Talk:TheForce.Net

message: There should be more information on the forums itself as it is one of the odlest and largest forums on the Internet.
Anyone here a member? You probably know me best as -Courtney- the Watcher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.232.75 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 22 February 2007
:I'm not so sure. The site's notable, but I don't think the boards are. Besides, knowing the JC, this article will quickly be filled up with board history, random trivia, and other non-notable information that would belong more in a thread in the JCC rather than an encyclopedia. Kolindigo 16:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was filled up with trivia when the JC had it's own page about a year or so ago. And yes, I am a member, find me there under the same name as well as on the Wook. Katana Geldar 11:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: JC Forums

message: I don't understand all the comments in the deletion discussion saying that this article meets WP:WEB. The article does not contain any references to meet the criteria. -- Barrylb 09:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't take a position on whether it does. However, WP:WEB is a guideline. As such, the difference between guidelines and policies may be helpful in explaining some of the votes. Essentially, guidelines are more flexible.--Chaser T 10:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand people saying that it is notable despite WP:WEB but the comments that it meets WP:WEB are just plain wrong. -- Barrylb 10:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be your opinion, but that doesn't make it correct. TheRealFennShysa 14:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not given a reason. -- Barrylb 01:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Barry, I think notability of this site was decided by the community pretty clearly in AfD (otherwise, I wouldn't have closed it). While I took no position then as to whether the site met the guideline WP:WEB, I take one now. I have supplied a half-dozen links (which RealFennShysa inexplicably deleted) as evidence that it meets the guideline. Here they area, again: , , , , , . The evidence here is pretty clear. Please do not replace the notability tag again unless you can come up with some rebuttal (either generally or to WP:WEB) to show that this site is non-notable. If you think my decision to close was somehow incorrect, you're always welcome to take it to WP:DRV, though I would discourage that unless you can provide some rebuttal here.--Chaser T 05:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I accept that the subject of the article is notable, but the article itself still does not assert notability. As it says in WP:WEB: "The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section." This is why the notability tag is still appropriate. -- Barrylb 05:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delition noms

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on TheForce.Net. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/08/11/fake.starwars/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified