Talk:List of TCP and UDP port numbers/Archive 2

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

Contents

External Links

I have just commented out a pile of links, please review the links by having a look at WP:WPSPAM , WP:NOT#LINK and WP:EL and only return the ones that need to be in the article. Peachey88 (Talk Page | Contribs) 05:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC reference?

What is the current RFC reference for the WKPs and the ports >1023? I'd think that something like this should be in the 1st paragraph. 198.24.6.134 (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The Official IANA list shows some of the RFCs for the WKPs. It is not apparent that there is an RFC for every port, well-known or not, from looking at the RFC article and its External Links. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of external links

Moved from User talk:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason#List of TCP and UDP port numbers --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, we reverted each others edit in List of TCP and UDP port numbers and I like to comment a little bit: I suggest to add references and not external links (WP:MOS), secondly I would be in favour of removing all external links as they only attract commercial link spam over time. Cheers - 83.254.215.235 (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article should have a references section, but part of that section should be made up by the very links you removed since they're links to corporate web sites that provide the best citations for the port numbers used by the commercial programs in question.
I disagree that we should remove those links since having some links might attract commercial link spam, that can be delt with as it gets added and I don't think we should be removing useful links in the meantime to guard against that hypothetical scenario. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Please be bold with your addition. ;) - 83.254.215.235 (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
My addition of what exactly? --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 03:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I ment using references in this edit [1], would be nice. Thanks - 83.254.215.235 (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge of Port 666

In March 2007 it was proposed to merge the stub article at Port 666 into this page. The Port 666 article was an unsourced and orphaned stub which simply noted an association with first-person shooters and viruses.

As there was no opposition to the merge over the following 12 months, I've now carried it out and redirected that page name here. There was no need to merge the Doom reference (it was already in this article) and the virus claim was unsourced.

This seems an uncontroversial merge but if others think otherwise I'm happy to discuss. Euryalus (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

ICQ & AIM

The IANA PORT NUMBERS list shows 5190-5193 allocated to AOL - 5190 does not list ICQ. The ICQ article notes "...the protocol is proprietary...". Just because AOL owns ICQ these days (via their purchase of Mirabilis) doesn't make the ICQ use of 5190 "Official". I plan to make a change in a day or so to show ICQ as "Unofficial" and in conflict on port 5190. --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on this but think there is no need to mark it as a conflict (unless another AOL protocol uses the same port). - 83.254.215.235 (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Good point. I'll research it and update accordingly. --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Things To Do

  • Edit the description column to have a consistent style. You'll see a number of variants. I recommend the following form:

protocol-name-from-IANA-list-in-case-used-there, expansion of protocol-name into text if needed (expansion of acronyms if any) "protocol" - brief description of protocol

  • Remove nonexistent Wiki article links - initially, replace with reference to RFC or other authoritative source
  • Provide a crisper definition of why links are included ("commonly used" is a bit vague, unless we can find some external reference on "common usage" of these ports)
    • The definition of inclusion should also address the protocol (TCP, or UDP, or both), and the listing should only include those protocols that meet the criteria (i.e., as I've learned, just because IANA registered it doesn't mean it is used)
    • I do recommend that ports be listed in a complete "set", even if some ports of the ports in that set are not in "common" usage, e.g., all Kerberos ports should be listed if one is listed
    • Only show conflicts among ports listed per the criteria above, not just because there is more than one defined use of that port
    • Remove entries, as needed, based on the above defintion. Some entries are very hard to find reference materiel for, which makes me suspect they really are not in common use (pardon my ignorance), for example this sample:
      • 26 RSFTP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4wajzkd02 (talkcontribs) 16:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
      • 41 Graphics
      • 83 MIT ML device (I doubt this protocol is in use, let alone commonly used)
      • 692 Hyperwave-ISP
      • 699 Access Network
      • 750 rfile/loadav
      • 751 pump
      • 752 qrh
      • 760 ns (sorry, I feel dumb on this, but I can't find a defining reference)
      • 2053 lot105-ds-upd
  • Every entry should include a Wiki article link
    • While working towards that goal (which will require authoring a number of articles), every entry should at least have a reference

These are just my thoughts, let me know what you think. Thanks, --Joe Sperrazza (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

    • I certainly agree with getting rid of the rubbish "RSFTP" protocol and any others that have been identified. RSFTP and the Hyperwave thing just appear to be advertising. I don't see the need to have a big discussion about this - the measures you've outlined seem sensible. Trxi (talk) 03:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Addition of Ports

I'm hoping someone knows more about these ports than I do, but I noticed they weren't in the list so I figured I would mention them to see if someone would be willing to research and add them to the list.

  • UDP Port 14199
  • UDP Port 22788

They both appear to be part of a torrent network, as the packets being uploaded/downloaded are accessing numerous IP addresses worldwide and seem to be a considerable drag on my network. Best Asptard (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Typo/Order Problem

There is a problem in the table for port numbers 9119 to 9800. The ports are listed as 9119, 9418, 9535, 9535, 9443, 9535, and 9800. I'm not sure whether "9443" is in the wrong place, or the first two "9535"s should be "9435"s, but something is amiss.

Sorry I don't know enough to correct it...

--Tinkerer1359 (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Advertisement?

8646/TCP   www.SmartSystemsLLC.com Used by Smart Sale® 5.0 Backup service

is there a reason why this is appended to the last table? looks like advertising to me, especially since it's out of order, and references the URL... is there a particular reason why SmartSystemsLLC is noteable?

69.251.64.102 (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Seaports? Really?

Is this article really come across by people looking for infomation about seaports?? Is that disambiguation link at the top of the article really neccessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mespinola (talkcontribs) 16:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

UDP 694 (Linux-HA)

Port 694 should be changed to "Official". According to this http://moin.linux-ha.org/lha/ha.cf/UdpportDirective which states that it is IANA registered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.120.114 (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Port 2222 Microsoft Office OS X antipiracy network monitor

The link for this unofficial port designation is broken. I note that nmap reports this port as belonging to this same service, but I cannot find any supporting refrences. Comments?

