Talk:List of Internet forums/Archive 2

Cross references

 * List of chat websites
 * List of imageboards
 * List of social networking websites
 * List of question and answer sites 72.190.103.213 (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Criteria
Why is the criteria a number of posts (and why a million)? This isn't List of Internet forums by number of posts or Lists of the most-posted to Internet forums? The criteria alone is whether the internet forum is notable (essentially, an article exists and it's in Category:Internet forums) so is this really a list of "more notable than just notable Internet forums" and for that why use a 1 million post count? Why not look for academic independent actual reliable sources about the history of internet forums and the like who can discuss which Internet forums are notable within the history of the internet (which I imagine would contain some more old BBS boards than whatever is the currently most common by volume board). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Category:Internet forums useless If you read the archives, this has been a complex evolving task. The early editors were overwhelmed. If we could build it from Category:Internet forums and find books on the subject that would be great. But at this time, the Category:Internet forums is grossly incomplete and, to my knowledge, the list below are the most comprehensive published listings.


 * Better To Build In Stages This is a cataloging project. It makes sense to build something like this in stages - learn - build more. That is what is happening. As we gather more information we are learning things to make the list better.  It is also giving us a cross view of forum articles, some of which have been update, rewritten, merges, or purged based on this work.


 * Categories is a essential A list without categories is useless.  All of the lists in Wikipedia  have "categories" and the categories in this list are derived from the articles. Should it be a standardized category list - that would be cool - and we could even go back and label all the articles and reorganize the Internet forum categories.  We also might be able to get packed into category lists like "to health and fitness forums", "hobbyist forums", "advocacy forums". etc.  We're not there yet.


 * What is Notable We just recently redefined what a qualified forum is. This took a long while to see. It needs to presented as significant in the referring article (e.g., Sears service forum is of little significance in the Sears article), English language, there there needs to be discreteness with these lists:


 * *List of chat websites
 * *List of imageboards
 * * List of question and answer sites
 * *List of social networking websites


 * Expanding the criteria As we get a handle on this it makes sense to open the threshold up (next step, maybe 500,000 pots), and after that, maybe foreign language, etc.


 * If this becomes anything and everything to fast and too soon, I think it will it will soon look like the social networking list which is huge, low utility mess. 72.181.218.181 (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It is left over crap from 10 years ago when they allowed people to drop any forum on the internets into list; was their method to deal with spam (flawed but, that is how a lot of stuff was back then). There is already consensus for it to not be criteria for inclusion (global trumps local anyway) and bordering on it not being included at all (no policy based rationale presented otherwise - basically just "I Like It"s). There were more entries in list before but (IIRC) Gaz came along and removed a bunch of them, including all which did not have English as its native language; then unilaterally "disqualified" a bunch of others. I lack interest or motivation to argue about it.


 * @ IP 72.xxx Yes, categories are essential; that is why we should remove post counts and just clone Category:Internet forums. Early editors were always overwhelmed, it was a different encyclopedia. We shouldn't be basing our decisions now on what the project did back then. They truly Ignored All Rules, because there basically weren't any, not until about 08 anyway when they really started to form.


 * English language? Yeah, I don't think so. This is not only elitist (as if only English were notable) but is in contravention of our aims to be global in scope, and not just what a bunch of white Europeans think. There was never any consensus for this; certainly not one upstream. Only reason I didn't revert is because it's a pain in the ass to do on mobile, and my desktop is in another country.


 * Instead of piling on more BS or opinions not based on policy, or creating our own inclusion criteria, we should just follow what upstream has already decided. From a structural standpoint, this page just needs to be refractored; probably as a true List and not table, bulleted, with horizontal TOC, and grouped alphabetically with nothing else. This solves most of the recent issues. Lack of competency is another matter for which formatting has no solution (Layer 8 is perpetually broken, with no patch in sight). -- dsprc   [talk]  21:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Anyway, I got tired of stalling, 10 year old design decisions and opinions not based on global consensus - so I have been bold and instated these layout changes myself. Can revert me or expand in this direction. It is certainly a better layout and no one has to update arbitrary, pointless and unverifiable single sourced post counts. Inclusion criteria is simply to have an article, period - per WP:GNG and WP:SAL. -- dsprc   [talk]  23:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Why manually replicate (without human judgement) what the software is already doing here: [Category:Internet_forums]. There are 688 listed "forums". The format you are describing will take huge effort to complete, hard to keep updated, and it will be hard to navigate without any category or other sorting function. I think the existing category lists does it better.   72.181.218.181 (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * We aren't replicating bots, but copying over the work of human editors; inclusion in that Cat is done manually by editors. Besides, that Cat includes stuff like image boards, Q&A sites among others which aren't even forums, which don't belong here anyway as they are separate topics. There is no need to update, we write once, read many (WORM); what would need to be updated? Not having to update is kind of the whole point; why create more work? Only check that needs to be done is when inserting an entry. We have all the time in the world, there is no rush. We don't have to do anything actually, just wait for someone else to add the entries; why should we? Be lazy. :) Sorting is done alphabetically. Navigation is done with TOC. I don't care if the list is large, that is the point of list. List of operating systems is far more daunting than this one (and look, Mom! No tables! :)). We now have a simple, non-table-based layout so editing is quite easy (and it loads hella fast as you've to only pull a small section). If is a concern, we can remove the descriptions entirely and just link to the article with simple bulleted list, that is fine too - right now it is a bit small so is not an issue but, mayhaps you're correct. -- dsprc   [talk]  00:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Can you move this reformatting task to a sandbox. This article has been offline for hours. Wiki-psyc (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The reformatting is done; now is just normal editing. -- dsprc   [talk]  01:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Also : your categorization of Stormfront as a holocaust denier discussion group and other WP:OR are precisely the reasons Admin removed cats in first place. All the other issues have been solved for us upstream; we don't get to create our own rules. It is really just beating a dead horse now. -- dsprc   [talk]  02:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The categories listed were taken directly from the upstream articles category list at the bottom of the page [Category:Holocaust denying websites].  I am not a Stormfront (website) editor and I do not have an opinion about the site.  Wiki-psyc (talk) 08:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

If you want it to be simplified and alphabetical, shouldn't you use the simplified table format used by List of social networking websites and a number of the other lists in Category:Lists of websites (apparently this can't be linked)? At least then it's more compact. I don't agree with your choice to eliminate post counts and categories, many other lists include even more arbitrary information that still enhances the usability of the list, it makes no sense to remove that kind of data because it's "difficult to update" (it doesn't need to be updated frequently and we can always round off the numbers like other lists have done) or "arbitrary" (you can establish simple policies on how to categorize forums, or just ignore the issues as they are hardly a huge issue in the first place -- List of most popular websites is similar to what this article (used) to be). I actually feel that the recent edits to the article have been massively unconstructive and disruptive, as a large amount of useful information has been outright discarded in favor of a format that conveys minimal information and makes the list even more worthless. I am strongly considering reverting the article to the last semi-stable version with the table format and (previous) categorization (multiple types, not the simplified version), and just sorting it alphabetically, perhaps with the removal of the stats updated column and/or resorting/expanding the number of columns to improve readability. In its current format, I feel that this article has taken a giant stride backwards and is much worse than it used to be. Garzfoth (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The policies and global consensus based rationales have already been presented ad infinitum: NOR, V, GNG, SAL, MOS, etc. etc., and routinely ignored (eg WP:BIAS when you declared forums whose native tongue is not English to be excluded from this list). Local consensus was to not have post / user metrics. Even you agree with this change. We should not have them at all because they can not be verified by a reliable source. This isn't List of notable internet forums by popularity (free to create that); it is a list of forums, period. It wasn't my choice (but I'll still take the heat), I was merely the one who decided to actually enact it and also bring list in-line with upstream. Can include descriptors with entries; an early version had those (scraped from first paragraph of articles) but it leads to same problems as before (plus is CIRC). Structure / layout can be changed, this was simply a default-to kind of thing. However, it shouldn't be based on ILIKE, DONTLIKE, USEFUL, PRETTY, OTHERCRAP and so on. -- dsprc   [talk]  08:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The ranking data for which List of most popular websites is based upon happens to be provided by third-parties generally considered to be relatively reliable suppliers of this sort of ranking data (has selection bias flaws but they're the closest thing to Nielsen ratings we got on the Web). The data you wish to include, has no such reliability, and as stated previously, you're not a reliable source to vouche for those claims.


 * To link to Categories, place a colon after the square bracket, like so: Category:Example, which will output Category:Example. -- dsprc   [talk]  08:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I would suggest this list be deleted in favor of a history of internet forums article that discusses notable forums over time (or expanding the internet forums article itself) but that's never as much fun as making up criteria to argue about here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

What's going on with this list??
First time in a couple weeks I've looked at it and it looks entirely different, and most of the content is missing (though with more sources, which is good).

If encyclopedic and properly sourced, more information is a good thing, of course. There are cases where stripping it down is the best way to go, but I don't know why this is one of them.

Recent threads are a little long, so forgive me if I'm saying things that aren't as on point as I think they are.

1. I brought up the issue of post count above (see ). Using it as part of the inclusion criteria is untenable, and we should only be drawing from reliable sources (not what a website's marketing department says).
 * Are there sufficient sources to sustain such a column?

2. Ditto for number of members. (not a good inclusion metric and should be based on reliable sources)

3. If we want reliable metrics, maybe we could use Alexa rank.

4. "Category" should definitely not be reliant on the Wikipedia category system, which serves an entirely different purpose. They may provide a good idea, sure, but where a description/type/category/whatever is controversial, we should go by the consensus among reliable secondary sources.
 * If we're going to use "category", we should probably come up with a list of possible categories first, and choose from among them (so, say, "health and fitness" rather than "bodybuilding") based on what their forums are best known for (not every little thing that's discussed and not what their marketing department says).

Can we come to some decisions here and hold off on any further changes/implementations until consensus can be determined -- and without the discussion getting distracted by disputes over specific examples? (that can always happen later -- let's come up with a framework to build upon). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 19:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * PS: I see some talk of meat/sock puppetry above. Without commenting on the validity of those claims (I'd be lying if I said I looked closely), I do want to point out that 95% of the time, those tactics work against those using them. If you're socking and you get caught (which is based on behavioral as well as technical evidence), whatever you were supporting at the time becomes tainted (the idea being, if you felt like you had to manipulate the conversation like that, it must be because you're trying to push something that wouldn't otherwise be supported by Wikipedia policy and therefore isn't something others would want to support). Just some advice directed [honestly] at nobody in particular. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 19:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * So, some users at Tribal War forums decide to meat puppet and troll here for a particular set of categories to be listed alongside entry of TW forum. There is no consensus for those changes from normal suspects watching page, and it became a slow wheel war with a 70.x IP over a few days until IP 72.x referred it to a Noticeboard. Admin temp block for 70.x for EW, then came in and purged categories from list. There is consensus for post counts to not be a criteria, and no reason for entries to be ranked by them. If not using them for rank or criteria, and no strong rationale for having them in first place, I cut those out too (we have no real source for either of them, with TW owner trolling as example of why such sources can not be trusted and should never be used). Besides, they were constantly in flux, and editors spent more time updating post counts than expanding list (it became a sideshow). If there aren't posts and cats, then all that is left is link and foundation date. If only those two, then no reason to have a table. If no table, then a true list is only way to present content. There should be some sorting, so alpha seemed like proper choice then - was only thing to go on(!). Am not opposed to categories and those can be worked in as article stands, or someone can change it too. But we have no concrete way to pin categories down apart from articles, which we'er not supposed to rely upon. Should definitely not be based around raw Wikipedia Categories system alone, if only because they're often incorrect and severely fractured (helpful to locate candidates for inclusion however). If no consensus for new layout, I explicitly state being open to revert - consensus through editing. There are no further changes in structure barring a change in consensus, of course.-- dsprc   [talk]


 * For specific thread, I closed and mv'd to archive as it was spawned up by trolls, the owner of the site, has ran its course, and contains disparaging racist statements which should not pollute discussion here. Bot is time-based and lacks a concept of content, archive is listed and nothing prevents editors from creating new sections for discussion. -- dsprc   [talk]  07:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I see. Sorry, I left a message on your usertalk and then removed it when I saw this last part here. I still think archiving is premature. With respect to your concerns, I've hatted the thread (another way to effectively close a thread when it becomes counter-productive). I imagine that if the issue comes back up it will just create a new section otherwise (i.e. I don't think that archiving it rather than hatting typically saves any grief).


