The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal

Incoming Wikia Chat feature
I'm not sure if everyone has heard but Wikia have added a new chat feature to the MediaWiki software, as stated in this tech update. Dopp had written: "THIS JUST IN: Chat is now enabled on Community Central! You can access it via the sidebar from any page except for the homepage, as long as you're logged in." on that blog. Currently it is in testing and only avaliable on Community Central.

Basically, this section is asking - do we want this feature activated? I've been made aware that Wikia are planning to add it to Wikia Labs for anyone who wants to try it out. Personally, I don't think it would be a good idea as it would defeat the purpose of IRC channel. I have tried out the feature and being used to IRC, I can't say that I am a massive fan of it due to the various browser issues that it causes and disconnections but it doesn't mean everyone will think the same way. For anyone who wants to try it out, click here. 19:43, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - This add-on is completely pointless. There are no PMs, no IP addresses, and no topics. - XoTulleMorXo  ( talk and  contributions ) 19:54, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - per the reasons that are mentioned above. Also, the Wikia feature is more prone to vandals. On IRC, we can just block their IP and it's settled whereas on Wikia Chat, they could just make a new account every time and we'd have to go to a lot of trouble to ban them efficantly and even then, it would still cause problems. I'm more comfortable with using the IRC channel. 20:03, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Much like the users above, I feel this add on is pointless. I also feel the IRC channel is better, we are all used to it, we have bots for it, and we should not leave it for this inferior system. -- WoganHemlock (talk) · (blog) 22:14, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Granted, I wouldn't use it any more than I use the IRC channel, but since the IRC channel is established, enabling this here would be reinventing the wheel. Dharden (talk) 23:40, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a bit premature to be taking a stance against something that isn't completely -- or even close to completely -- developed. I don't think we've yet seen the potential of this tool, and I think it's unwise for us to make a decision until we can be at least somewhat sure we know what we're making the decision about. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 05:08, April 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on the negative consenseus and what LiR had mentioned above, I'm thinking that we could trial the feature when it is added with Wikia Labs, which is when Wikia would have had time to improve it. After or during the trial, we could have another vote to see what the community thinks of the "improved" version. 21:43, April 20, 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I'm late. Well, the feature is undoubtedly improving for sure. When I first got on, it barely worked. Comparing that with how it works now makes it clear Wikia are working on the bugs. Yes, we have IRC, but even now after so much growth its still pretty unused; once one looks at the amount of users we have. The feature isn't fully-grown yet, and that's why Wikia has been activating it; to grow it. I support it being activated on a trial basis, though just to see how we can use it for positive gain. -- Zombie talk • blog 09:46, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to be more stable now but there now doesn't seem to be that much usage on Community Central and there seems to be a bug that clones users. Furthermore, you seem to be disconnected from the chat randomly when your connection slightly drops in speed. I'm not opposed to trialing the feature when it's released into Wikia Labs but I'd rather use IRC as a) it's already there, like Dharden said, b) it is more reliable and c) Wikia Chat doesn't feature a way (yet) to join other wikis chatrooms or change nicks, like IRC. 10:01, May 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * GEORGIE, I think you're missing something. The Wikia chat feature exists for chat between Wikians on a Wiki so that they can covers about things faster, not to talk to other Wikis. If we want to talk to others, we can simply go to theirs or visa-versa, or we can still keep IRC. I don't see how enabling it will effect the IRC much. Most, if not all, users will still stay on the IRC if they have for as long as they have. Zombie talk •  blog 10:17, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * If we adopt chat, we don't need to drop IRC. However, I think having chat rather than an IRC channel would save a lot of headaches in moderating, and would allow us to apply blocks to users, creating a clear link between chat and the wiki where currently one does not exist. As with all new features, there are bugs that need to be worked out, but those initial bugs should not be the reason you don't support a feature. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 15:07, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if we get chat, I don't know how it will go. I've been to some other wikis, and while there is a couple of users on chat, there is heaps more (in one case 10 times more) on an IRC channel. If this happens here, I don't see the point of it. --W H  (Talk) 05:23, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: Wikia are implementing a private message feature and the Chat feature is expected to hit Wikia Labs by the end of the month. 21:19, June 20, 2011 (UTC)