May 12, 2009 Bjjohns (talk) 12:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Update the link to nmap--Andrewcrawford (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Port 379

Microsoft uses port 379 for exchange services (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/278339). I'm not sure what it should be documented as, but it should probably be added to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.77.16.176 (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ports 50, 51

http://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/centos-linux-ipsec-firewall-rules/

   * 50 is Encap Security Payload (esp / IPSEC-ESP ) protocol
   * 51 is IPSEC-AH - Authentication Header protocol

Should these be added to this list?

Those are not port numbers, those are *protocol* numbers. IPSEC-ESP and IPSEC-AH are IP protocols, just like TCP and UDP. They live at the same layer of the protocol stack. TCP is protocol number 6, UDP is 17 - see http://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers/ --MegaZone (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Split

This list really needs to be split, not jsut because of wikipedia guideliones on size ie it approaching 100kb size, but not least because with udp and tcp in one it quite confussing, i understand it but if i take out my network knowledge it very hard ot understand. Any views or ideas?--Andrewcrawford (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

hmm. go for it. andyzweb (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

While this a a rather stale section, 100Kb isn't really that uncommon for a comprehensive list article. Where would you even draw the dividing line for a list such as this anyway? I see no clear division where anything could be split into a separate article. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
You could split it for the different ranges of ports. the IANA has even done the ground work for us. Ports 0-1023 are the well known ports, 1024-49151 are the Registered Ports, and the rest are the dynamic/private ports. andyzweb (talk) 06:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Modern Warfare 2 / COD6

Ports ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seb-Gibbs (talkcontribs) 18:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

gpsd port 2947

The "gpsd" wikipedia article says port 2947 is used for it. Should that be added to the list? Michael9422 (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

yeah go ahead and add it unless you want someone else to add it andyzweb (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

VMWare's port usage (901-903)

All of the ports VMware uses are conflicts with registered ports, and those have been registered in in the iana list for years. Why aren't they listed here? I went ahead and added 902 thisafternoon, since that's the most common conflict you see reported when installing VMWare server. Is there any good reason not to list all of them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.124.2.254 (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

UDP 32768 - Acorn Econet

Econet was a networking service - protocol and hardware - used by Acorn Computers Ltd of England in their microcomputers. With the adoption of Ethernet, they implemented "AUN" (Acorn Universal Networking) which encapsulated the econet packets within UDP packets, on port 32768.

Although Acorn bit the dust a long time ago, their hardware soldiers on in many places, and over the last few years, emulators such as BeebEm now support the networking protocols.Robirrelevant (talk) 08:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


heloo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.120.37 (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


hi , i ill tell u a story of a man whose was geneous in its own way . if u really wants to succced u need to be in touch with good smart people . and for that u neeed to do friendship with people like me . so why r u waiting .come and join me.--------arun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.120.37 (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Mumble port added

Hello, just passing by - saw this page didn't have the Mumble added. I put it in and cited an official source for it; I think I got the formatting right, feel free to improve! 75.72.168.44 (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Bare URLs

I agree with the editor who noted the use of Bare URLs in the article. They all should be changed to proper templates. I'll work on doing so over time. Help from others would be most appreciated. JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

As you suggest, I attempted to change a bare URL and create a reference for port 370 - shown as http://www.nai.com/asp_set/anti_virus/alerts/faq.as. But when I follow the link - it redirects to this mcafee site. Should this reference be removed, or how would I fix it? I'm guessing NAI was bought by mcafee. Unixguy (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I tried the Wayback machine but the site in question was not archived there:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.nai.com/asp_set/anti_virus/alerts/faq.as
I'll look around some more JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
P.S. NAI has this entry:
  • Network Associates, Inc. (NAI), a corporation now known as McAfee, Inc JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Per this, "McAfee does not support SecureCast any more"
I believe this port usage is obsolete. At a minimum, it should be ref'd as such. Perhaps it should be removed from the list. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Here are my thoughts on this issue:
  • There are plenty of obsolete or deprecated ports listed here. This list, as currently formed, is a combination of a historical and current port usage. Leaving the entry seems OK, based on that criteria alone.
  • I did mark the reference as a dead link, and wikilinked NAI to McAfee
  • The few references I can find to this old NAI product (other than copies of this article, hosted elsewhere) suggest that McAfee replaced this product and may have continued using the port for updates to the maleware signatures. I can't find any evidence that they do or don't still use this port for such updates.
Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

TCP 40

WTF is Shains Throbber Protocol TCP 40 LOL LOL LOL Amists (talk) 12:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Port 1222 = Well-known port? Nonsense!

Whoops, there is port 1222 in the well-known ports section. Well-known-ports range from 0 to 1023 only, so it must be some kind of mistake here. Anyone here who is willing to fix this? Thanx in advance... -- 93.245.188.157 (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Port 34567

I added this port 34567 that I have registered with iana.org, which you can see at http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers but someone reverted it. Please add it after verifying the iana page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.53.66 (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Conflicts

Since we're not listing all known usage of ports, identifying conflicts appears to be problematic. Identifying conflicts also flirts with WP:OR. I propose to remove the Conflict legend and add a short paragraph either here or at Port number describing port conflicts. --Kvng (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

In a sense, one could consider that to be necessarily original research, as nobody except an encyclopedia is going to have a a list of known port conflicts, and so there cannot be a source to cite. However, it is not WP:OR, as it applies to WP, because it is not a novel synthesis of ideas.
Or, to take a different tack, it's not original research because you don't need a source: it's immediately verifiable. To identify a conflict, read the list. Two services on the same port? Conflict.
In either case, highlighting makes the list more information-dense. It draws attention to significant areas. I'm not too keen on highlighting both the official, registered service and and the unofficial colliders the same way, but that's beyond the point, here.
I am totally with you on the need for an explanation of the significance of port conflicts. Got any good ideas as far as appropriate sources to cite, though? — Bigwyrm watch mewake me 04:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll put in a description of the problem of conflicts when I get a chance. It's a start. --Kvng (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 Done Port_number#Port_conflict --Kvng (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that the conflict markings should be removed. Conflicts only occur when two services are actually installed on the same system, but this happens so rarely with most of these obscure services that it does not constitute a problem worth marking. In addition, there are many more ports in use by all kinds of applications which are nowhere notably documented. Kbrose (talk) 03:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I was confused on reading this article with the three color highlights. The yellow highlight represents conflict (i.e, two protocols having same port #). Although this has nothing to do with which protocol is official/unofficial for that port, yellow highlight seems to trump white/blue in the table. Maybe just highlight the port number in yellow rather than the whole row? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.46.103.131 (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

