The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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


 * Weak support. -- Bleeh (talk) (blog) 02:39, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

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


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

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

Moving forward
This issue seems to have stopped being discussed, so I've done my best to figure out what's going on. Although strictly by the numbers, it appears that only two users who voiced up are vocally against these deletions, I think even some supporters may be somewhat hesitant to go along with this, even with votes of support. Therefore, what I'd like to do is shift away from the idea of deleting all player stories, at least for now, and instead focus on a different issue.

It is a fact that we have over 1000 player stories pages that have no stories on them. A lot of these pages are for NPC Sims or very obscure Sims that don't get a lot of playtime. What I would like to propose, in lieu of deleting all articles, is for us to delete all empty Player Stories pages. We can adjust the Sim template so that the link that appears is no longer red (but still says 'create player stories page') but the Player Stories pages won't exist until someone wants to use them.

Deleting the empty pages means that no stories get deleted and we massively decrease the number of pages that sit empty and unused. Thoughts? (I want discussion, I do not want votes right away). --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 06:13, July 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, good idea. Maybe change the text to "player stories" instead of "create player stories", as sometimes new users are hesitant to create pages. But, other than this, I see no issues with what you are proposing. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 07:46, July 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Subpages don't count in number of pages in wiki, right? And if one of the issue is to remind people to sign their stories, maybe the Player Stories template should be redesigned to be more attractive. If their stories aren't signed, then it will be likely to be deleted... or so. Nikel23 09:04, July 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't so much player stories being signed, but more what to do with the empty page. But, yes, we need to try to get them signed somehow... --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 00:09, July 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, this discussion has stopped for a while, but we should come to a conclusion. I say delete. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 15:29, July 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm slightly hesitant, but I'm going to say delete as well. ~> ฬ ђ  (tคlк ★  ς๏ภtгเ๒ร) 10:15, July 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say delete. 10:41, July 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * If we delete all empty player stories, even if we do change the color of the link, wouldn't they still count towards our list of Wanted pages? —<font color="#008000">Random Ranaun (<font color="#00FF00">Talk to me! ) 14:23, July 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * While I am also hesitant, especially when it comes to player stories quality, I would say not to delete. -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]]( talk here ) 14:27, July 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * I say Not to Delete. The Wiki is an informational, helpful place, for players of The Sims Series. I personally read a lot of the player stories, and I also frequently add my own. I am newer to this than most of you on here so I honestly didn't know there were general expectations for Player Stories. I admit that I have submitted a few short, sloppy stories that mainly focus on the names of the kids I made the Sims have (that's what everyone seemed to be doing, ;) ), but after reading this discussion, I understand what is expected of these stories. Player Stories, in my opinion, are nice to read once in a while and have actually inspired me to get more creative with my game. I agree with Guilherme Guerrerio's earlier posts saying there should be a policy, though.
 * P.S. What is the Fanon Namespace? It sounds interesting. Simrose101 20:37, July 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * The fanon namespace is a part of the wiki where a user can write about their own Sims, lots, neighborhoods and even their own fan fiction articles. It provides a lot more freeedom than the player stories feature and some have even written in-depth stories about pre-created Sims there. 20:41, July 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to remind everyone that when we talk about deleting or not deleting, we're not actually deleting content at all. The only thing on these pages is a template - that's it. Not a single user would lose a single contribution, not one letter of player stories would be deleted. The only thing this proposal would do is delete the empty and unused player stories pages. -  LostInRiverview talk · blog 23:26, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

Layout Builder
I have noticed as of late that some users have been creating fanon articles using the Layout Builder, which makes it very hard for both users and admins to cleanup those articles in addition to it being hard for a user to write a high quality piece of fanon with the Layout Builder. Personally, I think that we should uninstall the Layout Builder (as it is rarely used anyway) to make it easier to patrol fanon amongst any other articles created on the wiki. What does everyone think? 18:42, July 11, 2011 (UTC)

- Weak Support - While I think they could be disabled (as it has been causing major damage on pages who use it) I don't know what we should do to pages that use them, delete them and recreate without the layout? -- Guilherme Guerreiro ( talk here ) 19:05, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there any way to make the layout builder more user-friendly, rather than just disabling it. -- 20:41, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Since posting this, I have tried to think of a possible way of making the Layout Builder more user-friendly without causing collateral damage to those articles that already use it. Given that I haven't used the tool, I'm kind of unsure how it works but if anyone here has used it, here or another wiki, and they have an idea, feel free to post it. 20:46, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * If we disable it, we should recreate the pages rather than delete them, as most are only poor quality through the layout builder. But I feel the decision to uninstall it is best. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (talk) 23:19, July 11, 2011 (UTC)

