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? -- LostInRiverviewtalk ~ blog 07:14, June 22, 2014 (UTC)
The list of NPCs possibly? But I support the deletion. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 07:20, June 22, 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with deletion. This article covers an animal NPC with a minor story role--similar to Mata in Castaway Stories. I feel that the information is sufficient enough that it covers it warrants its own page. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 05:16, April 4, 2015 (UTC)
Category is a "soft" keep since there is not consensus towards deletion. Category can be re-nominated if so desired. -- LostInRiverviewtalk • blog • contribs 23:36, September 29, 2015 (UTC)
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. - LostInRiverviewtalk ~ blog 00:45, 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 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... NikelTalk–Vote! 05:45, July 28, 2014 (UTC)
Per Dharden and Nikel. -- C.Syde (talk | 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 | contribs) 13:46, July 28, 2014 (UTC)
-LGBT person here and a total Wikia noob so pardon any mistakes in editing this BUT I just discovered via an Autostraddle article that there were pre-made LGBT sims and it was probably the happiest Sims-related discovery I've made since the day I discovered passionate kissing can lead to having babies (Sims 1). So I made a category for bisexual sims with the idea of eventually making a category for lesbian and gay sims too...and then it was deleted, referring me to this page, which is apparently also a candidate for deletion. WTF? Effing KEEP the category folks, it's documentation and it really means a lot to those of us queer kids who grew up playing this game. Yeah, ideally there should be separate subcategories under LGBT because if sims can be sorted according to categories like "may have dyed their hair" or "love grilled salmon" then there can damn well be categories of who has a baseline pref for the same sex or both sexes (as opposed to undetermined.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.152.201.148 (talk • contribs) 03:08, September 22, 2014 (UTC) - Please sign your comments with ~~~~
While I understand where you're coming from, the decision to delete or not delete the category should not at all depend on whether it "really means a lot" to people who might find it. Categories exist to organize information, not to inspire people. Additionally, we also have a page which extensively details non-straight Sims in the series. As for individual sub-categories, it's not practical to create them if there aren't Sims in the game that can be sorted into that category. Note for instance that we don't have a category for transgender Sims on the wiki. It's not because we're opposed to having that category, but it's because there are no transgender Sims in the series, and therefore no purpose to the category.
So, discussion of whether or not to delete this template should not be biased towards personal feelings, but instead towards whether the category is needed from an organizational standpoint. - LostInRiverviewtalk ~ blog 03:33, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
While there has been talk about deleting this category, it is agreed that there should be something that is somewhat similar especially since The Sims 4 will probably have some, so don't worry about there being no category to identify these Sims. One of the things mentioned in the previous discussion, of which I agree with as well, is that the category should be used with those Sims who have a clear back story of being such or are in a same-sex relationship. Just because Sims have a very slight preference toward the same gender in SimPE does not make them an LGBT Sim because in most cases it is only a point or two, which isn't really anything. - Icemandeaf (talk) 03:24, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
While this is still in the discussion, I'll put the positive and very visible LGBT Sims into that category for a while. ~~.ThePeculiarMe|(talk to me)|(my mistakes) 05:53, September 22, 2014 (UTC)
Closing discussion as keep as there is no consensus to delete this article. --I am k6kaTalk to me!See what I have done 22:35, April 15, 2015 (UTC)
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. NikelTalk–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. - LostInRiverviewtalk ~ blog 06:53, August 24, 2014 (UTC)
