Talk:List of Tor onion services/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

There is consensus that for at least some onion sites that we should not give a link to the site from the article. At Talk:The Hidden Wiki#Web address field in the infobox I have raised a question about what we should show in the infobox in place of a link in those cases, your views would be welcome there. Thryduulf (talk) 09:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

WP policy: NO UNSOURCED items on lists. either they are a link to an article, or article section, or if no such link, a reliable source indicating the list items existence AND notability (even if not notable enough for an article). redlinks or unlinked items without sources should be removed. Qool Hakkurz dont get a pass on this rule.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

how are Encyclopedia Dramatica and GlobaLeaks Indymedia The New Yorker's Strongbox (wait, they are accessible only through tor, but they are NOT a tor service, or are they?)

tor hidden services? are we now adding any site which can be accessed by using some sort of tor based anomymous service? wouldnt that be everything on the net? the target articles dont mention tor, so why are they here?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Everything on the net can be accessed by Tor, but some sites have set up .onion sites as well (such as those listed). They're functionally no different from the other hidden sites listed as far as I know -- they just aren't "hidden" in the typical sense of the word. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

There is one major difference between normal and .onion sites, when you visit a .onion site your connection is encrypted. Scottr64 (talk) 07:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, not exactly. Then .onion would be the same as https or using a vpn, which it's certainly not. But what's your point? --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have to register my unease with including non-notable websites in a list on Wikipedia. In order to fit with

). For something like lists of websites, that almost always means list items are supposed to have their own Wikipedia article already. The other way to show notability some lists go by is to include sources which show that either the subject could have its own article -- or that it's notable but there's not quite enough information available to develop a stand-alone article (a tricky one because to be notable at all requires some kind of significant coverage in reliable sources). I'm not suggesting anything needs to be removed right now, but we should look for more sources to add (any reliable source that does more than just mention it).

I think if this is the way others want to go, it probably makes sense to include shot descriptions and sources with all of them, not just those without articles. A uniform appearance and it could potentially turn into a really nice list, I think. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites:You may have noticed, I have only included 'list only' items with some decent sources. But having just a couple of decent sources doesn't always make for warranting its own article so I felt this was a nice compromise.

Also, if you're going to add small summaries to the items with their own articles, I'm not sure it's worth adding sources on this page as the sources used on this page should always be cited in more detail on the dedicated page. Adding them in both places creates maintenance work.

I think this is an approach that should be used on

Draft:List of darknet markets

which should then be split from this article.

Deku-shrub (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I added a couple descriptions, but I'll hold off doing anything else until I better understand what you mean.

You're suggesting

draft:list of darknet markets

would include descriptions and sources for all of them, and then for it to be a fork of this list? I don't follow why the descriptions/sources for markets with articles would make sense there but not here.

Aside from the initial time to do so, I don't see a downside to including descriptions/sources for everything, even if they exist at the article. I mean that's the ideal for all lists on Wikipedia, but for the most part it's just not worth it.

Re: "compromise" - I sort of agree, but think that it would be a whole lot better to have at least a second and/or third source for those that don't have articles. (I'm not going to remove them if those don't appear, but there wouldn't be a great argument against anyone who decided to do so). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@

this section on darknet markets would be replaced with See list of darknet markets

once it's complete.

I agree to adding descriptions for everything, but I suggest not using inline sources because of the maintenance commitment that will create. You might have to use 3 sources just to create a 10 word summary for instance. Applicable to items with their own article only.

This page is a good places to incubate as sites go from being notable enough to reliable source, through to notable enough to warrant their own article I feel Deku-shrub (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Which aspect of maintenance are you referring to? Do you mean that if a source is unavailable we have to update two articles? That it would be a hassle to add or replace a source if the description of a site significantly changes for whatever reason? Or that the code required for a citation makes the list messy to work with? I don't see the first two as something that happens frequently enough to be a concern. I agree with the latter as citations are currently done. In fact while I was adding that glut of text for the Free Haven sources, I figured I should pitch the idea of using named refs at the bottom instead (my personal preference for any article). That way instead of