Votes to activate the feature when released into Wikia Labs
Apparently, Chat will be released as part of Wikia Labs in the middle of June. The feature does seem to be improving and Wikia seem to be working hard to make the feature even better. I don't think that Chat will ever replace IRC but if the community are interested in the feature, then we could activate the feature on a trial basis when it is released into Wikia Labs. I suggest we vote below and decide on what we'll do based on the consenseus. 21:51, May 24, 2011 (UTC)

- Support - Well, the feature is certainly seeming more and more promising. I personally don't see any highly excessive problems that may come with it, and I believe that the IRC won't be effected by this at all (most users will stick with the IRC instead of abandon it completely). Anyway, I support a trial run for a month or so -- Zombie talk • blog 21:56, May 24, 2011 (UTC)

- Support - I can't see any harm in giving it a trial. I don't think it will really affect our IRC channel or be more popular, and there is no reason why we shouldn't trial it. --W H  (Talk) 05:08, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

- Weak Support - I support this, but I actually fear it replaces IRC. -- Guilherme Guerreiro ( talk here ) 10:59, June 18, 2011 (UTC)

- Strong Support - Since I cannot use the IRC, this would be a much safer way to chat with the other users. And, they have made a few tweaks to the program, so it works out for vandals and spammers. It's easy to access too. -- XoTulleMorXo  ♥talk  and  contributions♥  20:42, June 20, 2011 (UTC)

The Wiki Background (again)
Hi folks. Once again, I'd like to ask if we want to do anything to improve our "Bunch of plumbbobs on a green wall" background we have currently? I've said before that I'm not a huge fan of it, but I want some community input and perhaps some ideas on actually changing it. Here are a few options we have at our disposal:


 * 1) We have a background design contest where users can submit background designs. After the designs are submitted, we put each submission as the wiki background for a week or so, and allow people to check it out and vote.
 * 2) We contact the Wikia Content Team and have them work with us on redesigning our background (and possibly other visual aspects of the wiki, if we want).
 * 3) Keep the current background

There may be other options, but those are the three I see right now. What are your thoughts and ideas? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 20:07, May 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we should ask the Wiki Content team to help us out. I have some ideas for a background such as the box art for TS3 (you know, the one with the pictures of the sim's faces) or maybe a screenshot of Sunset Valley. Anyone else have ideas? --W H  (Talk) 07:05, May 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Wogan, that box art idea is awesome! --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 05:23, May 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, we could change the background to make the wiki look more visually appealing. The main issue here is what everyone else wants to do - hold a background contest, keep the current background or ask the Wikia Content Team. I'd suggest having a vote on how we should move forward. 22:43, May 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you really think TS3 box art is a good idea? Some people here don't have TS3... and although it's the latest series, I think we should find other background that resembles all series. Nikel23 08:55, June 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think what Wogan was getting at (correct me if I'm wrong) is that we could have a mosaic of Sim photos in the background... it wouldn't say The Sims 3 on it, but it would resemble TS3's box art. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 14:40, June 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that was the idea. I have actually seen a similar thing used on Les Sims Wiki, but as their main page header. --W H  (Talk) 07:42, June 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi guys. Using Wogan's idea, I made a seamless/tiled image from the faces on The Sims 3 cover. Check out this preview of it from the theme designer. If you like it as it is, just say the word, and I'll upload it. If you'd like me to adjust something on it, or do something completely different, let me know. JoePlay http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb33036/wikia/images/e/e9/WikiaStaff.png (talk)  22:35, June 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * Whoa! You can definitely take my vote for liking it the way it is. It looks great! :D 22:42, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Niiiiice. Great job, I love it. --W H  (Talk) 05:07, June 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * I see there are only about 20 Sims, but I believe more needs to be added. But this is just what I'm talking about... It's The Sims 3 cover! Nikel23 05:42, June 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are 20 different faces on the background, due to the fact that there are only 22 or 23 faces on The Sims 3 cover that aren't partially covered or cut off. Also, it seems that you guys are not in agreement about what the background should be, so I've made another preview using the background found on the landing page at the official site. JoePlay http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb33036/wikia/images/e/e9/WikiaStaff.png (talk)  21:18, June 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * I like both. The second one fits better with our current theme setup. I'll go with what everyone else decides on. 21:42, June 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, they are both good. I like them both, so whatever gets picked is fine by me. --W H  (talk) 00:45, June 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Scratch that. I think I prefer the second one more. --W H  (talk) 07:07, June 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Woah, I think that's better. I like that. Nikel23 07:31, June 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * They're both interesting, but I really love the second one. -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]]( talk here ) 08:31, June 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * I like both of them, though the second one looks a bit better, in my opinion. -- BobNewbie  ∞(Talk)∞  10:52, June 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, but maybe there's a way we could make use of the first one, in a place other than the background. For instance (and this may not be what we want to do), Les Sims Wiki (French-language) uses a similar portrait mosaic for the area immediately behind their drop-down menus. It would be great if we could find a use for the mosaic, if we're not going to use it as the background. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 16:56, June 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but I don't know where we could put it. I don't really like what it is on Les Sims Wiki. --W H  (talk) 02:30, June 19, 2011 (UTC)