New background
Hey, while I was messing around in my wikia.css, I seemed to have created a new look for the wiki. I was experimenting with the code, and I added the background from TheSims3.com as a static image. While it was just an experiment to see if images from other websites would work in Wikia.css, I was pretty impressed with the result. I presented it to some of the users in the IRC channel and Wikia Chat. It was met with praise and a few users told me to come and propose it here. So, what do you think? —<font color="#008000">Random Ranaun (<font color="#00FF00">Talk to me! ) 12:06, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

your score: 9/10

its very good backgroud! i like it! :D --Wir.wiryawan 12:41, July 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * We just got a new background, remember? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 18:52, July 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * I know. That's one of the main reasons why I was uncertain about proposing this. However, most of the users I showed it to on the IRC channel and Wikia Chat told me that they prefer it over our current one. So, idk. —<font color="#008000">Random Ranaun (<font color="#00FF00">Talk to me! ) 19:03, July 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * I like it, but as Andronikos Leventis said I do not see Sims series there. Thus why I prefer the current one. Still, it's a beautiful logo ;)! -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]]( talk here ) 19:06, July 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a nice background, and I don't necessarily think we need a plumbbob on it for it to be a good background. My two main concerns are with the fact that we had just asked for JoePlay to come here and help us make our new background - we voted to ask him to come here to help, and we voted again to put in the new background. My other concern is with the background versus the transparency in the article space - under the current background, the transparency doesn't impair the readability of the article, but I think under this proposed background at our current level of transparency, it would be too hard to read text near the bottom of the page where all the visual "action" is taking place.
 * All that said, I like the new design. I think if we maybe try decreasing the transparency (I like the transparency, so I'd like to keep it at least somewhat) that it would look good, with or without a plumbbob. The only thing I think we need to make clear is that we are grateful for the help that JoePlay gave us in designing the current background (as well as the Sim face "mosiac" header). So, I think either keeping the current background or adding the new one would both work fine. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 20:59, July 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * I like it, but I feel that it sort of clashes with the mosaic header. Other than that, I see no issues with it. ~> ฬ ђ  (tคlк ★  ς๏ภtгเ๒ร) 02:17, July 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Another issue... at my display size, I don't see much more than the very very tip of the hill on the right side of the article window, so most of what I see is just blue sky fading to white. The problem with the image is that everyone's display is set differently, so some people will see more or less of the image than other. The current image avoids this problem by putting the "unique" part of the image at the top of the image, where everyone can see it. Because of that, I officially support keeping the current background. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 02:53, July 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, seeing as it was taken from thesims3.com, and is actually the same file they use (correct me if I'm wrong), but wouldn't there be some sort of issue with copying them? ~> ฬ ђ  (tคlк ★  ς๏ภtгเ๒ร) 22:22, July 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * No more of an issue than with our current background --  LostInRiverview talk ·  blog 22:44, July 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol, I didn't know. So, if we've "borrowed" one design, there's probably no issues with this one, then. ~> ฬ ђ  (tคlк ★  ς๏ภtгเ๒ร) 00:11, July 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * That looks fabulous! But I think it needs time since we just had a new background, so let us get used to this one first. Also, the transparency makes it hard to read the articles where there's the background of hills, don't you think? 05:53, July 17, 2011 (UTC)

I like the design. I really do, but I do feel that there's a bit of a problem with it. I understand we're in 'The Sims 3 generation', but this isn't 'The Sims 3 Wiki'. To players who don't own The Sims 3 (I know of many who rather play other The Sims titles), the background might not appear much more then a few hills that are close to each other. Honestly, I would prefer something that includes a more-uniform aspect across the games, like the plumbBob one we have at the moment. -- BobNewbie  ∞(Talk)∞  16:38, July 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * It's good, but I'll have to agree with Bob here. I think it would be best if we kept the current one, but it would be cool if we could still find a use for this one somewhere. ~> ฬ ђ  (tคlк ★  ς๏ภtгเ๒ร)  05:40, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I did just find out how to give certain namespaces custom skins. Maybe we could use the design for the Fanon Namespace? —<font color="#008000">Random Ranaun (<font color="#00FF00">Talk to me! ) 10:00, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't sound like a bad idea. I was thinking that we could just publish the raw CSS code and if a user wants to make usage of RR's background, they could copy it to their own personal CSS, that way we have a deafult background and an optional background. 23:23, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt the CSS code option would work, mainly because a lot of users a), won't probably be aware of the code, and b) might not know about CSS (no joke, took me 2 and a half months to work out what it is). As for using it on a specific namespace, it could get kinda odd having different skins, so I'm not sure about it. I might have a think about it and see if I can do anything with it. ~> ฬ ђ  (tคlк ★  ς๏ภtгเ๒ร)  10:19, July 21, 2011 (UTC)

