Category talk:Candidates for deletion

Please use this page to discuss pages that have been labeled for deletion.


 * Guidelines


 * Make a level 2 header with the link and title of the article/file.
 * If it's a file, include a small thumbnail to the right.
 * Strike out the title when it has been resolved.

Category:Households
I've seen this category has been created twice. The question is, is it worth categorizing each household in the game into this category? There are countless of households in the series already, and it's rather difficult to define whether a group of Sims living together is a "family" or a "household". Also, there's nothing unique that differs a household from a regular family household. Should it really be kept? If it's kept, every single household has to be manually categorized with this.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  14:31, June 7, 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was wondering about that myself. I can't think of how we could automatically categorize families into this category using the Family Infobox, so as you said it would all have to be done manually. I think it wouldn't be impossible to define a household... maybe we just say that it's a family where a majority of the members aren't related to each other. In any case, it's still impractical to try and set this up, so I support deletion. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 16:20, June 7, 2014 (UTC)


 * Yup, in TS2 the only "households" were the university ones. Everything else was insertNameHere family. Yes, even if it was only one sim like Don Lothario, it showed "lothario family." The same for the Singles who were not actually related. They were still called "singles family". In TS3, everything is "household", from the Roomies to the Wan-Goddards to the Bunch'es to the Steel (who is only Chris). And yes, there's a lot of leeway on what consist as an "household". 3 relatives with a live-in roommate\estetician\personal trainer is apparently not an household, but if it's someone with her lover\boyfriend and adoptive son of only one of them, like the Belle's, it's apparently an household. But if the kid actually belongs to both of them, it's a family. But then the kid is unborn and the parents starts out as just lovers and are not even boyfriend\girlfriend, it's an household. And le such. The Bunch'es are clearly a family, but the Sunset Valley Roomies are clearly an household. But what about the Wan-Goddards, or the Andrews? It's really hard to define. Kaiko Mikkusu (talk) 17:01, June 10, 2014 (UTC)


 * You may have a point but I'm not support your answer. Firstly, the Wan-Goddards are basically engaged but (I don't know this) it's said that the household is entitled "family". But obviously, they are still entitled "household". And now the Andrews, clearly they are married, so no explanations to be given.


 * Now for the main discussion. This user added the category because of the titles of the households. And Kaiko is doing the same thing but meaningful. And it is true that Sims that entitled "household" are mostly friends or friends with their daughters/sons. In TS2 and TS3 Universities' houses are entitled "households", but what if the houses entitled them are only Sims who are brothers/sisters or married couples? Examples are the The Brothers household and The Richards Family household. And since The Sims series have more set of families than set of households. And as LiR had said, we may know that this household is entitled "household" and this household is entitled "family" and this household is somewhat their members are related and not. So this category should be delete.  .ThePeculiarMe  |  (talk to me)  |  (my mistakes)  12:20, June 11, 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see any reason why household articles have to be separated from family articles. There are no essential differences between them. They basically go along pretty well sharing the same category, so why does this have to be changed?  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  07:19, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

These household articles are completely redundant. And I'm opposing any separation between household and family articles. I support the deletion. --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 07:54, June 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * Redundant! I think that's the word I've been looking for. :p  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  16:50, June 20, 2014 (UTC)

Deleted -  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 17:07, June 20, 2014 (UTC)

Style
Style was nominated for deletion because it "Doesn't warrant its own page under the notability policy." I'm wondering if someone (perhaps the nominator) can explain what that means. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 07:10, June 22, 2014 (UTC)
 * The content that this article roughly covers is already mentioned in theme. Not to mention the page is not linked to any other article on the wiki and has been abandoned for about two years. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 07:45, June 22, 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, that makes sense. I support deletion. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 07:50, June 22, 2014 (UTC)

Support. --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 05:26, June 24, 2014 (UTC)


 * Deleted. Dharden (talk) 04:25, June 27, 2014 (UTC)

Veloci-Rooster
This is another deletion nomination that needs some explaining... the nomination says that the article doesn't warrant its own page, which I'm inclined to agree with. But should the information on the page instead be merged into another article, and if so, which article? --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 07:14, June 22, 2014 (UTC)

The list of NPCs possibly? But I support the deletion. --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 07:20, June 22, 2014 (UTC)

