Talk:Deluge (software)

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


Today 2009-11-15 "Ho Jian Ming" was added as one of the creators of the deluge project, and to the list of major authors. Looks pretty suspicious, especially since he's not on deluge's About page: (talk) 01:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed him from the original developers (seeing as I am one and have no idea who he is) Zachtib (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


  • I would do that if somebody does not do it before me, but I think 1.0 should be the best time to start doing that, deluge is pretty functional at 0.52 but still lots of things to do. [[User:Shirishag75|Shirishag75]] 18:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox template[edit]

It is a hassle to have to edit a separate page every time the version changes. Would anyone object to using the standard software infobox? Sam 23:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, i thought it was a hassle as well. Zachtib 01:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

SVG Icon[edit]

Anyone opposed to using this svg version of the icon? [1] 23:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC) added[edit]

I added to the timeline. Two versions are green because since for the windows port, is the latest release that works. Noian (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The dev team reverted to 5.8.7 cause 8.8 crashed for some reason, so I removed 5.8.8. Let's add it again when it gets re-released - Badseed (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I changed the infobox one since you missed that. Noian (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

According to, it looks like will be skipped, and the devs will jump to so should I add it now as unreleased? I don't know how to add sources and stuff, so I just added the little thing on on the main part of the article skipping it. Noian (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Release History[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus to keep the material. The discussion is based on WP:NOTCHANGELOG. The policy includes the language "Exhaustive logs of software updates." as commenter’s have pointed out. I will point out it also says "Common sense must be applied with regard to the level of detail to be included.". The policy allows some but not all as the majority opinion expressed at multiple points. AlbinoFerret 13:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

This is an old content dispute from 2008 over the interpretation of WP:NOTCHANGELOG, what qualifies as a changelog, and whether or not using a table to display release history is forbidden or not. Note that the policies in question have changed since 2008. You can view the section in question here as it is currently removed from the article. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The chart in my opinion would be better off being like what Firefox release history is like, having all versions in a separate list, and having only the last version of a specific series of versions mentioned. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You guys are fighting over the history, stop reverting each other and talk about it in here since you both have valid points. I personally like the fact that it is there but it's getting really long. Also the information is already on the deluge main site, it explains in great detail all the changes that were made. If anyone really cared about that they would just check that page. But who should decide which software gets a release history and which doesn't? I don't think any of the other torrent software The other pages HAD a release history so this deserves one too. Peppage (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing that some other pages had a release history too. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

::update I will be trimming the history sometime tomorrow to be more like Firefox, which is GA status. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)  Done ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 22:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Chocolateboy has removed the Release History section based upon WP:NOTCHANGELOG policy. However there are several issues, firstly the Deluge Changelog is clearly not the same as this release history and from the policy it states creating a list of ALL changes to software between each minor version violates precepts which is not the case as it only contains a one-line summary per version. Secondly this article does not mention all the changes and the policy states An article about a product should include a history of its development and major improvements so the release history does encompass this missing information. Finally there is precedent set, and discussed above, by many other software pages, Firefox, Chrome, Utorrent. Cas07 (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The wording is quite clear: a history (i.e. prose) can be included (and is), but changelogs and release notes are explicitly forbidden on the grounds that they're NOT encyclopedic. Also, citing other violations of Wikipedia policy to justify this one is a well-known fallacy.
chocolateboy (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless you are willing to convert the release history into prose like the conversion at History of Firefox, the current table is the best we have currently. It is NOT a changelog of every version, NOR does it go into detail, NOR does it copy verbatim from primary sources. It is a table which explains the facts the best it can. That policy did not have the wording when the release history was created, and I am going to go dispute the wording. I prefer having content over deletionism simply to "fit" policy. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 20:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the place to spearhead a campaign against Wikipedia policy. As for the claim that the table's "the best we have", six of its "significant changes" are blank and four are "bug fixes" (one of them "minor"). The major changes (albeit largely unsourced) appear to be covered already in the history section.
chocolateboy (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not campaigning against wikipedia policy, I'm saying this isn't in violation of wikipedia policy, as two other editors on this page agree with. If you want to push guidelines blindly to remove content, feel free to do it over at Firefox release history where their release history actually is a changelog of small versions. The release history here is a table form summary of the history of deluge development and does not contain every minor version. Nor does it contain a changelog. It explicitly only includes major versions, along with when the first version of a major version was released and the last version. Doing so in a table provides a better visualization of this history imho because it allows you to view things in a clearly structured manner. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 16:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The "but other people are flouting Wikipedia policy!" defence is addressed here.
chocolateboy (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you even read other editor's opinions? 3 editors believe it is fine. You constantly are ignoring the fact that rules are principles and should not be enforced blindly. If you want to argue policies, Cas07 clearly already refuted your continual citation of this guideline while ignoring the fact that this is not a changelog! They are not release notes. Having a table of release history is not a changelog. If you want there to be prose, then do it instead of outright deleting. Making it prose will actually make it harder to understand the content. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
In fact, the current definition of WP:NOTCHANGELOG is: "Not a Exhaustive logs of software updates." The section does not fit this definition at all. If you don't know what a changelog is, these are some examples. The section you keep deleting is not. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTCHANGELOG is crystal clear that release histories need to be supported by third-party sources. Not forum posts, not the Deluge site. The section you keep restoring contains no such citations, and I doubt there are any. But, by all means, feel free to demonstrate otherwise by ridding it of the "minor change" cruft and supporting the remaining content (if any) with citations from reliable, third-party sources.
chocolateboy (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
3 editors believe it is fine.
You seem to have forgotten that this cruft has been discussed (and discouraged) before.
chocolateboy (talk) 05:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Except that the policy you cite has changed since 2008. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Which part of this (last modified on 22 July 2015) is unclear?

Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources in articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article.

chocolateboy (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Nowhere does it say anything about release histories requiring third party sources (incidentally WP:THIRDPARTY is an essay). The quote has the requirement for Exhaustive logs of software updates which you conveniently omitted in the quote. Furthermore, in the software world, official release notes are perfectly (imho) acceptable reliable sources to document release history. Just because release history has official release notes as the sources does not mean it should be deleted. I really don't understand what is the point of your argument that I need to go source third party citations for when a release was made or else the content will be deleted. Many, many important software wikipedia articles reference official release notes and first party sources by the software maker when referring to features , when commenting on aspects of a software, or as a cite for the dates something was released. The citations are used to verify aspects of the software and the dates of release, just as all of these examples do. Your rejection of such goes widely against consensus. Of course, official release notes doesn't establish the notability of the article topic, and reliable third party sources are required for establishing notability of an article (which this article is established by other sources). But this has nothing to do with verifying the content in question. Heck if you enforced only third party sources allowed, you might as well go ahead and remove all infoboxes. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Also if you paid attention at all to the talk page, I already did get rid of minor version cruft in 2008. It only has the first version and last version along with dates to provide a good release history overview. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Nowhere does it say anything about release histories requiring third party sources
Changelogs, release notes: that section is clearly about both (and all such variations on the same theme: read the rest of the section). Only someone trying to flout it would attempt to suggest otherwise.
in the software world, official release notes are perfectly (imho) acceptable reliable sources to document release history
What relevance does your humble opinion have to Wikipedia policy? This is an encyclopedia, not a blog.
It only has the first version and last version along with dates to provide a good release history overview.
And it still lacks citations from reliable, third-party sources.
As for your other comments, as I've said before: 1) see WP:POINT and 2) this talk page isn't the place to spearhead a campaign to overthrow Wikipedia policy.
chocolateboy (talk) 06:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
1) these are some examples of changelogs. This is an example of an infographic timeline showing release history which achieves the same goal than the table format used in the content you contest. The release history of this article did not even include the 'minor versions' you and I agree are cruft! A release history and a changelog are not the same things. And converting the release history to prose may not be the best way of representing information. 'Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words', or a table in this case.
2) I am not trying to 'overthrow Wikipedia policy'. I am arguing your interpretation of it is erroneous and does not match widely accepted norms in software articles which is what policies are supposed to reflect.
3) Many, many important software wikipedia articles reference official release notes and first party sources by the software maker when referring to features , when commenting on aspects of a software, or as a cite for the dates something was released. The citations are used to verify aspects of the software and the dates of release, just as all of these examples do. Either everyone is flouting policy, the policy needs clarification in language, or your interpretation of it is wrong. Most software articles on known software have a version history/release history section such as Adobe_Photoshop_version_history, Firefox_release_history, Microsoft_Word#Release_history, and even MediaWiki_version_history. Edit: In fact, the generally referenced to essay on software notability since 2010 states that: "primary/self-published citations may be used to verify information in an article, [but] they do not establish notability [for an article's notability]". The older essay from before 2005 to 2010 which I did not write (only added infoboxes) states: "Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to verify some of the article's content." ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 08:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Anyway, I opened a RFC to get more opinions from other editors since clearly we cannot reach a consensus.

ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion[edit]

Note: I have requested additional opinions at WP:3Oηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

It appears that the recent discussion has not been extensive, and that there have been more than two editors already, so that a third opinion is not in order. If the question is whether to retain or delete the list of versions, I suggest that a Request for Comments would be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

RFC Comments[edit]

  • Remove Looking at the table purely for encyclopedic content and ignoring specific policies for the moment. The table doesn't make the article look better and for the amount of space it takes up it's not overly informative. I would prefer to see the comments in the significant changes column individually cited and written more encylopedically. I think the worthwhile information could easily be translated into prose and that would be better for the article (and the history section could do with a bit of tidying anyway. As to whether WP:NOTCHANGELOG applies. It quite clearly does.

    Wikipedia articles should not be:...Exhaustive logs of software updates. Use reliable third-party (not self-published or official) sources in articles dealing with software updates to describe the versions listed or discussed in the article. Common sense must be applied with regard to the level of detail to be included. emphasis added

    Where there are reliable third party sources discussing the updates, include that in the history section. The table doesn't seem appropriate or necessary. — SPACKlick (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    Because tables is what makes a changelog. Okay. So if it gets transcribed into not a table it isn't a changelog? Or if I took the time to convert it to an infographic it is no longer a changelog? Despite the fact that there is no effective difference between a graph representation and a table. There is no difference at all in the information presented. In fact I would have to create a table to create a graph. I honestly don't understand this brazenly broken logic. Anyone who writes software knows that changelogs are almost always presented as text lists, not tables. Tables are not what makes a changelog or maybe a changelog just has a different meaning in the programming world than what it means on wiki in which case I give up and don't give a damn. Go ahead and remove content cause removing is easier than creating, I can't be bothered to create an infographic and user:chocolateboy is happy to delete and tell others to restore content in a different format (aka creating more work for others over technicalities that are wrong). And the reason why there's not much information on the table is precisely why it makes it not a changelog. I removed things that would make it a changelog. It's damned if you do damned if you don't. But of course the one deleting the content doesn't bother going to other more widely known articles like Firefox, Chrome, or Photoshop to strait up and delete things according to the completely erroneous definition that a table makes a changelog. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
    Exhaustive detail in prose (or in any format) would be as unacceptable as exhaustive detail in a table. The following, for instance, would (i believe) be rejected as trivia or some such:

    On September 25, 2006, version 0.1.0 of Deluge was released under the name "gTorrent". A week later, version 0.2.0 was released. On October 30, version 0.3.0 was released. The next version, 0.4.0, wasn't released until three months later, on January 27, 2007. Development slowed down after that,[original research?] but in June, version delivered peer exchange, encryption, UPnP + NATPMP[Jargon], and an improved user interface. And then another version with another number was released in July 2008, which like the earlier ones we’re including here for no apparent reason, and so on…[citation needed][non-primary source needed]

    Then, of course, there’s the fact that the table relies heavily on actual primary-source changelogs, judging by the number of references to what appear to be primary sources. So no, I disagree with your read here. — (talk) 05:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Based on this version as indicated in the RfC statement, the table is obviously not an exhaustive changelog (comparison with the actual changelog makes that clear), so a WP:NOTCHANGELOG argument doesn't hold (the intent of that guidance is to avoid lists like the...actual changelog). Most important is whether the content works within the article. In this case, the table is neatly formatted, compact (fitting entirely on my laptop screen), and easy to browse, and it appears to be curated and to complement the History section, not repeat it. If I want to quickly trace development through significant changes, some of which might not warrant more than a brief note to describe, presentation in table form is more efficient and usable than writing it out. I don't see a problem here. (I'm uninvolved as far as this article, and software articles in general.) --Tsavage (talk) 05:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep in abbreviated form (or convert to text). Insignificant changes need not be listed - this the basis for NOTCHANGELOG. Under the "Significant changes" column, 6 of 14 lines are blank - suggesting that those releases had no significant changes - thus those rows could be removed. Significant changes (based on reliable sources) seem reasonably encyclopedic. -- Scray (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: WT:NOT was notified 02:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC). (talk) 05:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: The changelog here seems much smaller than most, so it doesn’t seem like too much of a problem to me. But what is the purpose in including versions where only the release date is known? How does that benefit the article? — (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Though personally, I would prefer the table to be the other way up, in chronological order, to match the History section. Maproom (talk) 07:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Usage Share?[edit]

Should usage share information be added to "show notability", as per, Deluge has around the same % of usage as BitTorrent Mainline (1%). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If an independent reliable source reports on it, sure. I don’t think your link is quite working for me, but it looks like it’s supposed to include a user poll; those are wholly unreliable for our needs, and are never evidence of notability. A source reporting on those poll results, however, may be. — (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Deluge (software). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)