The Sims Wiki talk:Fanon Portal

open?
Is the fanon name-space open now?-- CookieMonster888 talk 01:41, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 06:05, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

Featured Fan fiction and Fanon
When do you think the Featured Fanon and Featured Fan fiction should be opened? Once the Fanon Namespace reaches a certain amount of articles? — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 06:05, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * We could start it after a month of the fanon namespace being officially open and when we have enough articles to nominate. GG   (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  08:14, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

Player stories
What do you think we should do about player stories. Since we allow full fanon here at the Fanon Namespace, some might find in unnecessary and redundant. What do you think? Should we keep player stories or remove them? — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 00:46, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

Allowed/Not Allowed photos?
I see that a user uploaded images that aren't Sims-related as part of a Fanon Story. I'm not sure if we should adopt a rule regarding this, but I think it's worth discussing. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 17:18, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe the only non-Sims related images allowed should be logo images for Fan fiction and Machinima? — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 17:26, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Per my comments on the Admin Portal, I don't think we should allow it as it can be seen as a breach of personal privacy (if other people are in the image) and it may be considered as image hosting. -- 17:30, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Georgie, just moments after I posted here, posted the same question (much more eloquently) on the Admin Portal talk page. I've decided to copy over his posting for community discussion. Here it is:

Today, I had deleted many images uploaded by which were used on Fanon:The Applewhites. The images were a possible invasion of privacy and were in fact removed from the page by the author not long after he had added them. He never tagged the images for deletion, so I had deleted them as they were being used like the wiki was an image hosting site. I had blocked the user for this but then realised that this wasn't a rule, so I undid the block.

The reason I am bringing this up is - should we have a rule about uploading real life images to the wiki for usage in fanon? Personally I would say no as it can breach the privacy of other people and the fanon namespace is suppossed to be about Sims fanon anyway and having those images would be like image hosting. I would like other administrators to voice their opinions on this. 17:23, February 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * Responding to this, I am willing to say that if an image isn't related to The Sims series or to the subject of a page on the wiki (including fanon), then it should be deleted - The Sims Wiki isn't a hosting website, after all. Aside from that, I'm interested in seeing what everyone else has to say. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 17:31, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with LiR. The only images allowed should be related to The Sims or the subject of the wiki. — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 19:19, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

Don't like the logo
I noticed that the fanon logo has been added. The reason I didn't vote in the contest is because I didn't like any of the logos. Not nearly enough people participated in or voted in that contest, in my opinion, and there was no option for those of us who didn't like any of the options. I'd rather we just get rid of the logo and leave it off until we find one that gets real popular support. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 06:05, March 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * I also didn't vote because I didn't like the logo. I don't want to hurt Bleeh's feelings or offend her, but I simply think that it is not good enough. So, will there be another contest? |_Andronikos Leventis Talk 11:50, March 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I don't think that the logo contest was managed too well as there was no time set for voting and there was little choice to vote for. If we had decided to restart the contest, while keeping the entries from Bleeh and DarthCookie, I think we should have a pre-voting period where we allow users to upload their logos, so that they have time to do what they need to and they wouldn't need to worry about a late entry recieving no votes. Then, all votes for the previously submitted logos would be null and void, Thoughts? 16:27, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

Article Comments
I started a discussion on the Community Portal talk page about a suggestion that the Wiki start up article comments (similar to those found on the Avatar Wiki and others). I also posted on the Community Central forum about possibly enabling comments on individual namespaces, rather than on the wiki as a whole. The people who responded seem to think it's possible through Special:Contact, but we obviously should have consensus before we do it. So, what are your thoughts on activating article comments in the fanon namespace? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 00:05, March 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral - It would be a better idea to have them only on the fanon namespace but since some talk pages are being used for fanon, I'm not entirely sure... 09:11, March 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It appears too much for me. Thank you. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 17:34, March 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - Article Comments in the Fanon Namespace would be very useful, as it would be easier for a user's fanon to receive reviews. — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 06:04, March 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I think this would only be a good idea as having users be able to comment on fanon on the same page rather than the talk page would, in my opinion, be more organized. -- Bleeh (talk) (blog) 05:40, April 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - I think that while it would be easier to access comments and would raise participation, it could make the article look like a blog, and increase loading time on slow browsers. I feel that the positives slightly outweigh the negatives, though. Personally, I feel we should trial it for a short time and go from there. --W H  (Talk) 05:39, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * - Strong Support. I see nothing wrong with adding article comments. Plus, it's only for the fanon namespace. This can gain user interest in the other sides of wiki, so, I strongly support fanon article comments. Also, comments, can be deleted, if it contains vague and insulting comments, or just spam. Ѧüя◎ґ 20:53, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * - Strong Support. I see nothing wrong with adding article comments. Plus, it's only for the fanon namespace. This can gain user interest in the other sides of wiki, so, I strongly support fanon article comments. Also, comments, can be deleted, if it contains vague and insulting comments, or just spam. Ѧüя◎ґ 20:53, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

Divider Update from wikia
I have received word on Community Central that there is an update coming to the divider between the heading and article in all wikis, sometime next week. If you don't know what I mean, look at this blog on community central. This causes a problem for us in fanon articles, as it removes the "this article is owned by" bar, which is why I am posting this. Does anyone have any ideas for a possible replacement? I was thinking maybe we could make up a template or something. -- WoganHemlock (talk) · (blog) 01:11, April 22, 2011 (UTC)

Here is an example I made up:

It is in the userbox form as I'm not the best at templates, but you get the idea. -- WoganHemlock (talk) · (blog) 01:17, April 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * Seeing as they have removed the divider (sadface), we need to do something as the Property template now looks disorganised. I'm not opposed to the userbox idea as long as we do something to fix this. 15:16, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: I have managed to make a "fix" on the Property template by simply adding another line to the template so that it looks tidier on fanon pages. Before I made this edit, the Property template was mashing together with any other templates that may be on the page. 15:33, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * It's okay guys. I fixed the template so that it appears in the very top right of the article. :) —Random Ranaun (Talk to me! ) 03:38, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * On several pages, the property template collides with the UTC clock. Maybe we could move the UTC clock, tweak the template, or replace it altogether. Thoughts? --W H  (Talk) 05:41, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. On most pages, it works fine, but not on others. I don't know what is causing it. =/ —Random Ranaun (Talk to me! ) 06:39, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should just wait and see with this template. If memory serves me right, I saw that it was under construction by wikia on a page here. I don't know how old the post is, though. As it is, it's not a real distraction, but if things get really bad, that is, template interfering with article text or disappearing, we should consider other options. --W H  (Talk) 08:56, May 13, 2011 (UTC)