 * As far as the summary of what's been happening with the table, I think I understand better what's been going on. A sortable table does seem preferable, though, if there are actually columns to sort :) Like I said above, I think "category" (or something similar) can be sourced and/or limited to an agreed-upon list of categories. Then there's Alexa rank, language/primary language, year it launched... &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * dsprc, respectfully, and as I have said on your talk page, the frequent multiple reverts(rather than using talk), and then the removal of sections of the talk page is not constructive.  Remember, when there is an edit war, there are two sides - both are at fault.


 * You reverted this edit (in less than a hour) [676251232] which I think fits more with the general thinking on the talk page (I await others comments)


 * This format, which uses a sortable table with categories based on the "category lists". By based I mean, using the terminology, but not be limited to what is in the upstream article. In this first pass, we start to see grouping which adds significant utility to the "category" column.


 * 5 Sport websites
 * 4 Computing websites
 * 3 Personal finance website
 * 3 Aviation Internet forums
 * 3 Online support groups
 * 3 Education website
 * 3 Video game fansites


 * Members can sort by multiple categories by holding down the shift key. So, for example, they can get a list by category ranked by number pf members.


 * For anyone wanting to compare:
 * Alphabetical table (with category groups) [676551887]
 * Alphabetic list (name only) [676291780]
 * Posting rank table (with individual descriptions) [673366931]
 * You offered to revert the current format you have created, so I will. Let's get comments on all three layouts and go with consensus.
 * 72.181.218.181 (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't lecture me. You can drop the stick; I already read what you wrote, don't have to repeat yourself. Report me if think I'm edit warring. Do whatever ya' want; I'm done. -- dsprc   [talk]  20:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You are right. Please accept my apology. 72.181.218.181 (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Please (directed at everyone), stop making significant changes to the article until consensus can be determined. It doesn't look like you've addressed any of the concerns I raised starting this section. You've just restored the older version "for consideration" explaining that it allows sorting. Since all previous versions can easily be linked to "for consideration", I've restored the most basic version. That's not an endorsement of that version, but a minimal version where everything is sourced -- temporary until we can figure out something else.
 * It sounds like you're getting at a similar idea for the "categories" (or whatever we want to call them). let's come up with a list of types here before implementing them.
 * What of the post count and member count issues raised above? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, I didn't revert to an older table, I demo'd a new table which is alphabetical and used category classes - an intended third option (as I stated back here before posting) to the table (that has existed since 2009), and the recent suggestion of an alphabetical list. I'm fine to have it in history and not the current page.
 * Alphabetical table (with category groups) [676551887]
 * Alphabetic list (name only) [676291780]
 * Posting rank table (with individual descriptions) [673366931]
 * In reading the TALK PAGE and its archive 1, it's pretty clear that there are two schools of thought with roughly equal representation trying to enforce exclusions on each other - either narrowing the qualification criteria or excluding site metrics. This discussion has recycled many times reaching apparent consensus and then resurfacing.  Can we address both needs with 1 format?
 * '''With a table, the reader can organize the data for themselves. Everyone can be accommodated.
 * To comment on your 4 questions...
 * Post and members count are fundamental forum demographics and they are very reliable. Third party? No. But there is plenty of primary sourced hard data in Wikipedia. Did a third party measure the height of the Empire State Building?  Did a third party verify the horsepower on a Camaro? No. We all know this.  Hard data mostly comes from original sources, or third party sources passing it through without question. The reason the forum count data is reliable is because there are so many intertwined base level counting algorithms in a php forum data base (posts counts, thread counts, member post counts, subject post counts, boards post counts, post url serial numbers) it's not practical to hack and there is no significant reward for doing so. But if we want to be uber-conservative, we can go to volume categories. Maybe under 0.5M., under 1M, under 5M., under 10M. under 50M, under 100M, larger than 101M. No one can fake a jump at these these levels. These break points work well with the current list.
 * Alexa is not as reliable source as direct measure. Alexa states this on their site and is working hard to become direct measure. And more importantly, Alexa measures top level domains, so, the forum on Craigslist's would include all the classified traffic, or the forum n Apple would include all the iphone shopping, and Genius bar scheduling, etc.
 * As for classification criteria, Alexa uses 17 categories to classify web properties [category]. Its a good list. 72.181.218.181 (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