(resetting indent) It sounds like everyone prefers the second background. If you want, I can upload it now, and one of you can message me later when you decide how/where to use the mosaic image. JoePlay http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb33036/wikia/images/e/e9/WikiaStaff.png (talk)  22:28, June 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems as if there's pretty strong support for the second option. Feel free to upload it when you get a chance. Thanks for your help! --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 07:20, June 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late reply. I got really busy late last week. As requested, I just uploaded the background from the second preview. Again, if you guys want to use the mosaic somewhere, just drop me a message. Cheers! JoePlay http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb33036/wikia/images/e/e9/WikiaStaff.png (talk)  22:10, June 28, 2011 (UTC)

Semitransparent background

 * It now occurs to me, since the background isn't obtrusive and wouldn't be hard to read against, it may be worth considering making our current "content area" background transparent (or invisible). How might we go about doing this? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 22:34, June 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Wiki-transparentbackground.png page displayed with no gray background]] I monkeyed around with my wikia.css (User:LostInRiverview/wikia.css) so that the wiki appears with a transparent background (rather then the current #f9f9f9 gray we use). I've displayed a screenshot. What do you all think? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 22:49, June 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * No way! I dislike it so much. -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]]( talk here ) 22:52, June 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * The background may not be obtrusive, but the variations in shading may affect readability. Also, while the green is not hard to read against, it's not as easy to read against as the #f9f9f9 gray. At least, that's how it seems from my perspective as an older user. Dharden (talk) 23:37, June 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm currently looking for a way to adjust the background so it would be "see-through" but not completely invisible. If correctly done, that might aid in readability. We'll see, as I may not quite know what I'm doing (lol). --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 23:46, June 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * LiR_semitransparent.pngs to JoePlay's awesome assistance, I have this screenshot which shows a white background with 50% transparency. If desired, we can reduce the transparency (i.e. make it whiter and more 'solid'), but I rather like how it looks in the screenshot, minus the gray bar near the header. Thoughts? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 03:29, June 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Much better, IMO. Dharden (talk) 03:38, June 29, 2011 (UTC)

Vote
I feel the quickest and best way to choose between these three options would be to hold a vote (in accordance with our wiki voting policies. The time to vote will be set at two weeks.

Question: Of the three options below, which would you support?


 * 1) Hold a background design contest and have the community choose the winner.
 * 2) Contact the Wikia Content Team and ask them to help us redesign the background.
 * 3) Leave the background as-is

Time remaining: Expired - Cast your vote below!

Ask the Content Team - They would know heaps about this sort of stuff, and the contests we have don't always go to well, see January Fanon Logo contest. --W H  (Talk) 04:14, June 2, 2011 (UTC)

Ask the Content Team - per WoganHemlock. 20:11, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

Ask the Content Team - They have the most knowledge of this kind of stuff, and seem to be the best option because of that. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me! ) 05:30, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

Ask the Content team - per RR and Wogan. --- BobNewbie  ∞(Talk)∞  17:25, June 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * Result
 * The content team was contacted

Comments
Looks like we're in! :D 19:27, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

Eliminate Player Stories
I'd like to propose that we eliminate Player Stories from Sim and character pages on the wiki. My reasons are as follows:
 * 1) The content added to these pages is more often than not of poor or very poor quality, is sometimes profane and unacceptable, and is nearly impossible to moderate in its current size.
 * 2) The Fanon Namespace has been created, which allows for users who wish to write about the goings-on of their Sims to do so without using an article sub-page.
 * 3) Contributions to Player Stories pages are very very often not signed and quickly forgotten by the author and by everyone else.
 * 4) The number of player stories contributors is very low - most users do not contribute to these pages.

