The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal

Families with one member
I'm beginning to see some family pages with one family member. Wolfe household & Curry family to name a few. Perhaps it's time for a policy or guideline stating that these pages aren't neccesary npr do they hold any information that cannot be added to the one Sim in the family. What do others think? To me they're just articles with no info on them, wasting space. Duskey ( talk ) 02:52, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

I think we should keep them anyway. I don't think it matters if its one person. They're still a family. Jason   Talk To Me!   02:56, July 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * There's nothing on the family pages that can't be included in the sim's page, unless that sim is the only person left living in their family (and the other members are visible on the family tree). I say delete the pages. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 02:58, July 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * That's exactly my point, Jason. If it's just one person there is nothing you can add to that page which you couldn't add to the Sim page. If these pages weren't family pages they'd get merged or deleted due to lack of content. Duskey ( talk ) 10:29, August 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * redirect. --a_morris (talk) 23:54, August 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Alright, I did it to the Steel family -> Christopher Steel. I made sure to move the info on the family page to the Sim page and also moved player stories. I also remember to delete the family picture (which wouldn't add anything to the Sim page and was of poor quality). Do you agree that this is the right way to do it? Duskey ( talk ) 16:17, August 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, what about the family difficulty? -- Duskey talk 14:59, September 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * About the difficulty, I would add the category to the family page and add a note could be added to the Sim's article. Eduardog3000 recreated the page because there is a possible second member of the family, Mike Steel, but I still think a family page is unnecessary. --a_morris (talk) 16:56, October 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * I surely agree but something is just wrong.I think that The Sims Wiki should not organise Families with one member as families but just the fact that Family pages add information about Family difficulty and how wealthy the sims really annoy me.Maybe we should reconsider and think about it once more.It will also be harder for people to understand how to search things in a new way.If someone wanted to make a search at the Steel family then he would only be able to see Christopher Steel in Sserch Results for Steel Family.This means that he would have to load more pages.Really bad.Andronikos Leventis 16:58, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you find it useful if Sims were listed by last name. Ex. the page "Steel" would link to every Sim with that last name, but the page "Steel family" would only link to "Christopher Steel". --a_morris (talk) 19:01, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Does that mean that every Sim would be categorized based on their last name?-- LostInRiverview talk · blog 19:06, October 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Aren't they already? -- Duskey talk 11:34, October 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * These would be articles not categories. They are now only sorted by last name (within categories and lists) not grouped. Actual articles would make searching easier. They would just be another way of organizing information. Not all family members have the same last name and not all sims with the same last name are family members. It could also be used in onomastics. --a_morris (talk) 17:21, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has gone off on a tangent. Have we made a decision about families with one member in general and Steel family in particular? Perhaps there needs to be a discussion on what information should be included on a sim page vs. a family page. --a_morris (talk) 22:22, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

Cars & Vehicles
How should we list and categorize cars &amp; vehicles? With FLS incoming we'll need to sort it out. Duskey ( talk ) 16:23, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Once FLS hits I have half a mind to make an extra menu item in the main menu, pointing to the page and associated pages. Duskey ( talk ) 19:05, August 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Menu item would be great, and when it comes to the pages themselves I suggest Car, Motorcycle, and Scooter pages with sections for each buyable car and one section for non-driveable/career reward cars. Ae jarv 20:53, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

The Beast needs to be moved to "Motorcycle" and have "The Jamboree" added to the page, and The Kenspa needs to be moved to "Scooter" and have "The Scoot Mobile" added to the page, I did that and Duskey changed it back, why?--Eduardog3000 01:06, September 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * If there's more than one scooter and/or motorcycle, then having a "Scooter" or "Motorcycle" article would be consistent with the way similar situations have been handled. Dharden (talk) 01:54, September 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * That is what I am saying, there is now 2 motorcycles and 2 scooters, i tried moving The Beast to Motorcycle, but Duskey changed it back.--Eduardog3000 02:17, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Since everyone seems to be in agreement, I don't see any harm in going through with moving the pages. I know Duskey wanted to wait for discussion, but I really don't think there will be much more of it, and in any case, I really don't think there's much of a disagreement about what should be done, so frankly there's not much to discuss. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 02:49, September 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Having a Car, Motorcycle, Scooter & Bicycle page sounds good to me. Perhaps the motorcycles and scooters can share the page since their function is identical (2 wheels, not useable by children). Then the types would be split in 3: Cars, 2-wheelers for teen+ and 2-wheelers for children+. The tables or galleries of the vehicles should be split between buyable and not buyable, in my opinion. -- Duskey talk 13:37, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

I like a complete list that has all vehicles in a single page. As long as the types came in order (i.e. motorcycles followed by scooters), it should be fine :)

Ilovefoxes 14:29, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

It would be best just to have a page for Cars, a page for Scooters and a page for Motercycles.Eduardog3000 20:38, September 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to say I agree with Ilovefoxes. The vehicles are in the same category in the game, there's no reason they shouldn't be in a list. I suggest a 'Vehicle' article with all the text and a few pictures. It would have sections about cars, motorcycles/scooter and other vehicles, but the actual images and info on each car would be in 'List of Vehicles in The Sims 3'. There should be a list for each game in my opinion. -- Duskey talk 09:29, September 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * I honestly think Scooters and Motorcycles need their own page.--Eduardog3000


 * Having seperate scooters and motorcycles would prevent users from comparing them directly to each other and to cars, which personally is something I'd like since it's not directly available in the game. -- Duskey talk 23:59, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think having three sections (4 wheels), (scooters/motorcycles), and (bikes) that would redirect to a list of each respectively would be best. The gta wikia has something like that65.33.138.203 20:06, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's try and resolve this pretty quickly. What are everyone's thoughts? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 04:14, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's try and resolve this pretty quickly. What are everyone's thoughts? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 04:14, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Reopening Featured content discussion
There are still some things to discuss regarding changes to the Featured Article and Featured Media systems. Please participate in determining the new system.


 * Copied from The Sims Wiki talk:Policy

I agree that the featured content should be based on quality rather than popularity. But the system you've outlined above I think would take a lot of work in a short period of time. Perhaps we could separate the review and the voting to separate months or separate the reviewing from the nominations. What I mean by the latter is that articles could be submitted for review then given a quality rating and the nominations for featured article could come from the articles with the highest rating(s). Either way, once an article, etc., is deemed of good quality, I don't think it's necessary for voters to give an explanation. The only reason I could see that being necessary is if they wanted it featured for a specific month. Also, before we can implement this we need to outline the criteria for a quality article, which you mentioned on the community portal talk page. --a_morris (talk) 21:12, November 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * In a situation where items are submitted for review and given a quality rating, would that inhibit the ability of regular users to nominate items for FA/FM? Also, do you think that we should or could coordinate the establishment of criteria with a possible update to the MoS (if you think the MoS needs an update)? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 21:32, November 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Any user could nominate an item but there would be a limited number of articles that could be nominated. Although anyone could discuss the quality of an article, only an administrator would assign the article a rating. Yes, the criteria should be consistent with the MoS, though it does need updating. I've also been looking at how Wikipedia does it. --a_morris (talk) 22:07, November 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I like that idea. I'm going to pull the policy proposal from here and start a new discussion in the Community Portal instead. Hopefully we can get some engagement this time around... --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 22:25, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
As you can see above, the general idea here is to:


 * Revamp the Featured Article and Featured Media selection process to make them less favorites-oriented.
 * Establish a quality ranking system where articles can be ranked based on level of detail, quality of information, layout, etc.
 * Set up an alternative way for users to nominate articles for Featured status.

Speaking directly to the idea of ranking articles, I think this can be useful even outside of Featured Article selection. If, for example, we choose to rank our articles by some general categories (say, 'A grade', 'B Grade', 'C Grade' and 'Stub Grade'), we can categorize pages into these groupings, which will allow us to focus on improving the lower grade articles. On Wikipedia, I know that an article's ranking is usually saved in a template on the article's talk page - we can design just such a template, that is placed on the talk page of a page that has been ranked and which will automatically categorize that talk page into a quality category (this may seem a bit confusing - Wikipedia sorts articles in this manner on the talk pages, not on the content pages themselves).

Ultimately though, the decision falls with the community. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 15:20, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. This could work. I'm also getting really irritated with the FA. BobNewbie talk • blog 15:32, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I do agree with this. Plus, I think that the idea of new users having to make a certain amount of edits or wait a certain amount of time before voting is a good idea as I remember a recent case where a CheckUser found a number of accounts on the same IP who were just voting in FA and FM while making no other edits. GEORGIE GIBBONS  talk contributions 16:09, November 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's featured article criteria, is essentially very simple and adaptable for our purposes. However, the process can be quite exhaustive. I suggest we base our quality rating procedure on the Video games WikiProject. Also, they seem to have a peer review affiliation with the military history project. It might be a good idea to set up something similar here. --a_morris (talk) 04:21, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible for you to draw up a simpler proposal? those Wikipedia criteria seem to be too specific for our needs here, and I don't think we'd need quite as many categories either. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 16:46, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. I will be making a proposal, but I am thinking of improving the manual of style first. --a_morris (talk) 23:27, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

OK, I sort of have a change of opinion now that I've looked at a few other wikis and have seen what they do. For example, Fable Wiki's featured articles are selected in a process somewhat similar to ours, but with some important differences: users can only nominate one article at a time, nominated articles are held to certain layout, length and quality criteria (though the criteria aren't necessarily something which can be easily defined, it's a sort of "you know it when you see it" thing), all nominated articles are reviewed before being featured and admins reserve the right to deny featured articles. I think rather than constructing what is likely to be a needlessly complex system, we could make just a few modifications to our current system and really get it working better.

I've written up a sample of what I think a good policy would be. It may appear long, but when you consider how much simpler this solution is than the rating solution being discussed, the length really doesn't remain a big issue. Most of the policy would not need to be listed out on the voting page, but could be listed on a different page to be referenced by admins and users. Here's the policy idea I wrote up, heavily based on Fable Wiki's policies:


 * Featured Articles must
 * Be well-written and detailed.
 * Be unbiased and written in a neutral point-of-view.
 * Be properly sourced.
 * Adhere to the wiki's Style guidelines.
 * Not be tagged for cleanup, expansion or other improvements.
 * Have a clear and concise introductory paragraph.
 * Have a reasonable number of good-quality images that relate to the article.
 * Have a completed infobox.
 * Have a completed infobox.

Any registered user may nominate one article at a time for Featured Article. Procedure of nomination is:
 * Nomination and Voting
 * An article worthy of nomination is added to The_Sims_Wiki:Featured_Article/Voting, following the example format on that page.
 * Once nominated, an article may be voted on by registered users and either supported or opposed, with valid reasoning.
 * Any article that has had an objection to its nomination can be improved during the nomination period and will still be considered. Any improvements as a direct result of objections should be noted below the corresponding objection.
 * Administrators may disqualify articles that fail to meet requirements of Featured Article status. These articles may not be re-nominated for at least 30 days.

When voting:
 * Voters should be familiar with the article, and should read it in full to ensure its quality.
 * Voters may either support or oppose an article's nomination - votes should include proper justification for their vote, based on the quality of the article and not based on the popularity of the article's topic.

An article is queued to become a Featured Article when it has:
 * Received ten votes of support (with proper justification) from registered users.
 * Been determined by an administrator to meet Featured Article criteria.

Articles queued to become Featured Articles are featured in the order in which they were queued, unless it is necessary to re-arrange their order. Administrators have full discretion to remove articles from the queue or re-arrange them due to current events or article quality.

Again, the policy is, in my opinion, only as long as it needs to be; any shorter and it would not be able to do a good job. Additionally, I see this as being much much more straightforward than any system based on article ratings or a complex nomination and voting process (as I had previously proposed) could ever be. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 07:19, December 28, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. It's very well planned. Nice Job! -- BobNewbie talk • blog 07:34, December 28, 2010 (UTC)

Decreasing Activity
So, I may be alone in this observation, but I've noticed a substantial decline in editor activity on this wiki in the past weeks. Even during the "Blog/Achievements" period, I've noticed a decrease in total activity here which concerns me more than a little bit. So, I have a couple very big questions:
 * 1) Is there really a decrease in activity occurring here?
 * 2) If our activity is really decreasing, why is it?
 * 3) How do we better engage our existing users?
 * 4) How do we better attract new users?

