The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 16

Archived page

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Archive Pages for The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal:
1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20

Eliminate Player Stories

I'd like to propose that we eliminate Player Stories from Sim and character pages on the wiki. My reasons are as follows:

1. The content added to these pages is more often than not of poor or very poor quality, is sometimes profane and unacceptable, and is nearly impossible to moderate in its current size.
2. The Fanon Namespace has been created, which allows for users who wish to write about the goings-on of their Sims to do so without using an article sub-page.
3. Contributions to Player Stories pages are very very often not signed and quickly forgotten by the author and by everyone else.
4. The number of player stories contributors is very low - most users do not contribute to these pages.

Thoughts? -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 01:05, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

I agree. For the record, they are subpages, and don't go towards our article count, so I see no problem there. --WH ^(Talk) 01:06, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

I also agree. Player Stories pages are usually overlooked, and because of that, they are often of horrible quality. Users abandoned their stories, and many are very short, inappropriate, and just... bad. Now that we have the Fanon Namespace, I believe that the Player Stories pages are unneeded. —Random Ranaun ^{(Talk to me!)} 01:15, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, even though player stories are not that controllable we should remember that no all people are allowed to write their own stories, for these people player stories is still a good way to share their gameplay, but a new policy could be applied regarding this matter. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 07:30, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

I agree, though fanon Sims work a bit different than player stories, as player stories actually uses premade Sims or townies. But it's true, the content are poor and badly organized. Every story is random and made-up by users. I mean, who wants to read Mortimer Goth's player stories all the way down? We should only keep theories for certain Sims, like Bella's disappearance or Olive Specter as murderer. Nikel23 07:50, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

Guilherme, what did you mean by "Not everyone is allowed to make fanon"? If you are referring to anons not being able to, I think they should just make an account. --WH ^(Talk) 07:54, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that's why authors never sign their stories. They could be anonymous, not regular users. Oh yeah, having player stories page means number of Sims times two, because nearly every Sim has this. I dislike wasted pages. Nikel23 07:58, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the Player Sstories pages are subpages, and don't go towards the article count. (You know, the one that says x pages on this wiki, above the activity feed.) --WH ^(Talk) 08:01, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

Mmm. I don't know...what about the occasional good quality story? Some users worked hard on making them, and I don't see how we're going to be able to notify every single one of them to tell them to make a page or lose their work. Aren't some people going to be negative upon finding out their stories are gone? Zombie ^{talk • blog} 09:29, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

Most users forget about their player stories, so I don't see an issue there. As for telling them the stories have gone, we'll just have to accept that it would take far too long to do so. --WH ^(Talk) 09:37, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with Bob, and I think this is a very harsh suggestion, yes I meant anons in the previous comment Wogan. I disagree that users forget about their player stories, I have actually seen many completing it and ending it, I do not think people forget that easily, if this is approved, I think there will be a significant number of users with a "broken heart". --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 10:44, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

Us eliminating the pages wouldn't be done in secret. If we end up eliminating the pages, such action will be announced long before any deletion actually occurs, to allow people who have stories they'd like to save the opportunity to do so. Any person who visits the wiki even semi-frequently (and therefore, a user that is more likely to care about the story they wrote) will have the chance to move it to the Fanon namespace or save it onto their computer before we ever delete it. And while I admit that every once in a while there is a good story there, these are very few and far between and, in my opinion, don't justify us having the pages and in having to manage such a vast amount of content. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 11:25, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

If we can give people a while (and by a while, I mean half a year) to 'save' their stories, I'll support this. And Wogan, some people still come on, and leave with the thought 'hey. I wrote a story! Now it'll stay and people can read it forever!'. They might forget it, but when they added it, they didn't know that it wont stay forever. --Zombie ^{talk • blog} 11:59, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

