Talk:Vuze

message: :I'm going to try and start this again. @The Banner, I also agree that information about this should be added. In fact, I think that the sources above even meet significant coverage; I'm counting at least 5 articles that go in depth. Sure it could use some better writing and some of the details are cruft, but as a matter of principle we definitely should include this.There can be a very simple reason that Andrej tried to add this other than bad-faith imaginations: he uses it and is a fanboy, duh. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, what do you mean? The Banner talk 14:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Which part? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Your whole edit. Not a clue where you are referring too. Specific packages? The Banner talk 16:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Where the heck did I say package?TL;DR I believe that the amount of coverage BiglyBT has warrants a paragraph here, and perhaps even an article. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes. Another round of BiglyBT. Good luck. The Banner talk 11:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take that as a go-ahead for working on a draft to include into this article first. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: BiglyBT is not a Vuze project, so it does not belong  here. Write it as a draft for a new article. My advice is to click on the link BiglyBT and see how much the article is protected due to spamming and disruptive editing. The Banner talk 00:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody said that you can't include notable forks under their parent articles. Just look at Terraform (software). Notability and worthiness can change, and the events in 2020 definitely make this worthy enough of inclusion if it wasn't already; which is why I tried to discuss here first. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. The Banner talk 09:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Then what policy do you base yours on? Aaron Liu (talk) 11:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOTPROMO. The Banner talk 14:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: How are we writing unverifiable puffery here? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: My advice is that you write a a draft and submit that for inclusion. The history of BiglyBT & Wikipedia is rough and complicated enough that it is better to follow the high road. The Banner talk 15:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not want this to be a separate article, as I don't think it has sufficient notability to warrant an independent article. But there is enough weight for coverage in this article, and the only reasons I see against including this are your vehement opposition plus past proponents not knowing how to argue. resulting in sanctions on the latter for the good reason of being unproductive. So, could you tell me why you're that opposed to including BiglyBT in this article? Aaron Liu (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: BiglyBT is not a Vuze-project, so it does not belong in this article. The Banner talk 17:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no guideline that states that articles must only contain information on the subject itself, and I see no reason to argue for that. Also, here's an example that has been reviewed: OpenOffice.org was reviewed at FAC. Despite its entire section dedicated to forks, no complaints were made because of that; instead, it was declined due to awkward prose (and a place where citations weren't bundled). So, yes, there is precedent to include notable forks. Not to mention that BiglyBT is arguably an Azureus project as its creators were active developers of the latter.I sincerely doubt that other editors would agree with you. As we seem to have reached an irreconcilable point, I have listed this at WP:3O. The diff I intend to introduce is Special:Diff/1223559975. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You are predictable. The Banner talk 20:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

text:  3O Response: , I think you're having a knee-jerk reaction to the information  is trying to include because of the history of spammers associated with it. What is relevant for inclusion in an article is based primarily on what reliable sources have to say about it. Aaron Liu has presented several independent sources that cover Vuze and BiglyBT in the same breath. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 20:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I advised mr. Liu to write a draft for a separate article about BiglyBT. He refused that, stating that the package is not notable enough for an own article. If it is not notable, why should you add the info to another article as it is still not notable? The Banner talk 21:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability applies to the topics of articles, not all the information inside them. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 21:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

text: It may be borderline notable, but due to what little information there is, I doubt that merging wouldn't be better. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any more sources that states it use by the public, more recent than 2020? I would love to see if it garners more use than the 0.3% in the Torrentfreak list. The Banner talk 21:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find any sources newer than TorrentFreak's on torrent client market share, but 0.3% is already pretty big and notability isn't temporary anyway. Something of note is that Vuze isn't even reported by their <0.1% mentions. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: True, notability is not temporary. And please note that BiglyBT was removed in the past as being not notable, despite the 0.3 percent market share. The Banner talk 10:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, nobody else has ever removed it other than you. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: So you ignore the history of the BiglyBT-article and now invent a consensus. The Banner talk 11:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the history of sanctions is due to previous proponents not discussing, your opposition, and less notability back in 2017.You also haven't came up with more unaddressed arguments in opposition since 3O, so I think this is a rough consensus. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I call it spamming of a non-notable package with very limited usage on top of that. You offered no new sources to back up the notability. The Banner talk 14:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 0.3% is not "very limited usage". It's a lot. Even if you somehow manage to ignore the fact that it's the tenth most popular, . That is not "very limited usage at all".You have not demonstrated why 9 reliable sources that cover BiglyBT is not enough for inclusion, not to mention that the Neowin one was new. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 0.3% is limited use, despite your claim. No matter what, 99.7% was using another package. The Banner talk 15:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, I'm sure no one else agrees with this reasoning, which also doesn't change the existence of the nine sources. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but you sound like the marketing department... The Banner talk 16:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: And you sound like Hulk. Cheerio. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