RESULT: Overall consensus herein for article layout is 1) "table format", 2) article linked (sourcing not necessary), 3) category description (based on article content), 4) launch year, 5) primary language, and 6) post count rounded up. This discussion was open for 10 days and all editors active in this discussion received invitations to participate on their talk page.72.181.218.181 (talk) 11:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Requesting a vote on this format
72.181.218.181 (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Beyond the odd letter ranking and why even post count matter, Alexa aren't some "super" reliable source on categories about internet forums that we need to defer to them. A generic listing of all Internet forums is fine. What we need is reliable secondary sources. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Partial support I do not like the letter ranking, just report post count directly (it can also be rounded partially like on other website lists), or don't report it at all. I agree with Ricky81682 about Alexa (I also dislike that format of categorization), but I do think that we should categorize them like before (not the revised one, the one we used prior to that). I disagree about reliable secondary sources, the only sourcing required should be that the site has a Wikipedia article that supports notability for the forum itself, there is no need for sourcing beyond that. Garzfoth (talk) 05:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Partial support I do like the Alexa categories. It is third party and if this list does end up with all 700 Internet forums with articles, it will be reliably sortable. The volume categories (A> B> C> D> E> F) are a sortable compromise to address Rhododendrites suggestion of ranges. Unfortunately the software reads ranges alphabetically. Alternatively, we could use words like (Giant, Large, Medium, Small, Very small = this sorts). I agree with Garzforth idea of rounding up the post count. Voting on my own proposal, btw. 72.181.218.181 (talk) 11:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I reverted the IP contributor's table edits due to it removing a great number of entries along the way. If gonna' reformat page, don't half-ass it (if I can include them all when editing from mobile device, you can do from desktop). Also the categorization is factually incorrect. For example, BodyBuilding.com is not about sports websites, and it is not a sports website like say, ESPN (or w/e). Also, your little chit-chat does not undue prior consensus; including non-inclusion of unreliable post metrics. -- dsprc   [talk]  02:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Reverted again, no substantive changes were made and still removed numerous entries. For the rest of the conversation above, the existence of an article is only criteria for inclusion, not w/e one wishes to add. Anything else should ideally have a source. The material has been called into question, is contentious, so a reliable source is required. There is no consensus; particularly for categorization, where consensus is in opposition to Alexa's algorithmic sorting. But, that was just ignored and included anyway - just like everything else. -- dsprc   [talk]  17:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC


 * OK. Moving on. 72.181.218.181 (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If the aim is to provide information for entries, mayhaps something such as this (sans unsightly bare URLs) - say, less than 300 characters - cloned from opening paragraph of parent, data in infobox, or a 3rd-party? There is a tonne of whitespace next to entries which can be exploited. Padding it with tables is unimaginative and discouraged, not to mention poor form (WP:SAL, MOS:LIST MOS:TABLES). -- dsprc   [talk]  02:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Source
I think we should be able to use more academic sources like this about forums. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Alexa rank
Can we get this list ordered by web rank? 58.173.39.76 (talk) 08:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2018
Add OneHallyu to the O section and Allkpop to the A section 47.187.98.240 (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: OneHallyu doesn't have an article yet, and Allkpop is primary known as a news site/blog, not a forum. (Many sites in the disqualified site log say "Article's notability not related to forum".)  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 23:48, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2018
122.177.203.41 (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.      Spintendo       16:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2018
Add * lostinthedesert.com under the L subheading Bangerz1 (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: lostinthedesert does not have an article yet Danski454 (talk) 09:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Zelda Universe
Include Zelda Universe DoctorMario123456 (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: There is no Wikipedia articles for Zelda Universe. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2018
Hello. I wanted to add some online forums to the list. Under "D" I'd like to add Doomworld, under "Z" I'd like to add "ZDoom", and under "G" I'd like to add Green Day Community. TheMegaDoomer (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This list only includes entries with an existing Wikipedia article based on multiple independent sources. Please take a look at Wikipedia's general notability guideline, and see WP:WTAF for an essay with some additional advice. Thanks, &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 15:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