I personally believe its got enough information and I don't see deletion as being warranted but I'd like to get a bit more input before we go either way. ―ฬђtalk00:57, November 10, 2014 (UTC)
Other than being the equivalent of a phone, is there anything unique about the pigeon in The Sims Medieval? If there is, we could add that to the article instead of deleting it at this time. --I am k6kaTalk to me!See what I have done 21:10, December 2, 2014 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure you can eat pigeons in The Sims Medieval, I believe its the equivalent of the low cooking level meals like Mac and Cheese in the main series. ―ฬђtalk02:58, December 3, 2014 (UTC)
I have never seen anyone use Strangeville as a nickname for Strangetown. Secondly, Strangeville is a custom neighborhood in The Sims 3 Store, available here. It doesn't appear notable enough to warrant its own article. --I am k6kaTalk to me!See what I have done 12:25, February 1, 2015 (UTC)
It's because of this. I don't know why all the fuss about a minor thing. Delete it if it bothers you that much. --- ☣ ʀodrigox(talk)(contribs) 12:28, February 1, 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't really think it warrants even as a redirect? After all, it only appears as something mentioned at a bio incorrectly. Not many people would normally refer "Strangeville" to Strangetown unless they read the aliens' bio. NikelTalk–Vote! 12:38, February 1, 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. The Strangeville redirect should be kept and a note should be added about the name variant on Strangetown. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 16:14, February 1, 2015 (UTC)
Where I stand now, I don't think this page warrants a re-direct, let alone it's own page. I don't think the term "Strangeville" is official enough to be kept as a re-direct to Strangetown. I support deletion. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 02:37, March 10, 2015 (UTC)
Deleted as per consensus, but set as redirect to Strangetown since consensus was lacking on whether or not a redirect is needed. -- LostInRiverviewtalk • blog • contribs 23:36, September 29, 2015 (UTC)
As consensus is favorable to delete the template, and considering it has never even been used before, the template has been deleted. --I am k6kaTalk to me!See what I have done 12:36, April 8, 2015 (UTC)
So, I was browsing through the templates section of the wiki, and I came across this little template here. It generally creates a Navigational box for walkthrough's, cheats & patches. I noticed that it was tagged under "Unused", so generally, I was going to delete it. But, decided not to and instead came to the conclusion to bring it up for a deletion discussion. According to the history of the page, it was last used 5 years ago. Should we just delete it, or attempt to bring it back? ~ Beds(talk - blog) 17:06, March 9, 2015 (UTC)
Eh, I think it's pretty dated? And it has never been used before. The question would be if we need a navigation box on cheat / patch / walkthrough pages. I don't think we have any plans for a navigation box on these pages, so I think it's okay to delete it. NikelTalk–Vote! 10:24, March 10, 2015 (UTC)
Patch and cheats links are already at the bottom of the {{game}} template and are included if the pages exist via an #ifexist function (see The Sims 2: FreeTime and The Sims 3). Therefore there is no use for it, I support deleting it. ―ฬђtalk12:09, March 15, 2015 (UTC)
No consensus to delete category — changes to how we deliver TS4 traits should go in a TSW:CD thread. --I am k6kaTalk to me!See what I have done 23:48, October 18, 2015 (UTC)
As we have done with the Business Savvy article, the current consensus is to keep traits from The Sims 4 in Trait (The Sims 4). Does this mean that this category, along with all the pages in it, should be deleted? Please advise. --I am k6kaTalk to me!See what I have done 18:45, March 12, 2015 (UTC)
Support deletion of the category and additional trait pages, along with editing other pages to direct to Trait (The Sims 4), or setting the trait pages as redirects. -- LostInRiverviewtalk • blog • contribs 00:00, March 14, 2015 (UTC)
I support deletion. NikelTalk–Vote! 11:56, March 16, 2015 (UTC)
I don't know how the trait system works in TS4 as I haven't had the opportunity to play the game but if we're keeping all the traits on the one article instead of giving them all pages I see no need for the category. ―ฬђtalk12:03, March 16, 2015 (UTC)
