Talk:EMule

message: A large part of this article and hitory was removed because it was a copy of some pages on emule-project site. SOmeone needs to write something about the basic concepts how emule works. temp page here: (since temp page on emule seems to be not policy or something like that.) 
User:Leuk_he/eMule  Juli 2006, still relevant!
:now included in article... please fee free to change lines since english is not my first language. :Leuk he 10:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  REWRITE NEEDED 

message: The released a 0.47c hotfix for a KAD bug.  --165.21.155.12 04:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  hotfix 

message: Since it seems that there exists a fair amount of confusion on what should and should not be linked on this article, I'd like to start a discussion on the topic.  I'll begin by stating my opinion on this matter from my understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines.  To quote WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided:
13: Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the article's subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website. For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked from the rock band's Wikipedia article. An alternative site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the rock band, as the rock band has only indirect connections with that site.
From my interpretation of this analogy, I believe that linking to mod sites which have no direct relationship to the eMule project should not be allowed.  The same way that the article on Linux does not act as a portal to its distributions, by only linking to their Wikipedia articles, eMule should not act as a portal to any of its modifiers' sites.Frozen North. 05:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My original reasoning was that this was a portal site but after looking at the site for 2 minutes I found an officially disallowed mod (TK4: added as a bad mod on January 15).  There is now no question in my mind that this site should not be allowed as it promotes clients which harm the eMule network.Frozen North. 19:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: check the thread http://forum.emule-project.net/index.php?showtopic=90032 if the mod is listed on the developer board, the mod is officially allowed.Dresik 23:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [tk4 is not a bad mod. But the site has an other problem i rather solve directly with the maintainers of the site than discussing it here. Instead of adding that link you would better add some description about the different kind of mods there are, why mods exist, Some talk about bad mods/ not recognised mods by e-p.net and after you have done that maybe add a short list of mods. remember also wp:el :Leuk he 09:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: My mistake, I misread a list of unsupported mods as bad mods. Frozen North. 02:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I have yet to hear a reasonable argument against emule-mods.de being considered a portal site that's not officially associated with the eMule project, let alone that the site is in German.  Furthermore, emule-mods.de does not "show all the allowed" mods as you claim, Dresik.  It is not symmetric with the Mods forum on the official website (http://forum.emule-project.net/index.php?showforum=15).  ZZUL and MorphXT for instance are not listed on emule-mods.de but are listed on what appears to be its sister site, kademlia-mods.de.  Why are these lists separate if the sites are owned by the same person?  Regardless, kademlia-mods.de's list proves that emule-mods.de's list of allowed mods is incomplete.  I'll wait a day or two for someone to rebut before I remove the link but I believe I've proven my case.  If this can't be resolved now, I suggest we seek arbitration. Frozen North. 03:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: first of all, title of that link is wrong. It is just a list of some emule mods. The official mods is a topic in official forum. Also note that that site links to MIRRORS of modified archives of those mods. My idea, add this link to Comparison_of_eDonkey_software instead. Other alternatives, add it to the mods section. I prefer a short description of the mods instead on the eMule page.  :Leuk he 07:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your first idea sounds good to me since my main problem with that link is that it's made to sound as though it's some sort of authority on what mods are and aren't allowed.Frozen North. 01:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Alright, since no one has come forward to defend the link's current position and description, I'm going to remove it.  I don't think the site should be linked at all but I'll accept it being readded with an accurate description of the site, preferably as a useful part of the article instead of just a random external link.Frozen North. 07:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Readded to Comparison_of_eDonkey_software. Where it is more relevant. no need to add it here again :Leuk he 09:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: it seems that someone created a page for eMule MorphXT. It could be added to the mod section, but since i am a developer for morphxt i think wiki policy do not allow to add it myself? :Leuk he (talk) 10:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: eMule mod links