Template:Rabbit holes
Rabbit holes is a navigation template that contains links to different Rabbit holes in TS3. But, Lot types also has the same links, making the Rabbit Holes template redundant. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 07:50, June 22, 2014 (UTC)

I support the deletion. --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 08:05, June 22, 2014 (UTC)
 * The template is redundant. I support the deletion. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 06:48, June 26, 2014 (UTC)
 * These two templates are completely different navigation templates. None of the rabbit hole links are linked in Lot types. Or are you suggesting merging? If that's the case, then I oppose, because the two mechanics are also completely different to be combined.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  09:27, June 29, 2014 (UTC)
 * Aah, you're right. There's a few duplicates on both templates. I was under the impression that the links were the same on both templates. I oppose deletion. -  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 22:28, June 29, 2014 (UTC)

Willow Creek/Onomatology
Do we just create articles just because it's a redlink / we have to?  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  09:29, June 29, 2014 (UTC)
 * I think most of the onomatology pages are pretty empty. Maybe we can delete all the onomatology pages that don't have content, and modify the NeighborhoodInfobox template to no longer display the link unless the page actually exists. That way, we can still create Onomatology pages if we need to and they'll still be linked to from the template, but only if the page actually has content. -  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 22:30, June 29, 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I prefer it that way.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  07:45, June 30, 2014 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and deleted it. I've made a change in NeighborhoodInfobox so that it won't show the redlink if the onomatology page doesn't exist. People can still create it manually though.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  15:16, July 15, 2014 (UTC)

List of Wishes/Needs
This article was originally nominated for speedy deletion, but as it's not blatant vandalism I felt that deleting the page should be discussed first. From what I can tell, the page's author, Kelenius, is separating the List of Wishes into separate tabs, similar to other large lists on the wiki. They've made 'List of Wishes/Needs', as well as List of Wishes/Skills. Presumably, the list of wishes on each subpage will grow as Kelenius continues to work on it. However, the list of wants is already divided up by expansion pack, so it may not make much sense to re-divide the wishes by type instead. It's something worthy of discussion, which is why I'm bringing it up here.

So, should we delete the subpages of List of Wishes and keep the list organized the way it is, or complete the process of subdividing the list by type instead? --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 11:17, July 24, 2014 (UTC)


 * It doesn't really make much sense to separate wishes by the expansion pack. It should be noted, but it's definitely not the main parameter that separates them into categories. Skill wishes should be grouped together, not separated because some of these skills are only available in the expansion packs. Second, the page is already pretty bloated, and there are many more wishes that are not currently listed. Which is why I think there should be subpages. Kelenius (talk) 11:27, July 24, 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Kelenius. I'm sure the idea is to break up the master list into separate subpages based on categories. It makes more more sense if these wishes are classified by category instead of EP, much like List of Moodlets and List of Memories. If this is a work in progress, I suggest we not delete it.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  11:35, July 24, 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that might work too. And it makes sense. So this should not be deleted.  .ThePeculiarMe  |  (talk to me)  |  (my mistakes)  11:41, July 24, 2014 (UTC)

Based on the discussion here, the article will not be deleted. -  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 11:46, July 25, 2014 (UTC)

Category:LGBT Sims
Is it worthy to add this category with only one or two or more Sims? I know it can be add in some time but some of the Sims that stated in this section has said they are possible in LGBT category and this is unpredictable unless the developers said this who actually is or not. (Only the Davis-Welles couple had a same-sex relationship of other Sims and the Shear couples.)  .ThePeculiarMe  |  (talk to me)  |  (my mistakes)  00:21, July 26, 2014 (UTC)
 * IIRC, there is already a category for homosexual Sims. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 00:39, July 26, 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure there's more than one LGBT Sim. Audrey Shear, Mark Davis-Welles, Michael Dandy, Rita Davis-Welles and Virginia Supine would all properly fall into this category for sure (I don't know why they're not listed). I'm ultimately on the fence about whether this should be deleted, since it could be implied that there are several other Sims in the series that could be LGBT but who we can't confirm. -  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 00:45, July 26, 2014 (UTC)


 * Fishy, Nikel reverted IP's edit. I don't know why. :|  .ThePeculiarMe  |  (talk to me)  |  (my mistakes)  01:01, July 26, 2014 (UTC)


