The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal

New background?
There has been a bit of discussion on the IRC channel about the background; many users feel the repeating PlumbBobs are boring. I'd like to propose we update the background... to what, I don't know. I particularly like the background on Les Sims Wiki, and after a short discussion about it I asked a question on the forum, which you can view here. What I said asks what program they used... really couldn't think of a question, honestly. I just wanted more information on the background, haha. Does anybody else think that the background should be changed, and if so, are there any suggestions to what? Don't forget, one or more users can create background, so it doesn't necessarily have to be an image already on the web. Thanks, -- Bleeh (talk) (blog) 01:18, April 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Bleeh. Our plumbob background is getting a bit dull, and it would be good to refresh it. With what, I don't know. I do like the one on Les Sims Wiki, but I don't think we can use that without getting them angry at us. Anyone have any ideas? -- WoganHemlock (talk) · (blog) 01:03, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bleeh too. The PlumbBobs are repetitive and boring. Maybe our background could be the Sim images on the box art of TS3, or maybe a static image of Sunset Valley or something? —Random Ranaun (Talk to me! ) 04:27, April 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I don't know what we could make it. I'll have a look, and post some in a few days. -- WoganHemlock (talk) · (blog) 08:02, April 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * I found this on Community Central. Wikia has a team which can be used to redesign main pages, themes, etc. If we can get some ideas, we could ask them to implement a new background for us. -- WoganHemlock (talk) · (blog) 00:26, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

Addressing The Sims Medieval Wiki split
I've mostly maintained my silence on this issue, at least here on TSW. However, as I was partly facilitating the merge of The Sims Medieval Wiki into this one, I feel it is now my responsibility to bring you all up-to-speed and determine a way to move forward.

The Sims Medieval wiki is not merging with The Sims Wiki at the present time, and is not likely to support a merge in the foreseeable future. Within the past few weeks, an active and passionate editor base has developed there, and the new community has decided - some more vocally than others - that they wish for The Sims Medieval Wiki and The Sims Wiki to remain separate. As a bureaucrat here, I respect their right to make that decision and ask that our community members and administrators respect that right as well.

Unfortunately, a divisive exchange, largely between members of this wiki and the Medieval wiki has arisen as has the debate over merging or not merging. To ease this, I would like to make the following fact as plain as possible: The two wikis are not merging, and no amount of debate will change that until the communities of both wikis agree to merge; this is a simple and unchangeable fact. Further, continuing to give the suggestion that a merge should happen is counterproductive when the community there has resoundingly rejected the idea.

As a bureaucrat, I have tried not to put my direct opinion or ideas into community decisions. However, at this point I think that we have reached an impasse and are seeing a breakdown in cooperative, constructive communication between this wiki and The Sims Medieval Wiki. To that end, I am formally proposing the following, to be agreed upon by the communities of both The Sims Wiki and The Sims Medieval Wiki:


 * 1) The Sims Medieval Wiki and The Sims Wiki are affiliate wikis that will cooperate when necessary, but will also focus on information relevant to the wiki's respective series. Neither wiki is superior or inferior to the other - the wikis are sister wikis, not parent/child wikis.
 * 2) The Sims Medieval Wiki and The Sims Wiki agree that, aside from broad articles that cover in a topical nature information highly relevant to the topic of the other wiki, or articles which are of importance to the topics of both wikis, that neither wiki will feature articles highly relevant to the other wiki's topic. For instance, The Sims Medieval Wiki may have an article describing The Sims series of games, but may not have an article for Miss Crumplebottom, as the topic of that article is highly relevant to the topic of The Sims Wiki. The Sims Wiki may have an article describing (topically) The Sims Medieval, but may not have an article describing the Judgement Zone as this article is highly relevant to The Sims Medieval Wiki's topic.
 * 3) Members who are predominantly associated with one or the other wiki will not overly interfere in discussions or decisions made by the sister community.
 * 4) Adoption of this agreement, as well as changes to this agreement, must be supported by community consensus from both wikis.
 * 5) Merging of the two wikis may be considered from time to time, but the decision to merge must be highly supported by both communities before a merge may take place. If a proposal to merge the wikis is unsuccessful, a similar proposal may not be made for at least six months.

