Okay, as many of you know, the consensus has been long over, and the reception of the Fanon Wiki merge has been overwhelmingly positive. So, we will now move forward to the next step of the merge! LiR has developed a timetable at his blog:
As soon as possible: Requests for administratorship will be opened to accept new Fanon Administrators. These new administrators, our current administrators, and the community will collaborate to write Fanon-specific policies.
Within 4-6 weeks: The Fanon namespace templates and foundational categories and subcategories will be created.
Within 6-8 weeks: The Fanon namespace itself, and the Fanon Portal will be created. TSW's current No-Fanon policy will expire. After this point, fanon will be allowed in the Fanon Namespace (but will not be allowed elsewhere).
8 weeks after adoption and beyond: Additional subcategories and templates will be created as needed. TSW Fanon-specific policies and guidelines will be reviewed by the Fanon Admins and the community. Consensus to merge with the Fanon Wiki would begin.
As you can see, the next step is appointing Fanon Admins and writing Fanon policies. I'll start writing the Fanon Administrator article, and open up the requests, but I'll need help from most of the community to write the policies. So, let's get this merge back on track! —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 02:53, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
I created Fanon Administrators and its request page. They still need a little work, but I think I got most of the main points down. Users are free to request becoming Fanon administrators. If there are any active admins at the Fanon Wiki (aside from A morrs), please let them know so they could apply. Next, we will have to come up with some Fanon specific policies. So, let's get started! —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 03:37, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
I've started thinking up some rules on my test page, but I think it would be easier for us to develop some core policies that we want to adopt. Here's what I have in mind so far:
All fanon content should be substantial (i.e. more than "stub-length") to warrant its own page(s).
Fanon that is not substantial, written poorly, or which is abandoned by its author, may be deleted after a set period of time.
Fanon consisting of simple Sim bio pages isn't necessarily "good enough," unless there's some underlying purpose for creating their page. By that, I mean that a user shouldn't create a page for a Sim just because they can; they should be telling some sort of story with it, or be using that character in some way.
First placement of fanon in the main namespace will warrant a templated advisory message (something like "You have created fanon in the main namespace. In order to maintain the encyclopedic quality of the rest of the wiki, fanon is being restricted to the Fanon Namespace only. Your page: <page name>, has been moved to <link to new page location> because it is fanon. Please keep this and all future fanon pages located within the Fanon Namespace."), second placement will warrant an official warning (and movement of page), future placement will result in blocks of increasing severity, as well as deleting incorrectly-placed material.
Feel free to suggest changes to these, to suggest new ones or to strike out ones I've suggested. - LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 04:49, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
I also have a few policy ideas:
Any Fanon page of poor quality should have a special Fanon Clean-up template, added by the creator or a Fanon admin. As said above, it will be deleted after a certain amount of time.
A Fanon page that is under construction, and will change over time, should have a special Fanon-UC template.
Should a user be permanently blocked, all of their Fanon must be deleted.
Should we create a special template to show who owns what Fanon? Also, should each Fanon article, regardless of name, have (Username) behind it? —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 05:16, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
I forgot about that. Maybe have an 'Owner' template to be posted on fanon pages. Obviously, we should have a rule limiting edits to another user's fanon (with limited exceptions). -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 05:20, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
I also already have a fanon cleanup template in the works here; it's not done yet. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 05:21, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
To answer Random Ranaun's question, I don't think we need to add user names to article titles, as long as we use an Owner template to indicate who the page belongs to. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 05:48, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
Here's an idea; we use the layout editor to our gain. We can make a standard "Fanon page" which includes the needed templates, and the title can be Fanon: with a space for a title so that users will remember/learn to add it to the Fanon namespace, and it would already be in the FN. Any opinions on using the LE to make fanon pages pre-made? BobNewbie talk • blog 05:14, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
I'm definitely getting ahead of myself, but I created a Fanonheader template. It could definitely use some work, but I think it is basically what the Fanon pages should have. Also, I found a way to make it automatically add it to Fanon pages without messing with MediaWiki. All we need is a Createbox, maybe on the Fanon Portal. Here is an example:
The preload is set as the Fanonheader template, but since the FN isn't created yet, the Fanon: prefix doesn't quite work yet. Go ahead, try it! Don't save the article though! What do you think? —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 07:00, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that there has been some confusion about the proposal. My original proposal was for a merge with the Fanon Wiki, not just a creation of a Fanon namespace. While the Fanon namespace would still be created, the original proposal made it so that most (if not all) of the articles from the Fanon Wiki would be moved to the Fanon namespace. It is unclear whether the consensus was for a FN creation, or the real merge. However, a proper merge with the Fanon Wiki would be a better move for us then just creating a place where users can write Fanon. For example, if we just create a Fanon namespace, it would have a very small number of articles, but if we merge with the Fanon Wiki, the FN would have more than 1000 articles; what better way to start off the FN! Also, one of the main reasons for the proposal was to increase our community; how can we do that if the only users editing the FN are the users we have now? If we merge with the Fanon Wiki, our community would greatly increase. Please take some time to consider the original proposal. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 23:16, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
I read the original proposal as a merge and creation of a Fanon namespace to house the fanon articles, which I did and I still support. GG(t) • (c) • (b) 23:25, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
I think the measure of consensus above that officially decided this matter was based on the Formal Proposal which had been stated above, but which does not make any mention to a merge with the Fanon Wiki, simply the creation of the namespace. I would say, therefore, that a separate proposal would need to be made in order to merge with the Fanon Wiki. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 23:32, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
So, after we create the Fanon namespace and all of its policies, templates, and categories, then we would have another consensus to see if we should merge with the Fanon Wiki, okay? I added it to the timetable, but right now, let's get back to focusing on the FN creation, until it is finally created. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 23:50, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
No, I think you could probably ask for it whenever you wanted to. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 02:45, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
Okay. So, getting back to the FN creation, when should the Fanon Admins be appointed? —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 05:30, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
I would personally say within the next one to two weeks. But I'm not a bureaucrat so obviously I can't do that on my own. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 14:34, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
Dharden is appointing Fanon Admins now, but they are just classified as regular sysops. Should we consider creating a custom user class for Fanon Admins? —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 04:59, February 1, 2011 (UTC)
Yes. If nothing else, it would provide another way to locate and identify them. Dharden (talk) 20:43, February 1, 2011 (UTC)
Okay. So, should the Fanon Admin class be it's own class, like sysop, or a smaller class, like bureaucrat? If the smaller class is suggested, than the Fanon Administrators of the wiki would have both the sysop class and fanon admin class in the User list. What do you think? —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 04:46, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
I think that if it's possible, then the Wikia staff would have to program the "Fanon admins" class to work like the "sysop" class. I'm not sure if it's possible, but we could try contacting Wikia about this. GG(t) • (c) • (b) 16:18, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
Hmm.... as it stands, Fanon admins are sysops who agree to take on responsibility for a specific area (the Fanon namespace). However, someone who just sees that a user is in the fanon admin class may not recognize that that person is also a sysop. So, I say to go with a smaller class that shows Fanon admins as being in both groups. Dharden (talk) 17:03, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with what Dharden pointed out above. GG(t) • (c) • (b) 17:06, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
Okay, great! So, should we ask for the Fanon Admin class now, or should we wait until the Fanon Namespace is created? —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 18:56, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
Since we know we're going to create the namespace, we might as well ask for the class now. At least, we could say that we are going to create the namespace, and would like to have the class when it's created. Dharden (talk) 19:11, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
Okay. Above LiR said that we should appoint the next Fanon Admin(s) in a week. It has been a week since then, so I think it is time. After all, we can't move on to the next step until 3-5 Fanon Admins are appointed. What do you think? —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 21:01, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
(Responding to above comment) Obviously, I can't appoint the Fanon Administrators, but I think it should probably be done soon. We need the fanon admins to get together with the admins and the community to draft up formal Fanon policies. I suppose we can simultaneously begin crafting Categories and Templates, as well. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 03:31, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
I approved Auror and DarthCookie, who were the only other users with active requests, so there are now three. Dharden (talk) 16:25, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
Great! I sent them messages telling them to come here and help with the creation of the policies. Here is what we have so far:
All fanon pages must have the prefix "Fanon:".
All fanon content should be substantial (i.e. more than "stub-length") to warrant its own page(s).
Fanon that is not substantial, written poorly, or abandoned by its author, may be deleted after a set period of time.
Fanon consisting of simple Sim bio pages aren't necessarily "good enough," unless there's some underlying purpose for creating their page.
First placement of fanon in the main namespace will warrant a templated advisory message, second placement will warrant an official warning (and movement of page), future placement will result in blocks of increasing severity, as well as deleting incorrectly-placed material.
Any fanon page of poor quality should have a special Fanon Clean-up template, added by the creator or a Fanon admin. As said above, it will be deleted after a certain amount of time.
A fanon page that is under construction, and will change over time, should have a special Fanon-UC template.
Should a user be permanently blocked, all of their fanon must be deleted.
So, we have to decide how long until fanon is deleted, and create more policies as needed. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 21:52, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. And of course, all fanon must meet the general rules of the wiki. Meaning that any fanon created that is inappropriate, attacks other users and stuff like that will be subject to deletion and the creator will be warned/blocked depending on the severity. GG(t) • (c) • (b) 21:57, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
A couple other things to perhaps add:
Fanon is "owned" by the person who created it, and should not be edited without the creator's consent (except small fixes or edits to correct policy violations).
Users must be registered contributors in order to create Fanon (otherwise, how would we monitor ownership?)
'Inappropriate' content in general articles may not necessarily be inappropriate in Fanon. While we obviously shouldn't allow profanity, subjects such as murder, sexual activity and other things which don't necessarily occur in the game but which may be a component of fiction should (in my opinion) be allowed with minimal policing, except simply to ensure that it remains friendly to younger audiences (i.e. no swearing, explicit sexual language, etc).
Great! Now, how long do you think it should be until bad fanon is deleted? —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 22:35, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
It sounds awesome, but about fanon stubs. Should we just move them to the user's userpage, instead of deleting them, like the Avatar Wiki? The user could continue to work on them, and when the page has reached a certain link, he can move it back to the fanon namespace. [Ѧüя◎ґ]
In theory that would work, but I have the feeling that if a page were moved onto a user's userspace, they would probably forget about it or be afraid to move it back onto the Fanon namespace. Do you know how we might avoid this? -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 03:30, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
We could give them a reminder about their fanon every month or so. [Ѧüя◎ґ]
That sounds good. I think it's time to officially add the fanon policies. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 17:43, February 11, 2011 (UTC)
The Fanon Namespace has been officially requested - I just sent in the Special:Contact to Wikia to create both the Fanon and Tutorial namespaces. Note that when the Fanon Namespace is added, it is still "closed" until we put all the pieces in order. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 08:15, February 12, 2011 (UTC)
Below are the policies that have been proposed. Before they can become official policy, they must receive consent form the community. Please read the policies below and offer your support or opposition to the policies. If you have comments, please include them in the appropriate comments section. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 22:11, February 11, 2011 (UTC)
Fanon is any story, biography or description of any Sim, family, neighborhood or feature which was not created by EA and/or Maxis and which does not appear in the games at the time of their release. The Sims Wiki has adopted special policies regarding creation of fanon, and has created a special Fanon namespace, where fanon content shall be placed. The following rules apply to fanon content, and all users should familiarize themselves with the rules before creating any fanon.