stock trading basics
stock trading basics The Bourse is a place where financial products are exchanged, called ’financial instruments’, or securities. An action is a title deed. A share is issued by a capital company that needs to finance itself. To hold a share is to hold a portion of the capital of that company. It opens up rights, in particular the right to vote at shareholders’ meetings and the right to receive: the dividend, paid every year according to the company’s earnings. A bond is a debt obligation. A bond can be issued by a large corporation or a state. Issuing bonds means borrowing from investors in the financial markets. Holding a bond means lending money to an enterprise or a state. Each bond represents a fraction of a loan. The investor who holds a bond collects interest each year, called ’coupons’. At the end of the term of the loan, the company or the State reimburses the capital. An obligation does not open rights, like the right to vote, unlike an action. The units of UCITS (collective investment undertaking) represent a fraction of a portfolio of securities Тульчин, Ukraine

https://online-stock-exchange.com/_/stock_trading_basics/r299502_Who-is-stock-trading-basics/Тульчин-Ukraine.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdualmhmmod (talk • contribs) 17:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2018
Ceoboss1 (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

FORUMINE

Forumine is the fastest growing, first de-centralized free forum focusing on startup discussions, social media promotion, Q&A polls, and latest news within the technology and the crypto-currency market while engaging users with relevant contributions within its friendly community

Forumine solves the problems of content filtering encountered in the growing social network industry today by creating a free-to-air business model. Here are a few picks from our most recent updates

Forumine stats as at May 14, 2019

STATISTICS 118 - Average Users Online 1026 - Most Users Online 11358 - Total posts 9795 - Total topics 4133 - Total members EveSkinner - Newest Member

https://www.forumine.com/
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Entries in this list must meet Wikipedia's notability standard and have an existing Wikipedia article. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 03:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Ceoboss1 (talk) 05:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Ceoboss1 (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Topix Forum
Topix has closed its forums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.118.202 (talk) 03:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2019
Please add TONMO.com: The Octopus News Magazine Online to your list. It was founded in 2000 and is still active. 2601:44:8701:BAE1:39B2:E42F:8E3D:38E3 (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌. We only add forums to the list if a Wikipedia article has already been created. If you think it is notable you can create the article and then we will add it here. ~ GB fan 16:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2019
ADVrider.com 172.254.202.34 (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: that site does not have an article. If it is notable, please write an article about it. We do not add sites without an article to lists. Danski454 (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2019
One online forum that is not listed is Anachronous History Forums (http://anachronous.net or https://brannigandraic.com/forums/forum/explore/) BranniganDraic (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: That site does not have a wikipedia article. See WP:WRITEITFIRST. Also, based on your username being the same as one of the sites you've linked, please be aware of WP:COI and WP:PROMO. Nici<b style="color:purple">Vampire</b><b style="color:black">Heart</b> 21:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion to add to the list
There is a forum called Useless Forums that I would love to see added to the list of internet forums. Is there a certain method I should follow to have this site listed? DunderDOOD (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Backyardchickens.com should be added to the list — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiYMama540 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2020
Add ford-rangers.com and nikon-dslr.net to the list of forums 212.159.12.148 (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * They do not have a Wikipedia article yet, see WP:WRITEITFIRST. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2020
Add the forum "Lookism.net" located at https://lookism.net to the list under the 'L' category. 2.205.56.161 (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Does not have an article here yet. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Qualification for inclusion on this page?
Just out of curiosity, if a company has a privately owned fan site/forum dedicated to it, does that qualify said company for inclusion of this page, since it does have 'a' forum, albeit not official. Or, can we only include companies/websites on the list that have their own *official* forum? Referring to Miniclip. Tetsumonchi (talk) 04:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2020
I am wondering whether Discord (discord.com) should be included in this list. I have just discovered it as it is being used as a discussion platform for one of my go-to Android apps. Thanks. dpbaril 02:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. No request made. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 17:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2020
I'm trying to add some forums from my country. Xcalibur.uy (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add www.SimpliEngineering.com to List of Internet forums
Hello. I love Wikipedia! Please add SimpliEngineering to the List of Internet forums under the S's. I'd like it to say the following:

SimpliEngineering: www.SimpliEngineering.com is a peer-to-peer discussion site for engineers. Ask a technical question, get an answer. Students welcome.