Partnership
Hello! Recently, I have been looking around the Sims Fanon Wiki and noticed its lacking behind in my opinion, So I've created The Sim's Players Wiki. It allows fellow Simmers to create pages about custom content, mods, houses, and any sort of fan creation! A page may be as long ( or small ) as a user decides, No regulations as to how a page is made. Allowing creative freedom.

So, I've come to ask if both of our wikis could enter some sort of Partnership, Not a merge ( completely different wikis ) but a partnership, meaning the Sims wikis advertises the Sims Players Wiki, and the Sims Players Wiki advertises the Sims wiki.

Currently, The Sims Players wiki only has 2 pages and 1 user ( me ) and I have high expectations and goals for it, and I think a partnership would fit best between our two communities.

Sir Life11 01:32, July 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but that wiki seems a little redundant. After all, we already have an area on the wiki specifically for fan creations. —<font color="#008000">Random Ranaun (<font color="#00FF00">Talk to me! ) 06:26, July 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that of Random Ranaun. Sorry. ~> ฬ ђ  (tคlк ★  ς๏ภtгเ๒ร) 07:27, July 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Per RR. Sorry. 09:50, July 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * I do also think it's redundant. While good intended, this wiki may as well decline our popularity on the fanon namespace, and that would be awful. Excuse me, I don't want to hurt you but I don't think a partnership is the best option. -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]]( talk here ) 00:49, July 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * No offense but the fanon namespace only has around 171 pages and by having them at this wiki it may confuse first time editors(I understand the hard work on the css).However if the panthership is declined i think both wikis should be able to edited in peace.Tama63 (Talk)

I like the wiki. Clearly, there are some very talented Fanon writers and such. While I agree it may be a bit redundant, as our Fanon namespace is growing nicely. Slowly, but nicely. Our regulations, or 'limits;, are only there so that people don't create single line pages, and obscene ones. Yes, this does limit freedom slightly, but it's there for a reason, and I've never encountered any problems with the guidelines we have personally.

Back to the main subject. I think a partnership could be good, as it provides some exposure for your wiki, and our wiki can only benefit from having some of the talented people working there viewing and perhaps starting to edit around here. I believe we will get a lot of editors from a partnership, as the main thing about writing on The Sims Wiki is that you can get a whole lot of views and comments.

Those are some of my takes on this discussion, and even if a partnership is declined by the community, I wish the best for your wiki Life11. -- BobNewbie  ∞(Talk)∞  17:55, July 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, Tama63, yes, we do only have 171 Fanon pages, but remember that The Sims Players Wiki only has 10, some of which are lacking in quality. -- BobNewbie  ∞(Talk)∞  18:08, July 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't like that the wiki doesn't have many policies, and evrything there's made for free, I think one of the main reasons for our fanon namespace being small is that we don't accept any page of any quality. The grammar, punctuation, spelling. Thus we end up deleting many pages that don't meet our standards, but we keep the good quality ones, thus a person may put a greater effort on his/her skills in order to have a page remain on this wiki. I believe this is the best policy regarding fanon. -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]]( talk here ) 18:17, July 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * For the World of Pirates Online we find it best to keep canon and non-canon apart but the wikis provide a link to the other wiki on their main page,also the wiki is very new so it will only have a few pages!.(BTW congrats on your featured wikian nomination sucess bob,hope to see you in one of the blogs soon.--Tama63 (Talk)


 * Yes, though remember there already is another The Sims Fanon Wiki (And thanks). -- BobNewbie  ∞(Talk)∞  19:02, July 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * The reason as to why our policies are small is because we are starting out, eventually, we'll have stronger policies. A partnership, would help our wiki and help your wiki in many ways. Sharing coding, advertising both wikis, and eventually, the Sims Players Wiki might actually become a large success.
 * 05:25, July 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with the opinions of some other users, I don't agree with a partnership at this time as per the point of it being redundant. -- Bleeh <font color="#489094">(talk) <font color="#489094">(blog) 06:12, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

Voting on a Partnership
As this issue has been debated above, I feel that we should proceed to an official vote, which will last for a week. Before voting, please be aware of the wiki's voting requirements.