I don't know if there are any easy answers here, because these may very well be complex issues. Hopefully getting a discussion going here can show us the road ahead. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 22:19, December 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well... for me (in case you have noticed I have gone inactive), the answer(s) to no. 2 are heavy schoolwork, less free time, more focus on real life, lack of further interest in the Sims series, and lack of further interest in Wikia... so I can't really say if and/or why our popularity is decreasing because I'm not around to observe the Wiki activity anymore either. (Thanks for the update anyways patrick) - JEA13  [ iTalk  ] 22:38, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the insight into that. When you say you've lost interest in Wikia, why is that, or do you have any particular reason? -  LostInRiverview talk · blog 22:49, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * This is getting so personal (no offense) :P I joined wikia when I was thirteen, and back then I had the newcomer's "thirst for glory", in other words, I did everything I could from image uploads to grammar corrections to make a name for myself around Wikia. Rarely did I do important, beneficial tasks (though I was the person who properly categorised the pages of the wiki petween mainspace and wikispace when I first came on here... with all the voting contests and stuff... that action granted me admin rights). Now that I've grown up, I don't care about making a name for my self or anything like that. So, since editing just for the hell of it is not an option due to schoolwork and social life taking all my interest and energy away, I don't edit anymore... - JEA13  [ iTalk  ] 23:00, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's very profound. And that's certainly a reason why you wouldn't contribute, especially if you've lost interest in the series. I didn't mean to make you get so personal in your response.
 * In any case, I have a hypothesis about our recent decline in activity, one which I don't care to directly mention here at the risk of it dominating this conversation. I'm just looking for reasons at this point; the solutions come later (granted, I did ask for solutions...). -  LostInRiverview talk · blog 23:04, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd have to say that the switching of Monaco to Oasis did cause a certain number of users to leave Wikia. That might be significant as to why there's lesser activity than usual. 23:11, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I had hypothesized as much, based on comments from Monster2821 and Eduardog3000, among others. As I recall, though, they both switched over to Monobook after Monaco was removed, so I'm not sure. I posted on both their talk pages as well but no response thus far (it could be that they're just offline atm). However, I don't recall seeing Eduardog on within the past few weeks (I might just be mistaken). I know for sure that Rodrigo X has left, and I have a hunch based on past comments he's made that it was related to the new skin. As I've said twice though, I am not about to say here and now that the decrease in activity is caused principally by the new skin, as I want to give proper time to other possible issues first. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 23:21, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know about everyone else buy i got used to the new layout pretty fast, so that's not a reason why i haven't done a lot of editing. i try to add new pages/articles when a new patch is released of official word is spoken on a new expansion or game in the franchise. then there's other times i try to help with grammer or clean up. i could start doing more and learn a little more about templates and such. one thing i noticed in that hypothesis was something about maybe moving us out of wikia? would this give us a new domain name but be technically the same database of articles and pages?Bafendo 23:31, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been done by other wikis on Wikia, so it's not impossible. What would likely be the manner would be that, once a new home is found, the whole database would be transferred, a system would be set up to transfer over users (see Halopedia for an example of that), and the original site (i.e. this one) would be left behind with all the data, but with notices aplenty telling users that the community has moved to a different site. But, again, I don't really want to say that this is the end-all solution to this problem, and I'm not even sure that us leaving Wikia would do any good (it might even make things worse). --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 23:38, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * well we can't give up on this Wiki. i hope a solution is found soon. Sad if this Wiki was to go dormant. Maybe we should think of some new ways to make this wiki more appealing or something. you mentioned something about the skin. Sad if that's the main thing making some users leave. Maybe there could be some kind of contest to get users to return or to bring in new users.Bafendo 23:48, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * well we can't give up on this Wiki. i hope a solution is found soon. Sad if this Wiki was to go dormant. Maybe we should think of some new ways to make this wiki more appealing or something. you mentioned something about the skin. Sad if that's the main thing making some users leave. Maybe there could be some kind of contest to get users to return or to bring in new users.Bafendo 23:48, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

I honestly think that it mostly has to do with the removal of Monaco, I believe that most people don't know that Monobook is still an option, or it could be that they tried Monobook, but it didn't look to well to them (I suggest making a Monobook background at MediaWiki:Monobook.css). If all else fails we could try to move to another wiki hosting site. Although I think the best option at the moment is to put something on MediaWiki:Monobook.css and put a MediaWiki:Sitenotice (which does show up on Oasis) saying to switch to Monobook. As for me being gone for a little bit, I am not leaving the wiki, or becoming semi-inactive, it is simply because I have school and I am also working on getting members to join a (very) small wiki that I "own".--Eduardog3000 00:40, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Eduardog, working on the Monobook background may not be a bad idea, especially considering that if the wiki were to move, we'd be stuck re-creating the look elsewhere anyway. However, Sitenotice does not appear to users of Oasis. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 01:03, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

I have a Site Notice on my wiki and I saw it on Oasis.--Eduardog3000 01:06, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the text on your mainpage that says "Attention: The Wheezy Wiki is made with Monobook..."? Because that's not a sitenotice. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 01:10, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I just realized that, I made it a Site Notice and put it on the main page. We could do that here.--Eduardog3000 01:16, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know what to think of this situation, I started noticing activity decreasing around the time school started up again. Me being homeschooled, I've been busy with creating my own forum and getting an apprentice journalist job, so I really don't have any free time in my schedule. That's why i don't really edit like I used to.-- DarthCookie  Talk 02:39, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Enthusiasm. When I first came here, I was so happy. I made friends, took part in awesome contests, was adding to a wiki about my favourite game, ect. I don't know why, but its like I kind of lost that enthusiasm. I am the community director at 2 wiki's, and its pretty easy for me to see when there is a decline in activity. Also, I just ended with exams, and I know people all around the world are busy/starting with them. Now, I think when we get a new user, we go crazy. Everybody gives them a personal welcome like: ''Hey! Welcome to the wiki! and I hope you like it here, and if you need any help, feel free to contact me! ''

Many wikians already do that, like me, but if everyone welcomes someone, he will be very happy here.

Next, I say we need to start having a featured contest every month, and we must start the The Sims Wiki Battles. Both will do a lot of good for the wiki. BobNewbie talk • blog 07:29, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * The main reasons to the "decrease" is ,simply lost of interest in The Sims Series and needing to do stuff IRL.-- Monster2821 talk 12:55, December 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, so I'm getting the idea from the answers here that the decline is mainly due to real life, and isn't necessarily due to one overwhelming factor or another. That being said, BobNewbie did say something which struck me regarding enthusiasm. Perhaps what goes hand-in-hand with a decline in activity is a decline in enthusiastic participation, not just in editing but in participation in a community. By this, I mean the participation in and creation of contests, posts and responses in the forums, messages to other users around the wiki (such as on birthdays or whenever someone does something good) and such.


 * Also, to address BobNewbie's point directly, I have been trying to keep the Features space up-to-date over the past month but I have no ideas of my own as to what our monthly contest should be, and the ideas for such have bee, sadly, a little sparse - the weekly poll is strictly a fallback plan if we can't feature a contest instead.


 * On that note, we move from what I'd like to call phase one to what is now phase two... in that we've identified some likely reasons for declining activity. Some of these things, such as the new skin or people's academic schedules, cannot be easily fixed or avoided. But a gap in enthusiasm very well could be with a bit of concentrated effort. To that end, any suggestions anyone has here - such as starting up The Sims Wiki Battles - would be greatly appreciated at this point. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 14:50, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that we could start up The Sims Wiki Battles or some kind of similar contest to attempt to add interest in the Wiki. I agree with the opinion that the new skin has caused some backlash and that there are some RL issues which are unavoidable. On another note, I am surprised that the JoePlay blog and the Spotlight ad didn't attract any new users. GEORGIE  GIBBONS  talk contributions 16:22, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that a decrease in activity isn't really the problem. The problem is that the examining session has begun and everyone has to study. I agree with the contest idea. At least it works for all the people in Greece. Now, if half of the Earth population actually has been playing The Sims for around 2 years, then advertising the site could be a could idea. If EA publishes a new game about The Sims sooner then March 2010, and we collect information faster than Simfans.de or any other site, something could happen. Restarting the Achievements Leaderboard may be a second solution. - Andronikos Leventis 16:38, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I started The Sims Wik Battles, so thats 1 thing taken care of. Anyway, we know that school is keeping users busy, and theres nothing we can do about that (actually, there is...). This is a very weird situation. On the 1 hand we could wait a while to see if its getting worse and lose users, on the other one we can start acting now. Andronkis is right with both plans. GEORGIE, both the blog and the spotlight brought some users, but they didn't stay long. BobNewbie talk •  blog 17:14, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I started The Sims Wik Battles, so thats 1 thing taken care of. Anyway, we know that school is keeping users busy, and theres nothing we can do about that (actually, there is...). This is a very weird situation. On the 1 hand we could wait a while to see if its getting worse and lose users, on the other one we can start acting now. Andronkis is right with both plans. GEORGIE, both the blog and the spotlight brought some users, but they didn't stay long. BobNewbie talk •  blog 17:14, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I started The Sims Wik Battles, so thats 1 thing taken care of. Anyway, we know that school is keeping users busy, and theres nothing we can do about that (actually, there is...). This is a very weird situation. On the 1 hand we could wait a while to see if its getting worse and lose users, on the other one we can start acting now. Andronkis is right with both plans. GEORGIE, both the blog and the spotlight brought some users, but they didn't stay long. BobNewbie talk •  blog 17:14, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

I actually haven't been that active lately, mainly because there isn't that much here to improve. --Norman Average 17:18, December 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Norman, have you seen how many stubs and short articles we have? How many need images, infoboxes, ect. This is a big wiki, but there is a lot of stuff to do. Thank goodness we have the people to do the job. BobNewbie talk •  blog 17:45, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the achievements and JoePlay's blog... speaking from an admin's perspective the whole thing was a nightmare and I for one don't wish to repeat it. It may have brought some people into the wiki, but I don't think it really did much to aid activity, and so much of the activity was vandalism or was just pointless. But if we could get a couple features that really draw people, it would be cool. As odd as this sounds, maybe revising our community guidelines regarding pages for rumored games would help... if we had a compilation of available rumors and information about un-announced titles, we might be able to draw people who are looking for that sort of thing. Granted, I'm not really advocating that since it too would be a logistical nightmare, but it's good to have unique ideas.

Maybe another question, while this is going, is: are there any things here on the Wiki that should be redesigned, changed or removed? I ask because maybe there's certain things here that just don't appeal to people, and we should try and eliminate them if they are not worth having. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 19:06, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, listen to this. This is only a suggestion. Fanon. One of the biggest "problems" here are people creating fanon pages. I know its a long shot, but if we spend a month or 2 planning, we could figure out a way to enable fanon being created and it being categorized better. Again, this is only a suggestion. BobNewbie talk • blog 19:27, December 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok... I know a while back a vote about merging with the Fanon Wiki failed (a very close vote, btw)... but I don't think the community had really come up with a comprehensive merge plan for implementing the merge. It might be worth starting a discussion about, or we could take a vote to ask whether the community would support the creation of a project to create an implementation plan for merging the wikis prior to a vote on whether the wikis should actually be merged. I agree though that fanon is a bit frustrating as it sits in this gray area... it's allowed in some places (player stories pages) but not in others, and only regarding certain things. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 19:40, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. But I don't think a merge is the best idea. We should just weaken the policy a bit: You are allowed to put player stories about existing Sims on pages, but not create fanon articles about pre-created Sims (for example, if I created Bella Goth: My Story, and someone searched Bella Goht accidentaly, they would come to two different pages, and it could get confusing). So we only allow pages about CAS Sims and Neighborhoods being created. Get what i'm saying? BobNewbie talk •  blog 19:49, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with almost all comments on here, sometimes I feel so lonely on this wiki because anyone is editing at the same time as me. Unfortunately I don't see a current solution for this problem. Perhaps we should let it go naturally, certainly activity will increase in future, we all should work to keep activity, I also think you are needing new projects and innovation. I definitely don't agree with fanon implementation, it would be an info mess and making vandalism activities would be much easier. I don't agree with removing this wiki, it would be sad seeing all this info and huge community gone. I am sorry to say that I'm also very busy with school at weekdays, I hope people are not losing the interest in Sims series but I'm sure that is also a main reason which causes this problem. There is another problem, people have real lifes and we msut have it, of course, maybe that explains something, I am also being caught by real life and have real issues to resolve not virtual ones, I am still very interested in Sims, though. We should motivate users to improve articles and/or uploading images, blogs, content and much more, we shouldn't be so negative and harsh when reviewing edits from Newbies or regular users, instead of only pointing them out about their mistakes, indicate what they have positively done, just a suggestion. Thanks for reading. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 21:08, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. Heres my view. Many people have left due to the skin, and there is nothing we should do about it. We should not move. We need to "change" the wiki a bit. When I say that, I mean it in two ways:
 * To make the wiki look better (not that I have any problems with how it looks right now)
 * To create contests to increase activity
 * I agree with almost all comments on here, sometimes I feel so lonely on this wiki because anyone is editing at the same time as me. Unfortunately I don't see a current solution for this problem. Perhaps we should let it go naturally, certainly activity will increase in future, we all should work to keep activity, I also think you are needing new projects and innovation. I definitely don't agree with fanon implementation, it would be an info mess and making vandalism activities would be much easier. I don't agree with removing this wiki, it would be sad seeing all this info and huge community gone. I am sorry to say that I'm also very busy with school at weekdays, I hope people are not losing the interest in Sims series but I'm sure that is also a main reason which causes this problem. There is another problem, people have real lifes and we msut have it, of course, maybe that explains something, I am also being caught by real life and have real issues to resolve not virtual ones, I am still very interested in Sims, though. We should motivate users to improve articles and/or uploading images, blogs, content and much more, we shouldn't be so negative and harsh when reviewing edits from Newbies or regular users, instead of only pointing them out about their mistakes, indicate what they have positively done, just a suggestion. Thanks for reading. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 21:08, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. Heres my view. Many people have left due to the skin, and there is nothing we should do about it. We should not move. We need to "change" the wiki a bit. When I say that, I mean it in two ways:
 * To make the wiki look better (not that I have any problems with how it looks right now)
 * To create contests to increase activity
 * To make the wiki look better (not that I have any problems with how it looks right now)
 * To create contests to increase activity