 * While there currently are only four Sims that definitely fall into this category, the release of The Sims 4 isn't that far off. Since EA has finally "breached the wall" of including Sims who are definitely in same-sex relationships, it seems possible that there could be some in that game, so I think we can leave it for the time being. Dharden (talk) 02:35, July 26, 2014 (UTC)

I'd be fine with keeping the category, however the structure should be totally changed. Gay Sims, Lesbians, Bisexual Sims -> LGBT Sims -> Sims. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 04:19, July 26, 2014 (UTC)


 * I never thought about that. We should keep this since TS4 will may have more LGBT Sims. And yes, since there are no transgender Sims, if there are any it will said by a Sim's bio or an extension of a spa or hospital interaction in the next game/s.  .ThePeculiarMe  |  (talk to me)  |  (my mistakes)  04:29, July 26, 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to think that we should keep the category, at least for now, but change the name so that it refers to relationships. After all, preset relationships are something we can see in all games, whether or not we can see preset preference scores. Dharden (talk) 01:25, July 27, 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd probably go with Dharden's suggestion myself. One question though - would possibly gay or bisexual Sims like Circe Beaker, Titania Summerdream, Ariel Capp, Kent Capp, Nervous Subject and Jason Cleveland fall under this category. Or is this category only for Sims who are gay / bisexual in their pre-set back-stories? --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 07:11, July 27, 2014 (UTC)


 * I think we should limit it to those cases where there's a pre-made relationship or it's explicitly part of the back-story. Those preset preference levels in The Sims 2 are only stable as long as those Sims don't engage in any romantic interactions, and which way they ultimately go is up to the player. Those preset preferences aren't so high that a moderately determined player can't eventually change them. Dharden (talk) 13:13, July 27, 2014 (UTC)


 * Can we can the category into Sims who are engage in a same-sex relationship or something shorter than this? And getting the subcategories as Auror suggested or all the Sims will be in one category.  .ThePeculiarMe  |  (talk to me)  |  (my mistakes)  13:21, July 27, 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, apologies. At that time, I thought the anon only did that to Audrey. I didn't see the rest of his contributions. I'm just afraid if The Sims 2 editors would exploit this category and claim everyone who has slight preference to the same gender to be gay/lesbian/bi, even though it might just be an oversight and not intended that way. It's actually happening with elders and Sims who have different genetic hair color with their physical hair color, and they're claimed to have dyed their hair. I really don't believe that's the case at all. I agree that we should limit the usage like Dharden explained though.


 * I'm not sure if we should keep the category or not though...  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  05:45, July 28, 2014 (UTC)


 * Per Dharden and Nikel. --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 06:10, July 28, 2014 (UTC)

@ThePeculiarMe: A category can only be renamed by deleting it and creating a new category. All the articles that were in the old category have to be put in the new one manually or by bot, and all the links to the old one have to be removed the same way. Dharden (talk) 13:40, July 28, 2014 (UTC)


 * We have three (or is it four?) bots that can speedily move categories. It shouldn't be difficult at all. --k6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 13:46, July 28, 2014 (UTC)

Objects children cannot use
IMO, this is a rather strange list. There are so many objects that children cannot use. It's hardly possible to name them all, and the list goes on and on as more series and EPs are introduced. Some are rather obvious (driving a car), some are game-specific (playing a piano), while some others are interaction-specific (can drink hot chocolate but cannot make it, has limited usage of cellphones, etc.).

If there are things children cannot use that are worth mentioning, such as gardening or playing instruments (in TS3), it's better to just mention it in the corresponding articles. If it doesn't fit there, explain it in the child article. Some things don't even need to be named, e.g. driving a car, throwing an axe, and so on. So honestly, I don't see the good of keeping this list at all.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  11:10, August 1, 2014 (UTC)

That page has been added for a very long time, but I guess it doesn't really need to be kept. So I support the deletion. --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 11:12, August 1, 2014 (UTC)


 * I support deletion. It may have been useful at one time, but I think it's outlived whatever usefulness it might have had. Dharden (talk) 13:28, August 1, 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that the page Objects Children cannot use should be deleted and added onto the Child page. It has two lists about what children can do, so why not add what things children can't do? 2.121.25.26 (talk) 10:28, August 24, 2014 (UTC)

