Talk:Torch (web browser)

Reviews vs Reliable Sources
The "blog herald" isn't a regular publisher (any more than Wordpress is...). The reviewer (look at his other articles) is not a knowledgeable reviewer of the topic, either. The CNET review doesn't help either. No notability established so far TEDickey (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * To establish notability we need coverage of the subject in independent third party refs that are reliable sources, in other words not self-published sources, but sources with editorial oversight. The Blog-Herald seems to have an editorial oversight, as does CNET, Neowin, Softonic and TechSpot, the cited sources. I would have been the first one to CSD this article as spam if it didn't clearly have write-ups in independent news sources with editorial oversight. - Ahunt (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The "editorial oversight" is 3 guys that run a website, with no clues what criteria they use for allowing submissions. I wouldn't use that site for anything worth mentioning, but this is Wikipedia (itself not a reliable source for anything). Still doesn't meet the guidelines in WP:RS since there's no evidence of "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" TEDickey (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Blog-Herald, by the way, has a page asserting this type of credential. But it lacks citations in turn (and googling found only self-references).  Nothing that would be useful in promoting it as a WP:RS.  Perhaps someone can scrape one up. TEDickey (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It occurred to me to check if there's a Wikipedia topic for the Blog-Herald (doesn't appear to be one). Most interesting publisher-sources are well-represented with their own topics TEDickey (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well I would suggest that if you don't think any of the refs establish notability and you can't find any that do that you should nominate the article for WP:CSD or WP:AFD. - Ahunt (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * At the moment I'm waiting to see if the topic's creator(s) can find useful sources. They're likely to be most motivated TEDickey (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

This entry reads like ad copy for a browser whose company is using Wikipedia to promote it.69.244.155.82 (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Read the CNET review included in the article - it is pretty negative about the browser. I think that adds sufficient balance to indicate that this is not a promotional article. - Ahunt (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I am here today because I saw an ad for this software. The advertisement was misleading: twice it employed the visual appearance of messages from my browser and operating system. I read what I could about the product and determined that it is crap designed to get something valuable from the users. I can't determine what it is they want: money or information, but I repeat my conclusion: this is a scam. Furthermore, they are apparently violating the Open Source licence of Chromium. Wikipedians, please do something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.37.85 (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * We need references from reliable sources to add information to the article. If you can point out reliable sources that back what you are saying then this can be added. If not, then it can't. I should point out that Chromium is under a BSD licence that allows the code to be for anything with very few restrictions. It isn't like the GNU Public Licence. - Ahunt (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's also my question: What is the business model of torch, how do they make money? (at least enough to sustain their expenses) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.186.113.241 (talk) 02:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * As I noted above, we can answer that question only if we can find reliable refs that address it. If you find any then you can add them to the article or post them here and I'll add them to the article. - Ahunt (talk) 11:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Highly suspicious...
Something rather fishy about the article - not to mention the actual browser itself. Various tech writers om the web are starting to question the browser, and the possible existence of some kind of spyware in it... Uses fake pop up ads to trick people into downloading it / comes without an uninstaller / experts are talking of negative issues with it. Article has issues too / ...seriously need to be looked at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.84.202 (talk) 05:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Without a reliable source there's nothing to discuss TEDickey (talk) 12:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Very suspicious of this browser. Perhaps it's a completely legit browser but I caught this malware trying to install it....

Win32/KipodToolsCby Category: Browser Modifier Description: This program changes various Web browser settings without adequate consent. Recommended action: Remove this software immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.189.244 (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Social media links in external links
I have twice removed these, and explained in edit summaries, and on the talk page of the IP user, that WP:ELNO point #10, and ELNO which explains that "Normally, only one official link is included." contraindicate that these are necessary, or desirable.

I won't remove them again (I'm old-fashioned about revert warring), so I'll just leave this note here to let other article editors decide what to do. Thanks. Begoon &thinsp; talk 14:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * From the looks of the pages, all three links are predominantly promotional, with few solid facts to justify their inclusion. Pick any one, and ignore the others. TEDickey (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that was my feeling, and I was hoping the IP might self revert, once I'd explained - but I see they've been blocked in the meantime for edit warring/socking, so I'll make the change again myself and link to this discussion in case they want to discuss further. Thanks. Begoon &thinsp; talk  17:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ - In the end, I just removed the redundant external links section, since the "official" website is in the infobox, and that seems sufficient. Begoon &thinsp; talk  18:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Works with Windows Vista
I am certainly not as technically proficient as the article editors here, but tonight when I was trying to figure out what source code (Chromium) that Torch is based on, I read the WP article and found what seems to be an error. In the Infobox regaring "Operating system," it notes that Windows XP SP2 and later are supported, but Vista is not supported. I use Vista and Torch works just fine with my system. Maybe that is not what is meant by "Operating system" in the Infobox, but in case that is an error, I wanted to let the more technically proficient editors know. Thank you for this article, it was very helpful and useful. Taram (talk) 07:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reporting that. However, please see http://support.torchbrowser.com/Knowledgebase/Article/View/12/0/which-operating-systems-support-torch, which states: "Which Operating Systems support Torch? To use Torch, it is recommended that you use the following system requirements: Windows OS: XP with Service Pack 2+, Win7, Win8 (Vista is not supported) 700 MB of free disk space" This is the official list of operating systems, and is what the article uses.
 * Of course, it may work in other scenarios, as you have experienced. We can't, unfortunately, add that to the article, sourced to your personal experience, since that would be original research. What would be needed is a reliable source which commented on this, which could be used to support such a statement. Thanks. Begoon &thinsp; talk  07:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Begoon &thinsp; talk  !  Taram (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. If you do come across a good, reliable source, and you still don't want to add it yourself, feel free to link the source back here, and someone can help add it for you. Begoon &thinsp; talk  15:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)