Question: Do you think that The Sims Wiki should partner with The Sims Players Wiki? Time remaining to vote is.

Disagree

 * 1) I feel that The Sims Players Wiki is redundant, given that we have our own Fanon namespace. 10:07, July 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm sorry to say but GEORGIEGIBBONS is right. <span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:15px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:15px; border:4px ridge lime; background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(lime), to(navy)); ;background-image:-moz-linear-gradient(left, turqouise, pink); -moz-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em yellow; -webkit-box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em red; box-shadow: 0 0 0.6em black; background-color:brown"> VP  Talk  12:11, July 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Per the above. ~> ฬ ђ  (tคlк ★  ς๏ภtгเ๒ร) 10:12, July 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Per the reason of being a redundant wiki. -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]]( talk here ) 11:26, July 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Per the above votes and discussions. -- BobNewbie  ∞(Talk)∞  11:38, July 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) After i reading the discustions above, i stay here. because our fanon is fine and there is a lot of thing we can do there to expand and make it much-much better Wir.wiryawan 12:53, July 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) It would be redundant to partner, and would work against the success of our own fanon namespace. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 19:21, July 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) I couldn't have said it any better than LostInRiverview. —<font color="#008000">Random Ranaun (<font color="#00FF00">Talk to me! ) 19:56, July 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Per all the reasons mentioned as to why we should not partner. -- Bleeh <font color="#489094">(talk) <font color="#489094">(blog) 02:10, July 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) I suppose I don't have to explain more reasons... Per above 12:24, July 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Need I answer? Quite frankly it is redundant. -- XoTulleMorXo  ♥talk  and  contributions♥  04:56, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) It's pretty much the same thing. サンティ!!! 20:08, July 25, 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion
Based on community consenseus, will not form a partnership with The Sims Players Wiki. 03:26, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

Chat ban templates
I have created two draft templates in my userspace which can help us control bans from The Sims Wiki Chat. One of the templates is for a short ban from Chat while the second template is for a permanent ban from Chat. As you can see, I have based it on the blocked template (we can always change the image) and what you're currently seeing may not be final and the pages are unprotected, so anyone can go and constructively tweak as they wish. I would like to know what the community thinks of this idea, so we can decide whether to implement this system or not. 22:40, July 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely agree I think they should be implemented. -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]] ( talk here ) 22:42, July 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition to what I've mentioned above, I have sent in a suggestion to Wikia to add a system where we can set a time limit for someone to be banned and it would automatically unban the user once the time is up, in the same fashion as a temporary block. 22:47, July 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice work on the templates :) They're a good idea, as id the tempblock thing, let's hope wikia does it. ~> ฬ ђ  (tคlк ★  ς๏ภtгเ๒ร) 01:52, July 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. We already had some problems with that. Vss2eip 11:38, July 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * Seeing as there has been no opposition, I have created the templates for official use. This template is for a temporary ban while this one is for a permanent ban. The drafts are still in my userspace if anyone wants to play around, make improvements etc. 19:52, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Admin Highlighting
Hiya guys. I was just looking around other wikis and noiced they use css code to highlight their admins usernames, making it easier for users to find them. I propose we introduce such a system here. If anyone wants to see what I am proposing, copy my presonal css into yours and clear your cache. Thoughts? ~> ฬ ђ  (tคlк ★  ς๏ภtгเ๒ร) 01:53, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have the same code in my personal CSS too and it doesn't seem to conflict with anything, so if you set your signature to be a different colour from your rank, the signature would be unaffected. This image shows what it looks like with the admins and bureaucrats highlighted. 01:55, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my silly question... but I'm just wondering where will the names be visible if we highlight them using the wikia.css? Is the main purpose for that as a color distinction? 09:04, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * The names will be highlighted wherever there is a link to a user's page which is not designated as another colour, e.g. this link would be coloured but my sig text wouldn't. It's basically just a colour distinction. ~> ฬ ђ  (tคlк ★  ς๏ภtгเ๒ร) 09:14, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm... for me, it doesn't really have much point, as it will be most used in Special:WikiActivity, and I don't see it really useful, as users other than newly ones will recognize who are the admins here. Also, too many colors may make users color-confused. But if this feature is applied, I think only admins need their names highlighted. 09:40, July 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * The only users who would have had their usernames highlighted would have been the admins and bureaucrats. I've had it enabled in my personal CSS for quite a few days now and it seems to work fine for me but hey, everyone has their own opinion. :P 20:21, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

