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)

This is my first time here, I do not know much, and I think for newcomers, this option is necassary to chat about their Sims and become familiar around the place. So, no, this should stay.

24.14.112.248 (talk) 06:57, January 5, 2013 (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)

Featured Fanon feature gone inactive
Regarding the Featured Fanon, it made no progress after November, and from what I see there are activity on the Featured Fanon and Featured Fan Fiction but no activity on Featured Author segment. Is it that we need all 3 of them to update it? IMO the Featured Fanon and Featured Fan Fiction can use a much needed update. Mathetesalexandrou 21:26, February 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing this up and I have updated both the Featured fanon and Featured fan fiction, while the Featured Author has had no nominations since November. I'm unsure whose responsibility it was to update it but I'm concerned about the activity levels in Featured Content and the rate in which it's updated as a whole which I've addressed in this blog. 21:46, February 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * Slow response I know, but I'm the one who updated it. I couldn't update it for November since I was away for the whole month, but I've been leaving it hoping votes would stack up over time... which clearly isn't the case.

Partnership
Hi there. I make Fanon. I think it is bad. It is to be comedy thriller series .. plan of the two series Only one problem .. I need a helper.

Bella4114 16:46, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

What kind of help do you need? I am not exactly a comedy or thriller plot designer, but I can happily help with some other aspects, such as format checking, etc, or maybe even character ideas. Mathetesalexandrou 17:34, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

Need help with my wiki "Brandon Rhode"
I was making my own Sims wiki and everthing is not origzained! I just read the Fanon polical! I cant get the box thingy for my Sims Wiki!

Sims3Fan33333 00:45, February 27, 2012 (UTC)

Great my Fanon Page for Sim is deleted >___< Sims3Fan33333 22:40, February 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * I left a message before I deleted your fanon. please read it on your talkpage. Wiryawan310 01:09, February 28, 2012 (UTC)

Fanon-cleanup template parameters
I've been thinking that we should adjust the parameters of the Fanon-cleanup template in order to allow for a reasonable time (of 1 week) for the author to review their fanon before an administrator checks it. I've created a draft template for this.

For example, tagging an article with would make the template look like this:

Obviously if it's approved then it would replace the current cleanup template but I would like to know what others think of this. 20:22, March 3, 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it would make users consider that their fanon really needs to be cleaned up and that they should improve it. I think the wiki would benefit from it. 20:33, March 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the parameter, but when we tag with it, many author will remove it strightly or beg to another admin who not put the tag to detag it... so I suggest we put the name of the admin who tag it on the template too and only admin whose give the tag can detag it. what do you think? Wiryawan310 03:39, March 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * I personally believe that is not a good idea, especially since this might mean that the standards for each admins would be different. However, I do support the idea that authors should consult the admin who tagged it, since that admin will probably have more to say about the fanon than most. Maybe put up a subcommittee of peer fanon authors to look at the fanon, perhaps? MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES  (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 03:58, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

fanon cleanup template removed by the author
When I read some fanon, I found that some fanon cleanup template is removed not by administrator but by the author. This template is important to tag a newly created fanon, a fanon that doest meet the standard, or neglected fanon in progress.

The result of removal the fanon cleanup template is some fanon that doesn't meet the standard or neglected fanon in progress is remain hidden on the wiki, for example this fanon. I have put a notice that only admin can add and remove the template but some author still remove the tag.

I want ask can admin do this:
 * If the template is removed, we must notice the author that only admin can remove it and give a reason why their fanon is tagged. So if the author need help with their fanon they can directly ask us.
 * If after we give the notice the author still deleted the template, we can delete their fanon for poor quality, because the author doesn't want to be tagged and their fanon still doesnt meet the standard.

What is your opinion guys? or maybe there is another way out to prevent the removal of fanon cleanup template by the author? Wiryawan310 20:23, March 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * IMO just retag it and give them a note about detagging it. At most give a templated warning.
 * I personally agree with the first part of Wiryawan's statements: giving the reason why IMO is the best solution to the problem, and should make it lot easier to separate the wheat from the chaff. As for the second part, I believe it is a bit too draconian, and hence I stand in agreement with WH's suggestions. I also believe that peer editing is the way to go, allowing troubled fanons (if the author seeks help) to be inspected by those who have experience, and not just from a "seat of power". Many new fanon authors have the heart, although not necessarily the experience, from what I've observed. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES  (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 04:00, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

Fanon Battles
As discussed in Starmoonie's blog post, there is a general community support for a Fanon Battle. However, Starmoonie had some reservations, which was specified as the large number of fanons owned by inactive users. I would like to hear some admin inputs regarding the usage of fanons of inactive users should the Sims Wiki inplement Fanon Battles.

P.S. We require a Featured Fanon Update. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 00:45, July 9, 2012 (UTC)

Too many CAS pages?
I've only recently noticed that a large number of fanon pages about player-made Sims are being made. I'm pretty sure that it advised that these pages should only be made if the Sim is actually in a fan fiction. It might just be me misreading something, but has anyone else noticed the same thing, just out of interest? Asher Éire I'm a lonely person, so please talk to me... 17:29, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm one of the reasons this is happening, I really wasn't aware of this to be honest. I do make CAS-Simpages and present their own lifestories there. If this is the wrong way to use the fanon pages please let me now, I won't create any more pages then. Tiezel (talk) 17:56, October 12, 2012 (UTC)


 * I've never heard that before. I don't think there's anything wrong with creating a CAS page that's not in a fan fiction. BakeryChaz  ~ ( let's have a chat! ) 22:35, October 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * It's fine to make pages about Sims you've made, regardless of whether they are in a fan fiction or not i.e. my fanon pages.
 * Asher might be referring to a specific policy (I do recall reading something to that effect somewhere). If so, I'd be in favor of removing it from our policies. --  LiR speak ~ read 23:10, October 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * What others said. No, that's okay, Tiezel. You are still free to share your stories in your fanon Sims. I'm in favor with LiR too.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  04:32, October 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * I for one could care less about the amount of Fanon Sims: More the merrier, IMO. However, I could use a bit of cleaning up: i.e. those abandoned Fanon Sims. I myself should go do some moar simming, as to fill up my much needed fanon sim pages. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES  (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 20:59, October 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * The policy in question states: "Bio pages for fanon Sims need some purpose for their creation. Bio pages typically should not be created unless the Sim is involved in a story or unless the Sim is referenced elsewhere in a user's fiction." While it hasn't really been followed/enforced, it's evident that these pages aren't hurting anyone and based on the nature of the series, a self-created Sim would also count as fanon and it's clear that people like writing Sim bios as fanon, so I'm in full support of removing that policy. 09:52, October 14, 2012 (UTC)