Talk:List of warez groups

This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep.

What other groups should be added and why?

Any sources quoted would be useful. Rich Farmbrough 00:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in the VfD going on at the moment -- here. You can read and add to the discussion there — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 18:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should the list be broken up

Maybe by group, and listed in aprox. order of formation. Rich Farmbrough 00:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that the format is fine ,but we should only keep groups with either articles here or a notable source. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 18:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Table vs. list

I suggest we get rid of the tables, see Wikipedia:Tables#When_tables_are_inappropriate. Does anyone have any opinions about this? bbx 04:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The table was done for a simple reason... easier to spot the vandals... most vandals suck at wikicode and would corrupt the table. I have no problem with the table format going away, but it means someone is going to have to spend more time on vandal patrol. ALKIVAR™

04:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised nobody noticed an edit by someone called Goatse.sx c'mon guys. If you make it a list I'll watch it. It makes it a lot better. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 05:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i have now removed the table and replaced it with a simpler list. I'm not sure about the layout, maybe it's possible to make it prettier? bbx 07:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks much more manageable now. Thanks, bbx. —RaD Man (talk) 02:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Write

I'm proposing a re-write are List of warez groups/Temp. Only notable groups. Criteria: Must have either an article here or a notable source link (subject to debate). — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 05:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If its going to be only groups that are on here, then you might as well stick to our already existing category. The whole point was to include other groups that did not yet have articles. ALKIVAR™

15:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't want to list every single newbie group out there, so I want some standard of notability. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO, you don't know any group, so you can't possibly list any newbie group. 128.100.31.201 17:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...right. So, any suggestions for objective standards of notability. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 23:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A news article where the group in question is the primary focus or one of the main foci of the article, in a mainstream newspaper, and the group is mentioned by name. This should be cited in the article, and any group which is added without a citation should be removed. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well we sorta do have a reasonable standard to follow... the Computer Underground Notability Test. ALKIVAR™

03:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We should combine them both. Just article-based stuff would limit it too much. Interesting acronym.. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

styling

There's still more cleaning to do. I'm considering of separating the historical groups to:

pre-pc groups, such as commodore/amiga groups
early-pc era groups/groups that are more than 10 years old
other groups with mentionable achievements, first cractro, nfo, etc...

Active groups, some groups might be under wrong categories, and there might be some already retired groups mixed still among them.

For adding new active groups, I suggest rule of atleast 100 releases, which should be verifiable from some dupecheck. That should stop the "never-heard-before,never-seen-in-dupes"-group spam.

Perhaps separate categories under movies for DVDR and XViD groups?

S33k3r 15:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

dupecheck? all i know is what i see on nforce. ;)

i also agree with the 100+ releases... even i can't verify any of this :(

and dvdr/xvid groups could be a bit difficult to keep track of. how about a table with asteriks as to what scenes the groups participate in? ie mVz in MV scene + DVDR + somethingelse, i can't remember. same with TWC...

Plonk420 08:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft uses pirated tools?

[1] Can someone please source this? And which sounds? —RaD Man (talk) 07:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... OK. There we go. Excellent. —RaD Man (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism on Alkivar

see Talk:Warez#Criticism on Alkivar for original post and my reply. ALKIVAR™ 19:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Warez - I was involved in the illegal transfer of copyrighted software for a good 15 years."

"uNITED cRACKING fORCE - a cracking group I was a member of for 5 years."

"aPOCALYPSE pRODUCTION cREW - a music piracy group I was in for a few years"

- courtesy of ALKIVAR's home page. ZenDude 17:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Categories of the warez groups

Personally I think some of the categories used for the groups are a bit off. If you were to break it down into detail for the PC software scene you would have the following.

For games there are floppy, CD-RIP, ISO

Then you have cracking groups which just release cracks, patches and serial generators but don't package it with the actual software its designed to break.

And then finally you have application/utility groups which release the application and include a crack, gen or even just a serial number.

It was not often that groups dabbled outside their specialised area, rather they often created a new spin-off group to handle the miscellaneous releases they might have. For example

INC created INC Utility Division for their apps Razor 1911 for the PC was a originally floppy game group, it created ROM 1911 and later RazorCD to handle cd-rips. Then when the floppy scene died, RazorCD reclaimed the title Razor 1911. Years later RazorISO would again spin off from Razor 1911 for ISO releases. TDU-Jam was the cd-rip division of the floppy group Genesis Hybrid was the cd-rip division of the floppy group Eclipse The recent Fairlight (ISO) used to release cd-rips in the mid-90's under the name ROM-light. ROM-light again was a spin-off from the earlier Fairlight PC floppy group that used to be around in the early nineties.

I believe the following categories are incorrect ..

"Applications and 0day groups" .. 0day was a term created in the BBS days to say how quicky the site obtained the releases after they were released by the pirate groups. Applying this term to release groups is a bit of a misconstruction, because in reality the good groups will always get the title (at the very latest!) on the same day as its shop release date. If there is a delay with the release then it is usually a cracking related problem rather then a supply problem.

"Application (ISO) groups" .. you might as well remove the ISO part unless you are going to divide it up into Application (ISO) and Application (RIP). Because during the 1990's nearly of the application releases were rips rather then ISO images.

It might be more clearer if you just divided the apps into three sections .. Cracking, Application (rip), Application (iso) as they are three distinctly different types of release groups. Or if that is too segregated then maybe just use Cracking & Application .. because there needs a clearer distinction between cracking groups and pirate groups imho.

Also here are some corrections I think need to be done within the list..

The Humble Guys (THG)

This is not an active group and hasnt been for a decade.. needs to be moved to historical

United Software Association (USA)

Was a games group not a 'Application (ISO) groups', needs to be moved to historical --Ipggi 03:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you here, Ipggi! Some of us have taken a break from Wikipedia for a while, but you are welcome to be bold and make any changes you deem necessary. —RaD Man (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD result

This article was nominated for deletion on September 23, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

— JIP | Talk 17:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]