Do we redirect trait pages to their relevant entry at Trait (The Sims 4)? That would be a lot of redirects to create. --I am k6kaTalk to me!See what I have done 02:23, March 18, 2015 (UTC)
I think that would be better than simply deleting them. Even if we edit the pages linking to the deleted pages, readers may still try to search for pages on those individual traits. Having redirect pages doesn't cause any harm and it's a relatively painless process to make them. -- LostInRiverviewtalk • blog • contribs 03:03, March 18, 2015 (UTC)
I no longer support deletion, due to the fact that the category is currently in use and there is no established consensus that traits will not be given their own pages. Until such a consensus is decided, I think the category should remain in place. -- LostInRiverviewtalk • blog • contribs 23:40, September 29, 2015 (UTC)
I did a Google Search on this mod and can't seem to find it. If it does exist, it not being easy to find via Google probably means it fails notability. --I am k6kaTalk to me!See what I have done 02:30, June 2, 2015 (UTC)
I agree. I was just wondering the same thing myself. -- Icemandeaf (talk) 02:32, June 2, 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Could it be that the author intended to write it up as a fanon article? - LostInRiverviewtalk • blog • contribs 03:18, June 2, 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it exists. Even as a fanon it's so poorly written. I have no doubt to delete the page. NikelTalk–Vote! 09:12, June 3, 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it even warrants a mention in the glitch page. The information is very sparse, unreliable, and conjectural. Where did the original editor get the statistics from? It doesn't even explain what the glitch is about, how it's produced, or why it happens. I suggest it be deleted instead. NikelTalk–Vote! 02:08, August 4, 2015 (UTC)
I think it's too early to make an article of it at the moment. We should wait until the game is released or at least until we can get more information about the game. Right now it serves nothing more than a placeholder article, waiting for the game to be released. We can write the overview of what natural pool is about in the main EP page anyway.
On top of all, the article title is against our standard. NikelTalk–Vote! 06:00, August 12, 2015 (UTC)
It's too short to warrant it's own page, we don't even know if it ever will warrant it's own page, and I do feel that it's too early to have an article about it at the moment. So unfortunately, I must support deletion of this page. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 06:04, August 12, 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. In the meantime, I'd much sooner support that, than keep "Natural Pools" as an actual page. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 05:46, August 13, 2015 (UTC)
Set as a redirect to Swimming pool. When we know more information about natural pools, we can reconsider making it its own article. -- LostInRiverviewtalk • blog • contribs 23:28, September 29, 2015 (UTC)
I am aware that it's a little soon to be bringing this up, but I do support the deletion of this page, for the reasons given for the nomination for deletion: ("Redundant. Largely duplicated in Genie, and adequately covered there.")
I certainly agree that pretty much everything that isn't already covered in the Genie article, if any, can certainly be covered there. However, I have always felt that perhaps there should be a section for the Genie's simology details. But if the majority doesn't agree, I certainly have no arguments to oppose their beliefs. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 05:50, September 24, 2015 (UTC)
Support -- This page largely covers up information from the genie page. I actually didn't knew that. So it's going to be the right choice to delete it. SimsPlayer (talk) (mistakes) 16:32, September 26, 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. Dharden (talk) 16:48, September 26, 2015 (UTC)
@Sims2Player: In the future, it would be helpful if you explained to us why you support the deletion. We make decisions based on consensus, not by voting. --I am k6kaTalk to me!See what I have done 19:02, September 26, 2015 (UTC)
Just an advice. Since it's your own blog and it doesn't need to be discussed, it's more suitable if you request it for deletion in admin's noticeboard. :) NikelTalk–Vote! 13:18, September 29, 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, will do this next time! Tiezel(talk) 13:47, September 29, 2015 (UTC)