Fanon content must adhere to all other applicable Wiki policies, including rules regarding profanity and content quality.
Fanon may only be created by registered contributors: All fanon contributors must register an account with Wikia and log into their account before creating fanon content.
All fanon pages must have the prefix "Fanon:", such as Fanon:<Name of Sim>. This prefix automatically adds fanon content into the Fanon Namespace.
Fanon pages are to be managed by the person who created them. Fanon pages should not be edited without the creator's consent, unless the edit is minor or serves to correct policy violations.
All fanon content should be substantial (i.e. more than "stub-length") to warrant its own page(s).
Fanon that is not substantial, written poorly, or abandoned by its author, may be deleted after a reasonable period of time.
Bio pages for fanon Sims need some purpose for their creation. Bio pages typically should not be created unless the Sim is involved in a story or unless the Sim is referenced elsewhere in a user's fiction.
All fanon must be placed in the Fanon Namespace, to prevent confusion between fanon and actual game content (canon). Fanon pages created in the main namespace (i.e. lacking the 'Fanon:' prefix in the page name) will be moved to the correct namespace on the first and second incorrect placement, accompanined with an advisory notice or warning against placing Fanon in the namespace. After two incorrect placements, all subsequent fanon placed in the main namespace will be deleted, and its creator will be subject to a one-day block (which may escalate if needed).
Fanon administrators may mark fanon content with a {{Fanon-cleanup}} template if the fanon page does not meet quality criteria. If the article is not improved, it will be deleted. Users who are currently working on fanon pages but whose pages may not yet be up to quality criteria may mark their pages with a {{Fanon-uc}} template, notifying administrators that the page is being worked on. If the page is not improved within a reasonable time, an administrator may mark the page with the {{Fanon-cleanup}} template.
Place your comments regarding the above rules here.
Should we add that strong profanity, sexual themes, and intense violence are not allowed on fanon pages, or is it okay since it is already in the main policies for the wiki? —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 05:02, February 12, 2011 (UTC)
If you recall, I had suggested that we have some slightly "looser" rules regarding fanon content, so long as it adheres to the main principles of reader-friendliness (no swearing, profane descriptions, explicit sexual content, etc), but I chose to leave that point out in order to not weaken the idea that we still (and always should) cater to a general audience. I think that can be a guideline to follow, however. Even without a policy regarding it written into the Fanon policies, fanon must still adhere to wiki rules, including regarding inappropriate language. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 05:07, February 12, 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, they should be allowed, as long as it is "PEGI 12". A warning should be added since not many new users read the policy. |_Andronikos LeventisTalk 13:58, February 12, 2011 (UTC)
I'm assuming that "as long as it is 'PEGI 12'" is what Americans would think of as "keep it PG-13"? Dharden (talk) 01:59, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. It could also be perceived as "T for teen" as well. Should we create a warning template to place on fanon that is a little more mature (this player story comes to mind)? —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 04:29, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
Oh, most definitely yes. I don't have to click on the link to remember that one. It wouldn't just be a notice for users under 18, but for people who just don't want to read something like that. For example, me. Dharden (talk) 07:27, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
A warning at the top of the page which says "This fanon article may have content, which although does not violate the wiki's policies, may be upsetting for certain users." --BobNewbie talk • blog 19:36, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
How about this:
Warning: This fanon page, while not grossly violating the policies, does deal with adult themes that may be upsetting for certain users.
The fanon policies have been adopted as written above (minus minor changes to grammar, spelling and links). We now need to create the templates mentioned in the policies - {{fanon-uc}} for fanon which is under construction, and {{Fanon-cleanup}} for fanon pages which need to be updated. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 18:14, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
How about these:
Fanon Cleanup:
This fanon page requires cleanup to meet The Sims Wiki's Fanon Standards. If the creator does not improve or expand this article in a reasonable amount of time, it will be subject to deletion.
Under construction:
This fanon page is still under construction and should not be nominated for deletion unless abandoned by its creator.
Warning: This fanon page, while not grossly violating the policies, does deal with adult themes that may be disturbing or upsetting for certain users.
Evolve: This fanon page or story is still being developed and will change over time.
Did a grammar fix to one of them. Otherwise, pretty good. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 05:39, February 19, 2011 (UTC)
, They look gorgeous, pretty work guys! I tink they could stay like this. Thank you for reading. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 08:52, February 19, 2011 (UTC)
{{Fanon-cleanup}}, {{Fanon-uc}}, {{Adult}}, and {{Evolve}} have all been created. I will also be creating a template to use on pages that are incorrectly placed, so stay tuned for that. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 23:27, February 19, 2011 (UTC)
Nice! Should we create a Fanon Deletion template too? —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 02:28, February 20, 2011 (UTC)
Here is one just in case we need it:
Fanon Delete: This fanon page has been nominated for deletion. Reason: {{{1}}}.
I believe that we should create a "The Sims Fanon Wiki" logo, that would appear on the pages in the Fanon namespace. On the Avatar Wiki, they have an "Avatar Fanon Wiki" logo that appears in place of the regular logo, specifically on fanon pages (see this for reference). It would be a simpler way to distinguish canon pages from fanon, instead of manually adding a template to the top of the pages. So, I propose that we have a Fanon Logo Contest. Thoughts? —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 04:35, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
A template already needs to be added to the pages to show who the creator is, but I like this idea too. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 21:22, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
Also, look at the Avatar Wiki's Property template. It has the author's name, the genre of the Fanon, the type of reviews it receives (Very positive, Positive, Mixed, and Negative), and a link to updates about the Fanon. It would probably only be able to be placed on main Fan fiction pages, but it is still a pretty nifty template. What do you think? —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 02:04, February 22, 2011 (UTC)
I want to propose you a great change on templates of Sims from Sims 3, Sims 2 and 1, If no one minds please check this article in Les Sims Wiki, Cornelia Goth, I love the way it's organised, and I would like to propose that we could put images of icons in templates for example bookworm in people who have the bookworm trait, unflirty would display for example File:Unflirty.jpg, we could do the same for sign, typing Capricorn would display a file with a Capricorn icon, we could do the same for age, sex, etc..., just some examples, I think it would be good if you had images and icons in templates, can we make such definition? Please tell me what you, guys think. Thank you. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 13:01, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
I see what you mean, and it looks cool. A concern I have, though, is that the text used in that template is very small - so small that even I have problems reading it. Is there any way we could have that setup, but with larger text?-- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 18:42, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I like it. But if I take my glasses off, I have to squint to read it. We could find a way to make it larger. --BobNewbie talk • blog 18:47, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
It does look cool and organized, and we certainly can make the font larger. Looking at the template, it uses the same parameters that our templates are using right now, so if we do change the appearance of our templates, we would not have to edit every page, like we had to do when we changed {{Sim}} to {{Sim2}}. So, I support changing our templates to show icons! :) —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 05:42, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
I'm liking this idea. Just so we can see a good example (I'm sorry, but I don't read French so the page for Cornelia Goth didn't make much sense to me), would it be possible for you to make a sandbox page or something with a sample Sim that has the new infobox? That would be awesome - LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 07:13, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
Hmm... I'm not very experienced with those templates, but what do you really want me to do? Thank you --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 11:34, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
See this would be the new file for romantic interests but only for The Sims 3 sims and this would be the new file for roommates, just examples we have much more to change, and I think we could show icons of traits, age, sign and gender. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 11:51, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
I made a page using the new infobox here. I used Bella Goth as the sample Sim, and I merged her TS2 and TS3 information to show each parameter of the infobox. I also made many changes to the original infobox. I made Bella's life state witch, and made it so that the life state icon would appear as well. I made the font larger, and used different icons. I still didn't add any of the other parameters, like major and rep group, but I think it looks pretty good right now. We should also consider making an occupation parameter, showing the occupation's icon at the right. To see the infobox that I used for the test page, see here. What do you think? —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 04:13, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
I like your example, RR. There are a couple issues though: the male, female and deceased icons are either .jpgs or non-transparent .pngs... they should all be transparent .pngs otherwise you get those little white boxes. The same goes for the TS2 logo at the top. I have a suggestion too - I think that in the case where a Sim is in multiple games, we should use different colors to identify each game, otherwise you're using a lot of one color and none of the others. - LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 04:28, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
I really like it RR, it's gorgeous and thanks for trying for me, I would like to say that the current sim templates should stay, they are pretty I only think we should change icons, also we must be sure this definitions include categories stuff. Thanks RR do you want any help? --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 21:47, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
I've also created a test page to see the functions of the template and it's awesome I must say, you can find it here, I did not put a state because I did not know if normal would display anything. Thanks RR for making these for me. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 22:05, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
I am making changes to {{Sim/test}}. The previous test example can still be found {{Sim/example}}. I am removing the background colors for now so we won't have to worry about transparent images yet. But we still need images for body shape/build. --a_morris (talk) 23:46, January 18, 2011 (UTC)
After looking around the wiki, and seeing the recent success of the updated Community Portal, I was just thinking that maybe we should create a Portal for each major game in the series. We already have a Late Night Portal and Fast Lane Stuff Portal, but, in my opinion, those games are so minor, and don't really need Portals just for them. I believe the community would benefit from this, since many users come here just to research one game in the series. If we do create Portals for each main game, we should have a The Sims Portal, The Sims 2 Portal, The Sims 3 Portal, maybe The Sims Stories Portal, if it isn't merged with The Sims 2 Portal, The Sims Medieval Portal, if we are going to cover that game, and a Console Portal, Handheld Portal, and Mobile Portal. Each main game Portal should also cover the expansion packs, stuff packs, and compilations that were released along with the game. Also, look at the main page of the Avatar Wiki. They have a slider that shows the main contents of their wiki. If we create a Portal for each main game, we could feature them on the main page using the slider. Since each game has its own users and contributors, I think that creating Portal for each major game would help our community and easily carry users to their desired destination. What do you think? —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 06:05, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
I think this wiki has a history of downplaying console games, but I'm not sure if creating a separate 'Console Portal' would resolve this, since console games run across all three "generations" of the series, as opposed to the TS1, TS2 and TS3 portals which would be central to their own "generation." As for the rest of your idea... I'm not sure. I'll have to think about it a bit more and read some other opinions. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 07:10, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I am really unsure about it. I do think we should have one portal that covers an entire game and expansion/stuff packs. --BobNewbie talk • blog 12:54, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
lawlz, BobNewbie, that's exactly what he was suggesting. 68.171.234.7 18:13, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
In the past, I created many family trees for The Sims Wiki. One of the main problems that I found in my family trees was that they were unable to link to individual Sims. I added a {{familytree}} template to the Phineas and Ferb Wiki, but, thinking that The Sims family trees were too complicated, I did not add it to The Sims Wiki. However, Eduardog3000 just added it to the wiki, and showed a demonstration here. In my opinion, it looks very good and organized, and with the icon next to it, you can view the entire family tree. My proposal is that we change all of our current family trees to the familytree template. Please tell me what you think! —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 03:41, January 10, 2011 (UTC)
