The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 14

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. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by LostInRiverview (talk • contribs) (UTC) - Please sign your comments with ~ 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. --W H  (talk) 23:19, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * This has been pending for a while, has anyone come up with a solution? Thank you. -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]] ( talk here ) 18:54, August 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I'm not sure if there is a way we can resolve this without causing quite a bit of collateral damage. Saying that, there doesn't seem to be a way that we can stop a fanon article from being made on the Layout Builder. I guess we'll just have to put up with it... 19:02, August 4, 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? —Random Ranaun (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. —Random Ranaun (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? —Random Ranaun (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. —Random Ranaun (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 (talk) (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.  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. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me! ) 19:56, July 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Per all the reasons mentioned as to why we should not partner. -- Bleeh (talk) (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)

Consensus
Seeing as this has been sitting here for a while now, I feel that we should start to gain community consenseus over whether to highlight the usernames of admins/bureaucrats for the whole wiki (by adding the code to MediaWiki:Common.css). 20:11, August 10, 2011 (UTC)

Support - I feel that it is easier for new users to find help from admins/bureaucrats if we implement this system. Plus the CSS code doesn't interfere with customised signatures. 20:11, August 10, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Per Georgie. DanPin ( Talk ) 20:16, August 10, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Per the above, also it's my idea. ~><font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">ฬ ђ tคlк 04:11, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

I don't really care. There's no reason to do it or not to do it, as far as I'm concerned. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 04:50, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral - I agree with LiR, per the point of it having no real impact. -- Guilherme Guerreiro ( talk here ) 11:06, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

Almost Oppose - Per LiR and Gui. Nikel  (Talk to  me!)  11:31, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral  - Honestly, I don't really see the impact of implementing this, since it isn't really a major difference. Though if bureaucrats want it they can put it. As far as I'm concern I don't really care. <font face="Vladimir Script" size="3"> El cobaya talk here  11:55, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral  - As long as it doesn't slow the wiki down or something I'm fine with its implementation. -- BobNewbie  ๑ (Talk)๑  18:49, August 11, 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)
 * We may as well take it to a vote to see if the community ultimately wants to implement this feature. 23:58, August 1, 2011 (UTC)

Voting on implementing the Featured Blog Post system
Based on the above discussion, I now feel we should take this to a vote so we can decide whether to implement this system or not. The voting process will last for a week. Before voting, please be aware of the wiki's voting requirements.

Question: Do you support implementing a Featured Blog Post system on The Sims Wiki? Time remaining to vote is.

Support

 * 1) I support the creation, but would want to see some constructed guidelines (which blogs qualify, which ones don't) before the feature is actually active. --  LostInRiverview talk ·  blog 01:56, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) This could really be a good thing for various reasons in my opinion. Plus I agree with LiR about guidelines being created first. -- BobNewbie   ∞(Talk)∞  11:46, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) It can be done every month, and I don't really see the harm of implenting it into the wiki because it may (or not) make it more popular. <font face="Calibri" size="3"> Vss2eip  talk here   13:59, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) -- Bleeh <font color="#489094">(talk) <font color="#489094">(blog) 01:42, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) I don't really see the impact of this to wiki, other than free advertising  04:00, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) ~> ฬ ђ  (Ŧlยttєгรђא   ƒтω!)  04:36, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]] ( talk here ) 10:25, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) I can see that there are some pros of this system but there are also several cons. While they can possibly be worked around, we may still be lacking in content in order for this to work. 12:02, August 2, 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)
 * Alright, as I see no opposition here, I've sent off a request to flag it as a bot through Special:Contact. I think that bureaucrats can remove these flags, so if you think it's not time, feel free to remove the flags. ~><font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">ฬ ђ tคlк 23:05, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine by me (and yeah, bureaucrats can revoke bot flags). 23:06, August 24, 2011 (UTC)

Technical expertise lacking
I've made an observation and I'm looking for ideas to solve what I see as a problem with The Sims Wiki. Namely that we lack a real strong base of knowledge about how to fix problems in and improve the game. We have a major focus on in-game content - lists of sims and families, information on each game, information on certain objects, and information on Simology - but we are severely lacking in information about the technical workings of the game, and in how to handle even simple problems with the game, or with modifications to the game.