At TSM wiki, we are having a logo contest. In the logo contest, you can also vote to keep the current logo. We can create contest like:


 * A new logo contest
 * A new background contest
 * TSWM Contest. A The Sims Wiki Mascot Contest. You can upload a picture of a Sim who will represent TSW for the next year! It can work the same way as featured media voting. Then, we can copy that Sim in our games, and, for example, in December, we put a picture of him in a Santa Outfit! Its just a suggestion, but if you ask me, it will surely attract new users.
 * Featured Media/ Featured Articles need a new voting layout. We can have a contest to decide which layout were gonna use.

BobNewbie  talk • blog  08:05, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

Readers look at pictures, panels, bold letters and links. They don't look at categories. I agree with BobNewbie. A new backround is indeed needed, and the mascot idea is great! Also a way should be found to reduce spam and vandalism. And finally readers are sensible people and want to know more about the advantages of beign a user. We are close to 2011 and if someone created a New Year backround (be careful not to create a Christmas backround) it would be an identical world. Then wait until 25/12 when holiday has started and there won't be a school problem, because most of the users aren't adults. These are only my thoughts. - Andronikos Leventis 13:21, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to say that I like the Mascot idea. I think we should be able to create our own Sims for the mascot contest (like costumes etc.) but of course be mindful of the Wiki's policy for images. GEORGIE  GIBBONS  talk contributions 15:48, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * All of these sound like pretty good ideas. I know that I've been considering bringing up a change to the wiki's background (it's so green!), but that in my mind would go hand-in-hand with a redesign of the main page, which I consider to be something we should consider - if you visit other Wikis' main pages, you'll see that they have a lot less of an introductory "header" than we do... they get right to the content and offer links to different areas of the wiki; ours is an introduction which reasonably could be relocated to The Sims Wiki:About. I would say that the current mainpage layout is a leftover from Monaco, when there was no giant Wikia bar at the top of the screen, and that it needs an update; in regards to this matter, I've already posed the idea on talk:The Sims Wiki, but no response has been posted yet. Also, I know that A Morris has mentioned ideas for changing Featured Articles, but as of yet she hasn't proposed anything formally - the discussion of Featured Articles should be located on this page, above this conversation. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 16:09, December 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * The main page probably does need to be redesigned so it gets to the content sooner. The content panel is catchy, but it's far enough down that it's unlikely to be one of the first things a newcomer will see. As for changing the background, would that be the background outside the content area, or the background of the content area? If it's the former, a redesign - and a contest - might be a good idea. If it's the latter, I say "no". The background to the content area may not be visually exciting or "cool", but it is easy to look at, which is no small thing if you want people to stay for a while. Dharden (talk) 18:18, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I think background was referring to the green Plumbbob wallpaper visible on all pages, not just the mainpage. I would agree that visual ease-of-use is important here, as I certainly don't appreciate eye strain any more than the next person. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 18:20, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I think this wiki is in a negative cicle because there are few people editing and other users don't see any community activity, contests and innovation they swith to another web site and go listening to music or other things, I think most users (even admins) lost the interest they had in this wiki. Thanks --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 12:15, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. I have created a new logo contest. We still need a new background contest and I think we should have a mascot contest. BobNewbie talk •  blog 12:32, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. I have created a new logo contest. We still need a new background contest and I think we should have a mascot contest. BobNewbie talk •  blog 12:32, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. I have created a new logo contest. We still need a new background contest and I think we should have a mascot contest. BobNewbie talk •  blog 12:32, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

Earlier I was talking about how the sims wiki should have a MediaWiki:Monobook.css, well I copied MediaWiki:Monaco.css and pasted it to User:Eduardog3000/monobook.css and it looked really good.--Eduardog3000 02:33, December 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and followed Eduardog's example and added the content in MediaWiki:Monaco.css to MediaWiki:Monobook.css. If there are any issues with it, don't ask me how to fix it because I honestly don't have a clue. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 05:35, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we could have a event system. They can work like mini wiki holidays. Like on the 21 January, its stub day, where everyone edits mostly stubs. Weird Day, where we make a page where we put the weirdest pictures on the wiki on a page, and discuss about all the weird things of the game. Just a suggestion. -- BobNewbie talk • blog 17:19, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

We could even try an April Fool's Day prank! Fake information about The Sims, and what's more, a prank about an upcoming TS3 game! Classic, but better than just waiting until 1st April finishes. - Andronikos Leventis 18:34, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Good idea! Sounds Fun! -- BobNewbie talk • blog 18:40, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who suggested the merge with the Fanon Wiki. The Avatar: The Last Airbender Wiki merged with their Fanon Wiki, and they claimed that it was a really successful move. The wiki became very popular and active, even after their original show ended. I know that The Sims is long from ending (I hope! D:), but we are suffering from inactivity. The way how the Avatar: The Last Airbender Wiki handles their fanon is very simple and organized, take a look! If we do merge with the Fanon Wiki, we would have to create a fanon portal, a fanon category (and other sub-categories), and a fanon namespace, much like the Avatar Wiki's. Come and look at the Avatar Wiki Fanon and tell me what you think! — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 14:00, December 17, 2010 (UTC)

Statistics
I was digging around the wiki and ended up on the About page, and there was a link to our traffic summary on Quantcast... I checked to make sure it wasn't covering the whole of Wikia and it's not - it's specific to us! You can check it out for yourself but I'll summarize:


 * Activity in the past six months was highest on Halloween - October 31. Traffic around that period was significantly higher than traffic preceding or following it. However, it appears that traffic is slightly higher following that peak. That peak and subsequent modest increase in activity coincides (perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not) with the mandatory switch to Oasis.
 * The 'peak and valley' effect, most likely an increase of wiki activity on weekends and decrease on weekdays, is more pronounced after around late August than it is before; thus indicating that many of our contributors have school or other weekday activities which do not happen over summertime.
 * The wiki's audience is split up fairly well geographically... a plurality of contributors are from the United States, but they do not constitute a majority of users.
 * A vast majority of users: 77%; are considered 'passers-by' and visit once a month or less. Only 7% visit the wiki more than 30 times a month.
 * TSW averages over 3,500,000 page views per month, and over 450,000 visits per month from a global audience. An estimated 108,000 visits come from the United States; compare this to an estimated 165,000 visits from the U.S. for TheSims3.com, 82,500 U.S. visits for ModTheSims.info, 93,000 US visits for thesimsresource.com, and (to put it in perspective) 129,300,000 US visits for facebook.com... So to sum it up, we rank higher in (American) site visits than The Sims Resource and ModTheSims, but rank lower than TheSims3.com.
 * There are 14,900,000 US visitors to the Wikia network per month, and 108,000 US visitors to TSW per month, putting us at 0.727% of total network traffic for the Wikia network (Fallout Wiki is highest).
 * Looking at data from the past year, on average our activity here in terms of readership is at this point the highest that it has been all year (factoring out the odd jump or two). Aside from the current time, the wiki was busiest over the (Northern Hemisphere) summer months of June-August.

Feel free to chew all this over for a while. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 10:12, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

TSWM
I posted the idea above, and it seems some people like the idea. Heres what I said:

''TSWM Contest. A The Sims Wiki Mascot Contest. You can upload a picture of a Sim who will represent TSW for the next year! It can work the same way as featured media voting. Then, we can copy that Sim in our games, and, for example, in December, we put a picture of him in a Santa Outfit! Its just a suggestion, but if you ask me, it will surely attract new users.''

Understand what i'm saying? Say someone created a Sim. Everyone likes how he/she looks. We can then copy that Sim in our games. Then, we put them around the wiki. For example, when going to a help page, it has a picture of him/her fixing something. At the community portal, we can have a picture of him/her speaking their mind.

Or, we can try a simpler approach. On Christmas, we use a picture of, for example, him/her in a Christmas outfit. January, him/her at a fireworks show (form world adventures).

It will certainly attract new users. I have at least 4 Sims in mind to enter. It will also have users sign up for the first time. BobNewbie talk • blog 18:40, December 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Great idea! Also I think we should create a template with images of Christmas things with a place to fill a message and then we could wish a great christmas to our wiki friends, what do you guys think? I think it would be cute ^^. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 18:44, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * So, this would be a custom Sim, not a pre-created EA Sim, correct? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 18:45, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a custom Sim would be better. BobNewbie talk •  blog 18:47, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you think about my idea? Thanks --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 18:48, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Guilherme - just to keep things cleaner, I'd suggest starting a new section for your idea. I like it, though. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 18:51, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Guilherme - just to keep things cleaner, I'd suggest starting a new section for your idea. I like it, though. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 18:51, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

I think the Sim should have a clever name which has something to do with the name of the wiki. For example "Simon Wikonian" (I am not that good with making names) or something. He should also wear a shirt with one of the custom Sims Wiki Patterns. If he has already been made (Like BobNewbie said he had 4 in mind) then we could just change his clothes and name. Overall though I like the idea of a mascot, but not a new one every year, keep the same one. We could also make it a family, not just one Sim (with one S



im as the main mascot).--Eduardog3000 02:47, December 9, 2010 (UTC)

The Community Support team also have a mascot, Walter. BobNewbie talk • blog 09:40, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

Christmas template
I want to suggest new creation: a Christmas template with lots of Christmas images where we could fill it with a message saying the best wishes to our wiki friends, it would be nice and cute and all users would like to receive one, I think, I don't know if we can do such thing but I hope it is possible. Thanks for reading. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 18:57, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

Any thoughts? Thanks --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 09:21, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

Well, its a very good idea, but I don't 100% think its the best. It's going to be a system of: Go to talk page, put template below page, go to next user, repeat. I think we should all just give personalized messages to make everyone feel special. BobNewbie talk • blog 09:38, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

Yes of course I thought on that, we would fill the template with the message we wanted to give to one friend and then another we would write a different message, if the person wants to give a copied message to all people that is his/her choice. Thanks for reading. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 09:45, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

You are missing something here. Not everyone's religion is Christianity! There are 6 billion people in this planet and I think that such a template could be insulting for some of them. A New Year template is better. I am not an artist myself to tell what would look better, but I think that this could be a little too strange for some people. - Andronikos Leventis 17:31, December 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * I would put it a bit more delicately than that, but it is a point. However, someone who is not Christian may still recognize Christmas as a secular holiday, and may not mind Christmas greetings from friends, even if they might prefer that those greetings be secular. Dharden (talk) 18:10, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Happy Holidays' may be a good alternative to 'Merry Christmas' though I know that the use of that term is also not without controversy. The simple fact in all this is that it's impossible to please everyone. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 18:20, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am agnostic and don't really care wherever people say Happy Holidays or Merry Christmas. Also, you don't have to be Christian to celebrate Christmas. You can celebrate it religously or non-religously. For example, Christmas is celebrated in Japan, a non-Christian country. --Norman Average 18:23, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. I think we should stop talking about religion. I believe we should still use the "Merry Christmas" template. As people can see from this discussion, our hearts are in the right place, and we just wan't to tell people to enjoy whatever they are celebrating. We don't mean any disrespect. BobNewbie talk •  blog 18:52, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, just make it 'Merry Christmas' and leave it at that. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 05:36, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Could someone help me? I'm not really experienced with templates. Thanks so much--Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 15:02, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, just make it 'Merry Christmas' and leave it at that. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 05:36, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Could someone help me? I'm not really experienced with templates. Thanks so much--Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 15:02, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Category galleries
Information regarding the new feature, category galleries, from Wendy aka Merrystar, Wikia Community Support: The articles included in the category gallery are the 8 most visited in the last 30 days. The image used is the first image on the page which 1) isn't in a template or infobox and 2) is larger than 50 x 50 px in size and 3) is not used on more than 10 pages on the wiki. If no image is found which meets that criteria it will use the first piece of text that is not included in a template.

