Forum:Merging with the Customized Sims Wiki
First off, if you're reading this, welcome to Miraheze! This is the first discussion thread started on the Miraheze wiki, funnily enough before the migration was ever officially announced.
Anyways, I've messaged Jawusa and M.M.A.A., some of the founders of the The Customized Sims Wiki, and they both are on board with the idea of merging with The Sims Wiki on Miraheze. This move will help resolve the long-standing problem they've had with lacking support from experienced editors and having no access to our library of templates, and will hopefully restimulate the custom content creation community's interest in having a wiki to document their work.
Actually migrating the pages should not require too much work, as there aren't a lot of pages on the TCSW. There are, however, some questions that will probably need to be discussed:
- Where should their pages be moved to? I have considered creating a new, custom namespace on the wiki for custom content. One issue raised on this thread is that we don't really have a suitable namespace for their content. We don't generally allow custom content in the mainspace (with some exceptions) and "Fanon" doesn't really fit their needs, as they're not really creating "fan fiction" content, but rather have standards similar to our article space but for custom content. Wikia allows for custom namespaces, but it requires an annoying level of bureaucracy to go through; Miraheze, on the other hand, lets us create as many namespaces as we want with a simple-to-use interface. In terms of naming this new namespace, I've thought about naming them Custom content or Custom. This means that a page on Widespot would be located at Custom content:Widespot or Custom:Widespot. I think the new namespace approach works best, so the main question is whether or not we should use Custom content or Custom as the namespace name. Custom content works, but I fear it's too long, while Custom may be too short.
- What are the policies surrounding the creation of custom content pages? As far as I can tell, there are no policy pages on the Customized Sims Wiki, so we'll need to have a discussion on what should be allowed (and not allowed) in the custom content namespace here. Some questions that may be worth asking include:
- What, if any, requirements should the custom content have before an article can be created for it on the wiki? Should there be a notability guideline that needs to be met for a work of custom content to be considered notable enough for an article here? (I was thinking at the very least that the custom content should be publicly accessible, or at least, downloadable from somewhere)
- How should custom neighborhoods/worlds be organized? The TCSW was created primarily to document Sims and lots in entire custom neighborhoods/worlds. Per the nature of a wiki, anybody can edit these pages, and anyone can create new ones. How will we handle naming conflicts? For instance, if a Sim named John Doe existed in Neighborhood X, and then some time later Neighborhood Y was released by a different creator that also had a Sim by the name John Doe, how will naming conflicts be handled? (I was thinking doing as we do in the fanon namespace already: turning "John Doe" into a disambiguation page and then creating "John Doe (Neighborhood X)" and "John Doe (Neighborhood Y)" to separate things.
- As mentioned earlier, we do have some articles on custom content in the mainspace, like the InSimenator and the FFS Lot Debugger. These were created due to their high use and notability. What should be done with such articles? (I was thinking moving them into the custom content namespace for consistency's sake) We also have articles on notable creators, like Mootilda. What should be done with those articles? (I'm a bit hesitant on this one, since our article on Delphy, founder of Mod The Sims, most certainly would look out of place in the custom content namespace)
- What should happen with the old wiki? Since the TCSW is a much smaller wiki, there might be the possibility that Wikia won't even notice if we were to post links on their site pointing to the migrated wiki. I don't know how much traffic the wiki gets on a regular basis, however.
April 12, 2019: I've begun importing the pages from their wiki into here. I haven't created the new namespace yet while it's still being discussed. In the meantime, they are being kept as subpages of The Sims Wiki:The Customized Sims Wiki, and are listed here. When the namespace is created, they will all be moved to their proper locations. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 19:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
April 13, 2019: All files and images from the Customized Sims Wiki have been uploaded here, and I've also done my best to resolve any name conflicts. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 21:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
April 30, 2019: The Custom content namespace has been created, and CC and Custom redirect to it. We can begin moving pages to this new namespace, and start editing our templates to recognize this new namespace. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 01:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
In regards to the above-mentioned questions:
1. Where should their pages be moved to? - I'd say Custom is a good generic name for such a namespace.
2. What are the policies surrounding the creation of custom content pages? - Without diving too in-depth into specifics, I'd say that pages should: only be about projects that are available for download to the public at large; meet some minimum standard of notability (not sure what that'd look like, but I don't think we want pages on every Tom, Dick and Harry's custom recreation of Veronaville clogging up the wiki); be open to contributions from all people, not just the custom content creator(s); be written in an encyclopedic manner, not merely as a storytelling vehicle (bearing in mind that if the particular Sim/family/neighborhood had a background story attached to it, such a story could be included in the article). If the intent is to keep Fanon, then we'd also need to formally distinguish between the two types of content.