So my question to you all: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal? Please also leave comments. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 07:21, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with this proposal. The merge discussion on TSMW did break down significantly and they're better off being their own wiki. 08:20, April 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. Zombie talk •  blog 08:28, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * I partially agree with the proposal. The only part I don't agree with is 2. If anything, TSW should be able to cover anything in The Sims Medieval. Take the Final Fantasy Wiki for example. They cover both FFXI and FFXIV, even though those games both have their own wikis. So, the Final Fantasy Wiki does cover them, but their individual wikis go into much more detail. I think that is what should happen here. — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 15:14, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * I partially agree with the proposal, and generally agree with the point Random Ranaun raised above. I think we can cover, or at least mention, something, and then link to a (hopefully) more detailed article on The Sims Medieval Wiki. Since there's not going to be a merger, redundant coverage is redundant, and detailed articles are likely to diverge over time. Still, people will probably look here for info about The Sims Medieval, so we should be able to say something about aspects of it, even if it's mostly to say that more info is available elsewhere. Dharden (talk) 16:05, April 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * I partially agree with the proposal and I agree with the points Random Ranaun and Dharden mentioned. -- Bleeh (talk) (blog) 16:17, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Response: The TSMW discussion of this proposal in some ways addresses the idea of content sharing. A user there proposed a system which, if thought out correctly and if it is actually possible through MediaWiki, would be (I think) a good settlement to having articles hosted here. If that system described were set up, it would be much easier for us to refer or redirect users looking for Medieval information over to TSMW based on what they search for. I'm not sure I'm quite doing that person's idea justice, so go over to TSMW and take a read. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 17:00, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree and mostly with Random Ranaun's point. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 10:02, April 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with LiR, but disagree with Random's point. Ѧüя◎ґ 21:17, April 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with LiR, except for point two, as we should be able to write articles on The Sims Medieval, as it is a sims game and their wiki is not well known. I think Random's point is a good idea, and agree with it. we should have a redirect system. -- WoganHemlock (talk) · (blog)' 09:14, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

Update
I'd like to re-activate this conversation. I need to know, however, if the community will support this proposal if the second point is removed? I think we should reach some sort of formal agreement soon, and if that means waiting before we resolve specific content questions, I think that's acceptable. What are your thoughts? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 05:19, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * If we remove point two, I don't see any problems with the proposal. --Wogan Hemlock  (Talk to meeee!!) 05:23, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * In case point 2 is removed, is see a bright future for both of the wikis. \_Andronikos Leventis Talk 16:39, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Fanon policies
It has been over a month since we have allowed Fanon on The Sims Wiki. The Fanon Namespace has proven to be popular in our community, just look at how many fanon pages were created! Now, I think that it is time to re-evaluate our fanon policies, mainly because we have a lot of fanon stubs and messy pages. Most of the ones, like all fanon must be created by registered users, are good, but there are a few I think we should discuss. One, how long should Fanon admins wait until deleting fanon pages that do not meet our standards? Two, should empty bio pages really be accepted on the wiki, even if the Sim is mentioned somewhere else in the users fanon? After accessing the current fanon we have now, I think I've come up with two solutions: So, what do you think? — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 04:56, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Empty bio pages should be treated akin to hollow pages.
 * Hollow pages should be deleted after one day, with the admin notifying the author the day before, Very Low Quality pages should be deleted after one week, with the author being notified at the start of the "countdown," Low Quality pages should be deleted after two weeks, with the author being notified sometime beforehand.
 * I do like this new policy as it cuts down on the poor quality pages and it may encourage the creators to create higher quality pages. 07:18, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * That should do it. Many users create fanon but have other things to do, and have to come back to it. So, do we presume the fanon is in progress, or delete it if it is of a very short length? Perhaps they could add an "in progress" tempate or something? -- WoganHemlock (talk) · (blog) 08:12, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * There is already a fanon-uc template, which is place when a fanon page is still "under construction." If the author doesn't add this template on a poor quality fanon page, I believe that we should delete it in the required amount of time. — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 15:03, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, that makes sense. How about if a fanon is shorter than a predetermined length, and does not have the in progress template, we notify it's owner, and delete it 48 hours after notification? -- WoganHemlock (talk) · (blog) 23:22, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. Should we officially add those to the policies now? —Random Ranaun (Talk to me! ) 02:46, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you should wait a week at least for further input. Don't rush these sort of things. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 02:48, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we could wait more than 2 days, regarding poor quality fanon pages, remember not all people edit the wiki that regularly so change it to one week, would be better for me, I think this way would not make this so brutal, unexpected and we wouldn't hurt so much the feelings of editors. Thank you. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 08:13, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * When I said 48 hours, I used it as an example. If this policy passes, we should start a discussion about the length. I'd say a week is too long, but two days is a bit harsh, now I think of it. -- WoganHemlock (talk) · (blog) 08:18, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * How about five days? -  LostInRiverview talk · blog 19:43, April 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems okay. Let's waitfor a while to get feedback, and then add it. -- WoganHemlock (talk) · (blog) 02:38, April 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been a while, and no further feedback has come in, so should we stick with 5 days and add it to the policies? -- WoganHemlock (talk) · (blog) 05:39, April 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just realized that there are other policies that we need to discuss. For one, how long should it be until a fanon story is considered abandoned, and under what circumstances would it be acceptable to delete it? —Random Ranaun (Talk to me! ) 03:32, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * How about it is considered abandoned if it has not been edited in two weeks? And if a user does not edit it in the 4 days after being notified of it's abandonment, we delete it. If a user receives a substantial block, e.g. longer than the 2 weeks, we could maybe move it to a sub-page in their userspace. --Wogan Hemlock  (Talk to meeee!!) 04:25, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

