Talk:Capp family

Talk:Capp family

This is a page for discussing improvements to Capp family

Talk pages are used to discuss changes or improvements to the article or page only. Please use the game discussions forum for game discussions, help desk for game questions, or the off-topic forum for general conversations. Real-time conversation about The Sims (as well as off-topic discussions) can also be found on The Sims Wiki's IRC Channel or Discord server.

---

Please sign and date your posts by adding four tildes (~~~~) after your comments. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. If you're new to the wiki, please take a look at the talk page help.

Be polite Assume good faith Be welcoming Do not delete discussions

All named after Shakespeare Characters except Consort?

As with all the other residents of Veronaville, members of the Capp family are named after characters of Shakespeare's plays; the exception is Consort Capp (see Consort's name).

But I haven't found any evidence that there is a Shakespeare character named Contessa, and the same with Patrizio. Could it be that they too ought to be credited as being exceptions to the "All Capps, Montys and Summerdreams are named after Shakespeare characters" rule? -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 06:22, October 24, 2014 (UTC)

I don't get it either C.Syde Mucho gusta (talk) 14:51, October 26, 2014 (UTC) Mucho gusta

Contessa is an Italian term for the English equivalent of Countess. Patrizio is parody name based on the term Patrician. Essentially, this is reminiscent of Romeo and Juliet because the Montague father was the Patriarch, or head of the noble house. This is the same case for the Capulet family. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 15:23, October 26, 2014 (UTC)

Then that would mean that Consort is the only one without a name from Shakespeare? Carabelle (talk) 06:06, November 11, 2014 (UTC) Carabelle 

Yes but apparently Contessa and Patrizio don't have names that were directly taken from Shakespeare either. There are no Shakespeare characters called Contessa and Patrizio. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 06:11, November 11, 2014 (UTC)

Inheritance

I think the Inheritance section assumes that the Capp family follows a maternal line from oldest to youngest. However, that may not be the case. If you look at the Capp family bio, then it implies that Juliette Capp is the heiress, living in Capp Manor. If Juliette Capp is the heiress, then it may mean that the title (probably Countess) and property (county) are handed down to her by her mother, Cordelia Capp, perhaps the favorite of Contessa. In King Lear, Goneril and Regan are the villains, while Cordelia is the nurturing, nice one. So, I'm going to argue that Goneril, despite being the eldest, is dethroned from being heiress, and so is Regan. The inheritance passes to Cordelia Capp, which then falls to Juliette Capp, the eldest of Cordelia. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 21:59, July 1, 2017 (UTC)

Just because it implies that Juliette is the heiress of the Capp family does not necessarily mean that the inheritance passes on to her. And just because it may be that way in Shakespeare's plays does not necessarily mean the same applies to the Sim parodies of the Shakespeare characters. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 22:22, July 1, 2017 (UTC)

So, your interpretation is that Juliette is the heiress who does not inherit? What kind of "heir" is that? Traditionally, if a person is heir, then that heir inherits everything. So, I stay with my original contention. Also, if real-life Shakespearean characters doesn't translate into Veronaville's characters, then how can you justify that the inheritance will pass down to Miranda Capp through Goneril? Honestly, if you want parsimony, I suggest removing the Inheritance section altogether and letting the player decide who inherits what. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 23:00, July 1, 2017 (UTC)

If no one else can find a better solution, then I'd suggest going with what you've just proposed. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 23:12, July 1, 2017 (UTC)

All right. If no one else proposes a better solution in 3 days, then the deal is sealed. We are removing the Inheritance section. I do not think it is fair that one interpretation (that Miranda Capp is the rightful heiress) should dominate over mine (that Juliette is the rightful heiress), anyway. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 00:37, July 2, 2017 (UTC)

Just so we're clear. You can't make sole decisions on this wiki. What happens on this wiki is for the community to decide in large part. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 00:47, July 2, 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that (as C.Syde said) nothing in TS2 suggests that the Veronaville storyline (in its totality), besides the Romeo and Juliette plot, follows the rest of the Shakespeare works. Nothing states that any member of the Capp was disinherited, and the memories of Consort also place Goneril as the eldest child of the Capp family, making her the default heir by the matrilineal Capp traditions. By common sense, Juliette marrying Romeo would not bring much trouble to the proper Capp line, as she is just a cadet, despite what the bio says. Their possible union would be just "collateral damage" to the Capp line, nothing more. (Not sure if I'm making any sense here) -DarthImperius (talk) 00:57, July 2, 2017 (UTC)

"making her the default heir by the matrilineal Capp traditions"