So I suppose the best way to optimize articles is to have your favorite image be the first one on the page that is not inside an infobox or other template, and to make sure it isn't used on too many other pages.

I'm not sure how quickly changes to the article are reflected in the gallery - we don't have enough experience with the feature to know yet. I would say if you don't see a change to the article reflected in the gallery in a few days to please contact us.

Update: Just a quick update; I was speaking with one of the people who worked on this project and he says that the gallery will take images from templates and infoboxes; I had misunderstood that. So I guess put your best image at the top of the page either in or out of the infobox.

It won't, however, take text from the infoboxes in the case that there is no suitable image to use.

--a_morris (talk) 17:56, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

New Userboxes
I made 2 new userboxes Template:User dating, for users who are dating someone and Template:User divorced for users who are divorced if someone wishes to uptade them feel free to do so. Also use them as you wish. Thanks so much. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 21:23, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Voting Templates
OK! First thing I did as a community director: I created two voting templates!

What do you guys think? If you feel like creating more, please set the picture size to 16px, and add them below. When we have 6, we can create a page for them all. -- BobNewbie talk • blog 07:52, December 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * Anybody have an opinion? BobNewbie talk •  blog 12:54, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * What abou neutral template? Thanks --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 18:19, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about that. But I don't know what image to use. BobNewbie talk •  blog 19:00, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral.png do you think about this image for neutral votes? --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 10:34, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. I'll create the template now, and we can change it later if the community decides. BobNewbie talk •  blog 10:37, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. I'll create the template now, and we can change it later if the community decides. BobNewbie talk •  blog 10:37, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. I'll create the template now, and we can change it later if the community decides. BobNewbie talk •  blog 10:37, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. I'll create the template now, and we can change it later if the community decides. BobNewbie talk •  blog 10:37, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

A neutral template, Neutral = has been created.

Thanks Bob! --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 10:53, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Moodlets
We can also have ones based on moodlets, like Smile makes. -- BobNewbie talk • blog 16:18, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Here's another one: Lol makes


 * Duskey was working on something similar: User:Duskey/Sandbox. --a_morris (talk) 21:28, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a small note Bob, you mean "here is" or "here's", that's is the correct form. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 13:34, December 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Guilherme. I Fixed it!

Seeking community input
I've proposed a revision to our policies and feedback is needed. To view the proposal, go here.

Additionally, I have made significant expansion to the wiki Guidelines and some feedback is also appreciated on the talk page. If something is missing from that list and you believe it belongs there, feel free to add it (so long as it's relatively agreed upon by the community).--  LostInRiverview talk · blog 06:54, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Top 10
This is a popular feature on many wiki's and I think we can enable to help increase activity. For those of you who don't know how they work, users create a list. Other users can add something to that list and vote something up. The feature can be enabled by contacting a wikia staff member. So, what do you guys think? BobNewbie talk • blog 18:10, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you provide links to a couple wikis that have this feature enabled? Thanks! --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 18:12, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure! Here, here and here (community central). If you would like more, just ask! BobNewbie talk •  blog 18:20, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * I like it, as long as it's being monitored to ensure that the comments made adhere to policy. If the community supports it, myself or another one of the admins can contact Wikia to have it activated. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 18:29, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I think it might be better to bring it in sooner rather than later, and allow a trial run to gauge reaction to it. I'll leave this open for about a day so that any serious objections can be heard, but then I'll probably make the contact myself. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 18:31, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Great! BobNewbie talk •  blog 18:33, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Great! BobNewbie talk •  blog 18:33, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Great! BobNewbie talk •  blog 18:33, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Here's how they do it: Special:CreateTopList --a_morris (talk) 21:07, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

I created the first one: Top 10 list:Favorite Sim. BobNewbie talk • blog 08:04, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I've created Top ten Expansion Packs --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 08:38, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Defining Households vs Families
In response to previous discussions regarding things to do with families versus households, I think we as a community should, once and for all, decide a few key issues:
 * 1) Should family/household pages with only one Sim in the family/household be kept?
 * 2) If one-Sim households/families are kept, what are they called (households or families)?
 * 3) If one-Sims households/families are not kept, where do we put information such as household/family net worth and difficulty level? Additionally, how do we ensure that wiki users searching for this information will not be challenged by the lack of a family/household page?
 * 4) What kind of information should be placed on a family or household page, and what kind of information belongs on the Sim page?

Feel free to add additional questions or to start subsections for discussion. No voting will occur here; this is simply to ascertain what the community wants and (hopefully) come to a consensus regarding what our stance on these issues should be. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 20:11, December 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * WRT terminology, I think we should follow in-game usage where possible. If the game says "family", use "family", even if there's just one Sim. In-game usage will affect what terms people will use when searching, especially if they're using a search engine.


 * I think family pages should be kept for one-Sim households if they have relatives or ancestors who are mentioned by name, especially if they have character files. For example, Lothario family should stay because Don Lothario's parents and grandparents are mentioned in The Sims 2, even if he is their only living descendant. More as I think of it. Dharden (talk) 20:50, December 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with using in-game terminology for article pages as the in-game terminology changes, The Sims and The Sims 2 almost exclusively uses "family" while The Sims 3 uses "household". The wiki should use terms consistently. If an article is about Sims who are related to each other the title should be "family", if the article is about Sims living together it should be "household", with "family" taking precedence. Therefore, a family also living together and one-Sim households would be a "family". But in-game names should be used as redirects for easier searching.
 * The keeping of one-Sim household/family pages does seem a bit useless, although I believe they should be kept as redirects for categorization and searching. The Sim & Simbio templates does already have a "household" section which could be expanded to contain difficulty and net worth, or a separate, abbreviated version of FamilyInfobox template could be created. --a_morris (talk) 17:28, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Bot is needed or not?
Should we have a new bot owned by an admin, i thought in this because Duskey appears to have left wiki and no one can acess VickyBot because it was owned by Duskey, we have some current tasks for bots, who would own one, an admin, possibly? Thanks so much. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 13:27, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that it is a good idea to have a second bot which can take the place of VickyBot, especially as it is unknown how long Duskey will be absent for. GG   (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  13:39, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * By the time I don't think Duskey is going to return, sad but a possibility... --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 13:41, December 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * -- BobNewbie talk • blog 16:45, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I've created A bot, but if anyone else wants to take on a bot they can. --a_morris (talk) 20:59, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Ombudsman
Now that BobNewbie has taken over as Community Director, I notice that two other positions are available. Since the Forum Moderator will likely need to be an administrator due to their duties, I am coming here to ask if anyone would be willing to step up and take the position of the Wiki's Ombudsman (see Ombudsman for more info).


 * This user must be


 * Among the most active members of the Wiki.
 * Trusted by the entire community.
 * Willing to respond to issues and complaints and;
 * Able to reach a fair and neutral solution in arguments.

The ombudsman here would be more of an intermediary between two parties than necessarily a representative. However, if a user had an issue with a particular Administrator, they could also file a complaint with the Ombudsman.

I see this as being a good role to fill. Administrators aren't the best people in mediating disputes, in my opinion, and having a trusted community member to choose a fair solution seems better to me. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 23:13, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really know of a user who can take on the task. Being the only admin on a large wiki, I know how hard it can be to take on the task. You are supposed to research everything that has happened, then listen to both the users viewpoints, and finally, possibly the biggest thing, not take sides. You must always be in the middle. Even if you dislike 1 user and are good friends with the other, you must stay neutral. BobNewbie talk •  blog 07:32, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally think of Duskey as Obudsman, but, seeing his inactivity, he will likely be replaced. 09:09, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

If nobody else volunteers, I wouldn't mind taking the role of Ombudsman but I personally think that there are users who would do a better job at it than me, which is why I would only take the job if noone else volunteers. GG  (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  09:35, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

i don't know, but I don't think I would be good when performing this job, sorry. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 09:44, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

I can't volunteer, being the community director, but I won't mind taking the job when Bleeh is back in April. Otherwise, I would say GEORGIE should become one. BobNewbie talk • blog 10:17, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe BobNewbie should become an ombudsman, remember when he rallied users to go against Auror and told her if she doesn't change she would need to leave the wiki? Good ombudmen do not do that! They are much too inexperienced, even to be community director. Georgie would be a very good ombudsman though, in my opinion. He is always calm and friendly. PS the main page and community portal talk pages are very long on phones :( 68.171.234.177 17:33, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

That was long time ago, and I think it is time to forget it, all participants learned the lesson (including me) and I hope something like this does not happens once again. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 17:41, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

I respect your right to comment 68.171.234.177, but you may have realized that me and Auror are now on a good basis, and both of us have grew past that. If you believe I should not be Community Director, you have the right to tell an administrator, but when the community decided, I was chosen. BobNewbie talk • blog 17:47, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Bob is right, we are on good basis now and we are all trying to cooperate, that is the most important, it is also time to detach that Bob is doing a great work as a community director, he is very creative never out of ideas and he is raising discussion and bringing solutions. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 18:00, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Now, let's see where this is going. Nowhere. Bob is doing a splendid job (much better than I would think) and he really deserves the position. If no one would like to nominate themselves, than us users will nominate them. Does this sound like a good plan?
 * Thats a perfect solution, and thank you. BobNewbie talk •  blog 18:58, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have made a nomination . --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 19:22, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have made a nomination . --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 19:22, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if I could do it or not, but I could try, and being that I barely leave the house because I'm homeschooled, I could be on all the time. Besides it would give me a reason to be active here again.-- DarthCookie  Talk 10:17, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

Reader Poll
Attn. Editors and Community;

I don't like disrupting the usual order of things on the main page, but I've added a temporary poll to the sidebar to gauge reader needs in a mainpage redesign. I intend to keep the poll there for only a week or less, so that Battles, Featured Article and the like will be returned to higher up on the page. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 23:12, December 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Poll is broken. I use Opera, but the poll is not showing my vote or recording that I voted. (I even tried twice.) Dharden (talk) 23:39, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * It was doing that for me too... I closed out the browser (Firefox) and the vote was apparently logged, but as to why it's not working, I can't explain. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 23:41, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Tried it on different computers with different browsers, it's broken. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 23:50, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Fanon wiki merge
I know that this idea has already been considered, but I think we should reconsider merging with the Fanon Wiki. One of the main problems recently on this wiki was it's decreasing activity. Many ideas were thought of, and I thought that merging with the Fanon Wiki would be a good way to help increase the wiki's activity. I originally thought of the Fanon Wiki merge about 8 months ago. I thought that it was a good idea to help increase the activity and popularity of both wiki's, and, as you probably noticed, we definitely need help with the activity now. The Avatar Wiki merged with their fanon wiki a while ago. They claimed that it was very controversial, but ended up being a really smart move, as it helped their wiki remain popular and active, even after Avatar: The Last Airbender ended. One of the main reasons that caused people to vote against merging with the Fanon Wiki was that they thought it would be too confusing, and users wouldn't know whether a Sim is fanon or canon. However, using the Avatar Wiki as a role model, we could create a very simple and easy to understand way of merging with the Fanon Wiki. Like them, we could create a Fanon portal, which would act as a main page for the fanon side of the wiki, we could create a Fanon category, along with subsequent categories (Fanon Sims, Fanon neighborhoods, etc.), most importantly, we could create a Fanon namespace (Ex. Fanon:Article Name) so that Sims and other fanon won't get confused as being canon, and we could appoint some fanon administrators to run the fanon side of the wiki. Merging with the Fanon Wiki could be very beneficial to both communities, as it would bring both communities together, increasing activity, and bringing new users to the wiki, increasing popularity. Also, fanon is one of the main features of The Sims series, as it allows players to create their own Sims, neighborhoods, and stories. Many users come here, thinking that The Sims Wiki is for writing about their Sims. Once they find out it's not, they almost always leave, causing the wiki to lose one more contributor. If we merge with the Fanon Wiki, we would no longer have to worry about losing users. And, when a user creates a whole article about a Sim they created, rather than going to the hassle of moving the article to the Fanon Wiki and telling them about it, all we would have to do is move the article into the Fanon namespace. I believe that merging with the Fanon Wiki could be a great opportunity for us, as it could greatly help our wiki by increasing activity. Thank you for reading this (I know it's long :p), and be sure to tell me what you think! — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 22:45, December 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - In the original vote, I voted no because I did not want it to pass without consensus. While I still hope this doesn't pass unless it's clear the community agrees, I think this route is very well thought-out and is a good idea. My questions are only minor, and do not impair me from supporting this idea in its current form.
 * Will player stories be kept in their present location as a subpage of the article, or will they also move to the Fanon namespace? If not, will there be a way to navigate from the Fanon namespace to individual player stories pages?
 * Ultimately, I support this idea. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 01:00, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently, according to this, player stories are stories and information based on canonical Sims, while fanon is Sims, stories, and other elements that are not included in any game, but treated as canon. So, if we do merge, player stories will stay where it is, but fanon Sims and stories based on fanon Sims will be under the Fanon namespace. — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 03:34, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