I don't suppose users esp. anons would remember they've made a player story if they don't even sign their names. I believe they won't even visit the same Sims' player stories. It just doesn't make sense if they play the same Sims but make different scenarios, I mean, who wants to play Goth family over and over from beginning? Whenever they made a player story, they shared it there, didn't sign the story, and it will remain there not updated and forgotten. Nikel23 16:01, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

Nikel, I have some things I disagree with. Like I said: they might not have bothered remembering because they thought that it would be there forever and that they've did their part. And almost every new Wikia user I know doesn't remember to sign, or is just oblivious to the fact. Just because they don't/don't know how to sign doesn't mean they don't care about their stories. I play the Goth family and the Wolff family almost every start of a game if I don't make my own Sims because it's a preference. Plus, I have another problem with the play stories being deleted: even if they did come to retrieve it, and still want it on the wiki, what if it just isn't enough to make a Fan fiction page with? A few paragraphs is a lot on Player Story pages, but is normally a low-quality fanon page which will be deleted soon. So, users might get upset that their stories, which used to be fine, is now 'low-quality fan fiction'. Even if they care about the stories, what if they don't have the time to make a quality fanon page, yet still want the story to be available for people to read? Zombie ^{talk • blog} 18:35, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we should abolish the Player Stories pages as their only contributors are anons and they can easily create an account to create fanon. I've even seen one fanon article based on a canon Sim in an imaginative way and is a more detailed article. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 19:35, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Bob, player stories shouldn't be deleted due to the reasons he mentioned. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 19:47, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with Bob. So many of these people aren't even registered users in the first place. Although there are some exceptions, most often anonymous users don't stick around unless they actually register an account. If these people didn't do that, then the odds of them even coming back to their player stories is pretty low. Also, half a year? That is an astronomically long time... I would say 1 1/2 to 2 months at the very most. If a user doesn't visit here at least once every two months, then they probably don't care much about their story. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 19:50, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

(added more). Another point brought up that I'd like to address. Guilherme pointed out that anonymous users can't create fanon articles - that's true. However, one added 'benefit' of this is that users who wish to make those sorts of stories then register an account. Once they do that, they're much more likely to 1) become active members of the wiki and 2) improve their story and keep it up to date, both of which are very good outcomes. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 19:52, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

Still, every being has a right to remain anonymous. It's like we're telling them "create an account, or your story isn't allowed here". Get what I'm saying? --Zombie ^{talk • blog} 19:54, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

But LiR remember that people do not add their player stories to always improve them, as many of them end the stories they write, they won't check them to improve it as it's ended, I think that's understandable, so deleting those stories is for me a bad option. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 19:56, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

Idea: We could archive them all, possibly? Zombie ^{talk • blog} 20:00, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

What's the point in short stories? The whole point of a story is something that's interesting to read - if all we have are thousands of "This Sim got married, had some kids, and died," stories, then quickly player stories become very boring to read (which they currently are). Just like fanon stories have a minimum length requirement, I think all stories should, simply for the sake of the story itself. Since so few player stories existing now ever hit that threshold, I think they should as a whole be ditched.

(added) I don't think we should archive, because most of them honestly aren't good enough to save. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 20:03, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

I support the archival idea. Archiving would promote better organization and more efficient keeping. Professor 09:58, November 3, 2011 (UTC)

But LiR, boring is your opinion many people may not see them as boring (excluding the ones like "Hannah got married and then had a kid"). Thank you. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 21:34, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

At first, I felt strongly towards this, but now I'm not so sure. I think, while this idea is good in theory, it would be really hard to implement. I'd say that we should look through and get rid of a lot of them, i.e. the bad ones, but that would be incredibly tedious and time consuming. I'm starting to think, "If it's not broken, don't fix it." I think we should just leave the system as-is. --WH ^(Talk) 09:23, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

Still, we can't compare which is good and which is bad if we want to get rid of bad ones. Since no issue was made... what's actually the real problem happening? The reasons LiR stated are not real problems, right? Nikel23 11:01, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

They are problems, because we have a large volume of very poor material sitting on our wiki. Is that something we should just continue to ignore because it would be difficult to fix? I say no. If we can't get the authors to improve the quality (which would be impossible considering how many authors there are, and over the period of time they were written) and we can't spend the time picking out good stories from bad, then the last logical option is to delete the pages.