I'd like to hear everyone's take on this, and any ideas anyone has! --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 17:28, August 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed fully. This is what's putting us slightly behind other sites like TSR. Perhaps making pages for well known game mods could help? -- BobNewbie  ∞(Talk)∞  17:31, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think we could include more information about how to fix technical problems. I could translate this blog into an article as it would advise someone who was buying a new computer in order to play the game, which would be helpful. Also, I think our Tutorial namespace would be a good place to write some tutorials regarding technical issues and how to fix them. 18:53, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Georgie, Tutorials should be the place for it, after all they are not only meant as in-game but they are also mant to offer knowledge of how to solve glitches. I agree that we could start to write about mods. The problem is that our contributors may also lack in technical expertise, and personally, I don't really have technical knowledge on Sims >-<. -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]] ( talk here ) 18:59, August 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the creation of a new Forum, one that focuses on technical aspects of the games and troubleshooting, as well as Modding & Patches, could be a step in the right direction? -- BobNewbie  ∞(Talk)∞  20:48, August 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that if we were to do this anywhere, we'd have to do it in the Tutorial namespace or a new forum thread. Hwever, I'm not sure we have many users who are actually experienced in this sort of thing. ~> ฬ ђ  (Ŧlยttєгรђא  ƒтω!) 05:15, August 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * We get about 20,000 readers a day on TSW... If we could find even a handful of them that are technically experienced and convince them to contribute, we'd be a lot better off... how we do that, however, I don't quite know. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 05:29, August 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * We could possibly put an ad to a blog post informing users about our need for technically experienced users, though I doubt that many people view our main page as a Google search for 'The Sims Wiki' takes you to Recent Activity. Perhaps posting something about it in the Community Corner? -- BobNewbie  ∞(Talk)∞  06:58, August 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Google searches automatically go to Recent Activity... that might just be due to your setup or preferences. However, most people probably don't end up on TSW through our mainpage directly, but through a more direct google search - search, for example, Bella Goth and you'll find that our page on her is the first hit. The same goes for a lot of other searches (mostly searches for Sims). --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 07:09, August 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Weren't Tutorials supposed to offer knowledge about how to improve the game? -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]] ( talk here ) 11:11, August 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point actually. I reckon the Tutorial namespace could be used for something that's common while we could create a new forum for someone to post an issue that we haven't covered so we can try and solve it. 11:15, August 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * One thing for sure, don't make it as article, because article is for in-game information. I too agree if we implement it to Tutorial, but tutorial is not rich in article yet, and some of them are poorly written. This means, we have to focus on tutorial development. 11:48, August 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * I strongly support this. Even I am sometimes puzzled, ex. when I want to know system requirements to a specific game I don't know where to search for, so I suggest that we add that also. <font face="Calibri" size="3"> Vss2eip talk here   20:39, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

System Requirements
I suggest that we create a article that will have info on system requirements on every Sims game (like The Sims: House party or The Sims 3: Generation or The Sims 2...) and that it tells us something like "don't install The Sims 3 if you have less than 10gb in your hard drive" or similar. What do you think? <font face="Calibri" size="3"> Vss2eip talk here   20:39, August 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * We could. However, we do currently list the system requirements on the pages for each base game, as well as some hints this blog from those lovely people in the UK. ;) 23:53, August 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems like an OK idea. It could be added as a section to the article, or made as a subpage. ~> ฬ ђ  (Ŧlยttєгรђא   ƒтω!)  09:56, August 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, I think this would improve our lacking in technical information. -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]] ( talk here ) 21:38, August 10, 2011 (UTC)

Increase rate of Featured Articles
I think that for a wiki of our size, we might want to consider increasing the rate of featured articles. Currently we have a new featured article once a month... we could possibly increase that to once every two weeks or even once a week, since we certainly are not lacking in the number of quality articles that we have. I think with the Community Development Administrative Project, we have the perfect group of people who can monitor Featured Articles and update them as necessary... but I'm asking here first to get everyone's opinion. Is this something that you think we could do? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 05:55, August 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. We'd just need to make sure enough got nominated. ~> ฬ ђ  (Ŧlยttєгรђא  ƒтω!) 06:01, August 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * I like the idea. We could first try to test it and see how it goes for a few months by adding a new Featured Article every 2 weeks, then if that works we could consider a new FA every week. -- BobNewbie  ∞(Talk)∞  06:49, August 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * This idea isn't bad at all! In fact, it's great. We have a good number of great articles. <font face="Calibri" size="3"> Vss2eip talk here  09:39, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

Featured Sim
I have noticed that among the featured articles there are featured Sims. I think it would be a good idea to create a featured Sim, to be something apart from the Featured Article. <font face="Calibri" size="3"> Vss2eip talk here  18:06, August 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's really a good idea, as it would become sort of a "OMG I LOVE THIS SIM!!!!" sort of thing, but we could have it under administrator review like featured article voting. Many of the articles on sims only have basic info, and I don't think there'd be enough good sim articles to keep this going. ~> ฬ ђ  (Ŧlยttєгรђא  ƒтω!) 09:52, August 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Woganhemlock. It may not be your intention, but the way you're showing it seems more like this "Featured Sim" would work more in favor of popularity of the Sim rather than the article. Or maybe what you are trying to suggest is a "Featured Sim Article", is that what you mean? -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]] ( talk here ) 19:03, August 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * I mean like "Featured Sim Article", like we have "Featured Article". Not based on popularity, based on the quality of the article. <font face="Calibri" size="3"> Vss2eip talk here   19:08, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not too sure about this as like WH said, there are a lot of articles that only have basic information on Sims. I think they should just stay under the general Featured Article system. 22:20, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