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)

Sims YouTube Video Contest
I was recently notified that we have a YouTube account, which made me think that maybe we should use it. It's only a rough idea, but I thought we could have a contest where users make videos using the Sims games and upload them to the site. We could then have a contest, with awards such as most viewed video, highest rated video, etc, as well as awards voted by for the wiki community, that is, users here. The winners of the different categories could be rewarded with a special userbox or something similar. So, the question is, what does the community think about this? -- WoganHemlock (talk) · (blog) 04:32, April 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * I really like the idea. -- Zombie talk • blog 09:40, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it would be something good for the community. The only issue I can think of is a poor connection speed to upload the video to a server and/or a data cap, as some countries (*cough*UK*country*) employ them, reducing internet usage. Other than that, I'm in favor of this. 10:04, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * So, if the idea is put forward, I was thinking we hand out awards, similar to the fannies idea which was proposed a couple of months ago. The only problem that I could see is no one submitting videos, but I suppose we could only have a few, and forget the category thing. I hope it doesn't end up like the first fanon logo contest, though. --W H  (Talk) 05:15, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

Staff Page
I noticed we seem to lack a staff page on this wiki. I realize that there is a small page that lists the admins, however, this page is different. It includes a list of active rollbacks, active/semi active admins, and bureaucrats (active or inactive, they still must be credited). I have seen these kind of staff pages on a lot of wikis, and it would make us look more professional, I believe. -- XoTulleMorXo  ( Talk  and  Contributions♥ ) 01:05, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

<p style="margin-left: 40px">I agree with this proposal. It would make it easier for new users to find admins, crats, etc. If this does get created, I suggest that if we do make such a page, we place a link at the top of the main page, so it will be easier for users to find it. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">Wogan Hemlock  (Talk to meeee!!) 01:19, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * So, it seems this page is more or less a staff page. I suppose that makes this discussion pretty pointless, although I do think we could put a link to it on the main page. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">Wogan Hemlock  (Talk to meeee!!) 09:28, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it doesn't include rollbacks or fanon admins. I am sure that a staff page is really needed for this wiki now, since it is growing and so does the staff number.|_<font color="#A60914" size="2px">Andronikos Leventis <font color="#1404A2" size="1.3px">Talk 16:01, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * According to this blog, Auror is working on a page, which is here, that is more or less a staff page. I suggest we slightly modify it to include rollbacks, and we can use that. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">Wogan Hemlock  (Talk to meeee!!) 05:42, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we could just use Auror's staff page and, if the community agrees, adding a list of users with the ability to rollback edits. Though, I can think of many disadvantages to that so I support continuing to use the Administrators page, or Auror's staff page as it is currently. -- Bleeh <font color="#489094">(talk) <font color="#489094">(blog) 23:53, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the points made above. I don't think we really need a page with the rollbackers. 06:22, May 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe that we don't need a page for rollbackers, but not because they don't work hard and such. Zombie talk •  blog 16:26, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose you're right. Let's keep it the way it is. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">Wogan Hemlock  (Talk to meeee!!) 00:14, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * If you say so, I just don't think they get credit. But, whatever. -- XoTulleMorXo  ( Talk  and  Contributions♥ ) 01:16, May 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, they do get the credit of being called more-trusted members of the community, and they should know, and most of them do, that we value their hard work and presence. And before anyone asks why admins "get credit", the page exists so that people can easily see who is active, inactive, and which admin they need to contact about a certain thing they need help with. Another thing: If we do have a page for rollbacks, newbies will think that they have administrator tools and will report vandalism and arguments there instead. Yes, we can make a notice, but to tell you the truth people don't read, understand or care about those things, so they'll ignore it. -- Zombie talk • blog 13:13, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