3. What should be done with [existing custom content articles]? - I think pages about CC creators should remain in the main namespace as encyclopedic entries about a specific person as opposed to a creation of theirs. I'd also lean in the direction of keeping pages about third-party utilities, like package editor programs, in the main namespace. I think game mods generally speaking would fall under Custom.
4. What should happen with the old wiki? - Assuming that the original wiki editors would support a merge, I'd suggest simply abandoning it, maybe trying to sneak in links directing to the new site. If CSW were merging into the Wikia TSW, I'd say it would be possible to contact staff and have them merge directly (with support of the original wiki creators) and there's a decent chance they would approve it. But if staff knew that we were trying to close it down in order to redirect off Wikia, there's no way they'd approve it.
I might as well say a few things on this situation. So, I think the better name for the namespace could be "Custom content". I really feel like "Custom" is way too generic and just... weird. "Custom content" is pretty much what everyone (or at least the majority) of simmers refer the type of content that this new namespace would include. "Custom content portal" sounds better than "Custom portal", and "Custom" in general feels a bit too generic, I guess. Another name could be "Modification", but I feel like many people may seem that name as for gameplay mods only and not for custom clothing and stuff.
And talking about that, I feel like these should be the basic policies regarding what custom content pages include and don't include.
- What CC pages do include
- Gameplay mods, which affect the gameplay and mechanics of a game. An example could be a life state mod, or something that gives much more gameplay options such MCCC for TS4.
- Special objects. And by this I mean singular objects such as InSimenator and the FFS Lot Debugger like k6ka mentioned. Those articles should be moved from the main namespace to this new one.
- What CC pages don't include
- Sims, families, neighborhoods/worlds, pets, lots etc. All of those pages should be moved under fanon and go under the policies of that namespace.
- CC creators. They shall stay in the main namespace.
- Other external programs such as package editors or mod creation tools.
- Mods that only fix bugs. I really think we don't need those, unless they are very impactful.
However, I currently have no idea on how to handle decorative CC. CC that doesn't give any gameplay. This would be CC clothing, hair, accessories, objects etc. Obviously we wouldn't be creating independent articles for CC hair or something, but I did think about of having CC articles that include a "list" of CC (e.g. "Custom content:<mod creator>'s clothing") but then I thought... shouldn't we just include decorative CC under mod creator articles in the main namespace? I don't know.
In terms of notability, mods that only fix bugs shouldn't be included, like I said a bit earlier. In terms of very small mods, like a power outage mod or something, they could work as long as they have some form of depth. However, I think a mod that removes a single moodlet wouldn't work though. Cleanup, stub and other basic maintenance templates should be created for CC articles, and pretty much have the same rules.
I also think CC articles shouldn't be "owned" by someone like the fanon pages. The creator(s) of the mod could be listed in an infobox and generally in the article, but they should be open for anyone to edit the same way main namespace articles currently are. And since CC pages couldn't be owned by someone, the Sim, family, neighborhood/world, pet and lot pages would be moved to the fanon namespace.
- @SimDestroyer: I don't think moving Sims, families, neighborhoods, pets, lots, etc. into the fanon namespace would help. If you look at the pages The Customized Sims Wiki has, many of them are actually Sim articles for Sims in custom worlds. I think one of the reasons why The Customized Sims Wiki didn't use our fanon namespace initially is that what they were doing wasn't really "fanon". We can define "fanon" as "fan fiction", so I'd use that namespace for Sims that I have created for my storytelling purposes. There is no expectation that my Sims or neighborhoods would be made available for download anywhere. What makes The Customized Sims Wiki different is that it's basically like The Sims Wiki, but covering downloadable custom content rather than fan fiction. As such I don't expect the Custom content namespace to have things like a written story or anything. Moving them into the fanon namespace, in short, is what The Customized Sims Wiki set out not to do. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
If we do go for "Custom content" to be the namespace, should both words be capitalised, i.e. "Custom Content"? I'm not sure why I prefer the latter option. It could be for aesthetic reasons, although the former option is more consistent with other namespaces, e.g. "MediaWiki talk",
"User blog" on Wikia, etc.