I reject this part. You are assuming that the eldest inherits. Who says that the eldest must inherit? The middle child or youngest child may also inherit. Yes, I agree that it's matrilineal. But you are assuming that the eldest inherits. So, no, that's not "common sense". I can say Juliette, daughter of Cordelia, youngest daughter of Contessa, can inherit as much as Goneril, the oldest daughter of Contessa. In any case, I think we should just delete this section. It is assuming that the eldest female inherits. Nothing in the game says that the eldest inherits. In Strangetown, you'll think that Ophelia inherits, but actually, Nervous Subject merely inherits some money. Ophelia keeps the property. Should you call that inheritance? Or is Nervous Subject the rightful heir to the property? I consider that an opinion! 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:14, July 2, 2017 (UTC)

Nervous Subject will always inherit some simoleons from Olive, but in my game, both Nervous and Ophelia inherited some simoleons since Olive's relationship with Ophelia had improved in my game. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 01:18, July 2, 2017 (UTC)

As a side note, I don't know when the SimsWiki has become so formalized in editing. I remember back in the olden days, the Talk pages were places to share player stories. Now, it's for discussing the article. Back in the olden days, I could just edit the Wiki with my knowledge of the game, and that's it. Now, I need to seek approval from the community for every single controversial or substantial edit? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:23, July 2, 2017 (UTC)

The system here is "BOLD, revert, discuss", so yes, you can make edits without seeking approval first, but if someone reverts it, then you should discuss. (Putting this in small font because it's not relevant to the current discussion) —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 01:43, July 2, 2017 (UTC)

My edit was reverted, because a "proper consensus" must be reached. I wish I had contributed to this page earlier. Then, my edit would just be grandfathered in and accepted. But nope, we have to accept this older one. Everyone else assumes that the eldest inherits, even though there is no evidence in the game data to suggest that the eldest inherit. And yet, we accept this one over my conjecture - that Juliette is the one who inherits. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:14, July 2, 2017 (UTC)

I think the whole reason why 'the eldest inherits it all' was assumed is because the Sims are based on Shakespeare characters, and back in those days it worked like that, the oldest one got it all, unless they died or f'ed up for another reason. But please correct me if I'm wrong cause I'm no specialist. I understand that a inheritance doesn't per se means it has to go to one person these days, but in those days it was very likely. DeSims ^(talk) 13:19, July 2, 2017 (UTC)

It was actual law. In Europe, succession was defined by all possessions being inherited by the eldest son of the deceased individual (or closest relative alive by age). And since both the Capp and the Summerdream families are canonically (or by lore) governed by the principles of matrilineal succession, then Goneril is the proper heir to the Capp family. Juliette is at the bottom of the succession line (if we're excluding the male Capps). -DarthImperius (talk) 13:55, July 2, 2017 (UTC)

That's not my point at all. My point is, you are literally taking what happens in the real world into the game. At the same time, you are rejecting what happens in Shakespeare's own canon into the game. The assumption is for the oldest to inherit, because "that's realistic". My alternative assumption is that "the favorite one inherits", because "that's realistic to Shakespeare's Tragedy". Why do you favor your "realistic" version over my Shakespearean version? Isn't mine also realistic as well? I say, we get rid of the Inheritance section. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 17:43, July 2, 2017 (UTC)

Even back in the olden days, it was possible to get rid of the oldest heir, if the heir is irresponsible and untrustworthy. Now, you're going to say, "We can't add that in there, because the game doesn't say so." So? The game also doesn't say that Goneril is the heir. It says that Juliette is the heir. In any case, this debate is an indication that the Inheritance section is problematic. We should remove it. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 17:49, July 2, 2017 (UTC)

If you think you can say that Goneril is the proper heir because of matriarchal primogeniture regardless of circumstances, then I can say that Cordelia moves into Capp Manor with her family because she needs to care for her mother, Contessa (as a parallel to the play). My interpretation is that Cordelia and her family move into Capp Manor, so that Cordelia (like in the play) can take care of her mother. But Contessa dies just before the story begins in Veronaville. And Consort becomes the temporary holder of the property, until Cordelia's oldest daughter Juliette comes of age (following matriarchal primogeniture). Isn't mine just as realistic? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 17:55, July 2, 2017 (UTC)

@ 50.4.236.254 - It may be just as realistic, but I respectfully disagree with your reasoning, in favour of the reasons I have provided, along with the reasons some other users above me have provided. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 00:01, July 3, 2017 (UTC)

So, you agree that my interpretation is realistic. Then, why are you keeping the current version of the page? Isn't that a tacit acceptance of that interpretation at the expense of my interpretation? And if you make a tacit acceptance, then you are rejecting mine tacitly. To be fair and parsimonious, I say we remove that part. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 00:40, July 3, 2017 (UTC)

In addition, I favor the removal of the Inheritance section of this article and the Monty family article. The problem is, the game concept of Inheritance is quite different from what we think of inheritance. So, that's just a player's opinion anyway. If the player wants to follow matriarchal or patriarchal primogeniture or get inspired by Shakespeare, then that's the player's choice. But honestly, I do not think it should be written here. If it is allowed here, then my own conjecture should be equally valid and accepted. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 00:49, July 3, 2017 (UTC)