Here's my honest thought on the matter. I don't think anyone is going to care. I think that certain people are really concerned that all these users are going to cry and be very upset if they player stories go away, but I am willing to bet that few, if any, of these users will even give it a second thought, especially if we have a period prior to deletion to allow story recovery. The bottom line is that the player stories pages are shamefully bad, so bad that there is no hope for improvement, leaving us with only one justified solution - delete. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 13:23, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

I do not think so. My final position on this is weak oppose. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 13:53, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to say Neutral. --WH ^(Talk) 07:14, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

For me, Player Stories should definately be deleted. They were useful once upon a time, but now with the Fanon Namespace, it is unlikely they will ever be needed again. And, as it was pointed above, nobody even actually reads these stories, so, how can anyone care?. So, I'm saying Strong Support. \_Andronikos Leventis ^Talk 13:00, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't say it any better than Andronikos just did. Strong support. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 13:08, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

Somehow, Fanon has its own weakness. The main difference I could seek is the simplicity. Making a fanon page is complicated and not simple, and it will be hard especially for beginner users who are not really good at editing pages yet. On the other hand, player stories can be used as simple means to share the stories, and it could be a good editing beginning for all beginner users. Some new users who prefer sharing their stories will be more likely to make player stories than articles, so player story is a basic and simple way for them to start their editing experience. I'm sure it will be recklessly written, but that's better than they edit an article, right? Nikel23 15:49, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

Due to Nikel's reasons I am going to change my position to oppose. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 18:25, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

I do want to keep the player stories, but, I do want to eliminate all player stories that are left unsigned. Ѧüя◎ґ 18:48, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe we should make an eye-catching noticeboard or template so that writers actually read the template to sign? The current template is boring and contains too long words. Nikel23 02:18, June 7, 2011 (UTC)

I have read through the comments again, and have changed my opinion to Weak Support. --WH ^(Talk) 07:40, June 9, 2011 (UTC)

My position is Strong Support. Let's face it, according to Wikia, stubs should only make 1/5 out of all pages on a Wiki. This includes other namespace pages and sub-pages. Since many player story pages are unedited and empty (mainly for townies, NPCs, and deceased Sims), our stub count goes way over the limit. And what's worse? The player story pages that are longer than stub-length are of horrible quality, with bad language, spelling, grammar, and punctuation. They are also near-impossible to maintain, due to their length. Users do not sign their stories, and, come on, who really cares to read them? Player stories make our wiki look bad, and therefore, should be removed. —Random Ranaun ^{(Talk to me!)} 02:34, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Weak support. --Bleeh^{(talk) (blog)} 02:39, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

What I have determined so far: three users (Andronikos, Random Ranaun, and I) are in strong support, two users (Woganhemlock and Bleeh) are in weak support, Guilhermen Guerreiro is in opposition, and Auror has opposition to deleting all player stories (which for the purposes of determining consensus would count as an 'oppose'). I wish to wrap this up before too long, so I'd encourage everyone to give their final thoughts, and would encourage users who have not spoken up yet to speak up within the next five days or so. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 06:23, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

I change to full support in eliminating player stories. Ѧüя◎ґ 06:33, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

Even though, many of you are right about player stories quality, I think we should respect the users who have made the stories who thought they would be there forever, also we are also guilty about player stories quality since we didn't control them from the beginning, nor we did make a policy very strict to these player stories, so I suggest instead a new policy, eliminating all player stories seems to me unfair for me and for users who didn't make stories with profanity or bad language, and even if we have time to save the stories in our computer before they get deleted, many will not remember all the stories. It's unfair. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 11:48, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