Deleted -  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 18:25, September 3, 2014 (UTC)

Pigeon
I don't see the importance of this article at all. Pigeons are just 3 things in the series: a special effect, a minor pet, and means of communication. Except the last one, this article is pretty much insignificant. Why would we have a separate article for a special effect? There are countless of special effects in The Sims 3, e.g. rainbows, hot air balloons, the train in Champs Les Sims, ocean waves, buoys, sailboats, schools of diving area fish, and manta rays. We don't have articles of these things for the same reason. Pigeons are also a minor pet, but there are also many other minor pets, and we certainly don't create separate article of each minor pet.

The only thing worth noting is as a means of communication in The Sims Medieval. Even then, it lacks information in general, and I think it's better mentioned in phone instead.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  06:50, August 24, 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the page is detailed enough and has enough references to it throughout the games to make it worth keeping. I oppose deletion. -  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 06:53, August 24, 2014 (UTC)

Magic NPC Redirects

 * Butler M1
 * Butler M2
 * Butler M3
 * Landlord M1
 * Landlord M2


 * Landlord F1
 * Neutral Witch F1
 * Neutral Witch F2
 * Neutral Witch F3

For a while we've had these re-directs to Magic Sim NPCs with randomized names. In 2010 pages for these Sims were created under the names that were referenced in the game files. Now later in 2010-11 the pages were either re-named or deleted and replaced with these ones.

Apparently there was some debate as to whether or not the names referenced in the game files were fixed. In 2013 I changed their names back to the ones that were referenced in the game files, turning these pages above into re-directs.

The bottom line is that we know that those were their real names. So I suggest that we delete these re-directs because I feel that they're no longer needed. In fact on a couple of occasions some editors were apparently convinced that these names listed above were the names that were referenced in the game files, when actually they weren't.

These page re-directs may have been useful at one time, but I think they've outlived whatever usefulness they might have had.

--  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 06:54, August 24, 2014 (UTC)


 * At that time we didn't know they had any fixed names to call them, hence the placeholder names. But now that we know they do have names, and I don't really see the need of keeping them anymore, I support the deletion. The Tricou descendants have the same case as well, so I'd like to request their redirects for deletion too.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  07:10, August 24, 2014 (UTC)

Template:User samesexmarriage
I want to preface this discussion by saying that my nominating this template for deletion in no way whatsoever has anything to do with my own beliefs on the subject of same-sex marriage. For what it's worth, I'm gay and I support same-sex marriage, but none of that is relevant to the discussion. I'm saying this ahead of time simply to ensure that we approach this discussion from a neutral position and with regards to the template itself and not the sentiment of the template.

I would prefer that real-world politics not enter into this wiki, so much as is possible. Same-sex marriage is, in many parts of the world, a debated and even controversial thing. By allowing this kind of template here, we would welcome that real-world, often hostile, debate to spill over onto the wiki. Unlike debates about which Sim families are the best, or whether Olive Specter really is a murderer, or which Sims base game is the best, debates about real-world politics can and very often do devolve into anger and mistrust. We saw a little bit of this when we discussed removing a warning template from the wiki page on same-sex relationships.

Additionally, if we keep a template indicating support of same-sex marriage, it could prompt other users to create a template to oppose it. In fact, if we kept this template I would say that the opposing side should be able to create a template supporting their own views. I can not imagine that having opposing templates would create anything but bad tempers and arguments over something that is not relevant to the wiki.

Simply put, regardless of your own personal views on the subject of same-sex marriage, or other politicized issues, they don't really belong on the wiki. They too easily divide the community and disrupt the purposes of the project. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 04:52, September 1, 2014 (UTC)


 * I support the deletion. --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 04:56, September 1, 2014 (UTC)


 * My bad. I was the person who created this template myself since I thought we could really use a template like this, but I'll agree with LiR's sentiment especially since LGBT and same-sex marriage is a hot-button real world political issue and that would certainly bring a lot a heated debate to the wiki.