The Sims Freeplay Life Dreams and Legacies quest[edit source]
I didn't saw that when I added the {{Cleanup}} template. So I support deletion. SimsPlayer (talk) (mistakes) 16:36, October 15, 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Dharden (talk) 21:14, October 15, 2015 (UTC)
I dissagree that this should be deleted as I was going to write pages about other quests too, and I think there should be individual pages for individual quests as some players may want info about specific quests. Morrigan Hemlock (talk) 22:12, October 16, 2015 (UTC)Morrigan HemlockMorrigan Hemlock (talk) 22:12, October 16, 2015 (UTC)
Information about specific quests can always be merged into one article; this is done to reduce redundancy. This is also considering that the individual quests themselves may not carry enough content or notability by themselves to get a standalone article. --I am k6kaTalk to me!See what I have done 22:37, October 16, 2015 (UTC)
Should I put the information on the "Quests" page then? Morrigan Hemlock (talk) 16:22, October 17, 2015 (UTC)Morrigan HemlockMorrigan Hemlock (talk) 16:22, October 17, 2015 (UTC)
I cannot find any reliable or official sources confirming this game's existence. This goes against our policy on unreleased games, in that all claims to a game must be supported by a citation. —k6ka🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 01:20, November 23, 2015 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree with deletion as per the Unreleased Games Policy's rules on unconfirmed games. If there is no official confirmation of the game from EA somewhere, then it would be considered a "rumored game". There are specific rules in place that determine how we handle those rumors, one rule being that information about game rumors can't originate from web forums. Even if the game was confirmed (which I have seen no evidence of), the article still lacks any sort of citation to any website confirming anything being claimed. -- LiRtalk • blog • contribs 03:29, November 23, 2015 (UTC)
The issue is that said source was later taken down by an EA representative. If it was taken down by EA for legal reasons, then we definitely can't have it here on The Sims Wiki. —k6ka🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 11:46, November 23, 2015 (UTC)
I don't think legality is an issue here. We can provide information as much as we'd like, so long as we don't infringe on their copyright, trademarks, or other protections. And, the onus is on EA to seek the removal of said information, rather than us to just assume that it isn't allowed here. Regardless, I still favor deletion at this time, as per my previous post. LiRtalk • blog • contribs 14:29, November 23, 2015 (UTC)
I support deletion. From what's been said and linked, there doesn't seem to be any conformation for the rumor, much less the game. Dharden (talk) 15:31, November 23, 2015 (UTC)
An EA representative removed the post, therefore confirming that it was fake. I support deletion. ~ Beds(talk - blog) 16:10, November 23, 2015 (UTC)
I also support deletion, for all reasons stated above. Vpetmad(talk) 16:29, November 23, 2015 (UTC)
Since there appears to be agreement that it should be deleted, that has been done. Dharden (talk) 16:44, November 23, 2015 (UTC)
My rationale is: Isn't directly connected to The Sims series (like Electronic Arts or Maxis); doesn't warrant an article on The Sims Wiki. —k6ka🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:58, December 21, 2015 (UTC)
Support - for those exact reasons. Vpetmad(talk) 23:04, December 21, 2015 (UTC)
Support - I was actually considering nominating this article for deletion myself :P I don't see the point in keeping it. All the information on the page can easily be covered in another article, or if it's not relevant, it can be removed entirely. I support the deletion of this page. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 23:04, December 21, 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, for the reasons stated. Dharden (talk) 23:08, December 21, 2015 (UTC)
Consensus here is in favor of keeping the article. LiRtalk • blog • contribs 04:23, February 5, 2016 (UTC)
So this article was nominated for deletion by Sumaes01 with the rationale: She has only appeared in one trailer, has no renders, and is not a well-known sim in the community.
