This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Comparison of BitTorrent clients article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2

WikiProject Computing / Software	(Rated List-Class, Mid-importance)	ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Information technology portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as Mid-importance).

This article was nominated for deletion on 31 January 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

Contents 1 Vuze licensing 2 CLI 3 Pause/Resume features 4 Wikipedia, you done uTorrent wrong! 5 Peer Exchange (Features I) 6 Notice to editors 7 Reverting article name to "Comparison of BT Clients/Software" 8 Should the list contain clients that don't have articles? 9 RFC: Should the list contain clients that don't have articles? 9.1 Usage share of BitTorrent clients 10 New related article 11 Removal of unsourced/no article non-notable clients 12 FOSS column

[edit] 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([1]), 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)

[edit] 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 [2]). 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Wikipedia, you done uTorrent wrong!

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 [3] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Reverting article name to "Comparison of BT Clients/Software"

[edit] 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)

[edit] RFC: Should the list contain clients that don't have articles?

Should the list contain BitTorrent clients that don't have articles? Discussion can be read at Talk:List_of_BitTorrent_clients#Notice_to_editors.--Otterathome (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, what is wrong with just putting the RFC above the current discussion??? Or is this like an arbitrary break cause I have no idea how RfC's work.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are still looking for opinions on this matter (the format of this RfC is a little confusing), but I'll weigh in anyway. I think that the list should contain redlinks only for notable clients that may deserve their own Wikipedia article. That's a pretty good rule of thumb for any redlink, to be honest. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, list articles such as this should include such information. List articles often take the place of numerous stubs which may or may not be borderline for WP:N (which only covers standalone articles). As for red links, if there is no standalone article and there is likely to never be a standalone article (even a sourced stub) then there is no reason to wikilink it. Tothwolf (talk) 04:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree w/Scjessey: notable clients should be listed regardless of whether or not they have articles. non-notable clients w/out articles probably should not. For instance, I could write a bit-torrent client just for the hell of it. Were i to do so, I do not think it should be in the list. There has to be a bar set for relevancy to the reader, and we call that bar "notability". Kevin Baas^talk 16:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You stated that in a confusing way. I think you meant clients which have not yet gone through AFD to determine their notability can be included, but clients which have had articles but were deleted through AFD as they weren't notable should not be included.--Otterathome (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The notability guideline only helps determine if a subject should have a standalone article. The guideline does not determine if a subject should be included in a Comparison or other type of article and was never intended to be used to support bulk removal of information from other articles, such as what you just decided to do in this edit. --Tothwolf (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason we can't do that was said by Kevin above.--Otterathome (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No, this is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT on your part and this is not the first time you've removed content here. While I see no reason to include a red link for all of these clients, the guidelines do not support your stance and wholesale removal of information. --Tothwolf (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Great assumption of bad faith there, how about you respond to Kevin's reason I pointed out instead of accusing me of removing the content just because I don't like it. Or can't you do that because there is no real solution to the problem Kevin said.--Otterathome (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Two things here, Oterrathome, 1. I said "notable clients should be listed regardless of whether or not they have articles." Now that may have been confusing to you because it wasn't what you wanted me to say. so you re-worded it to make it contradict the very clear and straightforward wording i used, and then slapped my name on it. (And I don't appreciate that.) It is quite possible that something could merit mention in a wikipedia article yet not merit its own article. In fact, that happens quite often. There is no need for Tothwolf to respond to what I wrote because everything he's said so far is in perfect agreement with it. 2. I do not see any assumptions of bad faith here. I see an editor referring to policies and guidelines in relation to actions, which is perfectly appropriate. And excepting possibly WP:IDONTLIKEIT, he is correct on what the guidelines state and do not state, as well as how they relate to the matter at hand. Assuming bad faith, however, has a more specific/narrorer meaning than you seem to be giving it: it means assuming that a user is not trying to work cooperatively towards a better article. And I don't see him doing that here. To the contrary, he seems to be operating under the assumption that you want to work cooperatively towards improving the article. oh, and 3. you should not make radical changes to a section of an article under discussion without consensus, esp. one under RFC. Kevin Baas^talk 18:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