Nice. But what about using <imagemap>? --a_morris (talk) 21:10, January 11, 2011 (UTC)
Imagemap is a kind of complicated, I think the {{Familytree}} template is better.--Eduardog3000 22:19, January 11, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, but like I said, Imagemap is complicated, and hard to get the link in the right place and while {{Familytree}} is a little complicated it is much easier than Imagemap. Here are some examples of trees made with the {{Familytree}} template: the Landgraab family tree, the Alto family tree, and the Goth family tree.--Eduardog3000 23:25, January 11, 2011 (UTC)
I understand that it may be too complicated for you, but, we could find somebody that has used imagemap dozens of times, like Aster09. {{Family tree}} looks unprofessional. [Ѧüя◎ґ]
I agree with Auror. Imagemap may be complicated, but looks way better. --BobNewbie talk • blog 15:51, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
I think that the Imagemap feature would be good for the Wiki because of its professionalism in addition to the comments above. GG(t) • (c) • (b) 16:05, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
As all said above, I think this family trees should be improved, they look to unprofessional and colorless, in my opinion the current ones should remain. Thank you. ---Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 18:42, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
If you think it is colorless, me or Random Raunan could try to edit the {{Familytree}} template to give it color, I didn't expect so many bad comments about these trees, they are well organized and easier to update than the trees made of a picture.--Eduardog3000 18:47, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
I think the trees with pictures just look better, plus aid all that much more in finding the Sim you're looking for. I think we should go with Imagemap. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 19:07, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
Like I said Imagemap is to complicated and with the {{Familytree}} template it is easier for me and Random Raunan to update the tree. Also, how does the picture tree aid in finding the Sim your looking for. And as for looking better, me or Random Raunan can change the {{Familytree}} template to add color and make it look better.--Eduardog3000 19:21, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, If it's a choice between the current trees and trees made with Familytree, I'd keep the current ones. Since Imagemap is an extension, could be possibly write it into a special template, which could make using Imagemap easier? -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 19:26, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
Even written into a special template, it would be hard to pinpoint the exact location of where each link would need to be.--Eduardog3000 19:32, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand how the {{Familytree}} template looks unprofessional, it looks fine, and as for it being colorless, like I said before, me or Random Ranaun can add color.--Eduardog3000 03:17, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's an issue of looking unprofessional. I think it's a point where Imagemap looks better, no matter what kind of color you add to Familytree; Familytree just looks dull -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 04:55, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
Well, like I said, imagemap is complicated and hard to pinpoint the exact position of where the link needs to be. There is also that updating the trees are easier with the {{Familytree}} template than with the picture, as well as with imagemap, after an update is made, you would have to go and edit the imagemap to add link(s) to the new Sim(s) (as well as sometimes moving where pre-existing link(s) are).--Eduardog3000 21:39, January 17, 2011 (UTC)
I haven't talked that much in this discussion, but I'd like to say something. As the one who creates almost all of the current family trees, I personally like Familytree better. I have to spend a lot of time creating the family trees, resizing the images, and searching and waiting for the right image to use. With Familytree, I could just add any picture of the Sim; it would be a lot easier for me and everyone. The Familytree template looks very professional, and I think that we should utilize it to create family trees that are better, easier, and made faster. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 02:17, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
Thank you RR, that is the point I have been trying to get across, the familytree template is easier and it means more than one person (me and RR) will be involved working on the trees.--Eduardog3000 Ed G 03:27, March 26, 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't call Familytree 'professional', I'd call it U G L Y - LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 23:01, March 26, 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I change my mind. Seeing all of the support for imagemap, and the opposition for the Familytree template, I think that using imagemap and my family trees would satisfy the community much more than Familytree. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 01:36, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
To address the easy of use problem with imagemap, there are tools on Extension:ImageMap to help find coordinates, etc. --a_morris (talk) 03:45, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
Since it seems likely that a new Fanon namespace will be created, I thought it would be a good idea to ask if we should add any other custom namespaces to The Sims Wiki. (Wikia prefers that we ask for them all at once.) What are your suggestions for other namespaces? --a_morris (talk) 18:37, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
Wikia has a 3 custom namespace limit, this wiki already has the Top Ten namespace, which is one, the there will be the fanon namespace, just leaving one more custom namespace to add.--Eduardog3000 19:54, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
As I said before, so? Having a surplus of custom namespaces isn't necessarily desirable. If we run out of custom namespaces and we want to add another one, then let's talk about this; right now it's completely irrelevant. But if you disagree, propose a removal of Top Ten here on the Comm. portal. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 21:38, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
I agree. In my opinion, any page in the Top Ten namespace could just be moved to The Sims Wiki namespace. Maybe a Tutorial namespace? We already have the player tips articles, which I think shouldn't in the main namespace. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 01:38, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but what's the point of moving the Top Ten into the main namespace unless we need that custom namespace for some other purpose? Like I said before, having "extra" namespaces for our use really shouldn't be a concern. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 02:09, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I have a suggestion as well. I've noticed that we really don't have much in the way of technical help related to the games, downloads, mods and technical things. A lot of this info is available at simswiki.info, but that doesn't mean we can't cover it here too. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 02:10, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
Maybe, if the fanon namespace is created, we could keep some custom content and mods there (such as InTeenimater and Mermaid) and we could create a Tutorial namespace, which could contain the technical info about The Sims series. What do you think? —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 06:04, January 20, 2011 (UTC)
A tutorial namespace is a good idea. I would like to separate some of the step-by-step how-tos found in some articles, like Create a Sim. Is the Top Ten name space really a custom namespace even though it is connected to an extension? --a_morris (talk) 20:36, January 20, 2011 (UTC)
I don't know. I'll pop on Community Central and ask in the forum. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 20:43, January 20, 2011 (UTC)
I have to leave the wiki due to personal reasons. Yes, I am sure about what i'm doing. I'll still supply our Facebook page with images, but other then that, I am forced to leave.
I hope nobody see's me as a quiter, and I hope I reached my goal; to expand the Sims Wiki as much as I can.
Please appoint a new temporary community director. Thanks to all I have met here. --BobNewbie talk • blog 12:28, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
I daresay that many people who regularly check this page don't often check Talk:The Sims Wiki, where there has been some discussion regarding an upcoming redesign of the Main Page. I suggested the following idea there, but as it would likely need community acceptance before it were requested, I figured it would be easier to bring it up here. Below is my original comment on the other talk page:
Additionally, BobNewbie tipped me off to a service that Wikia provides where they come in and do a custom redesign of a wiki's main page, background skin, and theme. This feature is by request only and has certain minimum requirements. If you want to see more, go here.
I don't have many concerns about us catching Google traffic (we do a pretty good job of it already), but I do think having this team come in and completely redesign our mainpage is something we should at least consider. This obviously has advantages and possible benefits, as well as some possible drawbacks. One stipulation this team makes is that their design decisions are final, but I assume that if we applied and were accepted that our community would be able to have some input prior to them making the design, so I don't see that as a huge issue.
I think having people that work for Wikia to come redesign the Main Page is a bad idea. "Oasis" (or "New Wikia Look" or whatever they call it) looks terrible, I don't want even more terrible-ness (probably not a word) added to this wiki.--Eduardog3000 03:22, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
Did you see the work that they've done on other wikis? I don't know how much of a say we'd get if we did this, but I don't think they would try and force us into something we don't like. - LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 03:39, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
They forced us into the new Wikia Skin.--Eduardog3000 21:32, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
Did they? Maybe if people would spend a little more time giving constructive criticism, and a little less time protesting any form of change that occurs and threatening to leave the wiki or take their wikis off-site, maybe - just maybe - the skin would be a little better. Do yourself a favor and get over it; the old skin ain't coming back. Sorry about that, I'm just getting really sick of complaints about the new skin. If you hate it so much, then leave! No one's forcing you to stay.
All that aside, this is a little different situation, since we're actually requesting this change rather than having it "done to us." That said, I cannot imagine this team not taking the ideas and thoughts of the community seriously, if we were to pursue this. I think if we're going to decide this idea one way or the other, it should be based on whether we think the team will do a good job of it, and whether we want to allow someone else to design it for us, or whether we want to have all control over it by doing it ourselves. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 22:07, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
I just updated the Main Page using my design. Take a look. Any feedback at all is much appreciated! —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 03:12, January 25, 2011 (UTC)
I think it looks very cool! I'm glad you took the initiative on this, since I was pretty sure that it was never going to happen otherwise! -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 03:28, January 25, 2011 (UTC)
Not bad. I won't be seeing much of it, as the new MediaWiki + Oasis doesn't work quite right in Opera, so it's back to Monobook after I post this -- but not bad. Dharden (talk) 04:21, January 25, 2011 (UTC)
It is amazing! I love it! It is quite simplier, less confusing, and takes so much less time to load. A+! |_Andronikos LeventisTalk 13:04, January 25, 2011 (UTC)
Since the Fanon namespace is going to be created, and very possibly a Tutorial namespace, I think we may need to expand our Forums. Right now, we have two main Forums, Doo Peas Corporate Tower and Central Park. Doo Peas Corporate Tower is for general discussion about the Wiki, and Central park is for general discussion about The Sims games. Since we are going to create the FN, we should consider creating a special Forum just for general Fanon discussions. If the Tutorial namespace is going to be created, we wouldn't have to worry about creating a special Forum for that, since we already have the Questions forum, which is about game help. However, since it is safe to assume that our community is going to grow, we should also consider creating an off-topic Forum, where Users would be able to just chat. I know that I may be getting ahead of myself, but I also thought of names for these two new Forums. Since our Forums are currently named after locations in the games, I thought that the Fanon Forum could be named "Wright Reading Room," named after the Library in Riverview, and the off-topic Forum could be named "Hogan's Deep-Fried Diner." What do you think? —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 06:35, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea as then there will be a place where fanon can be discussed, reviewed, new ideas etc. Plus the off-topic forum would be a good addition in addition to the IRC channel, where users may also chat. GG(t) • (c) • (b) 22:10, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
This idea was suggested above, but I think it needs a bit of discussion and consensus in a new section.
The general idea is to create a new namespace which will house game help, tutorials, how-to's and tips for players playing the games. The general idea is to move some pages located on the main namespace here where they would be more relevant, and to significantly expand the help that The Sims Wiki offers to players on the technical side of things. We already have a very significant knowledge base about game characters, neighborhoods, objects, and the games themselves, but this wiki does lack a lot of technical information which could be used to help players figure out how to improve their games, identify and address bugs, install modifications, install downloadable content, and other activities.
So I am proposing that a new namespace, with a name to be determined by the community, will be created to house and to gather knowledge about the technical aspects of the games, including information on troubleshooting, play tutorials, tips and how-to's so that readers and users can get the most out of The Sims Wiki and their games.