Thoughts? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 01:05, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. For the record, they are subpages, and don't go towards our article count, so I see no problem there. --W H  (Talk) 01:06, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I also agree. Player Stories pages are usually overlooked, and because of that, they are often of horrible quality. Users abandoned their stories, and many are very short, inappropriate, and just... bad. Now that we have the Fanon Namespace, I believe that the Player Stories pages are unneeded. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me! ) 01:15, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree, even though player stories are not that controllable we should remember that no all people are allowed to write their own stories, for these people player stories is still a good way to share their gameplay, but a new policy could be applied regarding this matter. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 07:30, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, though fanon Sims work a bit different than player stories, as player stories actually uses premade Sims or townies. But it's true, the content are poor and badly organized. Every story is random and made-up by users. I mean, who wants to read Mortimer Goth's player stories all the way down? We should only keep theories for certain Sims, like Bella's disappearance or Olive Specter as murderer. Nikel23 07:50, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Guilherme, what did you mean by "Not everyone is allowed to make fanon"? If you are referring to anons not being able to, I think they should just make an account. --W H  (Talk) 07:54, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose that's why authors never sign their stories. They could be anonymous, not regular users. Oh yeah, having player stories page means number of Sims times two, because nearly every Sim has this. I dislike wasted pages. Nikel23 07:58, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, the Player Sstories pages are subpages, and don't go towards the article count. (You know, the one that says x pages on this wiki, above the activity feed.) --W H  (Talk) 08:01, June 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * Mmm. I don't know...what about the occasional good quality story? Some users worked hard on making them, and I don't see how we're going to be able to notify every single one of them to tell them to make a page or lose their work. Aren't some people going to be negative upon finding out their stories are gone? Zombie talk •  blog 09:29, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Most users forget about their player stories, so I don't see an issue there. As for telling them the stories have gone, we'll just have to accept that it would take far too long to do so. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 09:37, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with Bob, and I think this is a very harsh suggestion, yes I meant anons in the previous comment Wogan. I disagree that users forget about their player stories, I have actually seen many completing it and ending it, I do not think people forget that easily, if this is approved, I think there will be a significant number of users with a "broken heart". --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 10:44, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Us eliminating the pages wouldn't be done in secret. If we end up eliminating the pages, such action will be announced long before any deletion actually occurs, to allow people who have stories they'd like to save the opportunity to do so. Any person who visits the wiki even semi-frequently (and therefore, a user that is more likely to care about the story they wrote) will have the chance to move it to the Fanon namespace or save it onto their computer before we ever delete it. And while I admit that every once in a while there is a good story there, these are very few and far between and, in my opinion, don't justify us having the pages and in having to manage such a vast amount of content. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 11:25, June 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * If we can give people a while (and by a while, I mean half a year) to 'save' their stories, I'll support this. And Wogan, some people still come on, and leave with the thought 'hey. I wrote a story! Now it'll stay and people can read it forever!'. They might forget it, but when they added it, they didn't know that it wont stay forever. -- Zombie talk • blog 11:59, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose users esp. anons would remember they've made a player story if they don't even sign their names. I believe they won't even visit the same Sims' player stories. It just doesn't make sense if they play the same Sims but make different scenarios, I mean, who wants to play Goth family over and over from beginning? Whenever they made a player story, they shared it there, didn't sign the story, and it will remain there not updated and forgotten. Nikel23 16:01, June 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * Nikel, I have some things I disagree with. Like I said: they might not have bothered remembering because they thought that it would be there forever and that they've did their part. And almost every new Wikia user I know doesn't remember to sign, or is just oblivious to the fact. Just because they don't/don't know how to sign doesn't mean they don't care about their stories. I play the Goth family and the Wolff family almost every start of a game if I don't make my own Sims because it's a preference. Plus, I have another problem with the play stories being deleted: even if they did come to retrieve it, and still want it on the wiki, what if it just isn't enough to make a Fan fiction page with? A few paragraphs is a lot on Player Story pages, but is normally a low-quality fanon page which will be deleted soon. So, users might get upset that their stories, which used to be fine, is now 'low-quality fan fiction'. Even if they care about the stories, what if they don't have the time to make a quality fanon page, yet still want the story to be available for people to read? Zombie talk •  blog 18:35, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should abolish the Player Stories pages as their only contributors are anons and they can easily create an account to create fanon. I've even seen one fanon article based on a canon Sim in an imaginative way and is a more detailed article. 19:35, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bob, player stories shouldn't be deleted due to the reasons he mentioned. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 19:47, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Bob. So many of these people aren't even registered users in the first place. Although there are some exceptions, most often anonymous users don't stick around unless they actually register an account. If these people didn't do that, then the odds of them even coming back to their player stories is pretty low. Also, half a year? That is an astronomically long time... I would say 1 1/2 to 2 months at the very most. If a user doesn't visit here at least once every two months, then they probably don't care much about their story. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 19:50, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * (added more). Another point brought up that I'd like to address. Guilherme pointed out that anonymous users can't create fanon articles - that's true. However, one added 'benefit' of this is that users who wish to make those sorts of stories then register an account. Once they do that, they're much more likely to 1) become active members of the wiki and 2) improve their story and keep it up to date, both of which are very good outcomes. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 19:52, June 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * Still, every being has a right to remain anonymous. It's like we're telling them "create an account, or your story isn't allowed here". Get what I'm saying? -- Zombie talk • blog 19:54, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * But LiR remember that people do not add their player stories to always improve them, as many of them end the stories they write, they won't check them to improve it as it's ended, I think that's understandable, so deleting those stories is for me a bad option. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 19:56, June 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * Idea: We could archive them all, possibly? Zombie talk •  blog 20:00, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * What's the point in short stories? The whole point of a story is something that's interesting to read - if all we have are thousands of "This Sim got married, had some kids, and died," stories, then quickly player stories become very boring to read (which they currently are). Just like fanon stories have a minimum length requirement, I think all stories should, simply for the sake of the story itself. Since so few player stories existing now ever hit that threshold, I think they should as a whole be ditched.
 * (added) I don't think we should archive, because most of them honestly aren't good enough to save. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 20:03, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * But LiR, boring is your opinion many people may not see them as boring (excluding the ones like "Hannah got married and then had a kid"). Thank you. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 21:34, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * At first, I felt strongly towards this, but now I'm not so sure. I think, while this idea is good in theory, it would be really hard to implement. I'd say that we should look through and get rid of a lot of them, i.e. the bad ones, but that would be incredibly tedious and time consuming. I'm starting to think, "If it's not broken, don't fix it." I think we should just leave the system as-is. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 09:23, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Still, we can't compare which is good and which is bad if we want to get rid of bad ones. Since no issue was made... what's actually the real problem happening? The reasons LiR stated are not real problems, right? Nikel23 11:01, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * They are problems, because we have a large volume of very poor material sitting on our wiki. Is that something we should just continue to ignore because it would be difficult to fix? I say no. If we can't get the authors to improve the quality (which would be impossible considering how many authors there are, and over the period of time they were written) and we can't spend the time picking out good stories from bad, then the last logical option is to delete the pages.
 * Here's my honest thought on the matter. I don't think anyone is going to care. I think that certain people are really concerned that all these users are going to cry and be very upset if they player stories go away, but I am willing to bet that few, if any, of these users will even give it a second thought, especially if we have a period prior to deletion to allow story recovery. The bottom line is that the player stories pages are shamefully bad, so bad that there is no hope for improvement, leaving us with only one justified solution - delete. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 13:23, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not think so. My final position on this is weak oppose. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 13:53, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to say Neutral. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 07:14, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