I unfortunately oppose deletion, if it were not for the She can be found in the gallery sentence in the article. If the Sim exists in the gallery, then someone should download it and add the details there. Also, I disagree with the "is not a well-known sim in the community" statement, because there are tons and tons of Sims that the community barely knows that have articles on this wiki. If we were to delete those articles about "Sims nobody cares about" we'd be thousands of articles lighter. —k6ka🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:40, January 11, 2016 (UTC)
I was neutral towards this initially, but given the reasons K6ka has listed above, I have no other option but to oppose the deletion as well. While I can understand why a few users wouldn't think that articles like this should be kept, that's not something I can support, because if I were to support the deletion of this article, then I might as well nominate tons of other articles of lesser known Sims for deletion as well. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 23:44, January 11, 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Opposed: I agree with those same points. Being "not well-known" could mean "not one of the Goths" in some people's view. -- Icemandeaf (talk) 23:46, January 11, 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the points stated above, and therefore oppose deletion. Dharden (talk) 01:27, January 12, 2016 (UTC)
I stand opposed to deletion, in agreement to the points listed above me. -- LiRtalk • blog • contribs 03:47, January 12, 2016 (UTC)
I support the deletion because Aileen Rauvu has only been used for promotional purposes (one video, to be more specific) and there are more major promotional sims from The Sims 4 basegame that still do not have their own articles, yet she does. I think the information about her should be moved to List of Sims used in promotional materials because the article will stay a stub even if we keep it. There's only so much material that can be added to her article. Sumaes01 (talk) 04:00, January 12, 2016 (UTC)
Reply: The issue here is that the Sims listed on that page don't appear in a game, whereas Aileen Rauvu is downloadable through the Gallery. Since the gallery version is a Maxis creation, we can treat that version as canon. My vote remains a soft keep. -- LiRtalk • blog • contribs 04:08, January 12, 2016 (UTC)
What Icemandeaf said is something I really have to agree with. There are tons of less known Sims as C.Syde65 also stated. They don't need to be deleted as well so this page should be kept on The Sims Wiki. So I oppose deletion. SimsPlayer (talk) (mistakes) 07:52, January 12, 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: If we were to delete this article, then we would have to delete multiple other Sim articles. She can be played in-game, so therefore should remain on the wiki. ~ Beds(talk - blog) 13:53, January 12, 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: She has no less to say about her than any other minor Sim, so I think we should keep the page. Vpetmad(talk) 15:30, January 12, 2016 (UTC)
We have consensus here in favor of keeping the article. Therefore, I am marking this discussion closed. -- LiRtalk • blog • contribs 04:23, February 5, 2016 (UTC)
I believe this needs to be deleted or substantially re-written. Since The Sims: Makin' Magic does not use the term "witch", any statements about what a "witch" is like or how to "be a witch" in Makin' Magic are editorial comments by the guide's creator. So, when the guide defines "a witch" as a Sim who has learned all spells and charms, that is one player's interpretation, not anything that comes from the game itself. Dharden (talk) 14:07, January 4, 2017 (UTC)
Support rewrite (and possibly a page move to "Game guide:Practicing magic") and have it encompass magic from all games in the series, which would include not just Makin' Magic but The Sims 2: Apartment Life as well (and maybe The Sims 3: Supernatural, although I do not own TS3). This game guide isn't wholly inappropriate or incorrect, and there's quite a bit that can be salvaged. —k6ka🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 14:43, January 4, 2017 (UTC)
That would work. I don't own TS3, either, and it's been a long time since I've played TS1, though I think I still remember a fair bit. Dharden (talk) 15:14, January 4, 2017 (UTC)
There are multiple accurate resources online that could help with the rewrite. Perhaps SimsVIP? Carl's Sim Guides? I support the rewrite, nevertheless. ~ Beds(talk - blog) 22:58, January 4, 2017 (UTC)
I support a keep and rewrite. -- LiRtalk · blog · contribs 03:58, January 5, 2017 (UTC)
Considering all this, I changed the template from {{Delete}} to {{Cleanup}}. Dharden (talk) 12:58, January 5, 2017 (UTC)
Done, as far as Makin' Magic is concerned. I had to do a lot of memory refreshing, as it's been a while since I've played TS1. Page is moved to Game guide:Practicing magic, with no redirect. Dharden (talk) 17:54, February 26, 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've gone ahead and deleted the fanon page on the spot due to the fanon page only having two short sentences explaining how the author was looking forward to creating fanon.