* [[Free Haven]] - A distributed anonymous file storage system that places focus on persistent availability of data. The [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology|MIT]] students' work on the project led to collaboration with [[DARPA]] to develop Tor.<ref name="ieee">{{cite journal | url=http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a527761.pdf | format=PDF | title=Deploying Low-Latency Anonymity: Design Challenges and Social Factors | last1=Dingledine | first1=R. | last2=Mathewson | first2=N. | last3=Syverson | first3=P. | journal=IEEE Security & Privacy | year=2007 | volume=5 | issue=5 | pages=83–87 | doi=10.1109/MSP.2007.108}}</ref><ref name="net working">{{cite book | title=Net Working/Networking: Citizen Initiated Internet Politics | url=http://books.google.com/books?id=29Ucv7BU_DYC&pg=PA267 | publisher=University of Tampere | editor1-first=Tapio | editor1-last=Häyhtiö | editor2-last=Rinne | editor2-first=Jarmo | last=Jordan | first=Tim | chapter=The Politics of Technology: Three Types of 'Hacktivism' | year=2008 | pages=267 | isbn=9789514474644}}</ref><ref name="peertopeer">{{cite book | url=http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9780596001100.do | title=Peer-to-Peer: Harnessing the Power of Disruptive Technologies | publisher=O'Reilly Media | author=Oram, Andy | year=2001}}</ref>

it would be

* [[Free Haven]] - A distributed anonymous file storage system that places focus on persistent availability of data. The [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology|MIT]] students' work on the project led to collaboration with [[DARPA]] to develop Tor.<ref name="ieee"/><ref name="net working"/><ref name="peertopeer"/>

with the ref stuff under the refs heading. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

"Do you mean that if a source is unavailable we have to update two articles...Or that the code required for a citation makes the list messy to work with?" Yes, both of these reasons Deku-shrub (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Does the technique above not assuage concerns for the second? I really don't see the first as a big concern. If It starts happening that this happens on a regular basis, we can change it, but including sources is the ideal for lists and I'm volunteering to add them, so let's just see if it becomes an issue and, if so, I'll fix it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

If I or any editor edits say any of the fully wikified articles to update the site's mission or description, 90% of the time they will not realise that there is an associated list page that will also need updating. As a result I do expect the site descriptions to go out of date over time. When this happens, it should be very easy to update the site descriptions en-mass, without having to either re-source the updated descriptions. Hence my hesitance to source on this page in that situation. If you want to source everything you can, but I have high hopes for this page's maintainability. Deku-shrub (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The statistics graphs extend outside of their boxes. Also, what does "None" mean? There's already an "Other". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Removed temporarily until these can be resolved. Wikitext is hidden in an html comment below this line. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on

for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130602085826/http://btdigg.org/ to https://btdigg.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Social networks as TORbook and BlackBook should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.160.215.12 (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

As part of the migration of "hidden services" to "onion services", I'm going to move this article to "List of Tor onion services". I'll do so in about a week, assuming there are no protests, for the reasons listed in the

) 20:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Done Deku-shrub (talk) 13:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Why Is Hacking Allowed? I mean i am pro at hacking and i don't use my skills for unproper use... I mean i know cracking codes, hacking, coding ( including HTML, And Javascript ), But i mean i don't us hacking for bad reasons.. people can use hacking for the good and prono stuff is bad they should remove the people who do those things. Killershark101 (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

This page is specifically for talking about improving this page. Are you asking why this page lists hacking/pornography websites? If so, it's simply because this page collects all Wikipedia articles about hidden services (if it's notable enough for a Wikipedia article, it's listed here; if that article is deleted, it will be removed from here). If you're just asking why these things are allowed on Tor, that's a different question, and one not really suited for Wikipedia (see

WP:NOTAFORUM). — Rhododendrites ^talk

\\ 18:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect TORCH (search). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Babylon (marketplace). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 2#Babylon (marketplace) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I propose that we remove all defunct entries if they have been defunct for over 60 days -- this will avoid removal because of temporary outages. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Why would we remove defunct sites if they still meet the notability guidelines? —Tga (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Because this is the List of Tor onion services not the List of former Tor onion services. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and we have an article on a List of French monarchs, but no article on List of former French monarchs, what's your point? —Tga (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - this is fundamentally an index of articles about Tor onion services, rather than a user guide of services one can access now. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Orbot and Mastodon have twice been added to this article. They seem to very clearly not belong here, since they are not onion services. You can launch Mastodon instances as onion services (I know that it's documented, I helped implement the feature), and you can access/launch onion services via Orbot, but they're not onion services. Any relation to onion services should be described in

) 16:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree with this. They're software, not sites themselves, and Tor isn't even mentioned in the Mastodon article (not that it matters much in this case). I see Orbot is already included in the Tor navbox, which makes sense. That's what I was going to suggest as an alternative. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Learning hacking 111.125.241.161 (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The problem:

• Many TOR URLs have been removed, ostensibly for "lacking citation", but secondary sources are very much lacking when it comes to TOR.