Fanon-sysop class
I think that the time has come to discuss the creation of a fanon-sysop user class. First of all, for those who aren't familiar with user classes, they are groups of users who receive special abilities, and can be seen here. There are user classes for rollbackers, administrators (sysops), and bureaucrats. When the applications for Fanon admins were opened, we did not have a user class for them, so, they were just placed in the sysop user class. Therefore, they received the same rights as regular admins. While I did not have a problem with this at first, I began to get concerned when Fanon admins began applying for regular administratorship. Since they technically already had the same rights, I could only see the process as moot, and I don't think it's fair for them to apply again for something they already have. So, that's why I'm proposing that we create a fanon-sysop user class. If we proceed with its creation, I have thought of a set list of abilities that Fanon admins would receive. Now, I believe that fanon admins should receive just enough abilities to manage the Fanon namespace, so that they won't end up losing sight of their objective and start spending all their time editing canon pages. I am not sure if all of these are possible, so please, bare with me.
 * Deleting fanon pages: Fanon admins should be able to delete fanon pages that do not meet our standards. This does not mean deleting all articles, just fanon ones.
 * Protecting fanon pages: Fanon admins should be able to protect fanon pages from being edited by non-admins, especially if the fanon page is repeatedly vandalized. This does not mean being able to protect all articles, just fanon ones, although they should be able to edit protected main articles.
 * Renaming files: Fanon admins should be able to rename files, especially because users will most likely end up uploading badly named files, usually starting with "snapshot" or "screenshot."
 * Reverting (rollbacking): Fanon admins should already have this since they would have applied for rollback rights before.

