there will be an ask.com toolbar option...

http://torrentfreak.com/utorrent-is-going-to-make-money-090422/

...but I just downloaded and installed the latest version and there is no such option, and no adware of any kind was installed (yeah, I know; original research... So sue me. This is for a talk page discussion, not something I would put in the main article. If you have a better way to prove a negative, let me know.)

and the uTorrent privacy policy says:

"Spyware and Adware: We oppose spyware and adware. Spyware is software installed on your computer without your consent or control. It can record and transmit your Internet activity and other personal information or change your computer's security settings. Adware is spyware that sends you unwanted pop-ups or spam. [uTorrent] never uses these unwanted and harmful technologies."

http://www.utorrent.com/legal/privacy/

The bottom line is that Mcaffe and Kaspersky are a heck of a lot more authoritative sources than Softpedia is, and the adware accusation should be removed.

(I have no connection with uTorrent or any other torrent client other than as a user).

72.251.91.66 (talk) 02:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The Kaspersky thing is a link to their forum and is 2 years old so is completely irrelevant. Siteadvisor's report also appears outdated as it didn't scan the version Softpedia claims have adware. The claims of uTorrent are of course completely irrelevant, if we trusted claims of software vendors then no client would be malware/adware Nil Einne (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
From [10] it appears the Ask toolbar has already been included since 5/05. My own tests prove this is true. So either you didn't pay attention and now have the Ask toolbar, or you didn't really test the latest stable version (hint: the beta/alpha version isn't the latest stable version and the stable version is the thing to test) or you're making stuff up. Note that the toolbar isn't actually part of the download, it simply downloads and installs it by default unless you tell it not to. I expect the automatic siteadvisor scan may not be smart enough to detect this. Disclamer: I use uTorrent myself Nil Einne (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I checked again and found that my IE addons now has the ask.com toolbar, but it is disabled (possibly not default behavior; I have all security settings set to high and every disablable feature turned off -- I always use Firefox, never IE, so I disable as much of IE as I can.) I apologize and retract my previous comments; uTorrent is indeed adware. This, BTW, shows the wisdom of bringing such things up in a talk page without logging on rather thanjust editing the main page and ending up with egg on your face. Thak you, Nil Einne, for taking the trouble to correct my error. Sorry about that.

72.251.91.59 (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This issue can be solved quite easily by adding a brief description. For example the uTorrent field would be:
Adware; optional installation of Ask.com Toolbar.
Of course further references would probably be needed, as the Softpedia articles don't go in to much detail about it.--Otterathome (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Peer Exchange (Features I)

The column 'Peer exchange' in the Features I table says only 'yes' or 'no', which doesn't really help for comparison, because most of the PEX implementations are not compatible with clients other than the client which implemented them. I think we should add in this column which clients this PEX is compatible to. (Using the client which first introduced the respective PEX implementation as name reference.)

Greetings, Old Death (talk) 08:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
All major clients support ut_pex. Azureus used to support only AZ_PEX, but it now supports both. BitTyrant is based on an old version of Azureus, so it only supports AZ_PEX. Transmission supports both. Arctic Torrent, BT5, BitFlu, BitLord, Shareaza, and Torrent Swapper might not support ut_pex. Theymos (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Then it might be useful adding a note to those covering the issue... EDIT: Shareaza definitively supports PEX with clients other than Shareaza. Dunno if this is compatible to uT...
Greetings, Old Death (talk) 11:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Vuze licensing

is it FOSS or not? ...it looks like it is but uses an EULA.--Bodigami (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 20:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It is. The software itself *is* GPL. The platform is not GPL, but the platform isn't distributed as part of the software - the platform is a separate service (and not part of the client itself) - so you cannot say that it is not FOSS based on that. Acrooks (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Quote from main vuze page:

"Up to version 2.5.0.4, Azureus was distributed under the GNU General Public License (GPL); beginning with the version 3 distribution, the license presented upon installation changed. While it still states that the "Azureus Application" is available under the GPL, completing installation requires the user to agree to the terms of the "Vuze Platform", which include restrictions on use, reverse-engineering (Section 8.12), and sublicensing(Section 8.2). As with many similar licenses, the Azureus licence includes a prohibition on use of the software by people "under the age of 18".(Section 1 and Section 8.10) Allegedly, the TOS only applies to the website, vuze.com, and not the software([11]), however the actual TOS includes the application as part of the platform.(Section 0)."

ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 20:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If you check the source, you will see that about 80% of the source files include a GPL declaration as part of the source (the remainder have no copyright notice). The EULA displayed during installation doesn't matter if you can compile Vuze from GPL'd source. Theymos (talk) 03:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Notice to editors

I've listed a number of BitTorrent client articles for deletion which are on this list. You can see the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Software#Software.