After we have established that no policy supports removing clients without articles, we can start work on a formal criteria for inclusion. All clients would be bound by these criteria (which could, of course, be changed after further discussion), and it would not be possible to just include any ol' BT client. In fact, most of the clients without articles will be removed when we establish a criteria for inclusion. Just not all of them. Theymos (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Really the only criteria for these types of articles is the verifiability policy. If the information can be verified, then there is no reason not to include it. This is not limited just to published works either. The software's official documentation is usually preferred when verifying features and functionality over a book due to the fact that software (and in particular open source software) changes rapidly so software books are usually outdated by the time they reach the printer. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That's the only content policy we must follow, but I think it's reasonable to consider additional restrictions. For example, does QTorrent really deserve mention when it is just a GUI for BitTornado? I don't think so, and I think we should establish clear consensus on what attributes a client must have for it to be included without an article of its own. Theymos (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the first thing I see here is if QTorrent is a front-end for BitTornado then it should have been merged and redirected instead of being sent to AfD (and it can still be undeleted to allow for a merge/redirect). If it is strictly a front-end to BitTornado, then there is no reason to include a row for it in the comparison tables. If however, its functionality differs, then it should be included. For cases where something is nothing more than a front-end, those can be noted (and linked via a redirect) using {{Refun}} and {{Note}} templates. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Usage share of BitTorrent clients

Anyone think Usage share of BitTorrent clients would be possible? I'm unsure due to the amount of sources available. I started Usage share of file sharing applications but gave up because file sharing applications is too broad. But kept the sources. See articles under Category:Usage share for the type of article it would be.--Otterathome (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New related article

• Usage share of BitTorrent clients.--Otterathome (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge Just merge it into a larger article. I don't think there needs to be a Usage Share article. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I am guessing you have that idea because of the current size of the article. As BitTorrent is still a booming protocol, it should one day be the closer to the size of other share usage articles.--Otterathome (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, I don't see the point of having a separate page. There are so many BT clients, that maintaining an accurate article with the amount of statistics in other usage pages would be untenable, and just having the major ones would fit fine in the main article. I think having a image/chart would be a more useful way of presenting the information.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 22:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

We currently only have limited data on usage share. See Usage share of web browsers, the data available to them only covers no more than 10 different browsers.--Otterathome (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm personally for keeping usage share articles standalone when the general topic already has a large number of articles. Two suggestions I have for Usage share of BitTorrent clients are the addition of one or more pie charts similar to Image:Web browser usage share.svg and possibly expanding the usage share article to also cover tracker software (if usage share data for tracker software is available). --Tothwolf (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of unsourced/no article non-notable clients

An alternative approach. Clients listed here which don't have articles require sources to prove they actually exist, any that have no sources are subject to removal per WP:V.--Otterathome (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Proving a client does actually exist should not be too difficult. +1 for the proposal to keep Spam out of the list. mfg, OldDeath (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not a proposal, this is a notice to editors that one of the core Wikipedia policies requires they be removed.--Otterathome (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

In any case, it should be done. But I doubt there are clients that actually do not exist. If you find one, feel free to delete it.

mfg, OldDeath (talk) 12:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Otterathome, you did not have consensus for this the last time you tried it and you do not have it now. Within software comparison articles, we can even use (gasp!) primary sources such as the client's own website and documentation to add a citation for things such as release information, features, and functionality since we aren't having to deal with WP:N. See WP:SELFPUB. Feel free to add some references for those clients which you previously nominated for deletion, I'm sure you can find them without too much difficulty. --Tothwolf (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't need consensus to do this. Previously I was applying my own method to determine if clients were notable, where they should only be listed if they have an article. Removing uncited/original research material is allowed without permission. This is simply a warning to editors to give them time to add references.--Otterathome (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you do need consensus and consensus so far has not supported your continued attempt to remove information, which continues to be at odds with WP:PRESERVE and other policies/guidelines. If you feel something in particular is controversial and needs an inline citation, then by all means feel free to add one but please stop POV pushing to try to have clients removed from these tables. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FOSS column

Any reason why FOSS column is in the top table? I know there are many supporters of FOSS but I don't think it's important enough to be in the first table.--Otterathome (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The tables are ordered by category, not importance. License information doesn't fit into any of the other tables, so it goes in "general". Theymos (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it isn't really 'general' information, it should be under the Interface and programming section.--Otterathome (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It kind of goes along with "cost", which clearly belongs in that section. Readers also expect it to be there, as most other software comparison articles put it in the top table. Theymos (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The best way I've found to handle it is to combine it with the "Cost" column. Examples: {{free|Free software}} {{free|Freeware}} {{nonfree}}US$25
For what it's worth, I do support Otterathome's removal of the links in this edit [4] but not for the reasons he listed in the edit summary. It is acceptable however, to include a Website column (usually the rightmost column in the General table) and include a link to the "Official" site for each software program. The external links guideline supports this, specifically WP:ELYES, but linking to the website in the leftmost column where the name of the software is usually wikilinked can lead to reader confusion where someone expects to click through to an article about the software being discussed but are instead linked somewhere else via an external link. This really only works in a comparison article though, as a List of ... article with nothing more than a name and an external link would indeed fall under WP:NOTLINK. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)