Template talk:File sharing sidebar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Networks and Services[edit]

I don't think we should add clients as services in this template, because the clients named are always an arbitrary choice and can only serve as an example for the given network, while at the same time not being as notable as the other things in a "series on File sharing". There are other templates (network specific templates) where it is useful and even required to name the respective clients. Here is not the right place for doing it. Let's keep this clean, OK?

Greetings, Old Death (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, let's try this out. Keep in mind though that most users will know the fasttrack network as "kazaa" and gnutella as "limewire". http://www.google.com/trends?q=fasttrack,+kazaa,+gnutella,+limewire . In many cases the client will be more important than the network (morpheus vs kazaa etc.) –MT 01:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

True, however, I don't think the clients sould be the thing to focus on here, since else we would need to add not only two or three as example, but basically all clients of importance, which would defeat the purpose of this template which is, in my eyes, to give a quick link from the major articles about filesharing to each other. Also remember that this is mostly because of the advertisement and presentation of the leading clients: They basically all hide more or less the information about the network they are connecting to to the normal user (it is easy to find out, but it won't be shown by default or underlined), in order to keep users who just want to try out something different 'becasue it is there' at a minimal number.
Greetings, Old Death (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
\ There are only a handful of currently-active and notable clients. Which ones were we missing? We certainly don't have a problem with clients flooding the list at the moment. The other thing is that clients aren't just facades for their networks. On this view The Pirate Bay is just a site that implements a tracker protocol. Clients and services have their own details and history, in many cases much more notable than the networks themselves. –MT 01:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Notability depends on your reference choice: For example, LimeWire may be notable for its user base, however gtk-gnutella is notable for the fact that it is the most used Unix client, while Phex (as well as others) are notable for its support for features LimeWire blocks now for a long time. (etc. etc.) And this is only for Gnutella. You could add a similar list for eDonkey or Gnutella2. If you really would like to include them, maybe do it on a series on famous filesharing clients. This would be a more useful and clean way of doing it, I think...
Also, A client is in my eyes not a service. TPB, however does clearly count as service on BitTorrent. Also, since its tracker controls ~75% of all BitTorrent activity, the site may be notable enough to be listed here...
Greetings, Old Death (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
<undent> Our reference point is WP:NOTABILITY, and the diversity that you're getting at is not a factor. Phex and gtk would not make it on this list[1], and neither would many of the other clients. A client is an interface to a network, and limewire controls a higher percentage of Gnutella than I think you realize. Clients also represent groups and companies (Napster, Sharmin) that have been or continue to be important in file sharing. Do you disagree that the WP:N criteria applies to this template? –MT 16:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I know all of this, I am very much inside this subject (as you may see from my contribution history in here) ;) I only wanted to point out why I think clients should not be in here: they have their history, and they are very important for filesharing, network development etc., but there are more important clients than you could include here while keeping it clean. Also, if we come to add 'important' clients, because of their importance for the development of the networks, we will have to add important past clients also, since only the current userbase doesn't determe notability (and I think you agree here) (see kaaza for example: hardly used as of today, but definetly notable; its the same for some other clients (eDonkey2000 + its company, ...)).
So if you really insist on adding clients to the services list, do so if you think it is the right thing. I don't want to be the blocking guy here. ^^ (Maybe add a section for notable clients and add a comment limiting it to the most important client for each network? Like this we could cover clients while not bloating the template.)
BTW, I know very well what is LimeWires network dominance all about... They are blocking for years now network improvements (such as searches by hash, for example) due to their powerful position (and they impose now their mojito Kademlia DHT to everyone who whants to be somehow competitive)...
Greetings, Old Death (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Old Death. WP:NOTABILITY is to establish whether an article should exist. Specific clients should (at least usually) have an article. However, the issue is will this template be useful with every client under the sun included. Even if you start with a single very popular client people will tend to add more and more. It makes the template unusable and obscures the important information. It is often more important to know what not to say. The template without clients gives a good overview of file sharing in general. The various articles on a particular network can take the reader to specific clients. This is hierarchical navigation and is a established organizational technique for information. Bpringlemeir (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

purpose of template[edit]

What is the purpose of this template anyhow, if technologies that enable file sharing are being removed. It appears merely a duplication of another more appealing template. Kbrose (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Which template is that? I think we should discuss and make clear what exactly file sharing is - what the main article is about, but we should do that at that talk page.  M  05:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)