When the articles are deleted, they will stand out as redlinks, and should then be removed from the list.--Otterathome (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they should be removed, this isn't a list of notable BT clients, but a list of [all] BT clients. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 21:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Edit:Clarification: by removed, I meant mention on this page only. I support deletion of individual pages if NN. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 21:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

That would violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY/WP:LIST. I listed them for deletion to cut the list down, as the larger it is, the harder it becomes to manage.--Otterathome (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
This was originally an article on Comparison of BT Clients, not List, but due to Naming convention, it was renamed list. I'm not sure when the objective of this article changed though, but perhaps if it has, then this article needs a revamp. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit Also, nn for a client's own article does not automatically mean nn for an overall article. That is why I successfully got a merge/delete AfD for every single phone sony erricsson phone model (although merger is not done), but why the list article still mentions them. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Otterathome has just deleted large parts of the comparison table. I am not so sure if this should be let, because of the reasons ηoian gave previously. Greetings, Old (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Non notability for its own article does not mean that a software or topic is not mentionable in other articles. For example, Exaile was deleted at AfD for "non-notability", yet is still mentioned here. Prove that these are non notable/not mentionable/not relevant to a general comparison/list of BT Clients separately on their own merits instead of "its redlinked". ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 17:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
WP:SAL quite clearly states that Wikipedia should not be randomly listing things which we cannot be sure are ever going to be worthy of their own articles. That applies to comparisons as well. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
This is not a stand-alone list because there is substantial content beyond just the list. Furthermore, we are not required to follow style guidelines. Inclusion in this article requires only editor consensus and adherence to policies.Theymos (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
And there isn't consensus: several editors rightly think that adding minor and incidental clients lies somewhere between trivial cruft and covert advertising. The "proof" that the clients in question are of no concern to Wikipedia is that they could not even stand up to WP's rather lenient standards for notability (namely, a few good references from third parties). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
This is a comparison of BT-Clients and not a comparison of only the most important BT-Clients... This has nothing to do with advertisement, only with completeness, and that's what this article is there for.
Greetings, Old (talk) 08:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
"Completeness" in the sense of Wikipedia need only apply to notable content. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We need not include every random program on the 'net which professes to be a BitTorrent client: a good guidelines for whether or not to include any particular program is whether or not it has the modicum of references in reliable sources required to have a standalone article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
None of the examples in that section of the linked policy apply to us, and WP:N explicitly applies only to articles themselves, not their content. If you think that some of the clients should be removed, give some actual reasons instead of wiki-lawyering and we can discuss it. I think that all of the affected clients except Aria2 should be removed because they are very outdated and are missing vital features, and it therefore does not help the reader to include them here. Aria2 is still actively developed and is a full-featured BitTorrent client, so it should be included whether it has an article or not. Theymos (talk) 09:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I've already given an "actual reason", and would thank you not to go making accusations of wikilawyering lightly. Redlinked entries don't provide any indication that they're worth including; "notable" is shorthand for that, above and over whatever WP:N says. If Aria2 is such an important client then why doesn't it have its own article? In my opinion adding software to comparison articles like this before it has an article itself is backwards. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
See List of web browsers and Comparison of web browsers which contain no redlinks. Having clients with no article is a big WP:NOTREPOSITORY and WP:NOTDIRECTORY violation. And if they aren't notable enough for an article, then finding reliable sources would be unlikely. If you keep redlinks, it will turn in to Comparison of text editors, which in its current form is a complete unmanageable mess.--Otterathome (talk) 11:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)I don't get why you keep hammering the article notability issue. Policy does not support your arguement, nor does logic.
Logic:
Nowhere does it say in any policy that redlinked topics can not be mentioned in another article. Thus, saying that it is indiscriminate solely because it is "redlinked" and therefore "non-notable" is a logical fallacy. Remember: WP:RAP.
Also, remember to avoid WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:IDONTLIKEIT examples. Just as you stated above, Comparison of text editors has red-links. It is only your opinion that having red links is "bad" and that the first two are the "correct" examples.
Policy:
WP:N says explicitly that: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles"
In arguments to avoid, it says that:

"notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable; not every organization to which a notable person belongs (or which a notable person leads) is itself notable"

Therefore, to say that the existence of a subordinate article determines notability is moot. It might not be notable enough for its own article, but it doesn't mean the subject or content can't be used in another article. It is why individual Transformer toys aren't notable (ex. Dispensor (Transformers) which is a redirect) for their own articles, but are mentioned in larger articles (ex. List of Decepticons). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Edit Furthermore, WP:NOTREPOSITORY says that the following are not allowed:

1. Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. <text omitted as irrelevant>

2. Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for lists to assist with article organization and navigation; for these, please follow the guidelines outlined at Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Lead and selection criteria.

3. Mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, unmodified wording. <text omitted as irrelevant>

4. Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. <text omitted as irrelevant>

I fail to see how the policy supports your argument. This is a comparison of BT clients. Not a "Comparison of Major BT Clients". It is not up to us to decide "Major/Minor." The content is not merely "External Links" ,"Internal Links", "Public Domain", or "Photographs". You should read the policies you are going to mention before doing so. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit 2

WP:NOTDIRECTORY states that:

"Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists...they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic (for example, Nixon's Enemies List). Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted. (See Lists (stand alone lists) - appropriate topics for clarification.)

I believe that a Comparisons oriented article sufficiently meets the above requirements.
Conclusion:
Again, all of these are to determine article notability, and even in the arguments you presented, they support the objective discussion of each content's notability instead of outright declaring that "redlinked" subjects are "NN" in all cases. I hope we won't have to resort to Policy Shopping after my rebuttal of all of the currently mentioned policy based arguments on why red-linked subjects can still be used as content in articles (not that I'm accusing anyone of anything as I don't think anyone is bad faithed here, it is just that I'd rather all of the arguments be laid out so that I don't have to spend another round doing research on said arguments. Constantly looking up policies on wikipedia is annoying).ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Last Edit:

I noticed I overlooked refuting WP:NOT#INFO, so here is the text:

1. Plot-only description of fictional works: <text omitted as irrelevant>

2. Lyrics databases. <text omitted as irrelevant>

1. Excessive listing of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists.

2. News reports. <text omitted as irrelevant>

The only one above that could be applied is excessive listing of statistics. However, this is not a statistics page, it is not opinion polling or numbers, or statistics in general (use define:statistics in google if you want). Add the fact that WP:NOT#INFO (aka Indiscriminate collection of information) defers to WP:N, which only affects notability of articles as a whole, it is evident that this policy does not bar said content by default. I have found an essay that supports your argument though. I do support deleting some of the red-linked clients, but not on the overarching basis that red-linked clients can not be listed in the article, rather on individual reasons.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


Well, I've read all of it and it seems that the quoted texts support your argument. But what about creating an article on 'small BitTorrent clients' or 'old BT clients' and use this article to give two sentences of information on every of the clients in question (it could be only a bit more than a simple list). All of the now red links coule be redirected to that collective article. Wouldn't this be a usefull idea?
Greetings, Old (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Personally I support deleting the ones under contention that are coincidentally red-linked, but not for the fact that they are red-linked, and not without going through the process of consensus. I'm just refuting the notion that we are barred from mentioning subjects without their own article. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Clarification: When I talked about Major and Minor, I was not talking about notability. I still support notability, just not major/minor, and I do not support the de facto assumption that red-link=NN=no mention in any article. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Should the list contain clients that don't have articles?

Should the list contain all BitTorrent clients, including the ones that don't have articles? Discussion can be read at Talk:List_of_BitTorrent_clients#Notice_to_editors.--Otterathome (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The debate is actually if we should (or are required to) remove all redlinked clients. No one is arguing that every BitTorrent client in existence should be included in the article, just that failing notability-based policies and guidelines is not, in itself, a good enough reason to remove them. Theymos (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I say no. Similar to the Comparison of web browsers is the situation in this comparison: their are too many clients and often they are not notable and have too less features, based on some other client or are discontinued. mabdul 17:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Isn't this a duplicate of the above section? Why are we starting a new section?! You did state above that "When the articles are deleted, they will stand out as redlinks, and should then be removed from the list.--Otterathome (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)" which is what we were discussing. Isn't this just rephrasing the question more favorably? We never talked about including all clients, in fact, in the section above, I supported removal of the clients, but not based on the fact that they didn't have articles. So my answer would be no, but that does not mean that we automatically exclude those without articles, rather, each should be based on sound objective consensus, not just a de facto removal. (I support Theymos suggestion of removing old clients/obsolete). Can we close this RfC for WP:SNOW (you should have put up a RfC for the above section instead)? I can't imagine anyone approving we include everything, however again, as I and Theymos iterated, my consent here does not mean that I approve of your assertion that red-lnked articles should be removed by default on an article. Can we please return to the proper discussion? (maybe insert an arbitrary break).
ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Edit Request closure, I added in a disclaimer that I seem to remember was once present in the article. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://blog.bitcomet.com/apphit/post_21527/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_BitTorrent_clients/Archive_2&oldid=335028496"