Chat moderators
Hey guys, WH and myself were discussing on IRC about bringing in a couple of non-admins to become moderators on Chat (it was all WH's idea). I thought this would be a good idea as there doesn't seem to be much administrator presense on Chat. I think that a user who nominates themself or is nominated to become a Chat moderator should have rollback as a minimum requirement (I have a couple of users in mind for this already). Plus I think we should decide whether to go by the traditional method of having a bureaucrat approve the requests or allowing any administrator to do it (as admins/chatmods can promote others to chatmod status). What do you guys think? 07:35, August 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not necessarily sure we need much in the way of a strict minimum requirement, as chat moderator privileges are very marginal and are very easy to provide/take away. I would say the only requirement should be that the user shows that they are on the chat semi-frequently. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 08:19, August 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Since admins can give these rights out as well, I don't see why it should be crat only for handing them out. ~> ฬ ђ  (Ŧlยttєгรђא  ƒтω!) 08:32, August 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree. As long as the user is trustworthy and on the chat semi-frequently, I don't see an issue. I was thinking of nominating/promoting new moderators in the same way that we currently deal with Requests for rollback rights but I'm sure someone has a better idea than me and they're welcome to suggest it. :P 09:54, August 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with everyone that say that this a great idea. I don't see why not to make chat moderators. Is there a official page for nominating chat moderators? <font face="Calibri" size="3"> Vss2eip talk here  18:42, August 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Not yet but we're working on the implementation. :) 19:02, August 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * Then I think that we should start a voting. <font face="Calibri" size="3"> Vss2eip talk here   19:04, August 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think even just having the users apply on an admin's talk page would suffice, I don't think we need a new page solely for those applications. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 22:28, August 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with that. Of course, we'd still need to have some guidelines about this. Also, when it comes to an application, we should decide (once we have a couple or so) if we really need any more chat moderators. Personally, I think 2 will be a good starting point and if we decide we could benefit from another chatmod then we can consider promoting a new applicant. 22:23, August 6, 2011 (UTC)

Featured Tutorial
I have noticed something about the "Featured Tutorials". First of all it's messed up. Second, when I go in the "Past Tutorials" page I see nothing. It's not being maintained properly like the other "Featured" stuff. I suggest that either we delete it, or vote or put someone to maintain it because it's basically an "empty page". <font face="Vladimir Script" size="3"> El cobaya talk here  08:39, August 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * If nobody opposes it, I'll be more then glad to help out with the Featured Tutorials. The reason for it not having a "Past Tutorial" page is because none has been selected yet from the nomination page, although I agree that someone, whether me or not, should start to maintain it. -- BobNewbie  ∞(Talk)∞  13:49, August 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bob, also why not creating an adminstration project incolving Tutorials? -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]] ( talk here ) 19:33, August 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be an issue with making sure that the AP had enough it would be responsible for in order to keep the administrators in it busy enough to justify making the project. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 23:18, August 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering that our Tutorial namespace is pretty small compared to others, I'm not entirely sure we need a dedicated AP. However, I can think of some tasks that can be assigned to a possible Tutorial AP (in a similar fashion to the Fanon Administration AP) so it may have some benefit. 15:27, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

Voting on for BobNewbie to manage the Featured Tutorial page
The following vote has been declared null due to the lack of discussion above as well as the below comments and is not open for further comment. Question: Do you support BobNewbie to manage the Featured Tutorial page? Time remaining to vote is.

Support

 * 1) He would be great at it. <font face="Vladimir Script" size="3"> El cobaya talk here   11:45, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

 * Err...I don't think it's a vote-worthy matter, really. -- BobNewbie  ∞(Talk)∞  11:50, August 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree, this isn't something that needs to be voted on in this manner. To be honest, I think we need to discuss this in more detail before deciding anything, hence why I have declared the vote as null. 15:13, August 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Compound onto that, we have a rule which states that votes should only be started when absolutely necessary, then in those cases started by administrators only.  LostInRiverview talk · blog 18:27, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

Increase Rate of Featured Media (Pictures)
Since this wiki has many great and interesting features, I was thinking about increasing the rate of the featured pictures. Instead of one, we can, I don't know, add an slideshow of pictures. What do you think? Or if you don't like the idea we can feature a picture every 2 weeks or one or even a "picture of the day"! Your call! <font face="Vladimir Script" size="3"> El cobaya talk here  19:37, August 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind seeing a new Featured Media file bi-weekly as we do have many good images. As for the slideshow part, I think it could work in the form of a Featured Gallery, where we can vote on the best image gallery for an article and use that as a slideshow. 19:40, August 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it would be cool to have a featured images slideshow, but I'm not sure that it's feasible given the current low popularity of Featured Media... I'm supportive, but skeptical. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 22:36, August 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think featured media needs to be very popular. And I think making a slideshow image is a good idea! But where will it be placed? Nikel   (Talk to  me!)  11:38, August 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Presumably it would be placed on the main page. I like this idea but I'm not sure we'd get enough votes - featured media has never been really popular. ~><font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">ฬ ђ tคlк 07:35, August 17, 2011 (UTC)