Talk:Comparison of BitTorrent tracker software

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 17 April 2009 by reviewer MSGJ (talk · contribs).

Software: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

AfC discussion[edit]

I'm placing this on hold for clarification on a few things. First of all, BNBT, xbtt, and MonoTorrent already have their own articles, but if this is meant to be a "List" article, that doesn't preclude an article which mentions them as such. However, we already have the article List of BitTorrent clients, can't the below info simply be added to that article? If not, and you feel this should be a separate "List of" article, it needs improvements in the way of third-party sourcing to provide notability requirements. (You can reply to my questions directly under my comment, using the {{Afc comment|Reason}} template. Thanks.) Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 03:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Bittorrent Trackers and clients are two separate things. I really think it should have a listing just like the clients and be linked to from the Bittorrent page. I'll work on getting some more sources. What kinds of things would be reputable for a list like this? Thanks.

I have no problem with creating a list like this, however there are problems with this one.

There should be no external links in the body of the article. Therefore every link should be an internal Wikipedia link (wikilink) using [[ and ]].
It does need reliable sources to verify the information. The source you have provided is a wiki, and thus counted as not reliable.

Once improved you can accept it yourself, as you seem to have an account now! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may take a little bit but I'm going to try to fix this page up and resubmit it later when it's ready. Firefly2442 (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time, there's no hurry :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IPv6 Support[edit]

One of the most important considerations at this time is the support for IPV6 on the tracker, both their ability to receive calls under ipv6, as well as keeping track of clients that are using ipv6. If there is an agreement on that, then I would suggest that an IPV6 support column is added to the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.249.114.206 (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trackers to Add/Modify[edit]

There is also Gazelle actually a very popular tracker software written in C++ with backend used by What.CD, PassthePopcorn and many other Private Trackers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.182.72.64 (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find much information on this tracker. Is there a central development site somewhere? Firefly2442 (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gazelle isn't a tracker, its an indexing piece of software. Most Gazelle run sites have XBTT as the tracker. --Adam Gibbins (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While "Gazelle" is usually called "tracker" software, it's actually more along the lines of a frontend for a tracker. IIRC, the actual "tracker" software that's developed alongside Gazelle is called "Ocelot", and it's developed specifically with What.CD's exceptionally high and unique traffic in mind. -Wohdin (talk) 06:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason these aren't listed? http://sourceforge.net/projects/tbsource/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/torrentbits/ Would also like info as to what projects are actually still active and what solution to use... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.120.73.23 (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The BitTornado tracker is currently missing in the list http://www.bittornado.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultragen (talk • contribs) 08:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

De-Orphaning[edit]

Hello, This page is an orphan. I was wondering maybe we can convert it to a comparison page for torrent trackers and their features? That way we can make it highly useful and pull it out of orphan status. JMM|Whatup!? 04:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about this myself. I'd been waiting to rename it and link it into some of the templates since it was still being worked on. It's already a comparison article although it could certainly use some expansion. Tothwolf (talk) 04:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to add the page to some of the other related pages and now I declare this page deorphaned based on WP:WikiProject_Orphanage#Criteria, that much I could do. JMM|Whatup!? 04:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename[edit]

BitTorrent tracker software → Comparison of BitTorrent tracker software — List of BT clients used to be called Comparison of BT software and was comparison of BT software before an admin came around and decided that the title didn't follow naming convention and changed it. There's currently a proposal to revert the name to Comparison of BT software, and that page already has mentions of trackers for clients, so it shouldn't be too hard to create a new section for trackers, like how there is one for libraries. I'm proposing that this list be merged into the soon to be reverted Comparison of BT software page. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already stated on the other talk page, such a merger would make absolutely no sense whatsoever. This comparison article covers tracker server software. Merging this into the client software article would limit this article's growth. (Note, this should have gone on the other talk page, not here) Tothwolf (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a courtesy notice for anyone editing this page......now what was that renaming proposal you mentioned for this page? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 20:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already renamed. The only reason I initially waited is the article was undergoing lots of editing. Tothwolf (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

biased content?[edit]

why the page contain only tracker software for public software but not any for private software, for example NexusPHP ? C933103 (talk) 09:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not biased, just limited to what trackers have Wikipedia articles about them. If you think NexusPHP should be listed, you're welcomed to write the article. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

cbtt[edit]

openwrt using cbtt

https://dev.openwrt.org/browser/packages/net/cbtt/Makefile

home page http://bnbtusermods.sourceforge.net/

should I add it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:28:6ED:E109:17BB:F9D6:B4CD (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comparison of BitTorrent tracker software. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20090513020931/http://www.utorrent.com:80/faq/features to http://www.utorrent.com/faq/features#faq15

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]