SCTP

How should we add port numbers that are only reserved for SCTP protocol (not used in tcp/udp) I was considering adding 36412 S1-Control Plane (3GPP) (officially registered by IANA) but current table has colums for tcp and udp but it's not clear how to add sctp only ports Umbeebmu (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I like how it was done, using SCTP in place of TCP. But after I looked at how DCCP was done, I didn't like how the TCP,DCCP entry looked. It made the whole TCP column much wider. So I created a new row for each of the DCCP entries. Do we add a new column, or add a new row for this new protocol? It's a tough call, since the article is titled List of TCP and UDP port numbers. Now there are 2 other Protocols we are trying to squeeze in. With significant editing effort, we could create 2 new columns for SCTP and DCCP. I'd suggest that approach is not worth the effort. Plus, with a new row for the DCCP entry - the table may be sorted on that column (using UDP for both UDP and DCCP), putting the DCCP entries together. That's my 2 cents. -- Unixguy (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

What is the criteria for inclusion in this list? The IANA list contains more assignments than listed here. --Kvng (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a good question. Having been one of the editors involved with this article for a while, I'd offer the following thoughts:
  • Just being on the IANA list is not enough (i.e., WP:NOTEVERYTHING)
  • Being a notable port, with references and/or an article about it in WP.
Of course, WP:IAR and WP:CONSENSUS trumps all. What are your thoughts?
JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Sounds quite reasonable to me. Those guidelines would indicate that every entry should have a wikilink and/or a citation. That's not too far off from where the article currently stands. I'll work towards that. --Kvng (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
The official source list contains more than what's listed here because people haven't gotten around to adding some. People only work on what they care about. Being an official, registered port is more than sufficient for inclusion here. The citation is readily available: the official list. This list must reflect that one.
As for unofficial usage, especially outside of the well-known and registered port ranges, a good show of significance is required. I like Kvng's idea of requiring either a relevant article or an outside citation, though greater weight should be given the former. No better way to show notability than a standing article. — Bigwyrm watch mewake me 05:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree with your position but, digging a little deeper, I note that there is no official policy on list item notability - WP:LISTN. We're free to establish our own criteria for inclusion for this article by consensus. --Kvng (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I propose removing all unofficial entries that cannot be verified through a reliable secondary source. Rationale: WP:Source list (WP:Verifiability and WP:OR), WP:NOTDIR point 8. This has become indiscriminate information. Marasmusine (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
You can try but will probably get reverted. An alternative would be to [citation needed] all such entries and let is sit for a while to see if anyone makes an effort to help verify. --Kvng (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I have marked entries in #Well-known ports sections with potential notability issue with [citation needed]. Please add a wikilink or citation to these entries to prevent them from becoming candidates for removal. --Kvng (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I really have to disagree with your criteria as to what ports you include in your list. It is quite confusing to look for what you believe is a defined user port and then discover that you are "wrong". You have to go to the IANA website in order to realise that it actually is Wikipedia that is wrong. If you do not want to correct the page, certainly it should be clearly stated somewhere that the list is neither complete nor accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.63.2.124 (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Table Markup

In both of the wiki tables on the main page I lined up the Port number, TCP and UDP columns using spaces as padding. The reason for this is for wiki markup readability only. It does not affect the browser rendering of the page. -- Unixguy (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Port 2425

this isn't my area but this link 1 shows 2425 for Fujitsu App Manager. [I could not access the iana.org site]...--Billymac00 (talk) 06:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"Official USA only"??

I noticed the entry for rsync (873/T) is marked "Official USA Only". Huh? Unless I'm missing something, ports are either registered or not; there is no "you're registered for Russia only" or "you're registered for use everywhere but Scotland".

Plus, I can't find any sources supporting such an assertion.

Thoughts, anyone? Unless someone knows of a good source for this claim, I will remove it as unsupported.

Thanks! — UncleBubba T @ C ) 18:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Good catch - remove it. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Done. If anyone has any concerns about this, please locate sufficient reliable sources to prove it. Thanks! — UncleBubba T @ C ) 18:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

NXEdit Port 126

I just added a description for this port. If you look at the IANA record for this port,[2] you'll see that I am the assignee for it. I guess that makes me an authority. :-) Donpayette (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Either an authority, or a biased troll, around here. :-P<br\>But, thank you. — Bigwyrm watch mewake me 05:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

IANA Port Names

We should also add a column listing the official registered names of ports as well. [ http://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names-port-numbers.xml listings] --64.4.68.234 (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

RFC Reference

How do we deal with RFC references to cite where it is defined as official? Do we put a citation after the name? or next the word official? Or do we do as is done on port 13 and put the RFC as a link in parentheses?

Davidgumberg (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

There has been repeated vandalism to the low port numbers on this page, surely only official uses should be listed for the well known ports, or splitting it as per below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.166.57.152 (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

WebSocket

Is it correct to add WebSocket to TCP port 80? --Abdull (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Split official/unofficial ports List?

I think unofficial uses should be listed separately from official uses. Also, if official uses are listed it should be an exhaustive list seeing as the information is easily available at IANA's website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.101.25 (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

A using reading this pages wants to see what protocols are used on a certain port. Having to go to 2 different list is counter-productive and many less experienced users won't even do that. Please keep them together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.160.102 (talk) 12:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Add column for date

Adding a column for date (as well as a column for the RFC) is useful. The date should be the official RFC publication date (for official ports). For unoffcial ports, the date could be the first usage reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.160.102 (talk) 12:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

F.E.A.R.