Thank you, Latexman (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It would need to be notable and have its own article to be included here. -- Zim <b style="color:darkgreen">Zala</b> Bim <sup style="color:black">talk 21:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2020
JoyFreak for "J". It's an online gaming forum found here https://www.joyfreak.com/ 82.40.25.129 (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Doesn't have an article here yet – Thjarkur (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2021
Add the bitcoin forum("Bitcointalk") to this list; wikipedia article of Bitcointalk: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcointalk> Nio Greek (talk) 06:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2021
I want to add thewiki Network to this page, https://thewiki.in/network/activity This is because this website is also a talk forum, which provides a platform for all the people around the world to share the content. 2402:8100:3020:AFB8:902B:5586:7666:D141 (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌. See WP:WTAF. ◢ <i style="background-color:#F7E3F7; color:#960596"> Ganbaruby! </i>  (talk) 06:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2021
I would like to add my two gymnastics forums to the list.

ChalkBucket was created in 2005 to help everyone learn more about gymnastics. This forum is primarily parents of gymnasts and coaches. The primary discussion is the sport of youth gymnastics. The forum is very active and well moderated. ChalkBucket has over 550,000 posts

Gymnaverse is a recently created forum that was brought to life when another forum that was created in 2006 was hacked. While Gymnaverse is fairly new, the members are not as this forum is a recreation of the former WWGym.com that had over 500,000 posts. Gymnaverse is the best elite gymnastics fan forum on the web. During major competitions (such as US Olympic Trials last night), the site is very active. Last night alone over 500 new posts were made discussing the competition.

JBS gym (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC) JBS gym (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Forums need to be notable though for a Wikipedia article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2021
Dear Team,

I felt some missing websites in the list. I request you to add ansfind.com to the online forum list.

Thanks & Regards, Ramesh Ansfind (talk) 07:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * unfortunately, all entries to this list have to be notable for wikipedia's standards and have an article first, which it seems to not have. melecie   t  10:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2021
ElectricRaichu (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC) Add "Brick Hill"(brick-hill.com/forum)for a Internet Forum, it's pretty active
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Forums need to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article to be listed on this page. — Sirdog9002 (talk) 03:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2021
2603:6080:5A07:C5A3:DCEA:A6F5:C65C:435D (talk) 03:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC) Add 2 more internet forums to the "D" list. Drrr.com and Dollars bbs.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The forums have to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article to be listed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2021
Adding additional popular internet forums in other languages (mainly spanish), like "Forocoches", "Foromotos" and "Forotrenes". Originaltoastergod (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

psoieieinrecpibrpibgerrivprijfpghpienbpernvpirnvpinvpnpnerpvnerpvn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:702:27A5:A04A:50AF:D316:E920 (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2021
67.0.45.1 (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC) I don't see popular forums like talk Rational or Religious forums listed.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. They need to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article for inclusion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2022
Adding AtariAge to the list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AtariAge Flashofaction (talk) 05:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you! 1063841817 Fiwec81618 (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2022
There is a Swedish forum called familjeliv that is pretty big which I don't see here. 185.113.97.3 (talk) 01:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also see WP:WTAF as I don't see an article for "familjeliv" here on the English Wikipedia. Cannolis (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2023
Request to add PTT Bulletin Board System. 223.25.74.34 (talk) 12:55, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

✅ Thanks for your request! Wikipedia is better when users work to improve it! Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2023
There is a forum called Garage Journal. It has several sub-categories such as Electrical, Tools, and so on. Postings may include pictures as file attachments. agb 173.233.167.50 (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ❌ Forums need to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article to be included on the list. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

'Past' Celebrities 'Actors' & 'Actresses' 24.117.136.174 (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Are there 'Threads' & 'Posts' of 'Past' Celebrities' 'Actors & 'Actresses' that a person can search by 'Name' ? 24.117.136.174 (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

LessWrong
LessWrong is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page, so I think it probably belongs here. Not sure about the distinction of community blog/forum, but veers toward the latter (lots of discussion in comments). Niplav (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh boy. Using Wikipedia as a reference. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 07:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)