Normally I would have waited until a year had passed since the user's last edit to the page, but considering the lack of content on the page, and considering that the author hasn't edited the page in over seven months, I couldn't see any reasons why it couldn't have been deleted already. ― C.Syde(talk | contribs) 09:18, March 26, 2017 (UTC)
I'm proposing that this category be deleted since I feel that it is too generic to warrant own category. We have thousands of Sims that only appear in one game, more Sims than not. So I don't feel that such a category is necessary. However I feel that other opinions are valid hence why I nominated the category for deletion and brought the proposal here, rather than deleting the category on the spot and removing the articles from the category. ― C.Syde(talk | contribs) 11:16, May 1, 2017 (UTC)
Delete I don't see the value in having this category. There are gazillions of Sims that only appear in one game, and fully populating this category will either require some complex template changes to {{Sim}}, or thousands of useless edits. —k6ka🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 14:07, May 1, 2017 (UTC)
It's been almost a week now and no one has objected to deleting the category, so I guess it won't be a problem to delete the category now. ― C.Syde(talk | contribs) 06:48, May 7, 2017 (UTC)
Deleted because this article is clearly low quality, has no place on the wiki, and I'm tired of just watching this thread collect dust. —k6ka🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 02:13, April 6, 2018 (UTC)
Until we get a proper speedy deletion process (see Forum:Reforming the deletion process for development on that), I'm going to go the slow(er) route of deleting this page. Xbox Sims facts was created by someone who claims to have created one of the "sims packs" on The Sims 2 for Xbox (Which is an unverifiable claim). It contains three "facts" that can either be merged into existing articles or can go into a game guide page; however, there isn't enough information here to warrant its own game guide article either. On top of that, there are two videos transcluded onto the page that have no relevance to the page whatsoever. It may qualify for speedy deletion, but we don't have a solid speedy deletion policy yet, so I'm proposing it for deletion here. —k6ka🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:11, June 28, 2017 (UTC)
I vote to delete this page. ✨AireDaleDogz✨ (talk) 10:40, February 15, 2018 (UTC)
AireDaleDogz, this is a discussion, not a vote; your comments must include some reasoning as to why you made your decision. —k6ka🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 11:37, February 15, 2018 (UTC)
So, I have noticed a page that has been marked for deletion since May 2017 and decided to brought it up here. The Sims 4: Vampires only came with three pre-made Sims, and Jenifer Hodge is not one of them. This Sim is most likely a random game generated Sim, and that the page's creator most likely thought she is a Maxis created Sim. Oh, and there is no baristas or cafes in The Sims 4: Vampires, they are only found in The Sims 4: Get Together. SimDestroyer (talk) 13:46, August 20, 2017 (UTC)
I agree, she's most likely generated. Especially because she's described as unplayable. Pre-made Sims in The Sims 4 are almost always playable families living in one of the neighborhood's houses. - KaruKaterchen(talk/fanon) 05:22, August 22, 2017 (UTC)
Seconded. There's no Jenifer Hodge in my game. ✨AireDaleDogz✨ (talk) 17:58, January 11, 2018 (UTC)
I agree that this Sim doesn't appear in the game or the gallery and was likely randomly generated and the article should therefore be deleted. Gvaudoin (talk) 15:02, March 12, 2018 (UTC)
This mod is simply not notable. It hasn't been released yet, and The Sims Wiki generally does not cover mods unless they are widely known, such as the InSimenator and the FFS Lot Debugger. —k6ka🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:35, August 21, 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the reasons given. Not notable enough. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 23:48, August 21, 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the reasons given as well. ― C.Syde(talk | contribs) 04:26, August 22, 2017 (UTC)
I have notified the article's original author about the article's pending deletion. I'd request that we wait a few days to allow them to respond before we take any action. That notwithstanding, I would currently support deletion of the article as well since it doesn't seem notable enough to warrant inclusion. -- LiRtalk · blog · contribs 18:41, August 22, 2017 (UTC)