text: I agree with that reasoning. 0.3% is limited use. MrOllie (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, it's nice that we can progress in this discussion.While it would have more of a claim to inclusion if it were a biggest percentage, first and foremost, I do not see how our own interpretation of their market share has any bearing on Wikipedia guidelines and how we have 9 great sources that support inclusion and establish weight. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are 9 great sources, why isn't there a stand alone article? MrOllie (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there isn't enough material for a standalone article, 4 of these cover the same event, and 1 only mentions it in 2 sentences, but due weight isn't necessarily precluded by non-notability, and I believe that these sources establish due weight.About the percentage, maybe the problem is that I'm a person who likes to think "this can save $1 billion from the US debt" instead of "this only saves less than 0.1% from the US debt". Aaron Liu (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

text: As Aaron Liu has  pointed out to you, you have not presented any reason why the sources presented don't demonstrate due weight. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 16:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That's reversing the burden of proof. As WP:ONUS says, "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." MrOllie (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This is different from ONUS, as we've already provided our proof, yet there has been no argument made against it save "they got 10th most used with only 0.3%", which doesn't seem very compelling, policy-based or principle-related. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: ONUS is about consensus, not 'proof', and you pretty clearly do not have it. MrOllie (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus is based on arguments made and to the extent Wikipedia policies and guidelines align with them, and the market share of the client has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 21:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That matters for formally closed processes like AFDs and RFCs, but you will find that in other sorts of discussions you can't just tell someone you think that their argument is bad and then claim consensus. MrOllie (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Okay, I expected that ONUS was a synonym for BURDEN. Apparently that's not the case. Thanks.I believe that the modern, covered continuation driven by two original developers of this dead project really warrants inclusion. This is a similar situation to the relationship between OOo and LibreOffice, and IMO not including it would be doing knowledge a great disservice. Also, what do you think about being the first client to implement BitTorrentv2? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO irrelevant and spam. But that would be no surprise. The Banner talk 14:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

text:  And what are your arguments against the fact that it is the current, working continuation, and how Vuze doesn't even appear in the usage ranking anymore? Aaron Liu (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You are the one promoting BiglyBT, not me. The Banner talk 09:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Your only arguments are that 1. It's not called Vuze and 2. I want to add BiglyBT? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

text: @MrOllieI wonder what your own opinion about this is? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: My own opinion is that a mention of a sentence or two might be warranted, but what is presently in the article drifts off topic. This is the article about Vuze, not 'Vuze and its forks'. Any discussion should be tightly limited to how the fork relates to its parent. The current version of the article goes beyond that. MrOllie (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much every piece of notable software with significant forks has a section about the fork. For example Debian#Forks and derivatives (a good, peer-reviewed article!) and OpenOffice.org#Forks and derivative software. Per Wikipedia:Merging#Reasons for merging, . Therefore, I feel like notable/significant forks are related enough to the topic here. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are examples where the forks and derivatives are essential for understanding the impact of the original project. That is not the case here. MrOllie (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how LibreOffice is more essential to understand the impact. Could you explain? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You're comparing major projects which spawned a whole ecosystem of forks and derivatives, some of which (like LibreOffice) have more active users than all the bittorrent clients put together - with a project that has one fork that has a tiny market share. MrOllie (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. There's also Hudson (software) and Terraform (software), but these are both start-class; DOSBox is GA, but it only has a sentence for each fork, and the forks aren't as significant in this case either. I will check back later today to see if I can find nominal market share data. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

text: What you are doing is run up al kind of side tracks to avoid answering the real issues. In my humble opinion: WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. The Banner talk 14:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: And what, exactly, is the real issue? Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 14:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Lack of notability and promo. The Banner talk 15:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: How do we have a lack of notability? How do we have promotional language? Aaron Liu (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

text: While Ollie has been discussing with a lot of good points, I believe that you're doing here may constitute Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not so much stonewalling, as you notice it is still in the article. But I challenge the usefulness of this addition. Fact is that there is no article BiglyBT to prove its notability beyond doubt. A prior redirect to a section is also removed. Plus you have no sources beyond 2020, when a source stated that 99,7% of BitTorrent users was using another program proving that it is limited in use. The Banner talk 15:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

text:   because you removed the section, duh.How does the fact that it was from 2020 have any bearing on all of this? If you really want it, here's coverage from late 2021, but I think our current coverage is already enough.You can't just zoom in on everything a source does not say. The fact is that torrent clients' competition are niche (save muTorrent), and you should not ignore that this is top-ten, has 75k connections, and was the first client to implement v2. You could be making the same argument for every competitor except muTorrent.Also, not reverting does not preclude stonewalling. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Are there any objections to redirecting BiglyBT to this page? I haven't been following this discussion, but glancing over it I get the impression that 2 users support inclusion of BiglyBT here, and two are against? It's certainly not notable enough to warrant a standalone article, but a redirect is appropriate as long as it's at least mentioned here. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_January_9#BiglyBT. The Banner talk 21:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: So TL;DR: the existence of the redirect hinges on whether BiglyBT material is accepted into this article. Back then, 4 of the sources we have here did not exist. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It has more to do with the link being salted due to multiple recreations, so a redirect (or article) is not possible at this moment. The Banner talk 22:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I may have forgotten to disclose that, but I contacted Jamie's talk page to have it unsalted before Ollie commented, as  is the last person to salt the page. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: May 2024