For. One of the biggest sources of vandalism here is fanon being created. If it's allowed, that'll take a load off our backs. Also, even years after the series has ended, we can still have a large active community. -- BobNewbie talk • blog 05:56, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. It'll help boost the number of active editors and like BobNewbie said, it will save admins and rollbackers a lot of hassle when it comes to fanon. GG   (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  10:26, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * OpposeNo, never, I've statted many times why I disagree with this idea and I'm not going to repeat it but my personal opnion is that this will be a huge mess, everyone would write about their stories in real articles and I am seeing a dark future with this merge. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 18:17, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

There is one thing I disagree on, the merge. Won't it be easier to only lift the rule of creating fanon articles here? -- BobNewbie talk • blog 18:31, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm.... Bob, I don't think so, are you imagining the huge mess it would be?! If this is approved, at least we should have a canon section and a fanon one, that's my personal opinion but it doesn't necessarily mean that all share this point of view. Thanks. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 18:38, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. What are you thinking? There is no way that could happen. In all of a sudden, a wiki named "Oh, I want to write about my own sims and I'm writing it here" merging with a wiki full of knowledge? If someone names a sim Bella Goth, then writing about her in TSW, then the readers won't know which article is the correct one|_Andronikos Leventis 20:20, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, like I said above, if we merge, then the Bella Goth article that they created would be under the Fanon namespace. That's how we would know which article is canon and/or fanon. — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 20:39, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support. Andronikos Leventis, if you had any brain cells left, than clearly, the fanon Bella Goth article will be under the fanon mainspace, as, Fanon:Bella Goth. If there's more than one fanon Bella Goth article, than the article will be named for it's story, as, Fanon:Bella Goth (The Final War). Anyway, I was for the fanon merge the first time, so I'm for the fanon merge this time as well.

Oppose If we merge the wikis, even though the fanon articles will have "Fanon:" in front of them, plenty of people, as soon as they see that this wiki includes fanon, they will start making fanon pages without "Fanon:" in front, and they will start putting fanon things on non-fanon pages, and that will be to hard to keep up with, there is also the fact that merging will not very much increase activity on non-fanon pages (except what I mentioned above), it will mostly increase activity on fanon pages.--Eduardog3000 01:45, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's why we'll the user about their fanon, and tell them not to make the same mistake next time.
 * Yeah. That's basically what's happening now, users are putting fanon into main articles. If we merge, this problem would probably become easier, in my opinion. — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 02:10, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose I think one of the primary problems with this remains the fact that there is just so much Sims fanon. I see so many edit wars over names of pages, etc. How many Bella Goth pages will we end up with, namespace difference or not I see it getting messy. So messy. I also suspect (and it is only a suspicion) that it would increase, not decrease, the amount of fanon-vandalism here, although clearly BobNewbie sees it having the opposite effect. It's only a tentative oppose. I'm open to persuasion and if it happens I'll still be around. Watching this unfold carefully. --- (Kiwi tea 03:37, December 22, 2010 (UTC))
 * Well, if we do merge, the Fanon:Bella Goth articles would be named after the story they are a part of (i.e. Fanon:Bella Goth (The Final War), or, the creator's username (i.e. Fanon:Bella Goth (Random Ranaun)), with the main Fanon:Bella Goth article as a disambiguation page. And even if it does increase the fanon-vandalism here, it would be a lot easier to deal with. Fanon-vandalism isn't that big a problem at the Avatar Wiki, and even if a user writes fanon in a main article, we could just move it, and tell them about the fanon side of the wiki. — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 04:20, December 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me address some of the opposition.
 * -The idea that merging will cause problems with people placing articles in incorrect namespaces. The fact is this already happens regarding fanon and player stories. TSW has a more-or-less stated policy among admins that fanon-type content should be moved to the Fanon Wiki, or at the very least onto a user's namespace: this creates a lot of work. Additionally, if we insist that fanon must be placed at TSFW, that ties my hands because I'm not an admin at TSFW so I can't move articles between the wikis. The merge would allow admins to move pages simply by adding 'fanon:' to the front of it; super-simple!
 * Fanon edit wars will develop over page names. If this would ever happen, the solution is quite simple - make the names different; example being if two users create two Sims named John Smith... their article names would be 'Fanon:John Smith (User 1)' and 'Fanon:John Smith (User 2).' Again, very simple solution.
 * Sims named after pre-existing sims will confuse readers. Again, as long as the page has a 'fanon:' in front of it and clearly states the fact that it is fanon (we could set this up so pages created in the Fanon namespace have an automatic template, similar to the set-up in the Forum namespace), this should be no issue.


 * My position on this whole matter is that our current set-up is essentially only half there... we allow player stories but not fanon. IMHO if we disallow one, we should not allow the other, and vice versa.  LostInRiverview talk · blog 04:25, December 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * Support I think it would bring more activity to the site, even though the administrator and bureaucrats would have more work, it would still bring activity, unlike if there was no activity this wiki would die. So I support the idea fully, I have been looking in from the outside for a couple of months and I've seen the decreasing activity.-- DarthCookie  Talk 09:34, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

Since this move, if made, would have an impact on the jobs of administrators here (i.e. our roles and duties), and may necessitate increasing our staff, I think this matter should be addressed directly to the administrative team to consent to before we ask for community consent. Therefore, I will be starting a sister topic at the Admin Portal talk page (specifically for administrators) to discuss this. If a consensus is reached there in support of this proposal, we will return to seek consensus from the community. Feel free to continue discussion in the meantime. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 04:30, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Update

Another matter to consider, for anyone reading this; try to think of an arrangement which will best suit everyone. Since the matter is being proposed and is getting at least some positive reaction, at least some people want to see a move in this direction. That means that keeping the status quo is no more consented to than forcing through a change which some disagree with. Therefore, the goal is and ought to be finding the solution which best satisfies everyone. With that in mind, try to find a way to modify the current proposal to make it more agreeable to most, if not all, of the members of the community; this is the art of building consensus.--  LostInRiverview talk · blog 05:38, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose I see a whole lot of mess if the two wikis are merged. Confused members will be editing on all of the wrong pages, hundreds of new pages would be created, and with that, a whole lot of work for the admins will be created as well. --Bella Goth 06:06, December 22, 2010 (UTC)Bella Goth

I consider that Kiwi tea and Bella Goth have good points on this matter. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 09:16, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Bella Goth makes a horrible point, and, I still disagree. If it really is a lot of work for the admins, than we'll just make more users admins. I was thinking about the idea of "Fanon Admin". It gives you the power to give "Fanon Warnings", block users for not adhering the rules, and just clean up. I can see that Random Ranaun really wants us to merge, and the idea to me sounds awesome. You don't know something won't work until you try. I really don't see any mess happening with the two wikis merging. We can always deal with problems as a wiki, and if it really does get out of hand, than we can simply separate them again. It's as simple as that.
 * Bella Goth, all your saying is there will be a mess. If we plan this correctly and as a community, there won't be a mess. Kiwi Tea, the main reason is not because of the amount of fanon created, it's that, and dealing with the decreasing activity and to keep a large active community years after the series has ended. -- BobNewbie talk • blog 11:04, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Bella Goth, all your saying is there will be a mess. If we plan this correctly and as a community, there won't be a mess. Kiwi Tea, the main reason is not because of the amount of fanon created, it's that, and dealing with the decreasing activity and to keep a large active community years after the series has ended. -- BobNewbie talk • blog 11:04, December 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * My opinion, from an admin perspective, is that there will be little or no 'mess'... some of the issues with the current system will be resolved, and the new areas were mess would potentially occur would be as simple to handle (or easier) than our current set-up - well within our ability to manage it, especially if one or two new admins were added specifically for the fanon section, as Auror and RR have suggested. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 01:31, December 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * Before I vote, I would like to address a few concerns I am having to be abe to fully understand this entire situation. If we go ahead with the merge, I see a lot of accidental vandalism coming in. New users, not quite familiar with editing could possibly be changing all the wrong pages. People arguing over their fanons, and many more articles requiring maintence that just two more admins couldn't cover. I understand that you want to get the game alive, years after it is through, but somehow I feel like the only edits that will be made here in the future, will be fanon edits. --Bella Goth 16:14, December 24, 2010 (UTC)Bella Goth


 * Bella Goth, if somebody makes "accidental vandalism", we can calmly move the page to the fanon namespace, or if they though they were allowed to put fanon in articles, we calmly revert it and tell them. Yes, it's gonna need some heard work, but raising activity is never easy, and we have plenty of hard workers on hand. -- BobNewbie talk • blog 16:58, December 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * One reason to do this is that it doesn't depend on admins here also being admins on the Fanon Wiki. Most admins here aren't admins there (I'm not even active there), so we can't move articles from here to there. Therefore, a policy of having fanon on the Fanon Wiki is something that can't really be enforced . A "Fanon:" namespace is something that could be administered here, merger or no merger. Another is that we do allow some fanon here in the form of player stories. Some player stories pages have gotten long and unwieldy, and it may be time to consider reorganizing them even if we don't reconsider the types of fanon we allow. A "Fanon:" namespace could be one way of doing that. Dharden (talk) 16:16, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

I know it's usually not recommended, but I think there has been enough of a discussion to this to start a formal vote, like the one we had last time. -- BobNewbie talk • blog 18:05, December 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, something this monumental isn't exactly something that can be "voted on"... only community consensus is going to decide this. So the better question to ask is... is enough of the community in support of this for it to be done? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 19:04, December 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, thats true. It's me, you, RR, GEORGIE, Auror, DarthCookie and, I am not 100% sure, but I think he does, Dharden, support the idea to merge/create a fanon namespace. Bella Goth, Ed, Guilherme, Kiwi tea and Andronikos Leventis are against it. I may have miscount, but thats 7 users, + Monster, who supported it at the admin portal, which = 8, and there are 5 users who are against it. Though the biggest compliant is that "it will be a huge mess", like I said, as a community we can plan this to avoid that. Yes, it's gonna need some hard work, but raising activity is never easy, and we have plenty of hard workers on hand. We should think of everyone who apposes, but they should make a valid and strong point. -- BobNewbie talk • blog 19:31, December 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not an unqualified supporter of this. I was neutral last time because I can see good reasons to do it and good reasons not to do it. That's still true. What's changed is the balance; I think the arguments for doing it outweigh those against it. Dharden (talk) 22:19, December 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Part of what I was trying to point out is that the question of creating a "Fanon:" namespace is separate from the question of whether to merge, and can be separate from the question of what types of fanon to allow. Creating the namespace does not require merging the wikis, and IMO, should be considered on its own merits. Dharden (talk) 22:34, December 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * So is the next step to inform the community and see there reaction, or is there more to discuss before making this idea public and get a consensus?--Bella Goth 23:19, December 25, 2010 (UTC)Bella Goth


 * It's already "public" and discussion can be made throughout the process... consensus is being found right now, but this isn't likely to be decided for a couple weeks at least. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 23:20, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Formal Proposal 1

 * Formal Proposal Let me put this all down in a formal manner:
 * A new namespace, the fanon namespace, would be created with the Fanon Portal serving as its 'main page.'
 * One or two users would be made special Fanon Administrators - they would have normal admin powers but would be specifically responsible for monitoring the Fanon Namespace. These admins would be "on equal footing" with all other admins (there should be no hierarchy).
 * Fanon stories would be allowed only in the Fanon namespace, with admins responsible for moving articles wrongly made in the incorrect namespace (with notices or warnings issued to users who make this mistake).
 * Fanon stories would be expected to adhere to all other rules and guidelines on the wiki.
 * Fanon Sims, Families, Neighborhoods, etc. with the same name would be named on the wiki based either on their story content or their creator.
 * Pages in fanon namespace would be categorized under a main category Fanon, which would contain subcategories related to content in the fanon section.
 * Pages created in the fanon namespace would receive a template marking them clearly as fanon (and possibly indicating their creator).