message: I think it would do some good to discuss emule's ideological develop(ers/ment). The official emule client imposes certain fixed behaviors that are meant to encourage the sharing of "rare" files. The problem is not in the philosophy, but the approach. For example you cannot control the speed or number of individual upload slots (the client fixes each slot at under 4kb/s, creating more slots to soak up the total upload allotment). You also cannot prioritize uploading chunks of files that are currently downloading, which is what most users understandably want. It's worth mentioning because it's one of the most commonly debated and dubious "features" of the software, and most of the popular mods are written precisely to change this behavior. For example, if there are only one or two sources for a file, having it transferred at 3.5kb/s, plus queue time multiplied by the number of chunks, is NOT conducive to sharing it. However, whenever this issue is brought up in the emule forum, the developers and forum regulars are quite adamant about never changing this functionality in emule, to the point that they are often derisive and smug towards anyone who brings it up. Personally I think it is an ideological, not a practical stance and one that will ultimately damage the long-term viability of the edonkey network. This is because of reality: users will find a way to get what they want. If emule does not allow prioritizing incomplete files, then users will remove completed files from their shared folder so that only current downloads are shared (thus earning credit faster). Or they simply stop using emule and move to BitTorrent or a faster network, taking their files and bandwidth with them. This ultimately damages file sharing through edonkey, because while prioritizing of incomplete files is temporary, the removal of completed files is permanent. In other words, the developers of emule base their design on an ideal model of usage that is not consistent with the real world. This leads to poor download performance for all files, whether popular or rare. (A file with 5 BT seeds/leechers is still going to download faster than the same file with 5 emule sources). The extended file diversity on the other hand, is limited only to small files (because if the file is large and truly rare, it is nigh impossible to complete), and strangely enough, pornographic films (because most torrent sites/trackers won't host porn). So basically, if you are looking for small files or porn, emule is the place to go. Everything else you are better off with BitTorrent. VanishingUser 05:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You really are confusing file shareing with file trading here..  emule is a filesharing application, bittorrent is a file trading applcation. If one starts prioritizong some files some other files will be slower, this will get you not much futher in the end. And emule protocol is better optimized for large files than small files. really.  :Leuk he 21:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Really I've never had a problem with downloading a rare file, large or small on eMule. The reality is, eMule is a lot better then bittorent for rare and uncommon files. Indeed I would say incomplete files on eMule is relatively rare thing, often when it occurs it's because it was a fake file or otherwise extremely unpopular in the first place and the original contributor didn't stick around. On the other hand, unseeded torrents are very common with bittorrent even for something that was relatively popular say about a year ago (let alone something released say 7 years ago). As Leuk he says, eMule is a file sharing, not a file trading application. Each has there uses and confusing the two is a bit silly. Or let me put it another way. I have downloaded I would say literally thousands of files probably average of over 400mb each. Many of these have been old & rare, sometimes with e.g. 3-5 sources. Some even with only 1 or 2 complete sources not on all the time. Nearly all of these have completed eventually. In the extreme case, it may take weeks but they still complete. On the other hand, with bittorent your usually SOL if you find unseeded torrents, except perhaps for registration required trackers were your required to keep a certain ratio and where downloaded are recorded so people can easily request reseeds. Note also the diversity of files even for recent files is often far greater (I'm more referring to various versions of the same thing then different stuff available) Nil Einne (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideological developers/development 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emule#Distinguishing_eMule was marked as a "AD" section by ... Someone with at more NOPV of eMule please rewrite that. But some characteristics why eMule is different from multiprotocol clients like shareaza or torrent client should be explained somewhere it think. :Leuk he 14:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Distinguishing eMule

message: There is no trace in the article of legal status and, of course, future expectations. Could emule get a cease-and-desist letter too from any of the major music organisations in the future? Or was the original eDonkey2000 too vulnerable because it was a real company? -andy 78.51.69.29 (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal expectations! 

message: Someone, please correct the categories. I suppose eMule is a torrent-client, not an IRC-client. --Hybridex (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: --Pot (talk) 10:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error 

message: It should be eMule, not EMule, as the original project name starts with a small, not a capitalized 'e'. Some bot has changed this; shall we change it back?
:Yes --Pot (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  eMule vs EMule 

message: The two clients from VeryCD possess a pretty lot of Chinese users, making them among the most influential eMule Mods. Meanwhile it is really a stuff that VeryCD's name game tricked many Chinese users (some posts at eMule official forum: , ). Anyway, things about VeryCD better be mentioned here in this article. If anyone feel the paragraph about VeryCD improper or not NPOV, edit and improve it but not simply delete it. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  VeryCD 

message: I think that eMule Plus is too short to be on its own, it should rather be merged into eMule TheChampionMan1234 09:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on EMule. 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:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120530/http://www.lextrait.com/Vincent/implementations.html to http://www.lextrait.com/Vincent/implementations.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on EMule. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100720192250/http://www.cnbeta.com/articles/116655.htm to http://www.cnbeta.com/articles/116655.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070218105521/http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/labs/danss/p2p/resources/emule.pdf to http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/labs/danss/p2p/resources/emule.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am not able to find a way to modify the release version and the date, although I got to the Infobox software template (Template:Infobox_software), I see no latest release set in the article source.
Anyway, while the emule team last version is still the 0.50a, the community last edition (mainly with bug fixing and simplifications) is the 0.51d from May 2019. Source: https://github.com/irwir/eMule/releases/ or https://www.emule-project.net/home/perl/general.cgi?l=1&rm=download
--Pier4r (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The Template:Infobox software#Moving release data outside the article explains how it can be set outside the article. I think you are supposed to edit Template:Latest preview software release/eMule. — mwgamera (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release version: Community edition 0.51d May 2019