I think it's a good idea as we can help others as well as provide information. GG(t) • (c) • (b) 23:28, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
I definitely support the creation of a Tutorial namespace. We have a lot of basic Sims information, and soon we would have a place for users to write about their own Sims, but what we're missing is game help and technical information. I feel that creating this namespace would not only increase our base of information, but also increase our traffic, user base, and community. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 03:12, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. I always search for game tips, and other simmers out there also do so. This will increse traffic to maximum. Well, if it is done correctly... |_Andronikos LeventisTalk 07:55, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
It would also allow moving much of the how-to-do-it info out of mainspace articles. Dharden (talk) 05:28, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with this idea, it would help us to stay our wiki cleaner, and well organised, if we do have a fanon namespace, the tutorial one could exist in my point, it would help us to search for articles, organise and separate what's fanon from what's canon. Thank you. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 17:51, February 11, 2011 (UTC)
I've sent in a Special:Contact to Wikia for the creation of the Tutorial namespace. This seemed to be the name that most people agreed with, plus it pretty well serves the purpose of the new namespace. Now it's just wait-and-see to see when the new namespaces are added! -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 08:17, February 12, 2011 (UTC)
Please note that many discussions were removed from this talk page. Most of the Fanon Namespace/Fanon Merge discussion has been moved to The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal/Fanon Namespace, while other topics which were completed or had not been discussed in a while have been moved to The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 10. I think some of the topics archived have been forgotten about, so if you think they are worth discussing and possibly resolving, please start a new section below and provide a link to the archived discussion. Thanks! -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 23:45, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
What is the official policy for pictures of items and Sims?[edit source]
I have to ask this, because the official policy appears to be to use the extremely poor-quality screenshots carried in the Sim and object files. This works okay some of the time, certainly it works sufficiently with the Sims, but it looks awful compared with large, well-lit and detailed screenshots from in-game. Compare the majority of shots [the Sims 3 fridge section] with the high-detail shots on [[1]] or [[2]]. I think this applies to objects much more than to Sims, and I think this boils down to a question of what we want to represent on this Wiki.
Do we want to present Sims and objects as they are in-game, when players are interacting and engaging with them most, and in high quality, detailed images? Or do we want to present Sims and objects in low quality but "official" formats?
Personally I recommend drafting a set of guidelines for reasonably neutral, standard-sized screenshots, and using them instead of the low quality EA ones, but I'd like to debate the pros and cons of "icons" versus "screenshots" to represent objects and Sims on the Wiki. If necessary, I'd advocate we vote on the matter.
First off, we don't 'vote' on things; we allow the community to show consensus. Second, we don't have any official policy regarding image quality, but I agree that we should be trying to provide the highest-quality images that we can. However, I don't see much of a way to regulate the quality of images which people choose to upload, so I don't know how successful writing an official policy would be. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 15:18, February 1, 2011 (UTC)
While we should use the best-quality images we can, as a practical matter, we often have to take what we can get, as long as it's not so poor that it can't be made out. A poor-quality image that still shows what an object looks like may be better than no image at all. Also, for TS1 objects and Sims, the game's own limitations place a limit on image size and quality. I usually get images of TS1 objects by finding them in The Sims Transmogrifier, taking a screenshot that shows it at maximum zoom, and using Paint to save the image of the object as a JPG or PNG file. A screenshot taken in-game at maximum zoom would be no better or larger. A screenshot of a Sim taken in-game will still be low-quality compared to what's possible with TS2 or TS3, simply because it's not possible to zoom in as close. Dharden (talk) 16:33, February 1, 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, sorry for my poor use of terminology. I'm not trying to make the wiki out as a democracy, it's just that consensus gathering seems to meet the definition of a "vote", just a very loose one. Secondly, another reason for about asking this is that as long as I've been on this wiki I have seen multiple users go systematically through pages (especially pages for Sims) replacing high quality in-game screenshots with comparatively low quality "official" icons. I have never changed the pictures back for fear of starting an edit war, but it seems to be very common practice. I notice that all the in-game shots of WA Sims are gradually, in chunks, being replaced with icons, for example. (Kiwi tea 01:06, February 2, 2011 (UTC))
Well, I have to agree with Dharden. There is no way to make an image from The Sims 1 look as good as one from The Sims 2 or The Sims 3, but still, an image which is nearly impossible to see might make readers to start avoiding the article and eventually, The Sims Wiki. I personally use (when I want to, I am not so interested in "official" images from Sims) SimPE to extract the image from the sim, found in his character file, and upload it. However, I am running in a video card excellent to play The Sims 2 so my images there are excellent quality. If the subject is an object from The Sims 3, well, I agree, we can't use in-game thumbnails because they're too small and have low resulution. |_Andronikos LeventisTalk 15:48, February 7, 2011 (UTC)
I also agree with Dharden, the screenshots are limited to which game they are coming from. And there is a limit on how much you can edit them to make them look "better". But I do agree that we should find the best ones that are available, but going so far as to asctually making a policy on them, I don't think so. It'll stagnate a lot of images.--DarthCookieTalk 22:54, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
Yes, another dreaded merge proposal. This one is comparatively straightforward, however. I am proposing a merge with The Sims Medieval Wiki.
I've posted a proposition on the Community Portal talk page at TSMW and so far it's received support, so this seemed like the next logical step. Here's approximately how this would happen:
Assuming community consent at both wikis, we would likely file a request to merge through Wikia. They would either perform the merge, or assist us in exporting The Sims Medieval Wiki and importing their articles onto The Sims Wiki, which we can than re-arrange as needed or reconstruct The Sims Medieval Wiki's organizational system for Medieval-specific content. Once that is complete, an administrator will need to send another Contact with a request to shut down The Sims Medieval Wiki, including a link to the community discussions that show consent for the proposal.
I largely covered these points already at TSMW, but I'll briefly state them here. The Sims Medieval wiki has a much smaller traffic rate than we do; moving the info here gives it a better opportunity to be found and improved upon by The Sims Medieval players (once, of course, the game is released). We already have an existing and quite functional wiki governance system here, and we are relatively stable. Finally, merging the wiki increases our quite paltry knowledge base about Medieval, which is a huge benefit to the hundreds or thousands of TSM players or prospective players that may come to TSW looking for information, only to be disappointed.
Full Support There is no reason for readers to have to go to a different wiki to read about The Sims Medieval. LIR, you make a good a point, if we don't have articles about The Sims Medieval most readers, or even users, are going to leave because The Sims Medieval is very likely to be a hard game, so walkthroughs will be needed. |_Andronikos LeventisTalk 08:02, February 12, 2011 (UTC)
Strong Support I feel that TSM wiki is dead, we have no activity and now Sims wiki concluded to cover The Sims Medieval game, the reason why this wiki existed is no longer valid. I support this idea with much excitement and hapiness! Thank you for reading. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 09:06, February 12, 2011 (UTC)
Strong Support - the activity on TSMW is very low compared to the activity on TSW. A merge will be better for information (as all Sims info will be in one place) and for the site traffic. GG(t) • (c) • (b) 10:12, February 12, 2011 (UTC)
Support There's no question for this case. Merging it is definitely a very good idea. So users can view different informaions on the same wiki at the same time. --WG_94Talk - Blog 15:00, February 12, 2011 (UTC)
Strong Support A merge would be very beneficial to both wikis, and I'm all for expanding our info. (as you could probably tell, :p ) —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 06:03, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
- Strong Support. I think this would be a very smart move, we need to have all Sims information in the same place anyway. Anyhow, it would raise the activity here, with the merge with TSFW and TSMW, this is a great time for it. You have my full support.--♥DarthCookie♥ 23:00, February 21, 2011 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. I'm very new here and I know my opinion doesn't hold much weight, but I don't want to get rid of the wiki that's focused solely on indepth articles about The Sims Medieval (and any future expansions it may get). I wouldn't mind people copying pages from The Sims Medieval wiki to The Sims wiki, but I think The Sims Medieval is a different enough game (with a different enough fanbase) that it requires its own wiki. Just look at SimCity Societies; despite the similar appearance and mechanics to other SimCity games, it was very goal-based and focused more on individual buildings and citizens, unlike the older SimCity games that were largely sandbox games focused on macro-management. Because of the differences, the original SimCity fanbase ignored the game; its article on the SimCity wiki is massively outdated, typo-riddled, and vandalism-prone. In the same way, The Sims Medieval appears and runs like a usual Sim title, but plays very differently, with goals, kingdom-building, etc.--Bunnyboi 18:41, March 30, 2011 (UTC).
Now that we have adopted a new policy containing fanon contents, I am quite concerned about the destiny of The Sims Fanon Wiki, since we are much bigger and well known, and very active when comparing to the Sims Fanon Wiki, wouldn't this destroy the little activity they have? Seriously, does this make their function, redundant? Wouldn't be preferable a merge with them, instead of this? Could community share your opinions with me? Thank you. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 20:20, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
I think what were doing is good, it'll bring us more activity, and a lot of users here edit there. So it will give us a better reputation and more activity. It'll be alright.--♥DarthCookie♥ 21:08, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
I don't think Guilherme is concerned about us, she's concerned about them. I have to agree with what she's saying (if that is indeed what she means), and I've sent along a message to one of TSFW's active administrators, but have heard nothing back. Ultimately, I think we should engage the members at TSFW and offer them the chance to merge into TSW, but it's entirely their choice. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 21:23, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, the original proposal was for a Fanon Wiki merge, but it somehow morphed into just a Fanon namespace creation. Most of the admins at the Fanon Wiki are inactive (save for A morris), but there are still users who edit there. I'm all for a merge, but I'm not sure how we can do it if there is only one admin at the Fanon Wiki. :( —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 00:45, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
I think we could offer some help to them, it could be our choice too, and we have to help them if they want to merge with us, I am really concerned about the idea of destroying their chances to be an active wiki, that's what concerns me, the most. Thank you for reading. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 17:38, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
At least for me, it's easier to consider a Fanon Wiki merge knowing that, if the decision to do it is made, we will have policies for handling fanon content and a place for that content to go. Dharden (talk) 19:08, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
While I support a merge with the Fanon Wiki, I came up with some pros and cons to merging:
Pros
More articles - probably enough to get the Fanon namespace up and running quickly.
More users.
More activity for both communities.
Bigger community and possibly much more traffic to the wiki.
More unity between communities.
Cons
Messy and unorganized articles from the Fanon Wiki will come to our Wiki.
Many users will likely be confused.
As you can see, there are a lot of good reasons to merge. We would have more articles, a lot more users for both communities, more activity for both, a much bigger community and more traffic, and more unity between ours and the Fanon community, since I can often tell that we aren't that much affiliated with each other. On the other hand, the Fanon Wiki has a lot of messy and bad articles. If we merge, these articles will come here, which will mean a lot of cleanup, deletion, and overall work for our admins and Fanon admins. Also, if we merge, more than a few users will likely be confused, and a lot of Fanon will probably lose its creators, which again means deletion or adoption. I definitely support a merge between the Wikis, and will do my best to make sure that it is as smooth and as clean as possible, but I would like to see what the community has to say before I go and formally request a merge over there. Thank you! —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 04:42, February 20, 2011 (UTC)
You make some pretty good points here RR. The thing is, the Sims Fanon wiki is gonna take a hit if we don't merge. Activity is going to fall over there, and they can't really stop us from merging. A merge is going to be the best option, and we should ask the admins there (if we are going to merge) to give users as much info about whats going on. --BobNewbie talk • blog 06:36, February 20, 2011 (UTC)
That's not correct. Wikia generally wants community feedback and agreement on things, so we can't unilaterally decide to merge without getting approval from The Sims Fanon Wiki's community. In fact, I'd suggest getting their feedback first, before you seriously try and debate it here. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 06:46, February 20, 2011 (UTC)
I think that a merge would be best, but we should get their community's feedback on it. If they agree, then its a merge, if they don't. We will just have to wait and see.--♥DarthCookie♥ 21:39, February 20, 2011 (UTC)
I just posted a merge proposal at The Sims Fanon Wiki at their Community Portal. So, let's wait and see what they say! :D —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 06:42, February 21, 2011 (UTC)
Now that I have officially proposed a merge between TSW and the Fanon Wiki, let's start getting community consensus from our wiki.