 * As mentioned before referring to consensus - if you disagree with any part of this proposal, rather than discounting the entire idea, try to develop a solution which makes all of us as happy as possible. Fee free to suggest a change to what is written above, and we can see what everyone wants. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 01:31, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * For. Tentative support for this specific proposal. I still have huge reservations, but it's worth a try. I don't want to oppose change for the sake of opposing change. --- (Kiwi tea 05:11, December 23, 2010 (UTC))
 * Oppose. I have been thinking in this merge and I don't think this would result, everyone would be more dedicated to fanon stories than real articles, I think we would lose many of our contributors because they woldn't care for real articles, games, I don't think this is the best time to merge, my previous opinion about this concern remains. Thanks for reading. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 09:59, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if you have reservations, suggest a change that would make you more supportive of this proposal - that's the whole idea. Why should you be forced to accept something you don't really like? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 05:40, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the only thing that will alleviate my concerns is seeing this work in practice. On that basis, the most sensible thing to do is lend it support. One measure I'd like to see in place though: ALL fanon links contain the associated username. I don't want to see edit wars between users who both want the original "Fanon:Jenny Smith" etc, however unlikely a scenario that might be. (Kiwi tea 09:16, December 23, 2010 (UTC))
 * I think the only thing that will alleviate my concerns is seeing this work in practice. On that basis, the most sensible thing to do is lend it support. One measure I'd like to see in place though: ALL fanon links contain the associated username. I don't want to see edit wars between users who both want the original "Fanon:Jenny Smith" etc, however unlikely a scenario that might be. (Kiwi tea 09:16, December 23, 2010 (UTC))


 * The formal proposal is pretty good, but I think we should mention the main Fanon category, that would be under the Browse category, and hold other categories, such as Fanon Sims, Fanon neighborhoods, Fanon families, etc. Also, we should create a template that states an article is fanon, like LiR said before, that we could possibly get to appear automatically on the fanon articles. And maybe if the fanon articles are going to use the same templates as the canon articles (don't worry, Checkmns makes sure that non mainspace articles do not receive categories ^_^), we should possibly choose a color that would represent the Fanon side of the wiki, since the canon side's color would be green. That way, we could use Checkmns so that if the normal templates, like Sim and NeighborhoodInfobox, are going to be used, they would appear a certain color, another way to see if an article is fanon! Seems like a fun idea, don't you think? — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 06:24, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Along with this proposal is a proposed timeline... this is all preliminary and also subject to change by anyone:


 * Immediately after proposal is adopted: Requests for administratorship are opened to accept new Fanon Administrators. These new administrators, our current administrators, and the community collaborate to write Fanon-specific policies (these would include rules about linking to videos or other sites, what content is/isn't allowed in fanon-specific articles, rules about who can and cannot edit pages, etc)
 * Within 4-6 weeks of adoption:Creation of Fanon namespace templates and foundational categories and subcategories.
 * Within 6-8 weeks of adoption:Creation of Fanon namespace itself, and the Fanon Portal; Formal ending of TSW's current No-Fanon policy at this point in time.
 * 8 weeks after adoption and beyond:Creation of additional subcategories and templates, review and adjustment of TSW Fanon-specific policies and guidelines by the Fanon Admins.


 * -- LostInRiverview talk · blog 07:09, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I support this idea fully. BobNewbie talk •  blog 08:04, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * This is more than likely jumping the gun quite a bit, but I have started work on the fanon templates in case this should pass. If it doesn't, no harm done because I need practice making templates anyways!
 * This is more than likely jumping the gun quite a bit, but I have started work on the fanon templates in case this should pass. If it doesn't, no harm done because I need practice making templates anyways!


 * The first is a preliminary topnav navigation template, which would be added to fanon pages... it's quite a simple design, so it could use some more work.


 * The second template I'm much more proud of, as it is the warning template with an added parameter - in cases where the word Fanon is used in the  parameter. If any reason other than the word Fanon is used, the main warning text reverts to its usual text. I'm going to try and make this more user-friendly... perhaps changing it up to add a parameter  where it can be determined whether the warning is fanon-related or not. --  LostInRiverview talk ·  blog 08:45, December 23, 2010 (UTC


 * Changed the warning template on my test page so that an optional parameter- - is used to determine the color and wording of the warning... if =y, then (regardless of the reason given), the warning color and text changes, and  becomes a required parameter. You can see this template in action here. --  LostInRiverview talk ·  blog 08:58, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * They look great! BobNewbie talk •  blog 09:04, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Heres my timeline idea:
 * Before fanon is allowed:
 * Two new admins are chosen. They are in charge of making the guidelines for fanon.
 * The two, with the help of other admins and the community, decide and create the rules for Sims, families, neighborhoods,etc.
 * The templates are created
 * Before fanon is allowed:
 * Two new admins are chosen. They are in charge of making the guidelines for fanon.
 * The two, with the help of other admins and the community, decide and create the rules for Sims, families, neighborhoods,etc.
 * The templates are created

After fanon is allowed:


 * We continue to develop the rules and templates
 * We see if there are any problems, and fix/discus them

BobNewbie talk • blog 09:46, December 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea to go along with. I don't know if I could be an admin, but I could try, after all your already Community Director.  We could try to find another Fanon Admin volunteer.--  DarthCookie  Talk 14:58, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Consensus
For ease of determining opinion, please sum up your opinion(s) below so we can easily and readily determine whether the community has consented to this idea. A strong argument will mean more than a simple opinion for the purposes of determining community opinion.


 * I Support creation of a Fanon Namespace, selection of Fanon Admins, and the creation of policies handling fanon articles, as outlined above. I think this will increase activity, reduce confusion, make the admin job easier to do and improve the wiki. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 23:14, December 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not know if the proposal outlined above will increase activity, but from an admin POV, I believe it will make handling fanon/player stories easier. Dharden (talk) 00:40, December 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * I support the proposal on the basis that it's worth testing. I remain skeptical that this move will reduce confusion, but I think it will increase activity. I'm looking forward to playing a constructive part in the changes if they go ahead. (Kiwi tea 01:05, December 26, 2010 (UTC))


 * I guess there is no harm in trying this out. I must admit I haven't been on the wiki in a while. Perhaps this new project will draw back. I am still not 100% certain this will be a good decision, but as I stated above, let's give it a shot. --Bella Goth 03:54, December 26, 2010 (UTC)Bella Goth


 * I support the proposal, on the grounds that will most likely help increase our activity, increase our number of users, make our wiki more popular, and help simplify the admin job of moving fanon. — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 04:15, December 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. As in all other decisions, if it turns out not to work out, the community can decide to undo it or to eliminate certain changes. -  LostInRiverview  talk  · blog   01:26, December 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * I support creating 1, 2 or possibly 3 fanon admins, new policies for fanon and the fanon namespace being created. I believe it will raise activity and number of users. BobNewbie talk •  blog 13:05, December 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't support this, I'm still seeing a huge mess, new users will think "here I can write about my stories" and if they don't read policies carefully they will add a lot of accidental vandalism into pages, increasing activity is a good aspect but if there is too much activity it will make difficult to catch vandalism and clear it, I don't think this will do admin job much easier at all. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 10:31, December 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * This has been brought up multiple times and the issue you're discussing is possible, but you have to understand that people already make accidental vandalism because they don't understand our policies; this change would make this understanding easier, not harder. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 18:28, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm... Certainly? Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 18:30, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't support this for the same reasons Guilherme gave. --- » Яσdяigσ X  [̲̅т̲̅α̲̅l̲̅k̲̅][̲̅b̲̅l̲̅σ̲̅g̲̅] « 16:54, December 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * LIR is right. The whole "accidental vandalism" thing has been decided on. The point you make isn't really valid. -- BobNewbie talk • blog 18:43, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, what about profanity issues? Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 18:45, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Existing policy would apply. Dharden (talk) 18:54, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

I believe the Fanon namespace will make things easier with regards to identification. GG  (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  19:36, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

I think this will be the best thing for the community, it will bring more users and people will have something to do again.-- DarthCookie  Talk 14:55, December 29, 2010 (UTC) Since it is a merge, then one site has to link to the another. So, to enter the wiki, will users have to use www.sims.wikia.com or www.simsfanon.wikia.com?|_Andronikos Leventis 14:06, December 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * The entire wiki would be at www.sims.wikia.com. The web address of the fanon 'mainpage' (Fanon Portal) would probably be: http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/Fanon:Portal --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 17:24, December 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * If this really does happen, what will happen to the stories and admins on the fanon wiki? Will they lose their positions, or will they become the new fanon admins on the main wiki?
 * No, this decision would not be a merge with the Fanon Wiki, it seems. -  LostInRiverview talk · blog 18:49, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, when I first made the proposal, it was that a Fanon namespace would be created, and the articles from the Fanon Wiki would be moved here and placed under the Fanon namespace. Somehow though, the proposal morphed into just a creation of the Fanon namespace. — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 04:26, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

Change to proposal

 * Separated from the previous section


 * I asked the administrators that my wiki, Sims Daily Planet Wiki, be more suitable to replace the fannon that is already in place. My majority of openion is that ' and Sims Daily Planet Wiki to coensist as sister projects. Basically, what I am saying, is that my wiki and to use each others templates, categories, and such, but, my wiki has more options to do stuff like creating your own player stories, television shows, and whatever the user like to do. But I am placing my on hold'. Sundogs Current wikis' talk page • Wikias' Talk Page • Wikis Managing 16:00, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * First off, I've never even heard of the Sims Daily Planet Wiki, so I wouldn't consider it a very good target to merge into, no offense to you. Looking at your wiki, you don't really have an infrastructure or contributor base established, so this merge for you guys could be pretty hard. I would say, if your wiki and TSFW were to merge, that your wiki should merge into the Fanon Wiki, not the other way around.


 * Second, this still doesn't solve our problems here at TSW. We would still have an issue with fanon being created here, with our admins having no power to move it to the correct wiki. As stated before in all of this discussion, many of us here (myself included) simply are not satisfied with the status quo here regarding fanon; agreeing to your proposal would largely maintain that status quo.


 * Note also that this proposal, although titled a proposal to Merge, should more properly be called a proposal to expand TSW to include fanon. Under this proposal, we would not be seeking to merge with any wiki, so TSFW and SDPW would be allowed to exist even after this idea is adopted. The proposal would create a Fanon namespace. I consider this the best idea because TSW has the traffic and the contributor community necessary to oversee new articles and to take on more administrators.


 * All in all, my opinion has not changed. I think we should push forward with this proposal. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 20:40, December 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * Just for the record I did indeed ask for that my wiki and be affiliated some weeks ago and it was, by consinsous, that both should not be affiliated. My main point that I did say, in a more confusing way, but now, clarifying it now, that I would add 's administrators to help me and my team of administrators to have a better infrostructure and lay down the foundation of what my wiki will do instead of having it here at  (for example - user created player stories is the main vocal-point of it all). The other thing that I did ask for is that, with permission from ALL administrators (which I can clearly see that there are absent administrators on here; see here for more details, that my wiki site may duplicate some to all templates, BUT, can be inspired by 's templates. Once again, the administrator how replied, Duskey is the one who replied; check my post in Doo Peas Forums and Wikia talk-page for details, that he (or she) believes that it was not a good idea.