What about FEAR Combat game using 27888 port? 62.152.145.53 (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Range 0-1023

Maybe range 0-1023 can be included (as a link ?)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:EE0F:C40:B8BA:F7C0:7D39:70BB (talk) 10:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Column specifying whether data is encrypted by default

Some items add this in the description, so might be nice to pull out into a column.

50.199.243.89 (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

- Steve

Dell Cloud Desktop Port 6910

I'm not sure where to put this, just wanted to throw it out there. The bios on certain machines lists connections to port 6910 for the Dell Cloud Desktop server. It appears to be a Wyse product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Family Guy Guy (talkcontribs) 21:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

TCP 6541 and TCP 6542, typo or misplaced?

TCP services with port numbers 6541 and 6542 appear between 5632 and 5655, so they may be mistyped and could mean 5641 and 5642. I didn't find any conclusive information about MirrorOp2, but it could very well be a remote desktop application, similar to pcAnyWhere which seems to use ports 5641 (TCP) and 5642 (UDP).

Chaotix63 (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Unnoficial port numbers need sources

All Unnoficial port numbers needs sources (just as the official ones do, but we already have them).

I'll be removing all unreferenced information within some months.--damiens.rf 01:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on List of TCP and UDP port numbers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Wrong NetApp port

NetApp / SANtricity port is 2463 not 2643. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.190.86.68 (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Multi-use Ports

Multi-use port color coding is lacking/not sufficient. The issue being that we have color coding for official, unofficial, and multi-use. What color code do we use when it is both multi-use official? multi-use unofficial? And best yet multi-use official/unofficial? With the last likely being the most common. I'm not sure of the best solution but here are two possible solutions:

1) Add a column: multi-use - true/false or yes/no I don't think this will work very well as new rows are added old rows would also have to be edited.

2) Each port is a single row. List each service is as row in a service column that has sub columns of TCP | UDP | Description | Status example:

   port | service
        | TCP | UDP | Description | Status
   ____________________________________________________
   9    | TCP | UDP | Discard Protocol | Offical
        |     | UDP | Wake-on-LAN      | Unofficial

Thoughts? MichaelLeeHobbs (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of TCP and UDP port numbers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on List of TCP and UDP port numbers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on List of TCP and UDP port numbers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

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


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of TCP and UDP port numbers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Laravel (port 8000)

See Special:Diff/745891794. I found these issues with the reference to Laravel documentation:

  • It's a primary source (self-published?)
  • It does not say anything about TCP or UDP
  • It talks about PHP's built-in development server, which makes me question if this is specific to Laravel at all.

While Laravel itself may be notable enough for inclusion by Wikipedia's standards, unless there's reliable third-party sources to verify and tell me what port 8000 is about, I don't see this happening. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Rewriting this list

There's a to-do list at the top of this talk page.

There's been little to no enforcement of common selection criteria before August 2016, when I started editing. Even as I clean up the list, there are articles which I can verify to exist, but am unable to assess if they are notable enough for inclusion (in scope) when they may not have a Wikipedia article, or specific parts of the protocol are not described in the main article of the port topic. There even exists list items which are unofficial, unnotable and unsourced.

Some list items are or have been just technical jargon, such as SQL Services or Print-srv, Network PostScript, almost like directly from IANA's list. Even as an example Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) may need more description to explain in short terms what the protocol is about (without opening the self-reference wikilink), and there are many more of these.

I have generally taken the stance that if a company itself is notable, but their products don't have a Wikipedia article (or a notable section about the product in the company's article), I have removed it from the list.

The table legend colors can be difficult to maintain. There also seems not to be an exact criteria what qualifies as multiple use: If a port is unassigned at IANA, does that mean an unofficial application using that port is multiple use or not?

More issues with the table come from the fact that IANA may have assigned both TCP and UDP, but commonly the protocol only uses one by design or specification. This sometimes leads to editors removing (blanking) the other protocol, while it is still "valid" to mention both.

I would also suggest bringing up the use of Template:Yes, Template:No and similar templates to make the table easier to read.

I don't think WP:TNT to be appropriate at this point as the existing ports (especially unofficial ones) are a great base for modification, but lots of cleanup is still to be done.

I also believe it would be a good idea to use pending changes protection level 1 after the cleanup is done. It is not appropriate while the cleanup is ongoing, as it could cause undue load on the reviewers.

And for what little it's worth, the daily pageviews have increased about 2,000+ after the cleanup started. I could call this rewrite/cleanup very useful indeed. (Personally, I'm doing it for the fun of learning the every obscure protocol out there.) 80.221.159.67 (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Some technical expertise ({{Expert needed}}) may also be needed (later). I am knowledgeable of networking and can help. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I have also added some citations, which may be duplicated or not very accurate (e.g. not anchoring to right page where multiple things are being referenced at once) in places. Some of these I have marked with <!-- XXX: Comment -->. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on this. I take issue with your claim that there has been little or no enforcement of contents. There are dozens of editors watching this page and it has been edited frequently. If you come by this conclusion based on the state of the article, please be aware that there is a range of ways to interpret WP:CSC and your interpretation, stated above and which I interpret as omitting basically anything that is not a bluelink of some kind, is more stringent than most. ~Kvng (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

first-defense (port 1232)

Special:Diff/749839962. This was the third time removing this from the list. If you believe first-defense is notable enough, create an article for it or provide a reliable source to establish notability in real use. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC) (edited: 12:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC))

TCP/8162

I'd like to discuss the removal of my edit (diff is linked below) [3] Cited reason for removal: Visual edit, unclear notability, lacking a better source) A few points I'd like clarification on; 1) If visual edit mode is frowned upon, why is it enabled? 2) Unclear notability - How does one get notability if one's edits are removed? 3) I thought that the www.iana.org website itself would be confirmation enough for a registered port - if this is not the case, could someone please explain to me where I have gone wrong? Thankyou, Jambulance (talk) 05:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


@Jambulance: Sorry, I didn't see your message earlier. You seem to be talking about Special:Diff/783082575.