 * We could change the wording so that it's something more neutral, such as "This user is in a same-sex relationship" and rename it to something like User samesexrelationship, but that would be redundant, as we already have a template (User lgbt relationship), just with a different wording. As for myself, I'm unsure what to do with this, so I'm remaining neutral to this position. EpicJoyBoy   (My talk page!)  05:11, September 1, 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm also not entirely convinced that we should keep this template either. --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 05:49, September 1, 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to nominate it for deletion, please start a new discussion. It's not related to the deletion of this template. -  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 05:51, September 1, 2014 (UTC)


 * I oppose deletion and support the idea of staying neutral by allowing users to use templates that are in favor or in opposition of same sex relationships. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 07:39, September 1, 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm quite unsure about this. The current misc. personal infoboxes have been abundant of the likes. How much do we limit this discussion? Is it only discussing about this particular infobox or the other sexual orientation infoboxes?  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  10:10, September 1, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with LiR's reasoning on keeping real-world politics out as much as possible. Yes, the misc. personal infoboxes are rather varied wrt the sort of information they allow users to state, but not in the area of personal political viewpoints. I think it's best we keep it that way, therefore, I support deletion. Dharden (talk) 11:04, September 1, 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the point in having this template when we already have the samesex partnership/relationship box (created by me;)). Also, we shouldn't get involved in real-life politics. Therefore, I support deletion. Beds (talk - blog ) 11:15, September 1, 2014 (UTC)


 * Support User lgbt and/or User lgbt relationship already do the job. I don't think it's necessary to have 60 of what is essentially the same thing of userboxes. --k6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 13:09, September 1, 2014 (UTC)


 * Support for reasons already stated. Icemandeaf (talk) 01:34, September 3, 2014 (UTC)

Due to the responses here, the template is deleted. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 03:36, September 5, 2014 (UTC)

Template:User transgender
Personally I don't think it's necessary to have a user template like this. There aren't that many people who are transgender anyway. --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 05:56, September 1, 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose deletion. We have literally dozens of templates that allow our users to identify themselves in many different ways. Most importantly, we have two templates - User male and User female - which allow users to give their gender. But many people do not identify themselves with one of these genders, and they should be allowed to identify themselves however they wish. And, while I don't know any statistics about how many people in the world or in any particular country are transgendered, I do know that we have at least one member of this wiki who is. And even if we didn't, I would still oppose deletion, because providing the template allows potential users who are transgender to identify themselves (if they wish). -  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 06:01, September 1, 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay right. Sorry about deleting those comments. I just wasn't sure they were still needed. Weak oppose --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 06:06, September 1, 2014 (UTC)
 * Just so we're clear, you nominated this template for deletion, but you oppose deleting it? --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 06:09, September 1, 2014 (UTC)


 * Well I wasn't entirely certain, and you sort of changed my mind for me. --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 06:10, September 1, 2014 (UTC)


 * I oppose this deletion. While there are not many openly trans people, at least on the internet anyways, there are still many other people who identify as transgender or gender non-binary. Many trans/non-binary people don't come out for pretty much the same reason as other LGBT people do: transphobia. Also, I'd like to mention that transgender people have their own communities on the internet (such as the r/transgender community on Reddit) and they are also part of the LGBT spectrum. EpicJoyBoy   (My talk page!)  06:13, September 1, 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay then. Considering that I was the user who nominated this template for deletion, I'll still only give this deletion a weak oppose. --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 06:15, September 1, 2014 (UTC)

I support deletion. The userbox has no place on the wiki. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 07:43, September 1, 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand what you mean by "The userbox has no place on the wiki". There are folks who happen to be intersex and folks who happen to identify as trans or gender non-binary. I still think this (and any gender identity-related userboxes) should be kept in case of any potential users in the wiki who identifies as such, like what LiR said. EpicJoyBoy   (My talk page!)  08:56, September 1, 2014 (UTC)


 * I oppose deletion. The background reason of deletion isn't really strong or doesn't make a lot of sense, IMO. On what basis do we consider "not enough transgender?" Does it mean "not enough transgender" in the world or in the wiki? Either way, we can never tell how many users belong there. We can't even tell how many users are elderly here, so if this discussion is further discussed, we might as well say we don't need User elder and should delete it.


 * If it's under impression that the userbox hasn't been used by anyone yet, well... there are still a lot of userboxes that aren't used yet.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  10:04, September 1, 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Why shouldn't we keep it? Transgender, whether you believe it is or not, is a gender and we shouldn't remove it from the wiki as that could possibly cause a lot of bother in the future if there was a user that was transgender.


