Talk:Comparison of online dating services

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
WikiProject iconWebsites: Computing Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance).

Broken markup in table

"Non-free" and "Yes-No;" are showing up in the table, I don't think they should be as it looks a mess. I have no idea how to fix it, though. ZoFreX (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Non-free" is ridiculous. It looks like some marketing ploy akin to "pre-owned" cars. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Service to add

Shouldn't Tagged be on here? A lot of people use it for dating. Synergee (talk) 05:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody seems to object so I can add.Synergee (talk) 08:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

add SilverDaddies.com WeHoDavid (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We only add entries here that have a Wikipedia article. If you believe the service is notable, write the article and then ask for it to be added here. GermanJoe (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the logic behind requiring a Wikipedia article for a dating site? Some sites simply don't have a Wikipedia article but service millions of users. Upon reviewing this list, at least 10 of the sites that I use daily are missing. This contributes significantly to the impression that this is so terribly incomplete that it is not even worth adding. It would take me a month to add individual Wikipedia articles for every site and then I'd probably get flagged because in addition to a Wikipedia article, your gonna want 6 months before it can be validated. If I see 10 sites that I use daily and only one or two sites on here that I have ever heard of, this page is not dynamic nor does it encourage adding to. In short, the requirements make it useless as a reference, the table is entirely incomplete and it devalues Wikipedia in general.-jase (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The restriction aims to prevent editors with a
write an article about it first with 2-3 independent in-depth sources. If it's not "notable", it doesn't belong here - Wikipedia is not meant as a comprehensive product directory or free PR platform. If you have further general questions about Wikipedia, WP:Teahouse is a good forum to get help with anything Wikipedia-related. GermanJoe (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
This is a complete obfuscation of the question, and pointless wikilawyering. There is no Wikipedia rule that lists must contain strictly bluelinked articles, nor is there any precedent for that. There is similarly no rule that someone has to write an article to include it on a list. -2600:1700:2660:FDF:F438:BD65:B424:55 (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lists and comparisons establish inclusion criteria, and 'has an existing article' is the one of the most common ones, and the one this list uses.
MrOllie (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Says who? The list? You have no more right than any other editor to set those criteria. This article is missing a lot of very popular sites that nobody has bothered to write an article on. -2600:1700:2660:FDF:F438:BD65:B424:55 (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidating Suggestions for Additions

In no particular order, these sites/apps have been suggested for addition to the list:

We only add entries here that have a Wikipedia article. If you believe the service is notable, write the article and then ask for it to be added here. GermanJoe (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of the sites mentioned above, only FaceDate doesn't have its own page now. -- Dyaluk08 (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Add any notable site you like, regardless of editors acting like they own articles. -2600:1700:2660:FDF:F438:BD65:B424:55 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The list has inclusion criteria, telling people to ignore them is just wasting their time. -
MrOllie (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Inclusion criteria can be modified, changed, or blanked by any editor with reason. You don't own this article. The inclusion criteria are needlessly strict, and counterproductive. -2600:1700:2660:FDF:F438:BD65:B424:55 (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not without establishing a consensus in support of such changes. No one owns this article, including yourself.
MrOllie (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Please point me to where consensus was established for that rule. -2600:1700:2660:FDF:F438:BD65:B424:55 (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is the standard that has been enforced by the several editors who actively maintain the list. If you want to discuss it formally, go for it. I'm sure they'll notice the talk page and chime in sooner or later. I'd start by coming up with a proposal for what you think it actually ought to be, instead of arguing about what you think it shouldn't be.
MrOllie (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh, so there isn't one. So it has been "enforced" without any consensus, which is cometelo contrary to your ridiculous claim. So, because there is no consensus, I am reverting. Please obtain a consensus before rolling back. I don't care what anyone has "emforced" in the past with no consensus, which you pointed out is the bar to set a standard. 2600:1700:2660:FDF:C668:F741:CBC2:5648 (talk) 03:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how Wikipedia works. The onus is on you to get a consensus to make a change.
MrOllie (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
So no consensus is required to make a claim, no matter how untenable, but a consensus is required to change it to the null position. This is absurd. You're being argumentative for the sake of being right, not correct. Every claim is subject to consensus. The claims herein never achieved consensus, and therefor are ignorable. 2600:1700:2660:FDF:4533:8C4:A500:43AA (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ranting isn't going to change anything.
MrOllie (talk) 02:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Please update this article!

The data on the number of registered users for each site (one of the most important facts) are typically more than 10 years old. Two of the most popular dating sites Hinge and Plenty of Fish, both of which have well-developed articles, are missing from the table. Online dating is kind of a big deal in 2022. A good comparison table on Wikipedia would be a valuable public service.

Missing Column

Why is there a column indicating whether heterosexual dating is accommodated, but not homosexual? Many sites allow both. If polygamy gets a column, homosexuality really should have one too. 2600:6C50:427F:EAE5:B534:9A30:CE34:CF64 (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"All services in the list that have an entry, whether they support heterosexual connections, currently support homosexual connections.", says the first paragraph. There is no point in having a column where every row says the same because comparison is about differences. All dating services support gay dating but some are exclusively for gays. 2A02:2454:91E7:5B00:C5C7:325C:7BFD:62F4 (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tinder

Why isn't Tinder listed here? Grillofrances (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I came here wondering the same thing haha- it's because there was a formatting error about halfway through the article. This led to the rest of the list, including Tinder, not being visible on the main page. I've fixed this so it should be visible now! User:Greerble (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_online_dating_services&oldid=1211036001"