Talk:Shareaza: Difference between revisions
→"Domain transfer" will not catch attention: new section |
|||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
: Most of the references we have are unreliable (they're forum posts, or news blog posts), and they're used unevenly. Surely a site like CNet has done a Shareaza review? Maybe a bigger news site has covered it? The references are adequate for a B-class article, but we should be looking to significantly improve them in future. [[User:Thumperward|Chris Cunningham]] ([[User talk:Thumperward|talk]]) 11:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
: Most of the references we have are unreliable (they're forum posts, or news blog posts), and they're used unevenly. Surely a site like CNet has done a Shareaza review? Maybe a bigger news site has covered it? The references are adequate for a B-class article, but we should be looking to significantly improve them in future. [[User:Thumperward|Chris Cunningham]] ([[User talk:Thumperward|talk]]) 11:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
||
:: CNet is quite a bit paranoid. They only use real people to get their references from. And I don't see why a big site would report about this? If they would, they would get the wind back from anti-piracy organizations... Only P2P and tech sites report about this.. [[User:Neglacio|Neglacio]] ([[User talk:Neglacio|talk]]) 23:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== "Domain transfer" will not catch attention == |
== "Domain transfer" will not catch attention == |
||
Revision as of 23:12, 18 January 2008
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Shareaza article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
 | Computing B‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Amateurish notices, again
So now the infobox has a big superscript in it claiming "illegality" andother nonsense. The removal of this was recently reverted becuase it had been "discussed" - it certainly was discussed, but the outcome was not permission to turn this into a file sharing news blog. I'm going to remove this again, because the issue is covered adequately already. Chris Cunningham (talk) 10:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with you. I do everything I can for Shareaza, but do not f*ck up the layout. They would be to read it in the article itself. Neglacio (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
References
I don't see why there would be a need for more references. Can someone clear this out? Neglacio (talk) 11:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Most of the references we have are unreliable (they're forum posts, or news blog posts), and they're used unevenly. Surely a site like CNet has done a Shareaza review? Maybe a bigger news site has covered it? The references are adequate for a B-class article, but we should be looking to significantly improve them in future. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- CNet is quite a bit paranoid. They only use real people to get their references from. And I don't see why a big site would report about this? If they would, they would get the wind back from anti-piracy organizations... Only P2P and tech sites report about this.. Neglacio (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
"Domain transfer" will not catch attention
The Shareaza v4 issue is quite a big problem, and it would be good for people who come by here to take note of the issue. I see it is in fact covered in the current version, however it is present in a manner that might lead to quick-lookers to overlook the problem. "Domain transfer" doesn't directly hint at the problem. A change of that heading or a bolded word in that section would be enough to make it a more relevant section. However I'm going to add a little to the introductory text since the problem is large scale and ongoing, though I expect it to be reverted or edited out since that's how things work. --67.165.251.114 (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)