Strong Support - As you can tell, I believe that a merge between the two wikis will be a great move for all of us. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 22:30, February 21, 2011 (UTC)
Support with conditions - Assuming we can get some community members who actually edit on TSFW (rather than TSW users) to support this, I will support it as well. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 22:32, February 21, 2011 (UTC)
Strong Support - Not only will it increase site traffic and gain more members but it will also make administrator's jobs easier and allow more freedom. GG(t) • (c) • (b) 22:35, February 21, 2011 (UTC)
Strong Support. I agree with Georgie, and it will give a lot of people here more things to do. It will certainly decrease my boredom.--♥DarthCookie♥ 23:14, February 21, 2011 (UTC)
Support with concerns I'm voting for this because I don't want to destroy The Sims Fanon Wiki, though I have some concerns about organizing Fanon. Although, I think we'll have a bigger and participative community, that can give us a lot of advantages, and I hope we all collaborate for a common goal, making this wiki, a good-quality one. Tank you for reading. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 18:16, February 22, 2011 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. I would like to say that whenever I visit the Fanon Wiki, I get sick of their articles. In my opinion, it is a perfect idea, in case we are planning to destroy ourselves. The Fanon Namespace is far enough. |_Andronikos LeventisTalk 19:42, February 23, 2011 (UTC)
Mountainous Oppose. I'm no against a fanon namespace, but a merge with the Fanon wiki would ruin our wiki. Like Andronikos Leventis said before me, their articles are too different from the ones we actually have, and I personnally hate these articles.JM9193 19:59, February 23, 2011 (UTC)
Opposition, Due to personal reasons, and a checking to fanon articles on Fanon wiki, I've changed my vote to Opposition. Be aware that I did not propose a merge, though, I think we should find a solution to make fanon wiki not disappear, thank you for understanding my reasons. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 20:12, February 23, 2011 (UTC)
Although I respect your opinions, you guys have to understand that we can work around those problems. We have a lot of Admins, Fanon admins, rollbacks, and users who can help. We can add cleanup to articles, and delete the ones that are bad, messy, abandoned, or who's creators are banned. I'm not saying that it'll be easy, it won't, but I really believe that it would be a successful move for us. Think about it, if we don't merge soon, everyone's either going to go to TSFW or TSW for their Fanon, and the wiki that they don't go to will suffer. Merging would be great for both of us, but we're going to have to cleanup and delete certain articles from the Fanon Wiki once or before we merge. Thank you for understanding. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 21:49, February 23, 2011 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. We have a FN, but I don't like the Fanon Wiki. They have way to many articles nobody wants to read. I supported the FN creation, but this is like shooting ourselves in the foot. Then cutting off the toes. --BobNewbie talk • blog 19:19, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
Just a request... can we please keep the descriptors of opposition down to simple weak or strong (i.e. weak oppose, strong oppose, or just a plain old 'oppose' etc). This whole Mountainous oppose and Extreme oppose is a little crazy. In all of these cases, a simple strongly oppose will suffice (the same goes for anyone in support). -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 19:40, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
Based on an IRC discussion with Random Ranaun, I would like to remind the community of the advantages of the merge. We already have the fanon namespace, which seems to be pretty quiet at this time and can be filled by the pages on the Fanon Wiki. I understand that we may have to go through some heavy moderation of these articles but the merge would be best for both of the wikis as they can edit their fanon here while having a chance to get involved with everything that we offer. Where Bob has pointed out that the fanon wiki has "way too many articles nobody wants to read" - if we didn't merge and the namespace grew, there probably would be some articles that are less popular than others so it wouldn't really make any difference and if anything, it would actually give the readers more to read. While some of their articles may be "different" to the ones we currently have, not every author writes in the same way and we should respect that. As this has been untouched for over a month, I would like to know if the community stands by their previous votes or if they want to change them to a support vote. While I agree that everyone does have their own opinion and we can't please everyone, I would just like the community to think about this for a moment and make a decision. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 21:44, March 26, 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. Merging would be great for both wikis, as both would earn sufficient activity. Also, GG makes an excellent point. Although not all are read as much as they could be, a merge would add a lot more articles, giving users a lot more to read. The articles that do not meet our standards and/or are abandoned, we can remove, so I don't see much of a problem with a merge, since we would gain a lot more users from the Fanon Wiki, a lot more articles, more traffic, and the fanon written by the users from the Fanon Wiki will have a much greater chance of being read. So, a merge would be great for everyone. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 23:18, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
Support As there is already a fanon portal, I cannot see any harm in merging the two wikis. --Bleeh(talk)(blog) 23:55, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
I had an idea to give some popularity to Fanon Articles. People can write critic on a Fanon article's talk page, then an "average score" thing can be put up, like Metacritic. You can rate it on the talk page as 10%, 20%, etc up to 100%. You can also write a review about the article. Reviews MUST be constructive. What do you think? BobNewbie talk • blog 19:15, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
This is very interesting, but still someone might write a bad review on purpose. I really don't know if a bad review for an article would break someone's heart. |_Andronikos LeventisTalk 19:20, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
Well, this would get people to try to write good stories instead of a waste on purpose, and if I write a very bad story, the negative critic is fine, but they have to make a good point on whats wrong with the story.BobNewbie talk • blog 19:24, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
I support the idea, as long as the negative reviews aren't used for personal attacks against the creator. GG(t) • (c) • (b) 19:44, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
Like I said, they have to have a good reason. And it can't be: You spelled "dog" wrong so I'm giving you 20%. --BobNewbie talk • blog 19:46, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
I'll leave this up for a while longer, then I'll start creating the needed things. --BobNewbie talk • blog 14:08, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - Honestly, I think this has too much of a risk of hurt feelings, which may ultimately cause disputes between editors. We have a procedure in place to help improve poorly-written articles and a Featured Fanon system in place to showcase good articles, so I don't see much of a constructive use in this. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 14:53, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
Mmm... I guess LiR is right... Changed opinion to Oppose. These can really hurt feeling. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 15:08, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
-- Weak Oppose, I couldn't possibly support this. It can really hurt someone's feelings and can even cause an editor to abandon an article. Still, it may be a good method to rate if an article is good enough to be featured fanon. |_Andronikos LeventisTalk 15:14, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, listen to this:
Yo mama stinks! Lol, I'm so gonna give you a bad score for not taking part in my contest. 20%. Loser, should have took part.
Well, the plotline is very poorly thought out, don't you think? Also, remember to check for mistakes. Don Lothario is not Bella Goth's father in the real series. You said he was, and its Nervous Subject, not Neved Subject. Other then that, I think if you expanded it a bit more it could live up to its full potential, though I enjoyed reading it. 70%.
The first would be removed when its seen. The second gives clear review, pointing out good and bad. Also, we can put some policies into this. Only users who have more then 150 content namespace edits can review, and need to be active and friendly parts of the community. I see it as a fun way to help fanon writers, if correctly done. BobNewbie talk • blog 16:08, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
Ok, BobNewbie is correct. The first one terrified me. Still, a very few users have more than 150 content edits. I think I will change my vote to Support. |_Andronikos LeventisTalk 20:58, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
I would like to discuss about fanon content some topics with the community. How could we organize fanon articles? Should we create templates for fanon sims and neighbors, should we create categories such as "Fanon good Sims" for example? I think we could do it to organize our articles better. Also the template "Fanon-cleanup" should categorize the pages with the template in "Fanon articles needing a clean-up". Also imagine if two people want to write their fanon stories about Don Lothario, should their two stories be located on the same page "Fanon:Don Lothario", what could we do to fix the problem? Any thoughts? Thank you. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 13:59, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the categories, like the Fanon Good Sims one, and the clean-up. Maybe we should change our categories so that it could be like "Good Sims (fanon)?" Also, it's already been agreed that if two users create pages with the same name, they will be changed to their creator's username or story, so, the "Fanon:Don Lothario" would be either "Fanon:Don Lothario (Random Ranaun)" or "Fanon:Don Lothario (Sims of SimNation)." —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 15:17, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
Then we don'y have to worry with those issues anymore, for me there could be fanon neighborhoods, sim templates and categories, it would be better to make information organized, that could be the way to make people not have to worry so much with aspect of an article like I did with Fanon:Sarah Peasant, because with templates, would appear more clean, also reviews could be very negative if the article has messy aspect, heartbreaking people :(! Thank you. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 15:22, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
The regular {{Sim}} templates could be used for Fanon. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 15:42, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
Well, the {{Checkmns}} template makes sure that the Fanon pages don't receive categories, so that they won't be categorized with canon Sims. It also stops the Player stories subpage from being created. So, users could just take the Sim template of which game their Sim appeared in, and then just add it like they would to a normal Sim page. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 16:00, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
, Then it's ok, but I like my Fanon:Sarah Peasant with those images of simology, is that approvable, or do I have to delete them to fit Manual of Style? Thank you. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 16:15, February 25, 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, I think this happened to normal Sim pages a while ago. I don't know what could be causing it. :/ —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 06:55, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
I found out what it is. The Simbio templates need Simbio-end in order to have Simbio-start remain on the right side of the page. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 07:30, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
Oh :O! To solve the categories problem, I have a suggestion: I think we could copy the contents of sim templates and create new fanon templates with the content and all categories included in it could be changed from e.g: "Good Sims" to "Good Sims (fanon)", I think this might be helpful, do you agree with me? Any suggestions? Thank you for reading. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 19:50, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
I think Guilherme makes a good point, we could copy the information.--♥DarthCookie♥ 20:52, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
Actually, we can just edit the Infobox templates to include the special categories if the article is in the Fanon Namespace. I already edited it to include Category:Sims (fanon) in the namespace is fanon, so I suppose we could add these other categories, although I think we should get consensus first. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 00:24, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
Oh, thank you for knowing it ^^ then we could apply it. Thank you. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 17:35, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
Strong Support - I believe creating categories for Fanon Sims would be a good idea, since it would allow much more organization and navigation in the Fanon Namespace. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 18:01, March 13, 2011 (UTC)
Strong Support - Same reasons as Random Ranaun. Thank you. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 18:31, March 13, 2011 (UTC)
Strong Support per the reasons above. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 21:27, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Since we have got some support. I am requesting A morristo do it or to teach me how to put the fanon categories in the template. Thank you. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 09:14, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea as it will allow us to see what Wikia are working on and allow us to test it before we implement it. GGTalk 10:48, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
I would love to see the feature here, I'm testing it out at the baking life wiki first.--♥DarthCookie♥ 21:02, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
Getting it enabled right now hope it's okay.--CookieMonster888talk 23:36, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
That's fine, and its a great addon to the baking life wiki.--♥DarthCookie♥ 04:23, March 3, 2011 (UTC)
Ladies and gentleman, boys and girls, Simmers and...other Simmers, I just had a idea that made me squeal in delight. Also, I hear that admin LostinRiverview had a similar idea:
The Fannies
The Sims Wiki's version of the Oscars and Grammies!