Not really. Not if the majority agrees that it should be left the way it is. Then if that's the case, then it should be left the way it is. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 01:18, July 3, 2017 (UTC)

So, you believe that my interpretation is unrealistic, because the majority says so. Fine. I think you should have said that earlier. One big problem of democracy is tyranny of the masses, anyway. There is no rhyme or reason. All it matters is that majority rules. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:45, July 3, 2017 (UTC)

Sighs. I'm sorry if you see it from that perspective. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 01:59, July 3, 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ This place is f***ed up, controlled by admins and bureaucrats that listen only to the majority's opinion just because it's the majority. If one browses the History, then one can find that the Inheritance is added way back when Player Stories were also added. Of course, that was obviously subjective, so Player Stories were removed. But Inheritance remained on there, because people thought that it was "realistic". No, it's not realistic. In real life, there is male primogeniture. In the Sims 2, the mirror image of male primogeniture is female primogeniture, and it is assumed that Goneril would be heir because of female primogeniture regardless of any ties to Shakespeare. Shakespeare is irrelevant, because it's considered extraneous detail. But female primogenture is extrapolated to property, even though only the last name is kept, and residential property can't be owned by a single Sim; it can only be owned by a family/household. Nope, it's just cherry-picking which parts to follow. If that's what you want, then have at it! 50.4.236.254 (talk) 02:01, July 3, 2017 (UTC)

I must add that I once did edit an earlier version of the Capp/Monty articles. The articles originally used the terms "matriarchal" and "patriarchal". But I changed the terms to reflect the game's matrilineal and patrilineal surnames, because matrilinearity/patrilinearity just means by the female or male line. It suggests nothing of property rights and inheritance. Nowadays, the Inheritance section pops in, as if it undos my entire edit and misunderstands my intention. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 02:05, July 3, 2017 (UTC)

It's not like that at all, nor is it controlled by administrators and bureaucrats that only listen to the majority's opinion. I'm not standing here right now as an admin. I may be an admin, but I just took the same approach that I would have done as a non-admin. And player stories haven't been removed fully. They've been superseded by fanon. Also would you please not cuss on discussion pages? Profanity isn't allowed on discussion pages, even if it's censored. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 02:12, July 3, 2017 (UTC)

But you still agree with the majority opinion, and you can probably use your power to keep the page. So, if I attempt to change it or delete it repeatedly, then you will probably just block me out. So... majority rules. While it is true that there is fanon, the old SimsWiki actually allowed Player Stories to be posted right on its pages. Now, the SimsWiki only talks about canon, and is extremely strict about it. The F-word, by the way, was self-censored. I know I couldn't print the F-word, so I used asterisks instead to represent the F-word, because only the F-word was an accurate expression of how I felt about all this. Other words are too polite, and well, I just didn't want to be polite with unreasonable folks.

On December 29, 2008, 92.240.36.205 made this edit . On January 17, 2009, I, 75.60.210.80, made this edit . My edits and vocabulary remained to this day, but at the time, I probably didn't care much of the Line of Succession or completely glossed over the Goneril Capp part. Had I deleted the Inheritance section at the time, I wouldn't have dealt with people like you. 

I'm out of here. This is a waste of my time. Do whatever you want. It's just a Sims game, anyway. And this is just a SimsWiki. Have a good day,

50.4.236.254 (talk) 02:51, July 3, 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the 'Inheritance' section is meant to be taken literally. And, of course, players are free to change the story direction of Veronaville. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 03:08, July 3, 2017 (UTC)

I could use my power to keep the page on this wiki. You're right. But doing so would be abuse of power, and if I repeatedly abused my rights, I would be demoted. So abusing my rights would not be beneficial for me, since I wouldn't really gain anything personally as a result. I would just lose the rights that I worked so hard to get, which I worked towards in order to help the wiki and the community in areas that I wouldn't have been able to do as a non-admin. Also abusing my rights for my own personal benefit would go against the reasons I wanted the rights in the first place. My own benefit is one thing but if it's frowned upon by everyone else, then I don't see how that can be called a benefit.

I'm not sure how I'm being unreasonable, since I initially agreed that it was best to just leave the information off the page if no one could agree on the way it was written. I did listen to opinions on both sides and just went with which one I agreed with, which was what the majority also seemed to agree with. If I felt myself the minority, I would have respectfully allowed myself to be outvoted, and if I really wasn't happy with the outcome, then I would just have copied the content and pasted my own version of it somewhere where it wouldn't be challenged, edited, or removed.