  1. VisualEditor creates unwanted newlines to the page source, inconsistent with the table. I've never used it, and it certainly doesn't seem to be the default editor (at least for unregistered contributors).
  2. The LPAR2RRD article on this wiki was redirected to IBM Power Systems in November 2015 for lack of notability. The parent article also doesn't talk about LPAR2RRD, so it is probably unnotable.
  3. You're right, IANA is the authorative source. However mere verifiable existence is not enough for inclusion per common selection criteria, for the limited scope. The list is not meant to be exhaustive, or a copy of IANA's port assignment list. Ports listed in this article must be referenced to a third-party reliable source or have its own article on Wikipedia (or a section in parent article) to be included.

I can say the scope is not very clearly defined in the lead paragraph of the article. That's something to improve upon. 84.250.0.210 (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I have improved the lead to better indicate the scope of the article. ~Kvng (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Thank you. 84.250.0.210 (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Template messages of verifiability and sourcing

 Question: Which one of these mentioned templates is more appropriate here?

I also wonder if the following templates should be tagged to the article:

Template:Refimprove may be enough for now to cover the two, but I'm up for a discussion.

84.250.0.210 (talk) 05:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Port 7777

Minor topic not likely to justify an independent article. Could be summarize in the target article. - MrX 14:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I've tagged it with speedy deletion, since there isn't enough context and references to verify notability. The same article has also been previously speedy deleted. 84.250.0.210 (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

There also isn't anything to merge. The source article has had its listed items copied directly from the target article. If you'd like, you can add references to the target article to support those claims. Notably I haven't sweeped yet through port range 7000 – 7999 to establish notability and references, as pointed out in the to-do list at top of the talk page. 84.250.0.210 (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Table for dynamic/private ports & Mosh (mobile shell)

In example, Special:Diff/789995279 attempted to add Mosh (mobile shell) UDP ports 60000–61000 to the article. Currently, we don't have a table for notable ports operating in dynamic/private port ranges.

Should we add a table to the dynamic/private ports section for additions like these? What would be the criteria for verification and inclusion, since they are not in the scope of IANA? 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 05:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

PVP.net

Special:Diff/794677559 added port 2099 for League of Legends (PVP.net). The source given only supports the statement of that port being used for PVP.net, while League of Legends uses UDP ports 5000–5500. In comparison to something like Battle.net, I don't quite understand or see how PVP.net would meet notability of its own (or if they're even comparable). Thus, I reverted the edit with Special:Diff/794845836.

League of Legends itself is notable for inclusion, so I'll be adding ports 5000–5500 to the list shortly. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Assigned VS used

The current table implies that most protocols use both TCP and UDP. It seems that the IANA frequenly assigned both TCP and UDP ports to a protocol even if it only actually used one or the other. Any thoughts on how best to handle this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plugwash (talkcontribs) 13:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks for starting this discussion. I don't think there's an easy solution, or it's not an appropriate time to solve due to burden of unnotable entries. This has also been noted before at § Rewriting this list.

    IANA did indeed historically assign both TCP and UDP to ports, even if only one was ever used by design (e.g. TCPMUX). Currently (to my belief), IANA seems to assign only one protocol (TCP or UDP) on a port (if requested) and mark the other as reserved.

    I took a bold move earlier to tag some of these cases with {{Available|Assigned}}. {{Yes-No}} could also be used, but I can't come into an agreement with myself which one to use. I'd like to see the table converted to use {{Yes}} and {{No}} sometime for some consistency and readability, but I'm unsure when the right time to do this would be. Other noteworthy thing is ports 2375–2380 in example: There is no consistent practice of marking them as reserved ({{N/A|Reserved}}), or if they qualify as multiple use or not. It'd require substantial effort to verify both assignment and actual use, and there's no easy way to say if some software uses the other protocol when the mainstream doesn't.

    I think the scope or table legend may need to be clarified. Ideas are welcome.

    2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Plugwash: Partially fixed: Special:Diff/792679891 and Special:Diff/792682438. Others I'm unable to verify due to lack of personal time or reliable citations. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Table proposal

Proposed example table for listing ports
Port TCP UDP Description Status
0 Reserved Reserved Reserved Official
1 Yes Assigned TCP Port Service Multiplexer (TCPMUX). Historic. Both TCP and UDP have been assigned to TCPMUX by IANA,[1] but by design only TCP is specified.[2] Official
9
Yes Discard Protocol[4] Official
No Yes Wake-on-LAN[5] Unofficial
20 Yes Maybe File Transfer Protocol (FTP) data transfer[6][3] Official
100 N/A N/A Unassigned (with known unauthorized use[further explanation needed])[1] Official
1314 ? ? Festival Speech Synthesis System server[7] Unofficial
60000–61000 Port 22 Yes Mosh – a remote terminal application similar to SSH – typically assigns ports for ongoing sessions between Mosh servers and Mosh clients.[8] N/A

References

  1. ^ a b "Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry". The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). 
  2. ^ Lottor, M. (November 1988). TCP Port Service Multiplexer (TCPMUX). IETF. pp. 1–2. doi:10.17487/RFC1078. RFC 1078. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1078. Retrieved 2016-09-28. 
  3. ^ a b Stewart, Randall R., ed. (September 2007). Stream Control Transmission Protocol. IETF. pp. 135–136. doi:10.17487/RFC4960. RFC 4960. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4960. Retrieved 2016-09-27. 
  4. ^ Postel, J. (May 1983). Discard Protocol. IETF. p. 1. doi:10.17487/RFC0863. STD 21. RFC 863. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc863#page-1. Retrieved 2016-10-07. 
  5. ^ "How to Configure the Ports Used for Wake On LAN". Microsoft TechNet. n.d. Archived from the original on 2016-09-27. Retrieved 2016-09-27. ... The default port for the wake-up transmission is UDP port 9. ... 
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference apple-kb-HT202944 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ "Basic command line options". The Festival Speech Synthesis System – System documentation. The Centre for Speech Technology Research (1.4 ed.). University of Edinburgh (published 1999-06-19). 1999-06-17. 7.1. Archived from the original on 2016-08-28. Retrieved 2016-10-27. ... Festival waits for clients on a known port (the value of server_port, default is 1314). ... [self-published source?]
  8. ^ "Mosh". mosh.org. Retrieved 2017-07-10. 