It is not clear what page is currently being nominated for deletion. The creator of this thread has been indefinitely blocked anyways. —k6ka🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 14:43, May 19, 2018 (UTC)
I think it would be useful if a sims game had white hair genetics in the basegame as a preset and had enough sims with that hair color. The Sims 3 does'nt count because it's just Boyd Wainwright there, and The Sims 4 also uses the white\grey hair preset on the elderly sims and on Count Vladislaus Straud who is an young adult and a vampire, but basically nobody else. We can still keep it though. We have black, brown, blond, black, white, and custom, but the white hair category is for the sims that are suppose to be greying, if there were like 2 or 3 pages of sims with custom white hair that is'nt suppose to be greying, we could have it as a category. LL and OL and MH have enough white haired people between each other. Kaiko Mikkusu (talk) 20:47, September 28, 2017 (UTC)
I can't find any reference to this place anywhere on the wiki, nor could I find it in a Google search. Looking at the previous edits to this page, the author seems to have included a mix of both canon and fanon Sims (that they had created); see [1]. As it stands now at this time of writing, the page is empty except for an unhelpful lede section. —k6ka🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 03:14, November 15, 2017 (UTC)
I would guess that this is a fanon lot, but since the article also doesn't meet minimum quality requirements for fanon, I'd support just deleting it outright. -- LiRtalk · blog · contribs 16:34, November 15, 2017 (UTC)
I see no reason to keep it. So I support deleting it outright also. ― C.Syde(talk | contribs) 12:26, November 16, 2017 (UTC)
I support deletion. I can't seem to find any information about a supposed zoo on The Sims console. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 06:38, February 15, 2018 (UTC)
There is a zoo in The Sims 2 (GBA). (see here: Strangetown Zoo) However, I'm still in favour of deletion since there isn't enough information on that page to warrant an article. Gvaudoin (talk) 15:05, March 2, 2018 (UTC)
File:12r38002_332762290200885_1153081160_n.png and File:Lukes Kenny Fans 6567.JPG[edit source]
Page deleted, mostly to stop people from using the template, which for some reason they're using instead of the more fleshed out {{Sim}}. —k6ka🍁 (Talk · Contributions)
For whatever absurd reason Wikia won't allow me to edit the wikitext of that page, only insisting on using their "Infobox Builder" which is so simplistic it makes me want to barf. Basically this is a piss-poor and useless recreation of our {{Sim}} template. We have a better alternative on the way: it's called {{Infobox Sim}}, and they look better than whatever this new Infobox Builder can hope to ever offer to us. // Rants aside, this template serves no useful purpose and seems to have been created either 1) Out of mistake; or 2) Because someone couldn't figure out how to use {{Sim}} properly for their fanon. —k6ka🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:02, April 29, 2018 (UTC)
I can see where the confusion here is. There is a button on the bottom right corner that allows you to return to the source editor. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 03:02, April 30, 2018 (UTC)
I support deletion. ― C.Syde(talk | contribs) 11:39, April 30, 2018 (UTC)
Interestingly, that option does not appear for me. —k6ka🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:33, April 30, 2018 (UTC)
It appears for me. ― C.Syde(talk | contribs) 22:25, April 30, 2018 (UTC)
I found it and can click it. Nevertheless, I support deletion. --FrostwalkerTalk - Read 06:31, May 1, 2018 (UTC)
I approve of this template's deletion. This template is a useless redo of what we have now. IsaiahScribblenautsDisscuss - My Fanon 13:16, May 10, 2018 (UTC)
I also highly support the deletion of this template. It is useless, ugly and not needed anywhere. The template should also be deleted, as it has already been used on canon pages and deleting it now would prevent someone from using this in future pages, or already existing ones. - SimDestroyer (talk) 13:59, May 10, 2018 (UTC)
Not done Deletion tag has been removed and article has been improved. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 13:32, May 7, 2015 (UTC)
Player (talk) (mistakes) 09:09, September 23, 2015 (UTC)
Player (talk) (mistakes) 16:32, September 26, 2015 (UTC)
IsaiahScribblenauts 
Disscuss - My Fanon 13:16, May 10, 2018 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
