Forum:The Customized Sims Wiki

It seems that the friendly folks over at Mod The Sims have created The Customized Sims Wiki, meant to be a place for creators to create pages for their custom content. They think that our fanon pages, while effective, don't really give the "feeling of being official", so they want to create their own wiki and achieve their dreams. The problem is, they're not very proficient with wiki-editing, and they would like some help in building their wiki, especially on templates. I can help somewhat with templates, but I do know that the templates here on The Sims Wiki are very complex, so I'd like to ask the community if they would like to help these guys out.

Thoughts? --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  22:47, March 24, 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
If they need to use the templates here, it would better to create the articles here--rather than a whole new wiki. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 00:01, March 25, 2015 (UTC)

They really need to realise it's a wiki not a wikia. ;P --- ☣   ʀodrigo  x  (talk)(contribs) 00:04, March 25, 2015 (UTC)


 * Rodrigo X: It's the new status quo Wikia wants to force on us. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  00:55, March 25, 2015 (UTC)


 * In response to Auror's comment... we discussed that at length on the IRC channel. I tend to agree, but I feel it may be difficult to get that to happen. For one, their issue is that creating CC articles on our fanon namespace diminishes their legitimacy or marginalizes them, in their eyes. They probably aren't happy with simply creating fanon pages, otherwise they'd have already done that. Right now the Notability Policy expressly forbids articles about custom creations in the main namespace on TSW, so we'd either have to amend the rule, force them to use the fanon space, or create a brand new namespace for them. Creating a separate wiki may be the most straightforward solution, especially since any other solution would need to be planned and discussed extensively on TSW beforehand. I'm not opposed to making some changes here to accommodate them, but I'm not sure that any accommodation we'd be able to make would suit their needs or wishes. --  LostInRiverview talk • blog  •  contribs 00:19, March 25, 2015 (UTC)


 * In any case, I'd be willing to help build templates on TCSW, though I'm not actually going to get involved with the content of the wiki. &#8213; The  Tim   Man  (Infinite Histories • Galactic Crucibles • The Sims Wiki • Hallows Maleficent • Why I'm here in the first place ) 00:27, March 25, 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmm... My first thought was that is exactly what the fanon namespace is for. I have done that with Fanon:The Genesis Project. But after thinking about it some more, I can understand why they might think it would diminish their legitimacy. They aren't telling a story about a neighborhood in their game like I am doing. Their neighborhood(s) can be downloaded for anyone to play with. It is almost like a Sims 3 Store neighborhood, except that it isn't EA "sanctioned". I do have to admit that the fanon namespace does seem a little too limited for that because it could be possible for someone to create a fanon about their gameplay of one of their hoods just like anyone can with "regular" hoods. Now, I wouldn't be opposed to their being a custom hood/custom content namespace for such purpose, but I don't know if that is something that would be acceptable for them. I guess one reason why it might be unfavorable is that their pages could get "lost" within a larger wiki. Because, lets face it, The Sims Wiki is rather large as it is. However, that might be a reason to be connected because then people could stumble upon their pages being in such a well known wiki. I guess I would need to know what their thoughts are about these possible options. -- Icemandeaf (talk) 04:35, March 25, 2015 (UTC)


 * I think I'll agree with the opinions of LiR and WikiBuilder. I certainly won't be getting involved in making the templates, because doing that is rather tedious, and I've already had to make a load of templates for one wiki. I also don't think the editors of the Customized Sims Wiki will choose to make fanon here, even if we attempt to make accommodations that would suit their needs or wishes. --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 04:40, March 25, 2015 (UTC)
 * It's really hard to say what they would or wouldn't be willing to do, without getting their input. That would mean someone from TSW contacting them (probably K6ka or myself, because we've already reached out) and letting them know that it may be an option to accommodate them here. But I'd be hesitant to extend that possibility if the community wasn't going to back it up. Meaning, I wouldn't want to tell them that TSW would be willing to make accommodations, in the form of a policy amendment or namespace creation, without knowing that the community here actually would support such a measure. Which means any sort of formal proposal to do anything (which hasn't even been proposed yet, I might add), would be hypothetical and contingent on what the others would have to say or what they'd think. That's a pretty difficult position to operate from. Maybe we can start by gauging whether the community here would be receptive to the possible kinds of changes necessary. --  LostInRiverview talk • blog  •  contribs 05:19, March 25, 2015 (UTC)
 * Edit: I just had an idea occur to me - we could conduct an informal poll, using the feature. Perhaps put something on the main page asking "would you support The Sims Wiki allowing articles about custom creations?" or something to that effect. We can discuss the possibilities here on the community discussions forum, but not everyone reads it or responds, and a change like the one being talked about here would have an effect on the whole wiki at large. Just some food for thought. --  LostInRiverview talk • blog  •  contribs 05:25, March 25, 2015 (UTC)

I'm at loss here. What exactly is the other wiki about again? At first I thought it was about TS modding or CC database wiki, but it's also about fanon wiki? A more open fanon wiki?  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  13:43, March 30, 2015 (UTC)