For me, Player Stories should definately be deleted. They were useful once upon a time, but now with the Fanon Namespace, it is unlikely they will ever be needed again. And, as it was pointed above, nobody even actually reads these stories, so, how can anyone care?. So, I'm saying Strong Support. \_<font color="#A60914" size="2px">Andronikos Leventis <font color="#1404A2" size="1.3px">Talk 13:00, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I couldn't say it any better than Andronikos just did. Strong support. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 13:08, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Somehow, Fanon has its own weakness. The main difference I could seek is the simplicity. Making a fanon page is complicated and not simple, and it will be hard especially for beginner users who are not really good at editing pages yet. On the other hand, player stories can be used as simple means to share the stories, and it could be a good editing beginning for all beginner users. Some new users who prefer sharing their stories will be more likely to make player stories than articles, so player story is a basic and simple way for them to start their editing experience. I'm sure it will be recklessly written, but that's better than they edit an article, right? Nikel23 15:49, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Due to Nikel's reasons I am going to change my position to oppose. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 18:25, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I do want to keep the player stories, but, I do want to eliminate all player stories that are left unsigned. Ѧüя◎ґ 18:48, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Or maybe we should make an eye-catching noticeboard or template so that writers actually read the template to sign? The current template is boring and contains too long words. Nikel23 02:18, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have read through the comments again, and have changed my opinion to Weak Support. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 07:40, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * My position is Strong Support. Let's face it, according to Wikia, stubs should only make 1/5 out of all pages on a Wiki. This includes other namespace pages and sub-pages. Since many player story pages are unedited and empty (mainly for townies, NPCs, and deceased Sims), our stub count goes way over the limit. And what's worse? The player story pages that are longer than stub-length are of horrible quality, with bad language, spelling, grammar, and punctuation. They are also near-impossible to maintain, due to their length. Users do not sign their stories, and, come on, who really cares to read them? Player stories make our wiki look bad, and therefore, should be removed. —<font color="#008000">Random Ranaun (<font color="#00FF00">Talk to me! ) 02:34, June 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak support. -- Bleeh <font color="#489094">(talk) <font color="#489094">(blog) 02:39, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