Secondary sources generally do not list Tor hidden services.

And when they do, they're often outdated, or not the most comprehensive or accurate indexes.

---

The solution (maybe):

the URLs could be cited from an index like skunksworkedp2cg.onion.to/sites.html but the url is blacklisted

Scottr64 (talk) 07:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

---

Just thought I'd open the discussion! --Sgutkind (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Trying to provide information that isn't offered elsewhere -- however useful and well intentioned -- will generally run afoul of several Wikipedia policies. I don't want to be spammy or redundant, so will link to Talk:Index of hidden wikis and Tor hidden service directories where I said basically the same thing in more detail (before reading this talk page). --Rhododendrites (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Why not reference the blog, news article and website. If you go to the website it should redirect you to v3 onion address(if they set it up) Greatder (talk) 06:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I have to say I disagree with breaking the list down with a separate section for "Offline and defunct." Offline is

|  01:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Its just to try the actual .onion address for test purpose. --David Hedlund (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes.

original research. --— Rhododendrites ^talk

|  00:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

As with the template, no talk of this since I posted it more than a week ago, so restoring previous organization. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Carrying this response from my user talk page:

[The reason I changed it]: Because it's a navbox to help people navigate Tor-related subjects, not a guide to using Tor or accessing these sites. The manual of style section on navboxes additionally says that because they're horizontally formatted page elements you should restrict the number of categories/rows (basically that if there's something on a line by itself, there's a problem).

Separating defunct sites into a blanket "historical" section also removes all context the navbox otherwise provides (i.e. what kind of site it is). Other than serving as a guide to Tor, what purpose does separating them as such have? --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  00:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@

|  00:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I see you made these changes. Would you mind doing the same at the Template? I do still think the status shouldn't be given unless it's properly sourced at the main article for that site, but this seems like a good way to go for now. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  00:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites:  Done --David Hedlund (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites:@Tga.D: See this list for example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_Kingdom

All defunct newspapers are in separate section. If you want, we can introduce 2nd and 3rd level heading for defunct services. Greatder (talk) 06:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Greatder: My reasons for opposing a separate section are above. If I were active at the newspaper article, I would have opposed that mechanism of organization there, too. Again, these lists aren't to act as a guide to current services; they're a guide to Wikipedia articles about Tor services. Personally, I don't think we need to have "defunct" markings at all here, but as you can see above it was a compromise. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Whether you find it recentism or not, people see list to find current state of affairs. List of GDP, height, average age is always updating. When a project has been said dead by the project itself or an article we can safely move it to defunct. As time goes on, defunct sites will always increase and clutter everything. Having a Defunct section should be conserve services that are notable while decluttering what people are likely seeing this list for a list of active services. Greatder (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I may have misapplied

WP:OR, so aside from those few which had widely publicized takedowns, we're bound to be inaccurate. Then there are weird cases like Doxbin, which was taken down but is now sort of back up, but it's unclear what the connection is, and it's unclear if our article covers one or both. — Rhododendrites ^talk

\\ 15:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Let's keep this simple if there is absolute certainty it's dead(like cryptocat) let's send it to Defunct section. Otherwise if it's in a superposition say:(state unclear). Service isn't something timeless like book. It's either being provided or not. If it's not provided it's not relevant. An onion service dead from 2006 should in no way be mixed with something that's still alive.

That addresses an inclusion criteria for a separate section which speaks to part of (b) but doesn't address (a). Wikipedia is supposed to indeed be timeless -- it's supposed to be up to date, but the information it contains should be just as relevant to readers in the future as it is now. Just like we don't delete articles on subjects that don't themselves exist anymore, so we don't need to put them in a separate box when listing articles. Again, it's a list of Wikipedia articles, not a guide to current Tor services. The defunct tags already make it clear to readers what is/isn't current. IMO we shouldn't have those, but it seemed like an acceptable compromise at the time. You're welcome to pursue

WP:RFC, but I would be very surprised if there were consensus to remove items from the topic/type-based organization just to add them to a catch-all "defunct" list -- and then, not even all of the defunct ones, but all of the ones that are obviously defunct per reliable sourcing. — Rhododendrites ^talk

\\ 16:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Hell (forum) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 16#Hell (forum) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ZFT (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't have access to 2nd and 3rd reference. Can someone verify if Free Haven ever had an onion service? Greatder (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)