 * Before anything else, please keep in mind that I may be all over the place, but, that is apart of my mental disability; so please that in mind. Also, I am direct and to the point. I must ask you to do some digging around or ask questions if you don't understand and here I go; To respond to your comment, Lost-In-Riverview, that most to all of my wikis administrators are on everyday, or every other day, but, I am usually on editing there. You can click here to go to our wiki to see what it is. I agree with you about the lack of structure of the site. That is why that I insisted that there will be representatives from administration as our administration team for help. Appearantly, I did not communicate this in the post. I'm sorry; please forgive me for this, but, my intentions are there. I personally need help with the structure of the wiki, which I said earlier as a hybrid of the encyclopedic style seen here and the fanon style seen over at Sims Fanon wiki, but the overall is user-created input that, in what I have to learn from by 's rules and bylaws that are not allowed to be here on  but on the fanon. But, my question is, which you certainly can check in the fanon's forums, that makes me to believe that the administration team on the fanon site is not, or rarely is, on the site on a regular basis; unlike the Sims Daily Planet Wiki has. I am the founder there and like I said earlier, I am on everyday, but, my administration team is on, at least, three days a week. So, I am appealing to this merger request as a chance to strengthen our core audience, but, to expand our creative ways as an encyclopedic-fanon hybrid site that everyone can come to and create anything, real or fictional, to the site without being going to a site that has hardly any leadership to confer with questions, ideas, or any sudden need that the site needs. I believe, and yes speaking for every administrators at Sims Daily Planet Wiki, that we may have issues, BUT, we can overcome with help. If you recall Lost-In-Riverview, that the main sims encyclopedic resource site has standards and things that the wiki does not associate with and that is where Sims Daily Planet Wiki comes in. We take anything that is not covered by, but, in interest of fairness, I think that if both administration teams from both wikis come together and make a deal, of some sort, and agreed to upon both sides, I think that the new proposal has a better way of having an exceptional outcome.
 * With all of this said, but, I think that I am all over the place but the bottom line is; I am proposing that both leadership teams from both wikis come to agreement with what one wiki can do, what that one wiki will not do, exchange ideas to each other, and, not last off, with the agreement of an affiliates on both ends. I hope I am clear enough this time. I would like some 's administration to help our wiki out by helping us structure the wiki (with rules, bylaws, warnings, templates, and so forth) to our site and when the 's decision on when to be removed from leadership role at our wiki when they thinks that the wiki can be stable without them, or have an agreement on to stay on in the leadership role until we have found suitable replacements for the out going leaders. I hope this helps. I wanted to be an affiliate to this site and to the fanon site, but since there is a merger talk, I believe that it may be suitable for us to be the beneficiary of the merger since we are classified as encyclopedic-fanon site; which another wiki site has requested as to be clearly defines exact labeling; if that makes any sense at all. But, I do believe that we should be the ones to be asking for the merger with the affiliation to this wiki. Sundogs Current wikis' talk page • Wikias' Talk Page • Wikis Managing 21:48, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

What about templates do you guys want that a fanon sim to appear in a category such as Grumpy Sims, I don't think weshould mixture them we should make templates for fanon stuff? --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 17:46, January 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * Where do I begin...? I see what you're saying. However these decisions are almost never made exclusively by our admin team here... they're made by the community in general. So, for the purposes of this decision, I've separated the sections accordingly. Responding personally, however, I'd have to say that this still doesn't solve a lot of our problems here. But, if this is what the TSW community wants and it's what TSFW and SDPW wants, then so be it. -  LostInRiverview talk · blog 18:49, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * We could make templates for fanon stuff and we should create fanon categories in the template, for example if i put blue eye in a fanon template section, the category would appear "Category:Fanon/Blue eyed Sims" what do you guys think? --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 22:42, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, with Checkmns, users could use the Sim and Simbio templates for their fanon pages, and they won't receive the same categories as canon Sims. :) — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 05:20, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Seeing no real support for your proposal, I'd consider it dead. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 11:50, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Final consensus on proposal
This is not a vote, this is simply an attempt to best determine the level of consensus for the formal proposal. Please sign below with a VoteFor, VoteAgainst or Neutral template, along with your approximate level of support (i.e. Support, Strongly Oppose, Support with hesitation, etc.) To wrap this up relatively soon, the final push for consensus will be timed. Please note that silence is not consent; if this fails to receive a sizable amount of support from the community, it will be considered failed even if the idea is overwhelmingly supported by those who choose to voice their opinion. To keep this orderly, please keep your statements below very limited; if you've got something to say or argue (aside from a short sentence), put it in a section above and continue the discussion there.

Please keep in mind that small details of the proposal can still be changed, regardless of the outcome here. KEEP YOUR STATEMENTS SHORT.

Time remaining to sign below:


 * Strong Support The only things I would like to point out to users who oppose it for the "accidental vandalism" and "bit mess" parts, remmember that those points aren't really valid as discussed. Feel free to still add it though. I am dedicated to making this all work out. -- BobNewbie talk • blog 12:45, January 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Support I wish to point out that BobNewbie is pushing this "those points aren't valid" way too hard. I do consider some of the concerns voiced extremely valid concerns. I'm not certain this will make vandalism easier to deal with, and I do expect there to be a lot more conflicting attitudes towards pages and the proper attitude towards canon if this goes ahead. All of these concerns are valid, but they are also nebulous and impossible to prove without running the experiment. That all said, I say give this a go. And I welcome the cautious disagreement of those who vote against so long as they are willing to work towards a better wiki no matter the outcome. -- (Kiwi tea 14:06, January 6, 2011 (UTC))


 * . Strongly Oppose, I'm sorry to say that I still see accidental vandalism towards canon and I don't think this is an invalid point at all, I'm still very concerned about this, like Kiwi tea I also think there will be a lot of conflicts, though if community decides to go on with this I will support no matter what, and I'm ready to help community. Thank you. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 17:31, January 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongly Support - Like Kiwi said, there's no way to know if it works until we try, but I'm confident that this will be a good move for our wiki. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 21:22, January 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong support - I agree with Kiwi tea's point (which LiR has mentioned above) and I think that the merge will encourage more activity and I think the Fanon namespace will work. GG   (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  21:40, January 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Support - I don't have much to say on this basis.


 * Strong Support - I, too, agree with Kiwi tea's statement, which LiR mentioned. I also believe that the merge will be very beneficial to our wiki, even if it means some extra work for our admins. ;) — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 04:45, January 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose - Sorry, this idea is something I cannot accept, I think this will alter the quality of the articles. |_Andronikos Leventis 10:37, January 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * Support --a_morris (talk) 19:17, January 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * support -- CookieMonster888 talk 21:43, January 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Support -- DarthCookie  Talk 20:40, January 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Dharden (talk) 19:49, January 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Support--thelamppost 19:50, January 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose The two wikis are just better separate.--Eduardog3000 21:44, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Next step
Okay, as many of you know, the consensus has been long over, and the reception of the Fanon Wiki merge has been overwhelmingly positive. So, we will now move forward to the next step of the merge! LiR has developed a timetable at his blog:


 * 1) As soon as possible: Requests for administratorship will be opened to accept new Fanon Administrators. These new administrators, our current administrators, and the community will collaborate to write Fanon-specific policies.
 * 2) Within 4-6 weeks: The Fanon namespace templates and foundational categories and subcategories will be created.
 * 3) Within 6-8 weeks: The Fanon namespace itself, and the Fanon Portal will be created. TSW's current No-Fanon policy will expire. After this point, fanon will be allowed in the Fanon Namespace (but will not be allowed elsewhere).
 * 4) 8 weeks after adoption and beyond: Additional subcategories and templates will be created as needed. TSW Fanon-specific policies and guidelines will be reviewed by the Fanon Admins and the community.

As you can see, the next step is appointing Fanon Admins and writing Fanon policies. I'll start writing the Fanon Administrator article, and open up the requests, but I'll need help from most of the community to write the policies. So, let's get this merge back on track! — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 02:53, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * I created Fanon Administrators and its request page. They still need a little work, but I think I got most of the main points down. Users are free to request becoming Fanon administrators. If there are any active admins at the Fanon Wiki (aside from A morrs), please let them know so they could apply. Next, we will have to come up with some Fanon specific policies. So, let's get started! — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 03:37, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've started thinking up some rules on my test page, but I think it would be easier for us to develop some core policies that we want to adopt. Here's what I have in mind so far:
 * All fanon content should be substantial (i.e. more than "stub-length") to warrant its own page(s).
 * Fanon that is not substantial, written poorly, or which is abandoned by its author, may be deleted after a set period of time.
 * Fanon consisting of simple Sim bio pages isn't necessarily "good enough," unless there's some underlying purpose for creating their page. By that, I mean that a user shouldn't create a page for a Sim just because they can; they should be telling some sort of story with it, or be using that character in some way.
 * First placement of fanon in the main namespace will warrant a templated advisory message (something like "You have created fanon in the main namespace. In order to maintain the encyclopedic quality of the rest of the wiki, fanon is being restricted to the Fanon Namespace only. Your page:, has been moved to  because it is fanon. Please keep this and all future fanon pages located within the Fanon Namespace."), second placement will warrant an official warning (and movement of page), future placement will result in blocks of increasing severity, as well as deleting incorrectly-placed material.
 * Feel free to suggest changes to these, to suggest new ones or to strike out ones I've suggested. -  LostInRiverview talk · blog 04:49, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * I also have a few policy ideas:
 * Any Fanon page of poor quality should have a special Fanon Clean-up template, added by the creator or a Fanon admin. As said above, it will be deleted after a certain amount of time.
 * A Fanon page that is under construction, and will change over time, should have a special Fanon-UC template.
 * Should a user be permanently blocked, all of their Fanon must be deleted.
 * Should we create a special template to show who owns what Fanon? Also, should each Fanon article, regardless of name, have (Username) behind it? — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 05:16, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Testing a Template
How do I do this. Am I permitted to create a template for testing purposes? Is there a nice inobtrusive way of doing this? Thanks for putting up with my questions.

Techpriest88 02:40, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * You can make a sandbox and a template in your userspace for testing. Is this what you meant? GG   (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  19:47, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to test a template, create a page under your username (such as User:LostInRiverview/Test, my test page for templates). Put the template code onto that page, then go onto your talkpage and place the name of your created page in double-braces: . You can keep a test page as long as you'd like... if you make a good template, feel free to copy over the code and create a new template page for it. If/when you want to delete your test page, just add delete or speedydelete to it and an admin will clean it up for you. --  LostInRiverview talk ·  blog 08:15, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies for seeming so patronizing, as by the looks of it you seem to know exactly what you're doing. As I said, feel free to test your template under your username until you work the bugs out if it (if there are any). --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 08:18, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Changes
Hey guys! As you may have noticed, me and LostInRiverview worked together and changed the community portal. Since the main page is going to be changed soon, we decided to include a bit of everything. If you ask me, it's nice to look at and is a great navigation hub. What do you think? Also, please remember that the previous Community Portal was just a grey table, if you don't like it :P. BobNewbie talk • blog 12:16, December 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Bob and I wanted to really improve the Community Portal and make it the hub of the TSW community; I think we've done just that with this revision. I'm really excited about it, and I hope all of you are too when you see it. And if we did something wrong or you have an idea on how to improve it, don't be afraid to suggest it here. All in all, I'm very very happy with the outcome.--  LostInRiverview talk · blog 12:20, December 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I really think me and LIR reached our goal. -- BobNewbie talk • blog 12:23, December 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks really nice but I think it's too green, couldn't we change that? Thank you. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 18:50, December 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Me and LostInRiverview talked about that. Would making the header backgrounds blue help? -- BobNewbie talk • blog 18:53, December 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... yes, but what about hot pink, kidding :p, you guys probably don't like it, for me it can be blue. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 19:05, December 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * We had originally had a Green background with blue headers but the color difference seemed... odd. What may end up happening is that we just drop the green background entirely (due to contrast and readability) but who knows. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 19:12, December 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I copied over the page onto my test page and got rid of the background color - take a look at it. I personally don't like it without color, but that's just me. -  LostInRiverview talk · blog 19:16, December 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I've cut the color out of the very top and very bottom of the page, where most of the main reading is. To make the headers not look "weird" I left the color around the Featured content and Community Contests sections as well as the news. I'd rather not go around changing the colors; keeping it one color makes more sense to me. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 19:39, December 28, 2010 (UTC)

Love it, guys. Thanks for the great work. This is something I had envisioned for a long time. --a_morris (talk) 20:38, December 28, 2010 (UTC)

The new Community Portal looks AMAZING!!! Great job guys. I added a "Recent Forum threads" section in an attempt to get the Forums more popular. What do you think? — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 06:31, December 30, 2010 (UTC)