It could be a yearly thing where good works of Fanon can be fully appreciated. There will be categories
Best Horror Fanon
Best Comedy Fanon
Best Romance Fanon
Best Action Fanon
Best Drama Fanon
Best Fanon Sim
Best Fanon Family
Best Fanon Setting
Best Fanon Chapter/Episode
Best Evolving Fanon Story
Most Comedic Writer
Most Creative Writer
Most Creative Photographer
Those are just some basic ones, which I won't get into what they entitle now. Every user with more then 200 edits can nominate a Fanon work under one of these categories, and users can vote for them. Winners get a special template. This isn't going to, if it is, happen till April, but I wanted to hear if I could start working on it. --BobNewbie talk • blog 16:59, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
I like it - it shows that fanon that may not possibly become Featured Fanon is still recognised and rewarded. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 17:08, February 26, 2011 (UTC)
Awesome idea! Great fanon deserves to be recognized, especially by a cool, fun event! :D —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 07:39, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
Totally awesome idea. Ѧüя◎ґ 08:05, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks guys! Also, feel free to suggest categories, if you want to. BobNewbie talk • blog 08:20, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
. Neutral - I think this is a creative idea, but I have some concerns about this, won't people vote for their favorites and popular things? This could favour quantity instead of quality, we could improve this idea, thank you. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 19:09, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
Guilherme Guerreiro, wouldn't the idea be to vote for your favorite? I think it's an awesome idea, I definitley think it would be a cool thing to do! PlantsvsZombies 04:54, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
Yes Guilherme, if a story is good enough to win, obviously, it will be popular. --BobNewbie talk • blog 13:09, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
It isn't that simple Bob, people may vote for a story because it was made by one of their friends, and they may not see the ones that are created for other people they don't know, just one example of the disavantages. I remain my vote. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 17:33, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
I think I see what you're getting at. You're concerned that something similar to what happened with the Featured Article voting could happen with this, right? Dharden (talk) 17:57, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
Yes Guilherme, but there are things we could do to improve the idea. For one, not all Fanon is going to be allowed. There are gonna be certain rules, which I'm still carefully considering, to make sure that the entered Fanon is, this is a word to describe it, good. Fanon that is entered must be of a certain quality. Other then that, I can with full confidence say that users are going to read the Fanon entered in their favorite categories. So, for example, I like Comedy, Horror, Action, interesting made-up places and nice pictures. Which means, I'm already going to read a few, if not all, of the entered works in:
Best Horror Fanon
Best Comedy Fanon
Best Action Fanon
Best Fanon Setting
Most Creative Photographer
While reading those, I could also find something to nominate/vote for in the categories for:
Best Fanon Chapter/Episode
Best Evolving Fanon Story
Most Comedic Writer
Most Creative Writer
Then there is another user, who likes interesting Sims, Horror, Romance and good writing. S/he could also find something to nominate/vote for in the categories for:
Best Horror Fanon
Most Creative Writer
Best Fanon Sim
Best Romance Fanon
And maybe find some other stuff to enter/vote on while reading those, like:
Best Fanon Chapter/Episode
Best Evolving Fanon Story
Get what I mean? Thats two users, and if they only like reading stuff in their favorite genres, they could already be reading things with other categories linked to them.
I also think we could promote this a little, to get more users to enter. Not like spamming the main page, but informing them via the newsletter and Fanon portal. BobNewbie talk • blog 18:09, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
Yes Dharden, you figured out my reasons, hmm... I see you have some improvements Bob, now I like more this idea :)! --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 19:02, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Guilherme! It would be a shame to scrap this idea, so please ask any questions you have so that I can look for them
For now, I think we should pause this discussion till we merge/don't merge with the Fanon Wiki. --Zombietalk • blog 07:08, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
We should definitely do this though. It's probably better to wait, there could be some really good articles on these wikis, and we should recognise them. Or not, if this merge doesn't happen. --Wogan Hemlock - The Dark Sage 07:11, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
Even if we don't merge, we can still have this. Though we are gonna have to wait a while for new Fanon pages to be created. But a merge will make this a lot easier; I just hope the creators will still be around. --Zombietalk • blog 07:16, April 5, 2011 (UTC)
TSWM Contest. A The Sims Wiki Mascot Contest. You can upload a picture of a Sim who will represent TSW for the next year! It can work the same way as featured media voting. Then, we can copy that Sim in our games, and, for example, in December, we put a picture of him in a Santa Outfit! Its just a suggestion, but if you ask me, it will surely attract new users.
I already posted this idea and it got archived. Also, Ed had a some good ideas.
I think the Sim should have a clever name which has something to do with the name of the wiki. For example "Simon Wikonian" (I am not that good with making names) or something. He should also wear a shirt with one of the custom Sims Wiki Patterns. If he has already been made (Like BobNewbie said he had 4 in mind) then we could just change his clothes and name. Overall though I like the idea of a mascot, but not a new one every year, keep the same one. We could also make it a family, not just one Sim (with one Sim as the main mascot). --Eduardog3000 02:47, December 9, 2010 (UTC)
Do you guys think we should still have a mascot? --BobNewbie talk • blog 17:45, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
We might as well give this some attention, rather than just let it sit here with no action for even longer. I don't think that the mascot idea is a bad one, however I think that we should have something like an election for a new mascot or something. Also, before the voting process, I'd recommend that we have a period of time for users to create their mascots otherwise the first one entered will probably be the one with the most votes while the last one entered may be a potentially better choice. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 19:47, March 11, 2011 (UTC)
That was exactly my plan :P. I'll mention it in the next newsletter, to get users to start making some Sim-layouts. That sounded weird. --BobNewbie talk • blog 18:13, March 13, 2011 (UTC)
I still support the idea of a mascot, along with the ideas I gave (as quoted above).--Eduardog3000 Ed G 03:34, March 26, 2011 (UTC)
I must say, I love the idea of a mascot. I think it should be chosen by admin, though. Most sims players would probably say somthing obvious like Bella Goth or something like that.
The question I would have about using a Sim for the mascot... would we be able to use an in-game character - even a player-made one - as our mascot without violating EA's copyright? -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 07:16, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
Player-made. I'll look into some copyright stuff for now. Also, The Superpower Wiki, a wiki I'm an admin on, are also busy with picking a mascot. Our plan is to use it in templates, greetings, etc. --BobNewbie talk • blog 13:08, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
Now that ESRB has officially confirmed the next The Sims 3 expansion pack, Generations, I believe it is appropriate to create an article for it. Here is the proof that it is confirmed: [3]. So what do you guys think? Should we create the article? PlantsvsZombies 18:12, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
The rule of thumb up to now has been to wait until official confirmation from EA. Is it possible that ESRB would approve the rating of a game with a working title? If that's possible, then the game's name could change before its announcement. Aside from that, I have the feeling that this will all be a moot point within a few days, as EA is likely to announce something very soon considering all the evidence that seems to point in that direction. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 18:17, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking that we could possibly show it in the community corner message. I know that the MySims Wiki have intergrated the "Most popular blogs" listing into the CC message so it must be possible. I am also not oppossed to showing the birthdays on the Main Page but I look at Special:WikiActivity more than the main page, meaning that it could be more beneficial to show it on the CC message but I'll go with whatever the community decides. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 19:51, March 11, 2011 (UTC)
Per my reasoning on The Sims Wiki talk:Fanon_Portal#Don't like the logo and a discussion on IRC with Random Ranaun, I am proposing that we re-open the fanon logo contest to give more users a chance to create a logo and hopefully remove the negative response to the only two logos that were entered. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 22:04, March 11, 2011 (UTC)
On the IRC channel, Random Ranaun suggested the idea of enabling article comments (comments can be seen in action on this page on the Avatar Wiki). This would, in effect, enable comments on the bottom of pages, but disable links to article talk pages. It may be useful on some pages, such as fanon pages if the author is seeking input, but may be less desirable on other pages where discussion needs to be limited to the content of the page, and not the topic of the page.
Oppose - I think it could look less like an article but rather like a blog :/. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 20:24, March 14, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - While it may be useful for fanon pages, it could be a problem for mainspace pages. I think that it's easier to suggest improvements for articles using sections on a talk page. I would be more in favor of having Article Comments if it had kept the talk page. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 20:26, March 14, 2011 (UTC)
Support - I believe that article comments would be useful for articles. Users could use the comments to discuss the subject of the article, while using the talk page to discuss changes and improvements to the article. It would also be very good for Fanon pages, since users could review the Fanon. Of course, there would be a problem with vandalism, spamming, and profanity... :/ —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 23:25, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
For clarification, if comments were activated, the link to the talk pages would be disabled. You can't have links to both comments and talk pages enabled at the same time; though the talk pages will still exist, they would have to be linked to manually on all pages on the wiki. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 23:27, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
I know, but at least they would still exist. Also, if they aren't linked, then the more experienced, mature users would probably be the most to use them, making them productive. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 23:43, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
I doubt that... likely people would just forget that they exist. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 23:47, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
Opposed unless it was only activated in the Fanon namespace if possible. It would look too much like a blog and I wouldn't want to lose the talk pages. --a_morris (talk) 23:40, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
On that note, I asked on Community Central about the ability of activating comments on certain namespaces. The people who responded seem to think it's possible, but suggest that we send a Special:Contact to staff to have that done since we ourselves don't have the tools to limit comments to a single namespace. Since I've heard from multiple people that this may be something we'd want to look into, I'll start a discussion about activating comments in the Fanon namespace over on the Fanon Portal t.p.. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 23:53, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose, because it might have seemed cool at first, but this won't really help improving how an article looks. Even worse, if there are many comments, the article will take ages to load on slow browsers.
Oppose - After thinking about it, this might not be such a good idea (understatement). There would be a lot of vandalism, spamming, flaming, and many other problems. It would be a good idea to activate them on Fanon articles, but that's about as far as I'll go. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 22:09, March 19, 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - I do not believe that having article comments on articles in the mainspace would be a good idea for the reasons stated by the members above. --Bleeh(talk)(blog) 03:07, April 2, 2011 (UTC)
No. From someone who is an admin on an encyclopedia-oriented Wiki, you have got to see how many people abuse this daily. This gives IP's and vandals IMMEDIATE access to spam, vandalize, attack users, etc. --BobNewbie talk • blog 08:23, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
In relation to the point that Bob made, it is harder to patrol article comments. If someone made an inappropriate edit to a talk page, anyone can simply revert it whereas if someone made an inappropriate comment, only an admin can deal with it and there could be a chance that an admin has other things to do in RL and they're unable to deal with this immediately. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 10:02, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
The first of several style guides, The Sims Wiki:Image guidelines is ready for community discussion. It was complied from guides on Wikipedia and WoWWiki. Duskey wrote the section on categorization. --a_morris (talk) 01:10, March 18, 2011 (UTC)
If this is the first in a series of guides, then I think we need some reorganization to our policies and guidelines. I'm not sure what this would look like, but I might suggest that we break up The Sims Wiki:Policy and recategorize things... this may also include adjusting the templates as needed. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 01:15, March 18, 2011 (UTC)
One step at a time. You can see all the guides I am working on in Category:Proposed policies. I would like to get the image guideline approved as soon as possible as it is already being linked due to the merge with Duskey's write up for the categorization previously at Help:Categorizing images. --a_morris (talk) 16:16, March 19, 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I found this wiki recently when I was looking for a list of tracks used in Sims 1, but apparently a complete list (i.e, all the game music, not only the 15 tracks that have been published in the official soundtrack album) was nowhere to be found. The closest I got to that was this: http://gsthemes.freehostia.com/sims1tracklist.html.
Now, I've been an occasional contributor to a few wikias, but a much more active Wikipedia editor, so I created an article there: The Sims Original Video Game Soundtrack. I think Wikipedia articles can be imported here, so if you feel it might improve the coverage of that topic on TSW, feel free to do so.