Another thought: if we capitalise "Custom Content", then an abbreviated redirect could be "CC:<title>". I feel that if the namespace becomes "Custom content", the abbreviation would have to be "Cc:<title>" and I don't quite like that.
- @TheTimMan: Namespaces are not case sensitive, so Tsw:Sandbox and TSW:Sandbox both redirect to the same place. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Pages on custom content creators[edit source]
I've started drafting the policy page over at The Sims Wiki:Custom content policy. While writing it, something crossed my mind about the inclusion of custom content creator pages in the main namespace. Notable creators such as J. M. Pescado and Mootilda by themselves are notable enough to have pages on their own, but if we're to open this up to more people there may be creators out there who themselves may not be notable enough for inclusion in the main namespace, but may still be worth a mention in the custom content namespace.
Hypothetical example: let's say creator "John" has made some notable pieces of custom content and wants to include them on The Sims Wiki. His works are notable enough for the custom content namespace, but he himself is not notable enough for the main namespace. He could potentially have a page named Custom content:John or something (I was thinking along the lines of Custom content:List of creations by John or something) that would provide a list of the creations he's made that are notable enough for the wiki, and perhaps links to his MTS userpage or website to connect the reader to him. For creators who are notable for the main namespace, they can still have this list page listing their creations in the custom content namespace. For example, Mootilda can still be located in the main namespace and focuses on encyclopedic content about her, while Custom content:List of creations by Mootilda will be a list of her work that is notable enough for the wiki. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 14:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- I think if the creator's works are notable enough to be listed on the wiki (though I'm not sure what exactly determines notability in these cases), then it only makes sense that there could/should be a page in the CC namespace about the creator. I wouldn't necessarily create pages for every single creator, especially if they only made one or a handful of creations; you could just as easily include any information about that creator on the pages detailing their creation(s). But more prolific creators could have pages that aggregate their creations. On the other hand, you could achieve the same effect with categories - in the aforementioned example, having a category like Category:List of creations by John. This would have the benefit of automatically updating whenever a new page about one of John's creations gets posted to the wiki. So, on the whole, I would support creating creator's pages, though we should find some way to make them more useful than simply listing links to their creations and/or their pages on MTS or other sites.
- Another matter to consider, though, is what the creator themself would want done. On TSW up to now we've skirted around the issue by limiting pages to only very prolific creators, since there is an encyclopedic benefit to discussing the person behind the creations. Our Fanon Policies have also limited the creation of fanon articles about third parties or their works, unless the pages are created by the actual "owners" of the content. By the wording of your example, k6, am I to assume that only the content creator themself would be allowed to create these pages, or would any user be able to create them? Does the content creator have any special prerogatives in the management of pages written about their works?
- I'm inclined to say that we should liberalize the policies and open the door to more of this kind of content, but it does have some unanswered questions attached to it. -- LostInRiverview (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- If the creator is notable enough that some biography can be written about them, then that could be an indicator as to whether or not they should have a page. Otherwise, if all they can show for is a lot of contributions, those pages could be redirected to the category page until enough is known about them.
- As for dealing with the creator themselves: Wikipedia does not delete or curate articles about living people based on what the subject of the article wants. Every effort is made to make sure that all statements about a person are properly sourced and are not libelous—this is fairly straightforward and common sense. I don't think we need to get too concerned about creators editing articles about themselves so long as they follow all of our other policies and edit appropriately. Despite what many Wikipedia editors think, having a conflict of interest doesn't mean you shouldn't edit at all; it just means you need to edit more carefully. If a user on the wiki claims to be the custom content creator and wants to add something to the article, ideally we should have a way of verifying that it is them before we accept them as a primary source of information (I don't think we need to have Wikipedia-level strictness on sources). They can provide a link to the wiki from their personal website or on a forum proving it is them. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 14:36, 25 January 2020 (UTC)