Tables with an integrated color legend

Example table with a color legend, in table heading
  Official   Unofficial   Multiple use
Port TCP UDP Description Status
0 Reserved Reserved Reserved Official
Example table with a color legend, in table caption   Official   Unofficial   Multiple use
Port TCP UDP Description Status
0 Reserved Reserved Reserved Official

Discussion

Thoughts on this proposal? There is currently no accessible way to insert the table legend into <caption> that I know of (true and tested). 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

  • I found two ways to include the legend in the table, which I've added to the proposal. Neither I'm totally satisfied with from accessibility perspective. The first one uses a table heading for a caption, which is not a semantic caption. The second one is closer to a real semantic caption, but it uses a hack of two <caption>...</caption>s. I'm also aware the color boxes don't really convey the message semantically, but there's seemingly a limitation preventing use of block elements in table captions on MediaWiki. (Ideally, the legend in caption should be a {{flatlist}}.) Feedback wanted. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 02:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I suppose this is a feature, but today I noticed the table colors are not displayed on paper when printed (or at least in Chromium print preview). It's also a bit hilariously making the table legend confusing, because all the colors of the legend appear white. Something to take into consideration, perhaps. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Mouse without borders (ports 15100 & 15101)

A new contributor added Mouse without borders to the article twice without reliable sources. On the second chance, I gave it a benefit of doubt and went digging for sources myself.

Special:Diff/796814012
Added references from CNET News, Betanews and PC Magazine.
Special:Diff/796814255
Ports removed from the list.

The references from CNET News and PC Magazine read out like a review. Betanews is more news-like, but uncertain for me if it's a notable publication. It only briefly mentions MWB.

The main issue however is what appears to be original research: Ports 15100 and 15101 and TCP were not referenced at all by the original contributor, and I could not also find reliable sources to support this statement.

WP:CSC also has a criteria Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia.. Since MWB is a redirect to a section of Microsoft Garage where MWB is only a short list entry, I'm unsure if it meets the criteria for inclusion. 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 (talk) 06:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Statistics of cleanup efforts so far

These are not measurements of quality and should be taken as a grain of salt. I hope someone has better use for this data to improve the article.

One year later

(Not exactly one year, but I didn't want to wait any longer.)

Special:Permalink/736320251
The first edit in this article I made on 26 August, 2016.
1,584 table rows
282 rows in well-known ports
229 with "Official" status
49 with "Unofficial" status
1 with "N/A" status
2 with unknown/undetermined status
1 reserved for table heading
1301 rows in registered ports
508 with "Official" status
786 with "Unofficial" status
0 with "N/A" status
6 with unknown/undetermined status
1 reserved for table heading
0 rows in dynamic, private or ephemeral ports
202 references
3350 lines of source
Size of 229,480 bytes
Special:Permalink/796837085
Current revision, 23 August, 2017.
1,230 table rows (-354 / -28.78%)
269 rows in well-known ports
226 with "Official" status
41 with "Unofficial" status
1 with "N/A" status
0 with unknown/undetermined status
1 reserved for table heading
959 rows in registered ports
382 with "Official" status
571 with "Unofficial" status
0 with "N/A" status
5 with unknown/undetermined status
1 reserved for table heading
2 rows in dynamic, private or ephemeral ports
317 references (+115 / +56.93%)
2662 lines of source (-688 / -25.85%)
Size of 273,490 bytes (+44,010 / +19.18 %)

A possible explanation for unknown/undetermined statuses is a lack of consistency or typos. The method of examination was a simple text search using grep.

If someone points out my math is wrong, that's fine.

Between 26 August, 2016 and 23 August, 2017
Pageviews
2,943,426 pageviews
8,109/day
Steady decline.
Revisions
654 edits
177 editors
Redirects
467,309 pageviews came from redirects to this article (15.88 %)
The most common redirect was Port 25565, with a total of 393,821 pageviews (84.27%) and a daily average of 1,085.

I used toollabs:pageviews for this one. The decline may be explained by Wikipedia's overall decline(?) and less web search results landing on this page after cleaning "all that crap".

There was a positive increase in daily pageviews until October 2016. On the last days of year 2016, pageviews dropped substantially and returned immediately after the new year started.

Big positive peaks in pageviews occurred on 28 September, 2016 and in mid-May 2017.

Personally, I contributed this much (with the help of toollabs:xtools-articleinfo and something else):

80.221.159.67
145 edits
2.87% of total edits by number of revisions
Added +54,588
Deleted -10,319
9.9% of text added from this IP-address alone
2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1
128 edits
2.53% of total edits by number of revisions
Added +5,259
Deleted -15,219
84.250.0.210
65 edits
1.28% of total edits by number of revisions
Added +5,890
Deleted -9,727
84.251.84.243
40 edits
0.79% of total edits by number of revisions
Added +4,889
Deleted -3,785
80.221.152.17
23 edits
0.45% of total edits by number of revisions
Added +2,803
Deleted 2,678
2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1
9 edits
0.18% of total edits by number of revisions
Added +2,651
Deleted -3,078

A total of 370 edits, added +76,080 and deleted -44,806. Overall this accounts for +31,274, which is 71.06 % of all text in this one year? I'm almost sure I also forgot one IP-address, but I can't find it. Wish I had better data to show.