I also would like to ask any fans of The Sims 1 music to help complete the table on that page, since several of the tracks lack title and composer info.
Update: I managed to track down a few more entries, only 3 are missing metadata now :) Please help out if you can! --Waldir 05:19, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
Fanon cleaning up and articles for deletion[edit source]
Since we have many poor quality articles on the fanon namespace I think we could take an action, like advising the creators?! I still think it's too early to start deleting articles, but if they remain like these for long a discussion about it could be started on Candidates for deletion talk, of course I think we should first speak to creators, I would be heart-broken if anyone warned me about deleting one of my fanon articles for example, so we should hear the users first. Also I think fanon clean-up template could include the category "Articles requiring a clean-up (fanon)" to make it easier for navigation and locate poor-written fanon articles. I hope these suggestion are helpful. Thank you for reading. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 12:47, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
I agree fully. Sorry I can't respond more clearly, little busy, but I agree with you! --BobNewbie talk • blog 17:49, March 27, 2011 (UTC)
Howdy all! I wrote a message on a Wikia helper talk page over at Comm. Central regarding getting our inactive bureaucrats removed. The response they gave me, however, has led me to re-evaluate our policies... Here's the message:
Personally I would encourage your community to get rid of that rule, seen as how inactive admins don't hurt anyone so long as there are active admins around too. That said, since that's not what you were asking (even though I do still encourage it), I would let those people know about it and start a community discussion about it as well. In that community discussion, you should also make it clear that it's a consensus vote—essentially a request for removal of user rights for these individuals. That way the community has a say on whether or not they actually want the rights of these individuals to be removed. - Brandon Rhea<helper />(talk) 06:22, March 27, 2011 (UTC)
Anyways, I think he may just have a point. After all, what is the purpose of the inactive admin policy if not to encourage constructive activity? The policy as written doesn't really care what you're doing so long as you're doing something.
So, we have some options open to us. We can keep the policy as-is, then reach community consensus on whether or not the bureaucrats should be removed. We can revise the policy to make it somehow less reliant on just raw activity (thereby encouraging focused activity), then require all admins/bureaucrats to adhere to that policy. We can just scrap the policy and work without it entirely, in which case all admins and bureaucrats can disappear and not return.
An inescapable fact is that people will come and go. Largely this wiki's initial administrative team has departed, as has the wiki's original contributor base (with exceptions). This is acceptable and unavoidable. The question is, though, why we can't just add new administrators without worrying how many are here but "not here." What do we want to do about this? -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 19:21, March 27, 2011 (UTC)
I would remove the policy,because what's the point in removing the rights,you should only remove rights when they're abusing them.--CookieMonster888talk 20:04, March 27, 2011 (UTC)
We could get rid of the rule, but if the admin and bureaucrat don't edit for more than 1 year they could be removed from administrator template, since they aren't working for wiki any longer. Thank you. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 20:13, March 27, 2011 (UTC)
I agree that we should scrap this; but I also believe that we should do something about admins who almost never edit, yet they say they are "active", when all they do is edit their userpages and make minor edits in the content namespace. This is happening on a lot of wikis, and quite frankly its getting on my nerves how people promise to use the rights to do good, but barely do anything at all. But yeah, the inactive admin policy can be scrapped, and I agree with the thing about them being removed after a year like Guilherme said. Just put a template on inactive admin's pages, to notify users not to contact them. --BobNewbie talk • blog 04:53, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
Here's what I was thinking, if we were to go with a 'change the policy' approach; Make a rule where each administrator manages a certain project or initiative and all administrators must have a project to manage. Make it so if an administrator doesn't manage their projects well or don't keep up with them, they'll be removed. This would force admins to stay active in productive matters in order to maintain administratorship. I haven't worked out all the details, but that's roughly what my idea is. We as a community can decide, contrary to Wikia helpers (no disrespect to them all), that we like the idea of holding administrators and bureaucrats to an activity requirement. The impression I get is that there is general support for some kind of rule saying that admins should be active, but that the rule as is isn't the best it could be. My idea to fix that is just one possible idea, and there are many things the community could decide to do. So let's get the creative juices flowing! -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 06:48, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
Good idea Lost, though I do think we should allow one admin to do multiple stuff; but must do each to the best of their abilities. If they need to leave for a while, that's fine, but to many leaves sadly mean that an admin's rights should be revoked. Also, I think we should encourage users to nicely' say if they think an admin is not doing their job right, and we can go from there. --BobNewbie talk • blog 13:04, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
I'm alright with this but however, I'd recommend that we have a couple of administrators to each "task" in case one has to leave for RL reasons (such as edcation). Also, I think that if it is clearly noted on a user or user talk page that the admin will be away for a while due to RL but will be returning, then we shouldn't revoke their rights as sometimes, we have to let RL take a lead. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 16:32, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
There's been a recent issue with how to label sims in the Family Bin, specifically Svetlana Baker. How should we label these sims with regards to their neighborhood and playability? Thank you for your input, PlantsvsZombies 01:26, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
Well, if the Sim/family in the family bin is neighborhood-exclusive, like the Singles household in Strangetown, their neighborhood would be labeled as Strangetown and their playability would be playable. For the Sim/family that appear in all of the neighborhoods, like all of the family bin families in The Sims 3, their neighborhood would be labeled as Family bin, and their playability would be playable. However, all of them would have to be placed (manually or automatically) in the Category:Family bin families and Category:Family bin Sims. The same goes for pets. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 02:52, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
That makes sense, thanks for clearing that up for me! PlantsvsZombies 17:44, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
Actually, "Family bin" is a playability status (a subcategory of Playable) not a neighborhood. If a Sim is not neighborhood exclusive the neighbor parameter should be left blank in the infobox. See The Sims Wiki:Project Sims/Manual of style#Playable vs. Resurrectable. There was a problem with the Bakers because in the body of Svetlana's article it implied that they lived in Sunset Valley. That information has been removed. --a_morris (talk) 03:26, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
Okay, after looking at the original consensus, I realized that a merge with the Fanon Wiki wasn't officially proposed, just discussed. So, I am officially proposing it, because I believe that a merge would be very beneficial for both wikis. TSW has a much higher traffic rate, more activity, a much larger number of users, and is generally more well-known than the Fanon Wiki. The Fanon Wiki has a very low traffic rate, less activity, a smaller number of users, and is potentially less known than The Sims Wiki. This has also become very bad recently, due to the creation of the Fanon Namespace. So, since we now have a Fanon Namespace, a Fanon Portal, Fanon admins, Fanon policies, templates, and categories, I think that a merge would be a lot easier than it would have been before. Also, with a merge, The Sims Wiki would gain more articles, users, activity, and have a larger community. Likewise, The Sims Fanon Wiki would gain more articles, users, activity, traffic, and their articles would have a much larger chance of being read. And, although users criticize the articles at the Fanon Wiki, we would be able to remove the ones that don't meet our standards, while keeping the ones that are "decent" and above, adding a lot more to read on the Fanon Namespace. So, a merge would be great for both wikis.
If we do decide to go on with the merge, LiR helped me think of two possible approaches:
Approach 1: Our admins and Fanon admins will go to TSFW and export and import the articles and files that meet our standards and policies. Then, the admins and FAs will notify the authors whose fanon does not meet our criteria and encourage them to improve their fanon before it is deleted. After a suitable amount of time, we will export and import the articles that have been improved. Then, we will encourage the Fanon Wiki community to move here, and request a deletion of TSFW.
Approach 2: We will export and import all of the articles from TSFW and tell all of the editors there to move to TSW. Then, we will close down TSFW and have it redirect to TSW, and give users a suitable amount of time to improve their fanon before it is deleted.
If a merge reaches consensus, we will choose one of the possible approaches; the two above, or a much more desirable approach if one is found.
- Support - some slight hesitation. Maybe we could elect new Fanon Admins that come from The Sims Fanon Wiki? I'm just a little bit hesitant about inspecting, moving and exporting 1,500 pages, but I'm okay with the merge in general. --Zombietalk • blog 19:59, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
- Strong Support - also, we may need some TSFW users to become fanon admins like Bob said but we can decide that later. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 21:11, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
Weak Support - I originally completely supported this, though now I feel as if this is being forced on us. I do not believe that continuously "introducing" this proposal when there has already been discussion about it is okay. --Bleeh(talk)(blog) 21:16, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
- Big TimeOppose- PlantsvsZombies 01:56, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
Strong Support - I completely support it, I mean, why bother having a fanon Sims wiki seperate from this wiki. -XoTulleMorXo (talk and contributions) 03:02, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
Comment - This isn't a show of support, opposition or neutrality. This is simply to make sure all are familiar with Wikia's policy on dissolving wikis, as would be the case with a Sims Fanon Wiki merge (since the content of the wiki would be moved off simsfanon.wikia.com in its entirety). Wikia under most cases will not delete a wiki (as would be the case in a merge) unless the community at The Sims Fanon Wiki has abandoned the wiki and has made it clear their intent to move to another wiki. Therefore, it's not simply the matter of this community agreeing to it, but a matter of making sure that practically every user on TSFW moves over here before we can even think of asking Wikia to close it down. From a logistics perspective, this is nearly impossible, but that shouldn't necessarily affect any user support or opposition for the proposal as it stands. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 06:16, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - It will be good for their wiki and they will gain exposure, but their clientele will come here, some of which may make fanon that is of short length; wrongly classified, etc, which we will have to fix up. With this in mind, my vote leans towards oppose. Also, most of the users there are inactive, and I honestly think it would not benefit us at all. --WoganHemlock(talk) · (blog) 07:44, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so I'm a little disappointed with thelamppost and DarthCookie's activity levels, though I don't doubt that they may return and start working hard. Auror, meanwhile, is doing a outstanding job and I'm proud to see her working as hard as she is. But, sadly, it's not enough.
I've seen that we need to delete a lot of not cleaned-up pages that have been requested to be expanded or improved by their creators. First, you must find the pages. Then, check their history and see how long they've been that way, then delete them, then give notice to the user. This is a painstaking chore that must be done, and I don't think it's fair Auror should be the only one doing it. Auror can also not be on 24 hours, every day of the week. Fanon admins should also be working with each other to promote new ideas and such, which Auror is forced to do more or less alone (but I do thank users such as RandomRanaun for their hard work with the Fanon namespace templates and policies).
Now, I have two ideas, one has already been mentioned above.
We ask certain users, who admins on The Sims Fanon Wiki can recommend, to join our Wiki as admins. This will be a whole different kind of RfA, more like a Recommended for Administratorship thing, which we can sort out later, but for now this is the basic proposal. This will get us some users who are specifically skilled with Fanon. I have some doubt that many of the users there have Wiki-text skills, but I'm sure we can find one or two.
Opening the admin requests again and this time being a little bit stricter with who is chosen or not (which we should have been, but we can use Tabula Rasa).
Scrap the "Fanon Admins" idea and just make Fanon a task certain, if not all admins, can work on. This is my favorite idea.