What I have determined so far: three users (Andronikos, Random Ranaun, and I) are in strong support, two users (Woganhemlock and Bleeh) are in weak support, Guilhermen Guerreiro is in opposition, and Auror has opposition to deleting all player stories (which for the purposes of determining consensus would count as an 'oppose'). I wish to wrap this up before too long, so I'd encourage everyone to give their final thoughts, and would encourage users who have not spoken up yet to speak up within the next five days or so. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 06:23, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * I change to full support in eliminating player stories. Ѧüя◎ґ 06:33, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Even though, many of you are right about player stories quality, I think we should respect the users who have made the stories who thought they would be there forever, also we are also guilty about player stories quality since we didn't control them from the beginning, nor we did make a policy very strict to these player stories, so I suggest instead a new policy, eliminating all player stories seems to me unfair for me and for users who didn't make stories with profanity or bad language, and even if we have time to save the stories in our computer before they get deleted, many will not remember all the stories. It's unfair. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 11:48, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * What would be the new policy that you're suggesting? And as well, how would you enforce it on the hundreds of stories that have been completely abandoned by their authors? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 15:05, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course many of them have been abandonned because many users have already ended their storires, I just think it's unfair to delete them altogether, a new policy being more strict with the player stories could help. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 15:14, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * You're saying... you're remaking the player stories instead of deleting it? Sorry if I don't get the point. I'm clueless over time. Nikel23 16:03, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nit exactly remaking them, but kind of, I know it would be hard, and I do not know how to do it, though I' think on it. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 16:07, June 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * I am in full oppose of deleting player stories. I just feel it's wrong to delete them, as nobody ever gave any guidelines except for the user to sign them. Even if they didn't sign them, nobody ever did anything about it, when we actually should have. I would feel, like Guilherme said, guilty that they were removed when people thought, no matter what the quality is, that they could entrust us and leave them here. And for a whole bunch of other reasons states above. BobNewbie   ∞(Talk)∞  16:58, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * I was missing the word, what I meant was guideline not a policy, we should have given guidelines from the beginning, and the player stories not having good quality is partly our fault, because we did not care about them. For users who are in the beginning it's so much easier to write a player story rather than making fanon, and also player stories are for users who want to tell their pre-made Sims stories, though they can create a fanon about a pre-made Sim, I don't think they understand that message, as there are very few fanon pages about pre-made Sims or so. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 17:20, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * I support per all of the support votes above. 17:36, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright... I've noticed player stories only seem to be posted every few hours, they aren't that popular. So why don't we maybe delete all the current stories, and simply moderate all future story submissions? We could add it to tasks for administrators with the Fanon admin project. Other than this, I don't see a way around this. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 05:40, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, will the Theories pages still remain if the player stories are deleted? BobNewbie  ∞(Talk)∞  10:22, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, they're pretty much player stories too, and have the same isses as well. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (talk) 05:26, June 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't, because player stories and theories are different! Theories are only in certain Sims. If player stories are deleted, we won't have as many issues in theories, right? At least so. Nikel23 06:23, June 23, 2011 (UTC)