What would be the new policy that you're suggesting? And as well, how would you enforce it on the hundreds of stories that have been completely abandoned by their authors? -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 15:05, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

Of course many of them have been abandonned because many users have already ended their storires, I just think it's unfair to delete them altogether, a new policy being more strict with the player stories could help. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 15:14, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

You're saying... you're remaking the player stories instead of deleting it? Sorry if I don't get the point. I'm clueless over time. Nikel23 16:03, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

Nit exactly remaking them, but kind of, I know it would be hard, and I do not know how to do it, though I' think on it. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 16:07, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

I am in full oppose of deleting player stories. I just feel it's wrong to delete them, as nobody ever gave any guidelines except for the user to sign them. Even if they didn't sign them, nobody ever did anything about it, when we actually should have. I would feel, like Guilherme said, guilty that they were removed when people thought, no matter what the quality is, that they could entrust us and leave them here. And for a whole bunch of other reasons states above. BobNewbie ^∞(Talk)∞ 16:58, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

I was missing the word, what I meant was guideline not a policy, we should have given guidelines from the beginning, and the player stories not having good quality is partly our fault, because we did not care about them. For users who are in the beginning it's so much easier to write a player story rather than making fanon, and also player stories are for users who want to tell their pre-made Sims stories, though they can create a fanon about a pre-made Sim, I don't think they understand that message, as there are very few fanon pages about pre-made Sims or so. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 17:20, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

I support per all of the support votes above. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 17:36, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

Alright... I've noticed player stories only seem to be posted every few hours, they aren't that popular. So why don't we maybe delete all the current stories, and simply moderate all future story submissions? We could add it to tasks for administrators with the Fanon admin project. Other than this, I don't see a way around this. --WH ^(Talk) 05:40, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, will the Theories pages still remain if the player stories are deleted? BobNewbie ^∞(Talk)∞ 10:22, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so, they're pretty much player stories too, and have the same isses as well. --WH ^(talk) 05:26, June 23, 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't, because player stories and theories are different! Theories are only in certain Sims. If player stories are deleted, we won't have as many issues in theories, right? At least so. Nikel23 06:23, June 23, 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward

This issue seems to have stopped being discussed, so I've done my best to figure out what's going on. Although strictly by the numbers, it appears that only two users who voiced up are vocally against these deletions, I think even some supporters may be somewhat hesitant to go along with this, even with votes of support. Therefore, what I'd like to do is shift away from the idea of deleting all player stories, at least for now, and instead focus on a different issue.

It is a fact that we have over 1000 player stories pages that have no stories on them. A lot of these pages are for NPC Sims or very obscure Sims that don't get a lot of playtime. What I would like to propose, in lieu of deleting all articles, is for us to delete all empty Player Stories pages. We can adjust the Sim template so that the link that appears is no longer red (but still says 'create player stories page') but the Player Stories pages won't exist until someone wants to use them.

Deleting the empty pages means that no stories get deleted and we massively decrease the number of pages that sit empty and unused. Thoughts? (I want discussion, I do not want votes right away). -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 06:13, July 3, 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, good idea. Maybe change the text to "player stories" instead of "create player stories", as sometimes new users are hesitant to create pages. But, other than this, I see no issues with what you are proposing. --WH ^(Talk) 07:46, July 3, 2011 (UTC)

Subpages don't count in number of pages in wiki, right? And if one of the issue is to remind people to sign their stories, maybe the {{Player Stories}} template should be redesigned to be more attractive. If their stories aren't signed, then it will be likely to be deleted... or so. Nikel23 09:04, July 3, 2011 (UTC)

The issue isn't so much player stories being signed, but more what to do with the empty page. But, yes, we need to try to get them signed somehow... --WH ^(Talk) 00:09, July 4, 2011 (UTC)

Alright, this discussion has stopped for a while, but we should come to a conclusion. I say delete. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 15:29, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