What do you guys think? Thanks. Zombietalk • blog 17:14, April 7, 2011 (UTC)
OK, what I think is that the first idea is not a real good idea, as we have no idea what a new user with admin powes could do. Think about it: if you were new to a wiki and were an admin, what would you do? We should keep the fanon admiin idea, as that way we can have users who are dedicated to the fanon aspect, and will not have other things to worry about, as would be the case in point two. Personally, I think we should open admin requests again, but have a set criteria admins must reach, e.g. set time on the wiki, main namespace edits, fanon expertise, etc. --WoganHemlock(talk) · (blog) 07:55, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed that many users here are still making edits to articles for The Sims Medieval, mostly by putting up information that has already been recorded on The Sims Medieval Wiki. I think the pages to most medieval articles here should be merged with and become redirects to the pages on The Sims Medieval Wiki to cut down on the redundancy. Thoughts?--Bunnyboi 09:56, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
Um, no. This is the Sims wiki, after all, so we should contain information about any of the Sims games on here. -XoTulleMorXo (talk and contributions) 00:34, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. I think that TSW should keep it's TSM articles, improve them, and add new ones. We should be able to provide articles with general information about The Sims Medieval, while The Sims Medieval Wiki could provide articles that have much more detailed and in-depth information. Spheris mentioned an interwiki links system that could link the TSM articles here to the articles at The Sims Medieval Wiki. I would like to keep our articles, but use the interwiki links, or, if that doesn't work, an "External links" section, to link to the article at TSMW, which would hopefully be more detailed than the article(s) here. —Random Ranaun(Talk to me!) 00:44, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
We should keep our articles on Medieval, as it is a sims game, plays out similar to sims games, and even uses the Sims 3 game engine. However, we should have articles on general topics. That is, things such as walkthroughs, extremely specific information such as the NPC names, etc, should be left to Medieval wiki. --WoganHemlock(talk) · (blog) 01:36, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
I think it's pretty hard, in one breath to accept that the Medieval wiki is and ought to be allowed to be separate from TSW, then in the next breath insist that we should cover in any semblance of close detail, information applying to that game. Having anything other than redirects to TSMW only serves to belittle TSMW as a source of information on the game. It's also horribly inconvenient to shuffle users over to TSMW only if they need detailed information, as it's apparently not important enough to ensure that this information is somewhat accessible because - let's be honest - no one is going to bother to click the interwiki link to their wiki or bother to go there if we have even some of the information they want.
I also see a tricky issue in making sure that the TSW medieval articles don't get too detailed. People, especially those who have played Medieval but don't necessarily know of TSMW, are obviously going to contribute to those pages and try and improve them (since under the idea being promoted here by some users here, these articles would not be as detailed as a user may need them to be), meaning that eventually we're going to have articles that are as detailed as TSMW's, thus eliminating their usefulness.
The simplest and fairest thing we can do, for the editors of The Sims Medieval Wiki and for the readers, is to treat TSMW as the source of information on the game aside from the very most trivial and superficial (similar to our description on SimCity) and redirect everyone over there for that info. That way, TSMW maintains its usefulness and doesn't stagnate, and we don't have to constantly dumb down our articles to keep in line with the "Some detail but not too much detail" doctrine that is being advocated for by some. I support the original point being made. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 06:53, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
But SimCity and MySims and all those other games play out so different to the sims. It is obvious we don't cover them, as they have no real connection. The Sims Medieval, however, is very similar to the Sims 3. While I want to be fair to them, I also think we should cover the topic in some depth. We should keep the articles such as game information, hero characters, and other important aspects. However, very specialised information such as this page should be left to them. --WoganHemlock(talk) · (blog) 07:40, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
Having read the votes so far, it seems that users want general information on The Sims Medieval here on TSW. Now we need to decide on what counts as 'general information.' I think the only information general enough would be the article on The Sims Medieval itself, which lists the core mechanics, classes, and information on the game but nothing more specific. What does everyone else think?--Bunnyboi 09:33, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
I would argue that TSM plays differently than TS, the major difference being the open-ended sandbox design of The Sims versus the RPG focus in The Sims Medieval. And I would additionally argue that it really doesn't matter a whole lot because in the end, we get to decide what we do and don't want to cover, and since we know that the information will be covered on another wiki anyways, it's as easy as editing the other wiki that covers the game. This is something we haven't dealt with before because, honestly, there are no other wikis covering The Sims games (except MySims) so we've never had to share. Sharing isn't a bad thing! I think this community being obstinate about belittling the role of The Sims Medieval Wiki is really setting an awful tone for the future of the TSW / TSMW relationship.
To Bunnyboi's specific point; I think that, while we ought to be broad, having only a single article for the game is a bit too broad. I don't advocate for giving nearly as much detail as other people here, but perhaps in addition to a page on TSM, we also have pages for Hero Sims and other general topic pages... nothing specific as to people, NPCs, weapons, quests, or anything of the like. Exactly how many articles this works out to be, I do not know. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 14:35, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
I think the point made by Bunnyboi is selfish. If The Sims Medieval Wiki don't want to merge with us, I respect it, but I don't think we should just have general information on here, we don't have to narrow our articles just because a part of The Sims Medieval community doesn't agree with a merge. I think we could have The Sims Medieval game's articles just as detailed as possible, still we could have links to The Sims Medieval game, but narrow our information about game since we have already agreed to cover it, sounds to me selfish. Thank you. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 14:49, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
Guilherme, you were the first person to agree with me that we should take down articles here on TSW and move them to TSMW. May I ask why you changed your mind and now refer to me and the idea as "selfish?" Competition is bad for both wikis and letting it thrive just so TSW has more articles seems the more selfish option.--Bunnyboi 15:27, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
IMO, the selfish accusations should stop now, but I really think that The Sims Medieval pages should stay here, because everybody is going to look here for the info first. Seriously, competition is bad for both Wikis, but we discussed a merge and it was opposed, and The Sims Medieval pages should stay here. Like LiR said, sharing isn't bad. And Bunny, this will bring "your" (though it belongs to all of us) Wiki up and "ours" (again, all of us) slightly down, and we have little reason to do that instead of just sharing, or just ignore each other in a way. --Zombietalk • blog 16:18, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
Some people are going to look for the information here first. But, by simply placing redirects, their searches will automatically bring them to the much more in-depth pages at TSMW. The merge was cancelled, but that doesn't mean TSW and TSMW need to be competing or that anyone wants that competition. The merge was opposed simply because people believed information on The Sims Medieval should be on its own wiki. Yet people here on TSW are putting up information on The Sims Medieval that's already been recorded on TSMW. By putting up redirects, we would actually be improving both wikis.--Bunnyboi 17:06, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
I like Spheris's ideas of using interwiki links. I hope that TSMW will gain visibility now that that game is out, and people can write about it, but we still have a higher profile. Done well, I think it might even increase their visibility, since it would increase the number of links to them, and seeing links here might make people aware of them. Dharden (talk) 16:43, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
Oh! I see I made myself unclear, Bunnyboi, my "yes" din't mean an agreement really. And I actually have to agree with point, I see my argument was selfish, yes it was. Both options appear to be negative, which one is worst? I don't know. Thank you. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 17:57, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with LiR. Sharing isn't a bad thing. Also, Spheris' idea of inter wiki links seems like a good idea. --WoganHemlock(talk) · (blog) 23:14, April 13, 2011 (UTC)
Also, I would just like to say that it's impossible to have articles on one wiki redirect to another. Redirects only work on other articles on the same wiki, not a different one. —Random Ranaun(Talk to me!) 03:14, April 14, 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect. Rather, hard redirects (i.e. automatic ones) do not work, but soft redirects do when the wikis are linked together. This is similar to a redirect from the English Sims Wiki to a wiki in another language, as is demonstrated here. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 04:27, April 14, 2011 (UTC)
We need a page for requesting bots. CM888Talk? 18:51, April 18, 2011 (UTC)
Not really. We don't need any bots ASAP, and a request page will make requests flood in. A morris's talk page works well enough for requesting bot tasks to be done. --Zombietalk • blog 19:01, April 18, 2011 (UTC)
Before deciding if we want a page on this wiki to request a bot, let's ask ourselves - do we really need any bots? As said in Bob's point above, obviously we have A bot which can do quite a lot for the wiki. While we may want a bot for something like image maintenance or something, we only need one. Also, having this page may cause some users to request a bot which could be a potential spambot. I'm not supporting or opposing this at the moment, this is merely just a comment but I do feel that we need to think whether it is worth it or not. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 19:06, April 18, 2011 (UTC)
If you want a bot, I'll try to help you make one, but every, or many, users having access to receiving a free bot and maybe fries on the side could be messy. Besides, I doubt Wikia would flag every bot that comes from The Sims Wiki in a short amount of time. If there's something A bot can't do that you want, just look for the script and request A morris to add it, if Wikia bots work with scripts. --Zombietalk • blog 19:13, April 18, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, if Wikia did recieve loads of requests to flag bots on this wiki, they would probably think something was up. Also, I think A bot uses AutoWikiBrowser, which can do plenty of work anyway. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 19:17, April 18, 2011 (UTC)
Let's just keep using A Bot, and use A morris's talk page to request tasks. Besides, I really can't see many tasks that need to be performed by bots at the moment. --WoganHemlock(talk) · (blog) 01:35, April 19, 2011 (UTC)
The minimum age required to register for Wikia is 13. Anyone who is under this age may get globally banned. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 17:42, April 21, 2011 (UTC)
i Would like to complain about Abuse from user[edit source]
http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Simul8or shows user named GG Talk abuse me by leaving Warning and removing references to my Facebook as I want 100 frends from Sims Wiki and GG Talk stop me. please Do something about GG Talk Simul8or 20:14, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
This isn't abuse. GG is just doing his job. You aren't supposed to make articles asking to add you on FaceBook. That is considered spam, something that is unacceptable here. Please stop or you will be banned from The Sims Wiki. —Random Ranaun(Talk to me!) 20:23, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
his Job? arent people block for removing things from Sims Wiki? GG remove all references to me and Facebook. how Is he supported? Simul8or 20:27, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
Facebook does NOT have anything to do with the Sims series. If you want to write about it, make it in a blog instead. Oh and you can't move your talk page from the user namespace and first you would have to contact wiki team. Thank you. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 20:32, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
i did Make a blog and GG deleted it for spam/advertisement and should be punish Simul8or 20:38, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
That's because you have already referred facebook too many times, what you're doing is spamming. GG shouldn't be punished for anything. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 20:41, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
so removing stuff from page is punishable but Removing facebook Blogs isnt? GG is abuse rights and should be punish Simul8or 20:49, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
But the problem is you have been spamming and spam must be deleted from wikis, while articles are not spam. GG will not be punished for obeying to our wiki's policies. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 20:57, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
Simul8or, one of the things The Sims Wiki is not is a social networking site. We are not here to provide a place for users to promote things like their Facebook pages. A link on your userpage is OK -- that's why we have a userbox for it. A mention of it in your wiki-blog is probably OK, but spammishly using the blog to promote the FB page and/or troll for FB friends is not, and that is what you have been doing. Creating mainspace articles for the purpose is definitely not OK. GG has not been abusing you, but has been doing his job as an admin. Dharden (talk) 16:25, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
admin? how Did GG become admin? i Am being serious Simul8or 20:35, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
GG became an admin because he is one of the most experienced and trustworthy users. He knows exactly what do to in many situations. In this case, it means deleting your "Facebook" articles and blogs. It is against our policies to create pages and blogs that are just for promoting this, like your Facebook page. All we allow is a link on your userpage. Anything other than that is considered spam/advertisement, and will inevitably result in a block. —Random Ranaun(Talk to me!) 20:50, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
• (c) • (b) 21:44, March 26, 2011 (UTC)
• (c) • (b) 21:27, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