 * Also, you don't know if there is any transgenders on the wiki. There could be, but the user could possibly just not want people to know as they;re still figuring it out. So yeah, oppose. Beds (talk - blog ) 11:19, September 1, 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This template and its brethren allows people who are actually neither male nor female to place themselves in a category in which they belong, should they join this wiki. Removal of this template would be a false signal of this community's attitude towards transgender people. So, yeah. I oppose the deletion of this template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiBuilder1147 (talk • contribs) 11:22 1 September 2014 (UTC) - Please sign your comments with ~


 * I oppose deletion. Most of my thoughts are already mentioned. And the wiki is more of a freedom for all. (Unless they are very helpful or the wiki isn't filled religious strict fanatics.)  .ThePeculiarMe  |  (talk to me)  |  (my mistakes)  11:26, September 1, 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose While I personally am not comfortable with discussing topics like these (personal matter, don't inquire about it), I see absolutely no reason why this template has to go. If "not a lot of people are transgender anyway" is a reason, then we may as well just delete 70% of our "unused" or "scarcely used" userboxes, and I am not in favor of shaving our userbox collection to a sad pile of non-unique userboxes. --k6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 13:06, September 1, 2014 (UTC)


 * Even though I was the user who nominated this template for deletion in the first place, I currently give the nomination weak oppose (leaning towards neutral). --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 23:47, September 1, 2014 (UTC)

I oppose deletion. Icemandeaf (talk) 01:33, September 3, 2014 (UTC)

Due to the responses here, the template will not be deleted. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 03:36, September 5, 2014 (UTC)

Business Savvy
I'm conflicted that we should have separate page of each trait in The Sims 4. Traits in this game aren't as well-defined as in The Sims 3 IMO, and I rarely see their significance in any of the reviews. But putting that aside, right now I'm talking about bonus traits in particular. Do we really need a separate page for each bonus and reward trait? These two types of traits are basically similar to lifetime rewards. I don't think they warrant to have their own page at all. Also, the page has a redlink to an aspiration in The Sims 4, which I think doesn't warrant its own page as well.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  10:17, September 2, 2014 (UTC)


 * I support this deletion, unless further details turn up that convince me otherwise. --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 10:19, September 2, 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that there might not be a point in the future in which traits or aspirations might warrant their own page. But at the present time we don't know enough about each individual one to make that distinction. So, I support collecting information on bonus and reward traits onto a single article, and support deleting individual articles like this one. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 18:20, September 2, 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it would be best to hold off creating all these trait pages until we at least learn more information about the traits. So, until we gather up all the information, we should just collaborate all the information we have so far into one page. And, if need be, we can separate them into their own articles. Support deletion. Beds (talk - blog ) 21:58, September 2, 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise that the Traits page for Sims 4 existed when I created the page, but now that I know, I support deletion. &#8213; Wiki Builder  1147  (Infinite Histories • Galactic Crucibles • The Sims Wiki • Hallows Maleficent • Why I'm here in the first place ) 22:35, September 2, 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with LiR's opinion. --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 01:27, September 3, 2014 (UTC)


 * I support deletion for the reasons already stated. Icemandeaf (talk) 01:32, September 3, 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - After having some time to think over this, according to other users traits in The Sims 4 are blander and weaker than The Sims 3. If this is the case, it would be better to instead list traits into tables, and if needed, we can divide the table up into sub-pages if it gets too long. Until EA introduces a massive overhaul in the trait system (The Sims 4: Traits Expansion Pack, anyone?), we can delete this page for now. After all, if we need it again, we can always undelete it. --k6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 01:36, September 3, 2014 (UTC)

The reward trait in question has been deleted.

@k6ka: That's what I had in mind about The Sims 4 traits too. Traits in The Sims 3 used to be gathered in a long list, until it's too long and we decided to separate them. It's possible that The Sims 4 trait would follow this way, but I prefer them to be gathered in a long list at the moment (since the are not too many traits anyway).  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  12:25, September 3, 2014 (UTC)

Someone can delete Horus Mandrake i don't play sims 3 anymoreSolonor1987