Talk:The Pirate Bay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article The Pirate Bay was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
October 1, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
April 5, 2010 Peer review Reviewed
May 4, 2010 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article


Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Information.svg To view an answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Website offline - October 2015[edit]

The TPB website has been offline for around three days, with sources saying that it is a hosting problem at the server end.[5] Since it hasn't picked up much reliable sourcing it isn't worth adding to the article at the moment, but it is worth noting that the site is down.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

By the time you posted, the site was back up. --AussieLegend () 10:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
You're right, it is back up now, although I was still having difficulty accessing the site earlier today.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

November 2015[edit]

Re this edit: At the time of writing, the site is not offline and this source does not say that the site is offline. The site is up and down like a yo-yo however. It isn't worth covering outages unless they are at least 24 hours long and mentioned in multiple reliable sources.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. However, the note is clearly not working so I've tweaked it accordingly.[6] Please feel free to tweak it further. --AussieLegend () 14:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

April 2016[edit]

The site is offline at the moment.[7] This isn't unusual and it doesn't need to be mentioned in the article unless it is for considerably longer. Here is a screenshot of the current version of the site, which says "because the site uses CloudFlare's Always Online™ technology you can continue to surf a snapshot of the site."--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The outage is at least 36 hours already and they apparently moved to a new domain again, .ae this time. I suggest updating. Brandmeistertalk 08:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Some caution needed here. Every time TPB goes offline, some people find versions which may be unofficial mirrors. At best these sites are unofficial versions, and at worst they may be malware sites. Much as some people here dislike TorrentFreak, they would be able to confirm whether the .ae (United Arab Emirates) version) is genuine. Numerous media sources believed that the .cr (Costa Rica) version was official in December 2014 and it wasn't.[8]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
That's according to the Science & Technology News website as of yesterday. However, .ae doesn't seem to work right now. Brandmeistertalk 09:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
There are umpteen lookalike sites which are unofficial mirrors. The mainstream media isn't always reliable here. TorrentFreak can get a direct reply from the people at TPB, and at the moment all they are saying is that the site has technical problems.[9]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • It's back at thepiratebay.se. According to TorrentFreak "Update April 18: TPB is back after two days. A big piece of equipment broke, and it took some time to get it replaced."[10] This probably isn't notable enough for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

May 2016[edit]

Feel free to add a sentence or two about the domain now belonging to Sweden. There is no (reliable) source that states that TPB has a new official domain and we are not a link directory.- MrX 11:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
The web page http://www.dn.se/ekonomi/hovratten-piratebayse-ska-agas-av-staten/ is in Swedish, so off to Google Translate for me.[11] The most important part is "Domen har inte vunnit laga kraft och kan komma att överklagas", "The judgment is not final and can be appealed." There is an ongoing battle over this issue, and the court in May 2016 ruled that the domain names Thepiratebay.se and Piratebay.se should be transferred to state ownership. At the time of writing, thepiratebay.se is redirecting to thepiratebay.org and the website is live without any problems. However, this isn't in the source mentioned above. There is some English language coverage on TorrentFreak here, but it doesn't mention .org either.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Lede link[edit]

Editor Concus Cretus is adding a link to the first sentence of the lede to a two paragraph article of questionable use that had no cites at the time the link was added. As the very first link in this article, that would not seem appropriate or useful. Thoughts? Objective3000 (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Create an entry on it at Wiktionary, bring [[BitTorrent index] up for deletion per WP:NOTDIC and WP:SOAP. --Ronz (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
This is a bit annoying. He has reverted again and refused to Talk, or, to be kind, doesn't know how. He is in technical vio of the spirit of 3RR. Someone else should revert. Objective3000 (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
OK. Don't like to do this but, AfD at: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BitTorrent_index. Objective3000 (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Now that there is an AfD that will probably succeed, he has changed the link to an internal link. I've only been here a few years -- but, I can't remember ever seeing an internal link in the first sentence of an article. I don't understand the purpose. Particularly since this is not the history/origin of the site, or is a part of the trial. It is misleading as to history. Objective3000 (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand the purpose. Particularly since this is not the history/origin of the site, or is a part of the trial. It is misleading as to history. I'm not sure I understand at all what you are saying. Can you please indicate relevenat policies/guidelines, sources, sections of this and other articles, etc? Anything that will make it clearer what you mean. --Ronz (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)