Category talk:Candidates for deletion/Archive 14

Archived page

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Archive Pages for Category talk:Candidates for deletion:
1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15

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 | 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 | contribs) 05:26, June 24, 2014 (UTC)

Deleted. Dharden (talk) 04:25, June 27, 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 | 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)

Issue is resolved

Article will not be deleted --k6ka (talk | contribs) 13:14, July 25, 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 | 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)

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 | 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)

Issue is resolved

Pages have been deleted. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 13:09, September 1, 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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. ―WikiBuilder1147 ^{(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 | 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 | 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)

Viper Canyon

I nominate this page for deletion due to lack of content. There's hardly anything that can be added to make it warrant its own page. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 05:52, October 10, 2014 (UTC)

It clearly doesn't warrant it's own page, so I support the deletion. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 05:54, October 10, 2014 (UTC)

I support this deletion with the same reasons as stated above. Joey.eyeball (talk) 05:58, October 10, 2014 (UTC)

Piggybacking - I'd like to nominate Category:Neighborhood terrains for deletion as well, since Viper Canyon is the only page in the category and the category seems just as unnecessary as the page does. - LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 07:01, October 10, 2014 (UTC)

Works for me! :) -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 07:04, October 10, 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The page has been deleted. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 12:26, October 16, 2014 (UTC)

File:Tariq Al Mahmoud1.png|Tariq Al Mahmoud1

Several days ago I opened BodyShop and made Nina Caliente into an elder male, just to check that the article sentence "He has the same facial structure as his granddaughter Nina Caliente" was correct. I found that the information was false so I removed it.

A few days ago I thought "If Tariq can't be resurrected under normal circumstances, than how did a user manage to get a picture of him?" I checked the picture's history and found that it had been uploaded four years ago in April 2010 and added to the Tariq Al Mahmoud page, by a user who was indefinitely blocked in September, later that year.

While this image is in good shape, and managed to stay on the intended page for four years, yesterday I closely examined the picture and discovered that this was just a clone of the Sim in this picture. The ears are less prominent, the nose is shorter, and the mouth and eyebrows are a different shape.

It seems that the Sim in this image is really just an elderly male version of Nina Caliente disguised as Tariq which probably explains why users were tricked into believing that Tariq and Nina really had the same facial structure. Considering that this is not a canon image uploaded by a user that has been indefinitely blocked for years, I don't think it's necessary to keep it. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 03:31, October 25, 2014 (UTC)

Enough for me, it's deleted. Dharden (talk) 04:38, October 25, 2014 (UTC)

The image actually comes from our spanish counterpart es.sims.wikia. Perhaps you should talk to them about the image as well. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 06:56, October 25, 2014 (UTC)

I might consider doing that. But I'll have to use google translate for reference because I'm not very good at speaking anything other than english. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 08:20, October 25, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Auror. I undeleted the file so there'll be something to point to when asking about it. Dharden (talk) 13:30, October 25, 2014 (UTC)

OK, I checked the Spanish wiki's article on him (he's Alí Ben Akí in Spanish), and it seems to use the same picture we do, for whatever that might be worth. Dharden (talk) 13:38, October 25, 2014 (UTC)

I've already pointed it out to the users of the Spanish Sims wiki. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 21:27, October 25, 2014 (UTC)

Well I've just received a message from a spanish administrator. Despite my poor spanish, it seems that they understood what I said because they deleted the image there. So I can safely say that there's no reason why the image here can't be deleted again. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 04:38, October 26, 2014 (UTC)

Re-deleted. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 04:53, October 26, 2014 (UTC)

The Sims Land IRC Channel

The creator of this page had announced on IRC that he had created the channel because he wanted his own Sims channel. As of this writing the channel was created less than thirty minutes ago and is far from being remotely notable for having its own article. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 20:54, October 25, 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It's gone. Dharden (talk) 20:57, October 25, 2014 (UTC)

File:Lothario Screams.jpg

Found this while going through the unused files. Looking for verification of whether this is an actual object obtainable within the game or is a fan-made object as the description gives no clues due to the public domain category. If it is indeed a real object I'd like to know the specific game it comes from as I feel it could be used on the Don Lothario page, or at the very least given a mention. ―ฬђ ^talk 23:42, October 26, 2014 (UTC)

It's PD, so I'm guessing it's fanon content. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 23:44, October 26, 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's fan made. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 23:45, October 26, 2014 (UTC)

It's not a Sim-made painting in The Sims 3, and Don is very different in The Sims 4. It might be from a Sim-made painting in The Sims 2, but I highly doubt it. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 11:14, October 28, 2014 (UTC)

Good enough for me, deleted. ―ฬђ ^talk 00:44, November 10, 2014 (UTC)

Anole Lizard

It doesn't warrant its own page. There's not much to say. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 16:53, November 9, 2014 (UTC)

I agree, information is already listed elsewhere anyway. Deleted. ―ฬђ ^talk 00:42, November 10, 2014 (UTC)

My First Steps As A Member Of Wikia

Since this blog belongs to an indefinitely blocked user, and thus the topic of the blog is now redundant. I don't see any reason to keep it. But those are just my thoughts on this.

Perhaps we could at least close the blog, if no one's prepared to support deletion. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 07:57, January 3, 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with having the blog here either, so I've deleted it. The user was technically evading a block during that time, and Wikipedia's policy is to revert/delete any edits/pages a user makes while they're evading a block or ban

Whoops, we're not Wikipedia. Oh well. Deleted. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 21:28, January 3, 2015 (UTC)

The Sims 4: Get To Work

Added a working link to the listing on Origin. EA has confirmed the expansion, released a press release, pics and a trailer. It should NOT be deleted. The Black Scorpion (talk) 00:06, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

Per the Unreleased Games Policy, "Any new articles created for a newly-confirmed game must link to a source of official confirmation from Electronic Arts, or they will be deleted." Since the link on the article is currently valid, this requirement has been satisfied, and I have removed the deletion template from the article. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk • blog • contribs} 00:07, February 5, 2015 (UTC)

Template:Adventure

In going through the templates currently listed under Category:Templates, I came across {{Adventure}}. Right now this template is only used on one page. It doesn't have any complex code, and from what I can see there's no real reason why we need this template. The page where it's used could easily have the template substituted onto it, and then we can copy the style from that page if necessary. Ultimately I think this template is too limited to be of much use. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk • blog • contribs} 01:05, February 21, 2015 (UTC)

I think it's kinda obsolete. Right now I'm making a list of opportunities (God only knows if I can finish it) using {{Opp}}, and since basically an adventure is also an opportunity, the whole template can be replaced with this one I'm using. I even planned to get rid of {{Opportunity}} once I'm done with all of this list of opportunities. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 05:20, February 21, 2015 (UTC)

Deleted. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk • blog • contribs} 05:26, March 15, 2015 (UTC)