Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

JC Forums[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

according to, which tracks Internet Message Board usage, the Forcenet's message boards have been in decline and are no longer in the top 40 anymore While it is true that other websites have popped up and grown to surpass TFN, it is also true that TFN has had their own problems that have caused people to leave it. Point being, TFN message boards are no longer what they used to be. I got no problem with a more prominent mention in the article, though. Whippletheduck (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delition noms[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
That may be your opinion, but that doesn't make it correct. TheRealFennShysa 14:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have not given a reason. -- Barrylb 01:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. 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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

I apologize. I forgot about your edit summary requesting the same. I have added it. That being said, if you see that something necessary must be done, you should try being bold about it and do it yourself.--Chaser T 05:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]