I'm still not sure if they should be able to block users or not. So, what do you think about creating a fanon-sysop class with these abilities? —<font color="#008000">Random Ranaun (<font color="#00FF00">Talk to me! ) 04:17, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think part of the versatility of the current setup is that fanon admins can take over the role of administrators when necessary, if for instance all the regular admins or bureaucrats are offline. I think an easier solution (and a more preferable one) would be to dissolve the Fanon Administrator positions, make our Fanon Administrators admins in full, and delegate them as our designated Fanon leaders, as a condition of them accepting their position. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 06:15, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with LiR, as admins are not always around, and fanon sysops could help out with their duties, e.g. blocking mass vandals, etc. Also, I don't feel that wikia would be willing to make a new user class for just one wiki. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">Wogan Hemlock  (Talk to meeee!!) 08:12, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't agree. I mean, I like our Fanon Admin system. The Fanon namespace is big and important enough to have it's own list of admins, and I think it's good for Fanon Admins to stay separate from regular Admins. If we dissolve the Fanon Admin positions, and make them regular admins, where would they edit? If we do that, then our admins would most likely just edit either the main articles or the fanon ones, leaving the other in the dust. Also, if we do combine them, they would have a large array of articles to edit, whereas if they stayed as Fanon Admins, they would just have the fanon articles to worry about. And Wogan, it's okay, they've created plenty of user classes for other wikis before. —<font color="#008000">Random Ranaun (<font color="#00FF00">Talk to me! ) 11:47, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should merge the two sysop classes. Even though I have been promoted to a full time admin, I still delete fanon as well as fix fanon pages where neccessary. It would also make things a lot easier for when other sysops aren't about. I think this is the best option we could go for. 15:20, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * If an administrator has in their responsibilities a duty to monitor the fanon namespace specifically, then Bureaucrats would be able to discipline them if they weren't fulfilling that responsibility. Also, the way you talk RR, it's as if you don't want a fanon administrator to ever edit anything else on the wiki - administrators are members too and should be able to edit anywhere they want. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 16:43, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * LiR, I'm not saying that they shouldn't be able to edit anywhere else on the wiki, I'm just saying that their main priority should be to maintain the Fanon namespace, and they should only have admin powers on the FN. Since the Fanon Namespace has different policies and guidelines, so, it should have it's own admins. However, the fanon admins should have less abilities than full admins, but more than rollbackers. So, they should have less abilities, but just enough to manage the Fanon namespace, especially in the absence of a full administrator. —<font color="#008000">Random Ranaun (<font color="#00FF00">Talk to me! ) 20:40, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don not really agree with RR's point. Fanon admins should be as handy as others, a merge seems to me the best option. Thank you. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 20:43, May 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with what RandomRanaun is proposing. In response to WoganHemlock saying that he does not believe that Wikia would create a user class just for one wiki, I believe that each Wikia is allowed to request up to a specific number of user classes just for their wiki. -- Bleeh <font color="#489094">(talk) <font color="#489094">(blog) 03:15, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * After reading the comments, I think we should go for a merge of the two classes, or leave it the way it is. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">Wogan Hemlock  (Talk to meeee!!) 04:22, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * As a resolution to the question of whether Wikia can/will do this, I know as fact that something similar to this has been done for other wikis. So it's not a question of if it can be done, but if it should be done - I don't believe that it should, and it seems that others agree with me. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 05:13, May 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't see why we can't merge the sysop class into normal admins, and their task is specifically Fanon related, but not restricted to it, like me with the newsletter, and Bleeh as a community director, etc. Zombie talk •  blog 15:18, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, as the only active fanon admin, I do think we should just merge the fanon class with the full sysop class. I still do want full access to the original sysop tools I.E. blocking, deleting articles, deleting redirects and all that.
 * FWIW, the full sysop tools which are used everyday on TSW are applicable to fanon admins. If we did put restrictions in for fanon admins and there was an issue in the mainspace that needed sorting urgently and a fanon admin, with restricted rights, was the only sysop about, how could it be sorted effectively? This is why I think we should merge the two classes, it just makes things a lot easier. 11:04, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * We have a lot of sysops and bureaucrats, so I don't think we have to worry about that. —<font color="#008000">Random Ranaun (<font color="#00FF00">Talk to me! ) 20:06, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

Archive (no longer) pending
As you may have noticed, this page is getting excessively long. To that end, all conversations that have not been active in at least two weeks of the date I choose to archive will be archived. I plan on archiving on May 11 - if you want a conversation to remain on this page, make sure to contribute to the topic before then. Thanks! --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 05:17, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * As promised, the page has been archived. If a conversation was on this page but is no longer, check this page. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 02:10, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

Images Policy
I have just been editing many images, categorising and licensing them, and I feel that it is time we should introduce an images policy. Some things I feel that could be included in the policy include: Thoughts? --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 02:17, May 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * What action to be taken against users who don't categorise or license their images(I know blocks are a bit harsh, but I can't see another way)
 * What action to be taken against users who use generic filenames,
 * What to do with unused images(should we delete them, or use them?)
 * And if we should or should not have images not related to the sims.


 * My opinions on this are as followed:


 * I oppose action being taken against users who don't categorize or license their images, though I support them being given possible warnings if the behaviour continues.
 * I believe that no action should be taken against users who upload images with generic filenames, though the user should be notified that their image has been moved.
 * I believe that unused images should be added to articles if of good quality and there's an article relating to them. If not, deleted.
 * If the photos not related to The Sims series are used on a page then I believe they should be allowed, though if unused they should be deleted. -- Bleeh <font color="#489094">(talk) <font color="#489094">(blog) 02:24, May 14, 2011 (UTC)