Featured Blog Post
I was just thinking, and seeing that this wiki is reaching big popularity, why not feature a blog post every month or so. Nominate, I don't know, let's say randomly "The Sims 3 Pets is Announced" or something else (similar to the featured article and battles/nominations page) and then put it on the main page (this actually is not at all necessary, just a suggestion). Or do we just have to much "featured" stuff? What do you think? <font face="Calibri" size="3"> Vss2eip talk here  20:26, July 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not too sure to be honest as we get all different kinds of blogs written here. Also, an announcement/release blog usually appears on the main page anyway per the News category for The Sims series. 20:29, July 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Then it hasn't have to be that. It can be like yours."Don't install Sims 3 if you have intel whatever..."? <font face="Calibri" size="3"> Vss2eip talk here  20:31, July 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I like this idea in theory... the issue is we use blogs not only on a personal level, but also in an official "news" capacity. It we implemented a featured blog, we would need to make sure that news blogs don't get selected, since I don't think they're really what we'd be going for here. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 20:42, July 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I did some further thinking on this and I think that it could work. Plus it may encourage other users to write a blog that could potentially be featured, like a help blog or something. 20:48, July 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, while this is a good idea, I don't think there's enough blog posts out there that aren't sim news or wiki updates. I think it's a good idea, but I don't know if it would work on a wiki with not many blog posts made. ~> ฬ ђ  (Ŧlยttєгรђא  ƒтω!) 11:02, July 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I don't really support this idea very much... However, it could be a good idea to popularize a blog. Blogs being nominated mean free advertisement, which will make users wonder and curious to read the blog. If the point of blog is so... 12:16, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

I support this, though suggest it being made bi-monthly until the average rate of blog posts made increases. -- BobNewbie  ∞(Talk)∞  12:46, July 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * I support this idea but only if the featured blogs are related to Sims or wiki events. -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]] ( talk here ) 21:45, July 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, to a certain extent, with Guilherme. I don't think we should be a blog-hosting site for blogs which are unrelated to The Sims series of games (including games like The Sims Medieval and others which don't fall within the main series of games). As for blog posts related to wiki events... I'm not sure that anyone other than administrators would even write a blog for that purpose, and if they did, it would likely fall under the category of a news or community update blog. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 23:22, July 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Since many users have wrote their opinion, what's going to happen to "The Featured Blog"? <font face="Calibri" size="3"> Vss2eip talk here   20:17, August 1, 2011 (UTC)

New Bot?
Hi guys. What with the recent absence of A morris, I'm starting to think that the community needs a new bot. To this end, I've made a bot, WoganBot. He could be used for recayegorising and similar tasks, but I want to ask the community if they approve, and, if that's the case, get him bot flagged so he won't flood recent changes. Thoughts? ~> ฬ ђ  (Ŧlยttєгรђא  ƒтω!) 11:38, July 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * As there are many bot taks to perform and seeing A morris absence I agree a new bot could be made. -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]] ( talk here ) 11:40, July 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it won't be a bad idea, but are you certain it's in its finished version? 11:53, July 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * It runs on autowikibrowser, and it's only semi automated. I can easily undo it's edits, and autowikibrowser is pretty simple to use. Besides, it'll only really be used for category replacing, and other simple tasks. ~> ฬ ђ  (Ŧlยttєгรђא  ƒтω!) 11:55, July 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can really have too many bots, as long as they're all fully functional and run by trustworthy users. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 16:49, July 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm in support of this as we need a new bot and WH seems to know how to work it. (I tried running a couple on a test wiki through AWB and I failed miserably :P) I am however willing to test E123-Omega on my test wiki as a "backup" to WH's bot. 17:22, July 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I've stated this, but he won't be fully automated. He will only be active while I'm on, as I have to press save for every edit. ~> ฬ ђ  (Ŧlยttєгรђא  ƒтω!) 00:57, July 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the idea. <font face="Calibri" size="3"> Vss2eip talk here   08:55, July 31, 2011 (UTC)