Please consider contributing! It makes an impact, there's not a lot of volunteers working on this (semi-)actively. I'm sure there's also other contibutors to thank a lot, but I can't name any from top of my head. 2001:2003:54FA:2F79:0:0:0:1 (talk) 10:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Xfire (port 25999) removed

Xfire died last year. I tried using both web search engine and Wayback Machine on Xfire's official website to find any kind of citation for port 25999, but was unable to. So, I removed Xfire (and others) from the list. This is kind of a shame, but I felt like {{Citation needed}} would've not helped. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on List of TCP and UDP port numbers. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

YesY The help request has been answered. To reactivate, replace "helped" with your help request.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Later: I have no time to check this in depth at the moment, TODO. But this bot annoys me sometimes with the {{Cite IETF}} hack on ports 1027 and 7542, also seen previously at Special:Diff/781179064. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Doing... 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
      •  Done:
        • YesY/minus Removed: Port 0 reference was rescued correctly, but I found it to be an user-generated source and removed it.
        • YesY Patentstorm.us references seem to be temporarily down for a database rebuild. Check again in few months?
        • YesY TechNet format fixes are fine.
        • N The two {{Cite IETF}} ones are troubled, as explained here.
        • YesY The Docker reference was rescued correctly, but its factual accuracy may not be up to date anymore. I checked the current guide and it recommends port 4000, not port 4243.
        • N/minus Removed: Port 7831 (Smartlaunch Internet Cafe Administration) failed source verification, no match for 7831 or TCP (original research). The reference given says version 4.1, while the Wayback Machine URI shows version 4.0. But the software listed has questionable notability, so I removed it from the list.
        • Resolved: Both VMWare references are dead and seemingly unreliable from URI. Replaced with a new, more "reliable" primary source.
        • minus Removed Veejansh Inc's Scintilla for uncertain notability.
        2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
        • Patentstorm.us is still down, so YesY yeah. Good bot. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Because Template:Cite IETF has well-known and previously reported bugs[1] where archive-url or dead-url parameters with any alias are not well respected,[2] User:GreenC opted to add Template:Webarchive after the reference instead (at my suggestion).[3] It's a hack, of course.

    This bot keeps repeatedly replacing {{Webarchive}} with {{Cite web}} and unknown dead-url status, after the first {{Cite web}} inside the same reference. In other words, there's now two different {{Cite web}} templates inside one reference and it's not pretty (two "Retrieved" dates).

    Using {{Cite web}} in full form with a working dead-url implementation would also work, but I don't find it more semantic or shorter to use. This list makes heavy use of {{Cite IETF}} for all the convenience.[4]

    Is there a way to make IABot exclude these individual references using the links listed above (which require a registered account) without excluding the bot altogether, or an alternative way to exclude the bot per line?

    The most ideal solution would be fixing Template:Cite IETF and converting it to a Lua module, but failing that I'd probably like to deprecate that "stupid" template in favor for Template:Cite web. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 (talk) 02:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

    • Is there a way to make IABot exclude these individual references. Yes {{cbignore}} -- GreenC 03:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
      • I just read the FAQ, it generally suggests to avoid using {{cbignore}} or bots exclusion. Would it be better to use {{cbignore}}, manage URLs of the bot or report a bug? 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 (talk) 04:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I ended up removing archive-url support, see Special:Diff/799477541. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 32#Template:Cite IETF
  2. ^ Special:Diff/772452835
  3. ^ Special:Diff/775225151
  4. ^ Currently, 70 × {{Cite IETF}} vs 180 × {{Cite web}}, and a total of 22% of all 318 references use {{Cite IETF}}.

Artemis: Spaceship Bridge Simulator (port 2010) dispute

Artemis: Spaceship Bridge Simulator. A dispute between me and @NoseyNick.

  1. There's a reference to the official manual. It is already self-published and thus possibly unreliable.
  2. The manual makes no mention of TCP/UDP, but speaks of "connecting".
  3. NoseyNick argues "connecting" (as described in the manual) means UDP is off-the-table, because UDP doesn't do handshakes to establish a connection.
  4. I don't argue for or against NoseyNick's argument, but think it to be WP:SYNTHESIS and unacceptable for Wikipedia.
  5. NoseyNick has referenced to user-generated sources on two seperate occassions (Special:Diff/809594256 & Special:Diff/809653106).
  6. I have reverted both for WP:USERGENERATED reason (Special:Diff/809630264 & Special:Diff/809657024).
  7. Neither of us are really satisfied in {{Dunno}} (question marks on assignments/use of protocols), but we both lack reliable sources to demonstrate them.
  8. NoseyNick seems to acknowledge running the game and monitoring traffic presumably counts as "original research" on their talk page. I agree.

84.250.17.211 (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC); edited 16:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


  • The game itself, and the manual, are not "only" self-published, but also (at the risk of being unduly accused of WP:SPAM or conflict of interest) available on Steam [1]. The official manual doesn't say "TCP" but does mention "Connect", "Connections", etc.
  • As anyone contributing to this page knows, in IP, "connections" are usually understood to be TCP, UDP is generally considered "connectionless".
  • I believe THREE separate occasions I've linked to "user-generated" but at least somewhat "curated" articles that mention TCP port 2010. I could link to several others but they would probably all be considered "user-generated" by someone who wanted to take the extreme stance.
  • Though a number of print publications have published reviews of Artemis, none have mentioned the IP port or protocol(s) used as far as I can tell.
  • It's probably safe to assume that no peer-reviewed academic journal is ever likely to publish an article on Artemis SBS network protocols, so the above might be the best we could hope for.
  • I have done a certain amount of protocol reverse-engineering of this game, as a hobby. This might be considered "original research" but doesn't feel particularly original, and finding the TCP port seems like pretty superficial research
  • Anyone can download the DEMO version of the game for free[2] or pay for a Steam copy, and see for themselves that it uses TCP port 2010, or examine the artemis.ini inside any of the installer files:
; SETTING:  networkPort
; USE: listening port that Artemis connects on
; ACCEPTABLE: acceptable TCP ports
networkPort=2010
  • It feels a bit crass to cite a game installer download as evidence, but if there's a correct way to cite sources inside Windows PE32 executable installers, and if that would honestly be a better citation than (say) the Steam article already reverted, let me know.
  • I posit that the preponderance of evidence from the best available sources demonstrates TCP port 2010, we are fairly unlikely to obtain any strong evidence to the contrary, at least for current versions of the game, so listing it as TCP port 2010 provides far more value to Wikipedia than pretending we {{Dunno}} just because we can't find more appropriately citable sources.

