The "Prominent sites" section is a bit patchy ..?

• LokiTorrent - is dead whilst notable is no longer current?
• Suprnova.org - is also dead...
• The Pirate Bay - is alive and notable Alexa Ranking 292
• AnimeSuki - Alexa Ranking 2330
• Demonoid - Alexa Ranking 397
• Mininova - Alexa Ranking 143
• isoHunt - Alexa Ranking 306
• TorrentSpy - Alexa Ranking 211
• Empornium - Alexa Ranking 1536

So 2 are dead but notable

5 are alive, well known and popular

and 2 are not very popular (Alexa Rankings below 1500) and are not notable AnimeSuki only has references to itself and to Anime news sites not to any "Reliable Publication" ? Enpornium has no references at all ....? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JasterMereel (talk • contribs) 14:08, 27 June 2007

Should we add Opera to these? It is popular as a browser and has a built-in support (ok, at that moment it has really rare options, but for normal users, who doesn't want to install an extra program and have no experiences in the p2p/file-shaaring, it is great) or am i wrong in any point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.211.230.128 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

no, if we do that we will have to add every single bittorrent program and every web browser that can download torrents--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 22:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I say we do add every single bittorrent program, or at least the considerably large ones like LimeWire and Opera. For the sake of common knowledge! 145.103.58.211 (talk) 10:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

limewire and frostwire yes, but dont add firefox and other Internet bowsers--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 23:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do we really need LimeWire in the list of of BitTorrent clients? It is really a Gnutella client with BitTorrent support tacked on as an afterthought. Removing it for now. Feel free to flame/re-add Redconverse (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do we want to keep raided/non-operating sites (OiNK, Demonoid etc.) in the box? Some users are removing these and others adding them again and basically this is going to turn into an edit-war if an official community stance is not developed. I propose that either we keep both active and non active sites in the same part of the box or create an extra row for non-active but still very notable sites. I do not think that these sites should be removed as Raids etc. are currently a large part of the BitTorrent community and removing them (to me) makes absolutely no sense. bobbo (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. I'm adding OiNK again. -- memset (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe we can mark dead pages in italics? mabdul 0=* 20:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, but Frostwire is a P2P sharing client and you can access .TORRENT files by finding the URL (mininova, isoHunt, e.t.c). I'm going to add it, but feel free to remove it if I'm wrong. 1bevingtonco (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know who did it, but now, only BitTorrent Inc. Clients are there, clearly product placement, please revert the other major clients back in the infobox under client for Bittorrent. It was probably done to remove clutter, but seriously, all you have are Bittorent and Bittorrent, kinda promoting one product too much. At least have the Major/notable clients on it. I added some back in from history (didn't see if the links were vandalized though), Add things in or take them out at your will, but please, don't make it Bittorrent (original client) and Bittrorrent (comparison table) again. Noian (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC) Edit:no longer a issue for me, resolved long ago, sorry for not crossing it out earlier. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 18:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi noian, I'm very happy that you are helping to improve the bt articles. but why on earth did we need two links to the comparison and why did you move the link to "bittorrent client"?mabdul 0=* 02:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Um...did you look at the date I typed this? I already fixed the clients messed up issue I presented, as there's only one link to comparison now, and some other clients are there. I don't see any repetition. Also, client link in header was removed because its under technology already. I felt there wasn't a need for repetition. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 18:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should had looked at the dates to: you edit and removed the comarison link and the link in the first column. then I asked why did you do this? why not keeping the client-links in the first column and the comparison link in the header like in many other templates?mabdul 0=* 20:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I felt that since this was bittorrent in general, comparison was sort of vague as it could have been comparison of protocol, of clients, of sites, etc. and therefore didn't completely fit for comparison of clients. Although if you disagree, feel free to change it back, I really don't care. Also, I removed the clients because there already is a link to clients under Technology, and I didn't get why we needed two links when none of the other headers were wikified. Again, feel free to revert, only trying to improve. I'm busy making a flash presentation for school right now anyway. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, the comparison link may realy confusing some people. and the technology link were added later. so I think I will revert the technology - client link and bring back the old link! mabdul 0=* 12:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does it deserve its own section? I really don't know personally, only that TF has mentioned it (although TF often mentions obscure software partly ad/promoting that isn't ness. actually notable)ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to propose the addition of Bitgle, a metasearch engine that is growing very fast. It implements a Google custom search engine, it's very clean and gives great results. Thanks, Merry Xtmas! --Torrentler (talk) 11:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why is this a template and not an infobox? --BozMo talk 21:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

why not? *confused* where is the difference: navigation box/info box? mabdul 0=* 22:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a general question, Idk. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This template is getting large now, here's some suggestions to clean it up a little:

1. Separate row for defunct websites/services.
2. Removal of non-notable clients, using Usage share of BitTorrent clients and the sources on its talk page as a guideline.
3. Putting uTorrent beside the official client as the bittorrent company is now using that as it's client.
4. Merging metasearch and search engines in to 1 row.
5. Deleting non-notable articles, the following appear to currently fail notability guidelines:
   1. FlixFlux
   2. OpenBitTorrent
   3. Torrentz
   4. BTJunkie
   5. myBittorrent
   6. Seedpeer
   7. ShareReactor

--Otterathome (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest adding Tixati to the client list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.226.53.32 (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The BitTorrent portal was recently deleted. I've removed the red link from the template. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]