Templates change (needs input)
I want to propose you a great change on templates of Sims from Sims 3, Sims 2 and 1, If no one minds please check this article in Les Sims Wiki, Cornelia Goth, I love the way it's organised, and I would like to propose that we could put images of icons in templates for example bookworm in people who have the bookworm trait, unflirty would display for example, we could do the same for sign, typing Capricorn would display a file with a Capricorn icon, we could do the same for age, sex, etc..., just some examples, I think it would be good if you had images and icons in templates, can we make such definition? Please tell me what you, guys think. Thank you. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 13:01, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, and it looks cool. A concern I have, though, is that the text used in that template is very small - so small that even I have problems reading it. Is there any way we could have that setup, but with larger text?--  LostInRiverview talk · blog 18:42, January 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I like it. But if I take my glasses off, I have to squint to read it. We could find a way to make it larger. -- BobNewbie talk • blog 18:47, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * It does look cool and organized, and we certainly can make the font larger. Looking at the template, it uses the same parameters that our templates are using right now, so if we do change the appearance of our templates, we would not have to edit every page, like we had to do when we changed Sim to Sim2. So, I support changing our templates to show icons! :) — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 05:42, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm liking this idea. Just so we can see a good example (I'm sorry, but I don't read French so the page for Cornelia Goth didn't make much sense to me), would it be possible for you to make a sandbox page or something with a sample Sim that has the new infobox? That would be awesome -  LostInRiverview talk · blog 07:13, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I'm not very experienced with those templates, but what do you really want me to do? Thank you --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 11:34, January 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * See this would be the new file for romantic interests but only for The Sims 3 sims and this would be the new file for roommates, just examples we have much more to change, and I think we could show icons of traits, age, sign and gender. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 11:51, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I made a page using the new infobox here. I used Bella Goth as the sample Sim, and I merged her TS2 and TS3 information to show each parameter of the infobox. I also made many changes to the original infobox. I made Bella's life state witch, and made it so that the life state icon would appear as well. I made the font larger, and used different icons. I still didn't add any of the other parameters, like major and rep group, but I think it looks pretty good right now. We should also consider making an occupation parameter, showing the occupation's icon at the right. To see the infobox that I used for the test page, see here. What do you think? — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 04:13, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I like your example, RR. There are a couple issues though: the male, female and deceased icons are either .jpgs or non-transparent .pngs... they should all be transparent .pngs otherwise you get those little white boxes. The same goes for the TS2 logo at the top. I have a suggestion too - I think that in the case where a Sim is in multiple games, we should use different colors to identify each game, otherwise you're using a lot of one color and none of the others. -  LostInRiverview talk · blog 04:28, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I really like it RR, it's gorgeous and thanks for trying for me, I would like to say that the current sim templates should stay, they are pretty I only think we should change icons, also we must be sure this definitions include categories stuff. Thanks RR do you want any help? --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 21:47, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've also created a test page to see the functions of the template and it's awesome I must say, you can find it here, I did not put a state because I did not know if normal would display anything. Thanks RR for making these for me. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 22:05, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

I am making changes to Sim/test. The previous test example can still be found Sim/example. I am removing the background colors for now so we won't have to worry about transparent images yet. But we still need images for body shape/build. --a_morris (talk) 23:46, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

Portals for each game
After looking around the wiki, and seeing the recent success of the updated Community Portal, I was just thinking that maybe we should create a Portal for each major game in the series. We already have a Late Night Portal and Fast Lane Stuff Portal, but, in my opinion, those games are so minor, and don't really need Portals just for them. I believe the community would benefit from this, since many users come here just to research one game in the series. If we do create Portals for each main game, we should have a The Sims Portal, The Sims 2 Portal, The Sims 3 Portal, maybe The Sims Stories Portal, if it isn't merged with The Sims 2 Portal, The Sims Medieval Portal, if we are going to cover that game, and a Console Portal, Handheld Portal, and Mobile Portal. Each main game Portal should also cover the expansion packs, stuff packs, and compilations that were released along with the game. Also, look at the main page of the Avatar Wiki. They have a slider that shows the main contents of their wiki. If we create a Portal for each main game, we could feature them on the main page using the slider. Since each game has its own users and contributors, I think that creating Portal for each major game would help our community and easily carry users to their desired destination. What do you think? — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 06:05, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this wiki has a history of downplaying console games, but I'm not sure if creating a separate 'Console Portal' would resolve this, since console games run across all three "generations" of the series, as opposed to the TS1, TS2 and TS3 portals which would be central to their own "generation." As for the rest of your idea... I'm not sure. I'll have to think about it a bit more and read some other opinions. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 07:10, January 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I am really unsure about it. I do think we should have one portal that covers an entire game and expansion/stuff packs. -- BobNewbie talk • blog 12:54, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

lawlz, BobNewbie, that's exactly what he was suggesting. 68.171.234.7 18:13, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Emoticon Category
A contributer, 68.171.234.7, added the emoticon category to this page. I reverted the edit, but the category is still there. I went into edit mode to remove it, but I cant find it. Any help? Thanks. -- BobNewbie talk • blog 18:33, January 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * They probably didn't add it on purpose. If it wasn't removed afetr reverting, why don't you add their comment back? Their comment didn't break any rules. 74.216.74.238 18:39, January 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * Thats true. I also think it was accidental. I reverted it because I thought that would remove the category. I'll restore it. -- BobNewbie talk • blog 18:54, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * The Emoticons were improperly categorized, as the categories were not placed in tags. That means that whatever page they were used on would be added to the Emoticons category. This should be fixed now. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 20:38, January 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe it was me who categorized it wrongly. I would like to apologize for my mistake. Thank you LIR for fixing it. -- BobNewbie talk • blog 21:06, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Family Tree change
In the past, I created many family trees for The Sims Wiki. One of the main problems that I found in my family trees was that they were unable to link to individual Sims. I added a familytree template to the Phineas and Ferb Wiki, but, thinking that The Sims family trees were too complicated, I did not add it to The Sims Wiki. However, Eduardog3000 just added it to the wiki, and showed a demonstration here. In my opinion, it looks very good and organized, and with the icon next to it, you can view the entire family tree. My proposal is that we change all of our current family trees to the familytree template. Please tell me what you think! — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 03:41, January 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice. But what about using ? --a_morris (talk) 21:10, January 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Imagemap is a kind of complicated, I think the Familytree template is better.--Eduardog3000 22:19, January 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I would personally like Imagemap.
 * Yeah, but like I said, Imagemap is complicated, and hard to get the link in the right place and while Familytree is a little complicated it is much easier than Imagemap. Here are some examples of trees made with the Familytree template: the Landgraab family tree, the Alto family tree, and the Goth family tree.--Eduardog3000 23:25, January 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that it may be too complicated for you, but, we could find somebody that has used imagemap dozens of times, like Aster09. looks unprofessional.
 * I agree with Auror. Imagemap may be complicated, but looks way better. -- BobNewbie talk • blog 15:51, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that the Imagemap feature would be good for the Wiki because of its professionalism in addition to the comments above. GG   (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  16:05, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * As all said above, I think this family trees should be improved, they look to unprofessional and colorless, in my opinion the current ones should remain. Thank you. ---Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 18:42, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think it is colorless, me or Random Raunan could try to edit the Familytree template to give it color, I didn't expect so many bad comments about these trees, they are well organized and easier to update than the trees made of a picture.--Eduardog3000 18:47, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the trees with pictures just look better, plus aid all that much more in finding the Sim you're looking for. I think we should go with Imagemap. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 19:07, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I said Imagemap is to complicated and with the Familytree template it is easier for me and Random Raunan to update the tree. Also, how does the picture tree aid in finding the Sim your looking for. And as for looking better, me or Random Raunan can change the Familytree template to add color and make it look better.--Eduardog3000 19:21, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, If it's a choice between the current trees and trees made with Familytree, I'd keep the current ones. Since Imagemap is an extension, could be possibly write it into a special template, which could make using Imagemap easier? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 19:26, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Even written into a special template, it would be hard to pinpoint the exact location of where each link would need to be.--Eduardog3000 19:32, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how the Familytree template looks unprofessional, it looks fine, and as for it being colorless, like I said before, me or Random Ranaun can add color.--Eduardog3000 03:17, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's an issue of looking unprofessional. I think it's a point where Imagemap looks better, no matter what kind of color you add to Familytree; Familytree just looks dull --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 04:55, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, like I said, imagemap is complicated and hard to pinpoint the exact position of where the link needs to be. There is also that updating the trees are easier with the Familytree template than with the picture, as well as with imagemap, after an update is made, you would have to go and edit the imagemap to add link(s) to the new Sim(s) (as well as sometimes moving where pre-existing link(s) are).--Eduardog3000 21:39, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

More custom namespace ideas?
Since it seems likely that a new Fanon namespace will be created, I thought it would be a good idea to ask if we should add any other custom namespaces to The Sims Wiki. (Wikia prefers that we ask for them all at once.) What are your suggestions for other namespaces? --a_morris (talk) 18:37, January 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikia has a 3 custom namespace limit, this wiki already has the Top Ten namespace, which is one, the there will be the fanon namespace, just leaving one more custom namespace to add.--Eduardog3000 19:54, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said before, so? Having a surplus of custom namespaces isn't necessarily desirable. If we run out of custom namespaces and we want to add another one, then let's talk about this; right now it's completely irrelevant. But if you disagree, propose a removal of Top Ten here on the Comm. portal. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 21:38, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. In my opinion, any page in the Top Ten namespace could just be moved to The Sims Wiki namespace. Maybe a Tutorial namespace? We already have the player tips articles, which I think shouldn't in the main namespace. — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 01:38, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but what's the point of moving the Top Ten into the main namespace unless we need that custom namespace for some other purpose? Like I said before, having "extra" namespaces for our use really shouldn't be a concern. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 02:09, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have a suggestion as well. I've noticed that we really don't have much in the way of technical help related to the games, downloads, mods and technical things. A lot of this info is available at simswiki.info, but that doesn't mean we can't cover it here too. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 02:10, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe, if the fanon namespace is created, we could keep some custom content and mods there (such as InTeenimater and Mermaid) and we could create a Tutorial namespace, which could contain the technical info about The Sims series. What do you think? — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 06:04, January 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * A tutorial namespace is a good idea. I would like to separate some of the step-by-step how-tos found in some articles, like Create a Sim. Is the Top Ten name space really a custom namespace even though it is connected to an extension? --a_morris (talk) 20:36, January 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I'll pop on Community Central and ask in the forum. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 20:43, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

Community Director
I have to leave the wiki due to personal reasons. Yes, I am sure about what i'm doing. I'll still supply our Facebook page with images, but other then that, I am forced to leave.

I hope nobody see's me as a quiter, and I hope I reached my goal; to expand the Sims Wiki as much as I can.

Please appoint a new temporary community director. Thanks to all I have met here. -- BobNewbie talk • blog 12:28, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

Main page redesign service
I daresay that many people who regularly check this page don't often check Talk:The Sims Wiki, where there has been some discussion regarding an upcoming redesign of the Main Page. I suggested the following idea there, but as it would likely need community acceptance before it were requested, I figured it would be easier to bring it up here. Below is my original comment on the other talk page:


 * Additionally, BobNewbie tipped me off to a service that Wikia provides where they come in and do a custom redesign of a wiki's main page, background skin, and theme. This feature is by request only and has certain minimum requirements. If you want to see more, go here.
 * I don't have many concerns about us catching Google traffic (we do a pretty good job of it already), but I do think having this team come in and completely redesign our mainpage is something we should at least consider. This obviously has advantages and possible benefits, as well as some possible drawbacks. One stipulation this team makes is that their design decisions are final, but I assume that if we applied and were accepted that our community would be able to have some input prior to them making the design, so I don't see that as a huge issue.

What do you all think?

--  LostInRiverview talk · blog 02:25, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

I think having people that work for Wikia to come redesign the Main Page is a bad idea. "Oasis" (or "New Wikia Look" or whatever they call it) looks terrible, I don't want even more terrible-ness (probably not a word) added to this wiki.--Eduardog3000 03:22, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you see the work that they've done on other wikis? I don't know how much of a say we'd get if we did this, but I don't think they would try and force us into something we don't like. -  LostInRiverview talk · blog 03:39, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * They forced us into the new Wikia Skin.--Eduardog3000 21:32, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Did they? Maybe if people would spend a little more time giving constructive criticism, and a little less time protesting any form of change that occurs and threatening to leave the wiki or take their wikis off-site, maybe - just maybe - the skin would be a little better. Do yourself a favor and get over it; the old skin ain't coming back. Sorry about that, I'm just getting really sick of complaints about the new skin. If you hate it so much, then leave! No one's forcing you to stay.
 * All that aside, this is a little different situation, since we're actually requesting this change rather than having it "done to us." That said, I cannot imagine this team not taking the ideas and thoughts of the community seriously, if we were to pursue this. I think if we're going to decide this idea one way or the other, it should be based on whether we think the team will do a good job of it, and whether we want to allow someone else to design it for us, or whether we want to have all control over it by doing it ourselves. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 22:07, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

New Main Page
I just updated the Main Page using my design. Take a look. Any feedback at all is much appreciated! — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 03:12, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

 * I think it looks very cool! I'm glad you took the initiative on this, since I was pretty sure that it was never going to happen otherwise! --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 03:28, January 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * Not bad. I won't be seeing much of it, as the new MediaWiki + Oasis doesn't work quite right in Opera, so it's back to Monobook after I post this -- but not bad. Dharden (talk) 04:21, January 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * It is amazing! I love it! It is quite simplier, less confusing, and takes so much less time to load. A+! |_Andronikos Leventis Talk 13:04, January 25, 2011 (UTC)