WRT conflict of interest, for the record: I have no "external relationship to Artemis" other than that I enjoy playing it, with other local people who also enjoy playing it. I also enjoy reverse-engineering some of the protocols - which (unless you count USB/serial DMX) are all on TCP port 2010, in case you hadn't guessed. None of my current or previous employers have anything to do with Artemis. I do not receive, or expect to receive, any compensation with respect to Artemis, never mind any Wikipedia edits relating to it. I have no financial relationship with Artemis other than having bought a copy of it a few years ago. Artemis is but one, of many, hobbies. I would certainly consider myself an SME, but purely on a hobby basis, just like I'm a hobbyist Wikipedia editor.

NoseyNick (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


@NoseyNick: Thank you. You make some good arguments.

I feel like this subject list is having a hard time with verifiability and notability of examples (as seen by the to-do list on this talk page), but Artemis does fit the description of WP:CSC for inclusion. Having a hard time is the reason why I felt cautious to your edit: Less "issues" (maintenance templates) is usually for the better.

As a compromise, I'm willing to agree to that quote from artemis.ini as an additional reference, with the caveat of tagging it with {{Better source}} because it's not easy, obvious or "reliable" to verify. I also don't have Windows operating system or easy means to verify the existence of this file from ArtemisDEMOInstall.exe on an Unix-like operating system I'm using, but with little user-generated sources you've linked and the artemis.ini quote I can assume in good faith it to be correct (in lieu of demonstration of it being incorrect).

  • I don't have a Windows operating system either. FWIW, Artemis works great under Wine -- NoseyNick (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The wiki and Steam community post may be subject to change at any time and may have little to no editorial oversight, so I'd reject those as references.

  • I believe the Steam post has a certain amount of editorial oversight, but I'll admit I can't be bothered prove it -- NoseyNick (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

In addition to {{Better source}}, would it be good to use {{Yes}}, {{Yes|Yes?}} or {{Maybe}} in place of TCP, and {{No}} for UDP? It's been my goal to disambiguate in the table what "TCP" and "UDP" mean (real-use or port assignments only). "?" for uncertainty.

––84.250.17.211 (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Are we genuinely uncertain about whether it uses TCP, or just whether we can cite appropriate sources to demonstrate it? I know Wikipedia isn't a court of law, but wouldn't "beyond reasonable doubt" or "balance of probability" count for something here? If I was posting about the efficacy of some quack medical treatment I could understand this level of scrutiny, but honestly, this amount of argument over... a TCP port used by a game?!? -- NoseyNick (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Artemis Spaceship Bridge Simulator on Steam". Retrieved 10 November 2017. 
  2. ^ "Downloads - Artemis Spaceship Bridge Simulator". Retrieved 10 November 2017. 

The request made for a Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. rejected) because like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, 3O DRN requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance. However, having said that, let me note that the 3O request said, "Disagreement on verifiability/whether an editor's contribution with user-generated sources provides more value to the article than no information at all." If that's a fair description of the dispute, then Wikipedia's position is very clear: If the Verifiability policy requires a fact to have a source (and it does if the information is challenged or likely to be challenged, both of which apply in this case) it must be supported by a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia and if it cannot be so supported then it should not be in the encyclopedia. Satisfaction of the Verifiability policy is the threshold to inclusion. That rule applies even if the information is objectively absolutely true and vitally important. Self-published sources are not, with a few exceptions (click on that link to see them, along with the information in the section after that one), reliable sources. One of those exceptions, the one in that next section, which might be important here is the one which says that self published sources can be reliable sources for information about themselves if certain criteria are met (see the section for details), which might apply to the game's manual, but then there's one more factor to consider: The manual is not only self-published but is a primary source and the primary source policy says, "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." From what's been said, above, it would appear that the manual does not refer to TCP but only to connections, which requires impermissible analysis, evaluation, or interpretation to connect that to TCP. It would appear that the manual cannot be used as a source. As for looking in code, the purpose of citations in Wikipedia is so that an average person can look up the cite and verify that something is true. I would argue that the average person cannot do so with code, but perhaps more important, even if they could then the code is itself a primary source and I would argue that you cannot take a snippet of code out of context and say that it necessarily means something without impermissibly analyzing, evaluating, and interpreting it in the context of the entire program (for a couple of gross examples, how does one know that it's not buried in a chunk of code that's been commented out or jumped over by a goto or if or other conditional branching station) and/or impermissibly analyzing, evaluating, and interpreting with knowledge of how the code is supposed to work. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

  • I forgot to say this earlier: Thank you for the insight and and clarification where I'm unable to express myself clearly. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks TransporterMan, for your help. It's not exactly "code", it's a config file, however you do have to run a Windows installer (which works fine under Wine if you prefer) to get to it. I'd argue "an average person" can run a windows installer and then open a text editor, certainly if given instructions, but your points are valid nonetheless, particularly that it requires some evaluation of a "primary source". So what's the solution here? Do we honestly need an article published in an edited journal? But the Steam article isn't good enough, nor the official manual referring to "connections", nor the config file referring to TCP 2010? And "the preponderance of evidence" isn't enough until an editor approves someone else's article saying so? -- NoseyNick (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Evaluation of evidence and determining a preponderance is the very definition of prohibited original research. If there is no reliable source which directly, unequivocally, and without interpretation supports a piece of information, the solution is to leave it out of the encyclopedia. For Wikipedia, that's not a bug but a feature, as I've explained above, so not only is it a solution it's a perfectly-acceptable solution. The source doesn't have to be a peer-reviewed academic journal, but it does have to be a secondary source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy which isn't self-published or has to be a source which is self-published but which falls under one of the exceptions to the self-published source policy and passes muster, if applicable, as a primary source. Let me add this before someone brings it up: I haven't looked but I'd be pretty surprised if some of the other information in this article doesn't fail to meet those standards. What to do about that is a bit more complicated than I care to address here (in short it is: fix it, tag it, remove it, or leave it for someone else to deal with, but it's the how and when to do those things that's complicated), but one absolutely clearly improper response is to add more nonconforming material to the article using the currently included nonconforming material as a reason, "precedent," or excuse. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of TCP and UDP port numbers. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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) 10:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Later: I'm incredibly disappointed no matter what I do with archive URLs, this bot will break {{Cite IETF}}. This is now what, a fourth time? Pinging @Balon Greyjoy to let you know. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 13:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)