New Wikia Editor
The new Wikia editor is now online, and can be activated via an admin on WikiaLabs. Should we activate it now, since I believe this is going to be global sooner or later, so that we can start getting used to it? Or is there opposition to turning it on at this time? -- BobNewbie  ∞(Talk)∞  10:40, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral, leaning towards oppose. I really don't like the editor and if I knew that the current editor would still be usable at the same time, I would make this an oppose vote but if it is eventually going to become mandatory then I really don't care whether we activate it or not. 11:40, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Support. The editor will be more enchanced and I believe we will soon find its benefits. Nikel23 16:40, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support, because the current editor is getting old, and anyway, something new is something better. And after all, it is simplier. |_<font color="#A60914" size="2px">Andronikos Leventis <font color="#1404A2" size="1.3px">Talk 16:47, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - I simply don't like it. -- Guilherme Guerreiro ( talk here ) 18:00, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's been activated by an admin. So...time to edit! :P. -- BobNewbie  ∞(Talk)∞  17:38, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * It's now inactive as we haven't really got enough consensus. -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]]( talk here ) 18:10, June 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought about that, though didn't expect to find a log of it anywhere and thought Wikia already made it default lol. BobNewbie   ∞(Talk)∞  18:13, June 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't need consensus. It's coming sooner or later, whether you like it or not. It's better we do it now so we can figure out how it works before we're forced to use it. Reactivating. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 18:26, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Wikia will probably force us to work with it sooner or later, might as well get used to it. -- XoTulleMorXo  ♥talk  and  contributions♥  20:24, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral I see no difference between using it and not using it. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (talk) 05:27, June 23, 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the New Wikia Editor could use some improvements when it comes to its appearance, to fit better in this wiki. For example, the new "Publish" button could be made green. |_<font color="#A60914" size="2px">Andronikos Leventis <font color="#1404A2" size="1.3px">Talk 10:25, June 23, 2011 (UTC)

Support I have no real preference for one or the other, but sooner or later, the new editor will be standard. We might as well get used to it sooner rather than later. Dharden (talk) 21:47, June 23, 2011 (UTC)

Portals for each game / generation
I know this idea has been floated around before, but I think it might be worth taking another look at the idea of creating portals for our games. I'm thinking creating a portal for Generation 1, Generation 2, and Generation 3, with each portal linking to the base game/eps and stuff packs/standalone and console games for each generation, as well as to a few important pages relevant to that generation, a link to the generation's tutorial portal and other information. Each portal would be themed in a particular color (the colors could be based off the colors used in the new Sim templates). I'd like some feedback on this idea, as well as some ideas on how to improve this idea. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 02:45, June 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, but when we make the portals I think we should add something to the topbar of the interface, so everyone can notice it, or I think people won't really know of it's existence. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (talk) 04:31, June 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with this, since it will help every user or reader of this wiki to see exactly the games in this series and locate them easier. However, as WH said, a nav template will be needed. But there could be a further use to it, since it could replace the "The Sims Series" column in the main page. |_<font color="#A60914" size="2px">Andronikos Leventis <font color="#1404A2" size="1.3px">Talk 10:29, June 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't a vote. I'm actually looking for ideas on what the portals should have and what they should look like. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 16:45, June 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen some of the trial ones that have been made, and I can't say I have any suggestions about how to enhance them. My only concern is making them visible to users. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (talk) 07:21, June 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen some of the trial ones that have been made, and I can't say I have any suggestions about how to enhance them. My only concern is making them visible to users. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (talk) 07:21, June 24, 2011 (UTC)

Should we add a webcam chatroom to the wiki
it would allow others to chat but i want to use webcam why can't we? RebeccaBlack 21:37, June 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, we have the IRC channel if you would like to chat with other users. Secondly, even though it would probably never happen, I would oppose having that feature as 1) some users may feel sensitive about this and 2) some internet connection speeds may not be able to cope with it, as real-time streaming can be pretty bandwidth intensive. 21:33, June 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should because of the points I mentioned above. 21:43, June 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * No. A chatroom that required participants to have webcams would exclude users who don't have webcams or don't have 'net connections that can handle real-time video streaming, and would probably limit those who have connections with bandwidth caps. A chatroom that didn't require particpants to have webcams would be redundant, since there's already an IRC channel. Dharden (talk) 22:15, June 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * I go for the sensitive reason. SOme people are just shy, you know. They might feel confindent if they webcam-chat with their close friends. Nikel23 02:33, June 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * No, per all above. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (talk) 05:18, June 24, 2011 (UTC)