The Sims Wiki may seem stricter nowadays but that's probably because the wiki is bigger with more edits, more pages, and more users, so there needed to be some restrictions put in place. And I don't see why using a censored word was really necessary, since it shouldn't really matter how you're feeling. It's still not right to use them, which probably explains why certain filters preventing certain profanity words were setup, long story short. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 03:42, July 3, 2017 (UTC)

I do quite like the last change made to the page, I am not sure if it's the perfect way of saying it, but what it says now makes sense (to me at least), hope both parties are satisfied with this change now :) DeSims ^(talk) 22:14, July 3, 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's the perfect way of saying it either, but I do quite like it. I hope both parties are satisfied with the changes that have been made now! :D ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 22:17, July 3, 2017 (UTC)

I made that change, because we have to make a compromise. I disagree with the notion of letting something be one or the other, when both parties are correct. I understand the point of C.Syde65 (that the original form should be kept), but I disagree with the idea that it should be kept exactly. Also, C.Syde65 disagrees with my interpretation; I have to admit that that is a player's interpretation of what goes on. So, I've decided to drop it. In the edit and the one on the Monty family page, I want to address a couple of things: (1) that matrilinearity/patrilinearity, which can be observed by the family names, is different from matriarchy/patriarchy, which has more to do with power; and (2) I want to drop the terms "House of Capp" and "House of Monty". Those are great for storytelling, but in-game, there are just "Monty family" and "Capp family"; and (3) I want to describe exactly which parts are known and which parts are interpreted, along with the assumptions. That said, I don't strive for perfection. As long as something is good enough and gets the point across while taking the good out of diametrically opposing sides, I think it should be accepted. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 23:38, July 3, 2017 (UTC)

For those who want to keep this change, say KEEP. For those who want to reject this change, say REJECT. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 23:38, July 3, 2017 (UTC)

KEEP. It is concise and precise. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 23:38, July 3, 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I don't really wanna start another fight here, but why are the Capp & Monty family not considered matriarchal/patriarchal? As far as I know they fit the term better than they do as only matrilineal/patrilineal. DeSims ^(talk) 09:34, July 4, 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea to be honest. That's a very good question. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 09:36, July 4, 2017 (UTC)

The only evidence we have is that the family tree follows the male line or female line. Just because something follows the male or female line doesn't mean it provides power to one gender. In real life, many societies have some form of matrilinearity or matrifocality, but the practice does not eliminate the male power. In contrast, many patriarchal societies have patrilinearity and patrifocality. There is no female equivalent for patriarchy in the real world. Even today, in Western and Eastern cultures, the family names are passed down from father to son. Whether authority in the family is also passed down from father to son is another question. It is possible that, because the Capps and Montys are wearing modern clothes, the Capps and Montys have gone through a period of feminism, and thus, the head of household is eliminated, while the practice of matrilinearity/patrilinearity is kept for record-keeping and family tradition. There are really just too many assumptions in matriarchy/patriarchy, so I vote for matrilinearity/patrilinearity, because that's all we can assume from the family trees. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 12:04, July 4, 2017 (UTC)

I once created a family that just happened to be matrilineal on the English Tudor side of Veronaville. I just made a male adult Sim, a female adult Sim, an elderly female Sim, and a toddler female Sim. The male and female adults were matched together. The female elder became the female adult's mother. I moved the family into a Tudor-style house. I didn't really create the family to be matriarchal, but looking back, I regard them as a matrilineal family. Though, matrilinearity wasn't my intention either. I just created the family as a family. That said, it is possible that Maxis just made the Capp family matrilineal to show that its family traditions, if the player wants to play it that way, are opposed to the Monty family traditions. If the player pays attention to the last name, it is very hard to marry a Capp and a Monty together. If the player just plays the game without any regard to last names, then it doesn't matter if the families are matrilineal/patrilineal, let alone matriarchal/patriarchal. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 13:55, July 4, 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I hear what you're saying and not I am not disagreeing but just wondering; aren't the familybios implying that authority/property/power is passed on to another generation though (e.g. Juliette & Romeo)? Or is this too much of a stretch to assume? DeSims ^(talk) 16:20, July 4, 2017 (UTC)

I think some interpretation should be allowed, but it should be recognized as an interpretation, not as canon. It is possible to have Romeo and Juliette be the heirs of their families by letting them have a portion of the inheritance or all the inheritance. There should be multiple allowed interpretations. One is that Juliette is the heiress, because of Cordelia is the favorite one. Another interpretation is that Maxis has messed up the birth order, not intending that the players would treat the birth order so seriously. Another interpretation is that Juliette is an heiress, but not THE heiress, meaning that Hermia and Tybalt also get their share of inheritance. There is no House of Capp/Monty/Summerdream. There are only Summerdream/Capp/Monty families with player-created inheritance patterns. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 18:44, July 4, 2017 (UTC)