The Sims Wiki talk:Battles/Nominations

Allowing users to vote for their own nominations

Should we allow users to vote for their own nominations? —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 08:30, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. Why vote for yourself? Everyone is going to do the same. BobNewbie ^{talk • blog} 08:46, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Okay good. What about the "Votes Against" section? No one seems to be using it. Should we get rid of it? —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 09:08, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

I think so. If anyone has a problem with it, they could state why in the comments section. BobNewbie ^{talk • blog} 09:12, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll remove it right now. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 09:15, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

What should we do in the event of a tie? —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 22:50, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Triple Battles

I think that battles between three sims, objects, neighborhoods etc. can be a pretty good idea, mainly because users will have more than the option "this or the other one" to vote.|_Andronikos Leventis 20:20, December 30, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 20:28, December 30, 2010 (UTC)

I disagree... where does it end? If we allow a head-to-head-to-head battle, do we suddenly have to allow 4-way battles, 5-way battles? At that point, you're conducting a poll, not a contest between two opposing things. I like the 2-thing, head-to-head, one or the other aspect to the Battles and I think it should be kept the way it is. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 20:52, December 30, 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. LIR is right, we have polls for that. The battles are a 1 on 1 thing, and should stay that way. --BobNewbie ^{talk • blog} 07:40, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

As you wish. I simply thought that would make things more interesting for people. I also noticed something else. It is always Sim VS Sim, Object VS Object, Event VS Event... what about Sims agaist objects or something like that?|_Andronikos Leventis 11:47, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... that does not make sense to me :(. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 20:48, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

Why, it is simple. Do you prefer your sims to be hit by Miss Crumblebottom or the fatal bite of the Cowplant?|_Andronikos Leventis 21:08, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Cowplant. --BobNewbie ^{talk • blog} 21:19, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, if set up correctly. - LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 01:29, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Since so far there has only been Sim-Sim nominations, the next battle will be what Andronikos Leventis suggested. --BobNewbie ^{talk • blog} 08:08, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.|_Andronikos Leventis 12:08, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Tournament of Winners

I put my "tournament of winners" idea on the nominations page, but it doesn't seem like something to be voted for. I would like some opinions on the idea and how we will determine if it becomes a thing.--Eduardog3000 Ed G 22:40, April 24, 2011 (UTC)

• This wiki is definitely becoming inactive.--Eduardog3000 Ed G 19:41, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

Just realized :p. Yeah, many Wiki members, from what I can see, are absent, but the Wiki isn't really becoming inactive. Anyhow, I don't really like the idea to be honest. I mean...with the triple battles, it's convinced me that The Sims Wiki battles should just stay one-on-one community chosen things, instead of us trying to do a lot of different things with it when we've barely "mastered" doing the basics. So no, I do not support the idea. --Zombie ^{talk • blog} 10:31, May 28, 2011 (UTC)

While it IS an interesting idea, it's a bit odd putting two things who might not even be connected in any way up against each other. And, let's face it, the 3-way battle went badly. I say we just keep it how it is now. --WH ^(Talk) 10:37, May 28, 2011 (UTC)

Plus, this could negatively effect the battles. One, it could take a looooooong time before new user-nominated battles are restarted, and if we give less time, less people will vote, and in the end, lose interest in the battles completely. --Zombie ^{talk • blog} 11:04, May 28, 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion....

I want to sugggest something. Will you like the idea the Nomination page to be made like Featured Media/voting page? Alex9400 | TALK with me. I ♥ ♦³ :-) 08:48, January 19, 2012 (UTC)

IMO, I like the way it is now. I don't forbid you to do so, but I prefer each featured page is unique on their own. Nikel _Talk 09:16, January 19, 2012 (UTC)

An Idea

If a Nomination has no votes for a while shouldn't we get rid of it to make the page less cluttered Xxgreenbunnyxx (talk) 16:48, July 10, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not surprised with that, but since new nominations are added at the bottom of the page, I think only if the topmost nomination has no votes, then it'll be removed. Also, I think we should add more now. Nikel _{Talk – Vote – Guess!} 03:25, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

Layout

It would be nice if we could improve the layout a bit. Maybe make each nomination title bolder or bigger. Or just do something so that the text is easier to read, maybe separate each nomination a bit more. If you know what I mean. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 00:48, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the layout has been cluttered for a long time. I'm not sure what kind of layout is best to tidy this up. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 18:14, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

I've improved the layout. I should have mentioned this months ago. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 03:18, August 17, 2014 (UTC)

Number of Battles in a given length of time

By the looks of things, we seem to be having battles every week, not every two weeks. If that is the case, then I will probably change the statement sooner or later. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 05:19, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

Hm. Guess I should learn to read more carefully. Should we keep it at 1 week or the original 2 weeks? K6ka (talk | contribs) 12:09, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

I'd say one week. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 04:38, February 20, 2014 (UTC)

Battles had always been 2-week long. I wasn't aware if the length was changed at some point. A discussion had decided that we use a 2-week long duration for a battle. Unless it's officially stated, we shouldn't change the duration and follow the guidelines. Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 14:42, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

Sure, for the next battle I'll try to remember to set the timer at two weeks. K6ka (talk | contribs) 16:53, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I just wouldn't want there to be a considerable gap between the expire date and when the winner is declared. Because if the timer expires but no one has confirmed the winner then other people may try and continue voting. I know that it has happened at least once. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 19:35, February 21, 2014 (UTC)

Usually, right after the timer expires, the battle is archived without the winner announced. It's actually announced while it's being archived, so there's no formal announcement for the winner. The battle keeps continuing for the next one.

As for the gap, it wasn't really intentional. Usually RR or Auror took care of the battles. Maybe they were busy and unable to update the battles timely. I knew you've notified us about this including me, but I was busy at that time too, so I apologize for that. I'm thankful that K6ka is willing to update the battles. :) Nikel _{Talk – Vote!} 13:37, March 2, 2014 (UTC)