I'm slightly hesitant, but I'm going to say delete as well. ~>ฬђ ^{(tคlк ★ ς๏ภtгเ๒ร)} 10:15, July 21, 2011 (UTC)

I'd say delete. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 10:41, July 21, 2011 (UTC)

If we delete all empty player stories, even if we do change the color of the link, wouldn't they still count towards our list of Wanted pages? —Random Ranaun ^{(Talk to me!)} 14:23, July 21, 2011 (UTC)

While I am also hesitant, especially when it comes to player stories quality, I would say not to delete. --Guilherme Guerreiro(talk here) 14:27, July 21, 2011 (UTC)

I say Not to Delete. The Wiki is an informational, helpful place, for players of The Sims Series. I personally read a lot of the player stories, and I also frequently add my own. I am newer to this than most of you on here so I honestly didn't know there were general expectations for Player Stories. I admit that I have submitted a few short, sloppy stories that mainly focus on the names of the kids I made the Sims have (that's what everyone seemed to be doing, ;) ), but after reading this discussion, I understand what is expected of these stories. Player Stories, in my opinion, are nice to read once in a while and have actually inspired me to get more creative with my game. I agree with Guilherme Guerrerio's earlier posts saying there should be a policy, though.

P.S. What is the Fanon Namespace? It sounds interesting. Simrose101 20:37, July 23, 2011 (UTC)

The fanon namespace is a part of the wiki where a user can write about their own Sims, lots, neighborhoods and even their own fan fiction articles. It provides a lot more freeedom than the player stories feature and some have even written in-depth stories about pre-created Sims there. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 20:41, July 23, 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to remind everyone that when we talk about deleting or not deleting, we're not actually deleting content at all. The only thing on these pages is a template - that's it. Not a single user would lose a single contribution, not one letter of player stories would be deleted. The only thing this proposal would do is delete the empty and unused player stories pages. - LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 23:26, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

I say delete the empty pages. I think that articles about sims are more important than empty unused player stories. Though, I'm not saying that we should delete Theories pages. El cobaya^{talk here} 13:45, August 7, 2011 (UTC)

I think we dont need to delete it, player stories can prevent people to do insert a nonsense/vandal into the main page because we have a place to write their own stories. but i do agree that unsigned stories must be deleted.--Wir.wiryawan 14:38, August 7, 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with you, Wiryawan. Player stories only help beginner editing, but don't prevent vandalism. And any stories will not be deleted as LiR said. I say Delete. Nikel ^(Talk to _me!) 11:22, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, LiR has left but this issue hasn't been resolved yet. Will it remain abandoned? Nikel _Talk 08:55, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

I know, discussion has been dried up. I'm hoping something will happen soon or it will become archived next time the page is cleared out. ―ฬђ ^talk 08:57, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm quite late on this discussion regarding deletion of the player stories, but I support the deletion fully and if this idea hasn't already been brought up, maybe delete the player stories and create an archive for all player stories ever written. Although I am all for deletion.

DarthCookie ^Talk 16:47, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

I Strongly Oppose this as otherwise the fanon pages will need a bit more moderating and arguments such as you stole my sim!

I strongly think that player stories enrich the life of sims and i love reading them and sometimes see how players disagree with the story line. "so don't delete palyer stories"

After looking for uncontrollable edit on the sims 4 prediction forum, i realize that the player stories pages is have the same case like that forum. too many player stories page and very difficult to maintain it. some anon user even delete template, replace another player stories, or vandalize it. so i support to delete it.

I recommended we begin the consensus because the discussion already long enough. and want I ask opinion another admin about this. Wir.wiryawan 05:00, November 24, 2011 (UTC)

Wait, is this discussion for admins only? If so, then sincere apologies, but if not, I myself have reservations: the Player Story subpage in its current format is a bad execution in my opinion, yes, but the problem is that a simple deletion will do us no good, and the alternative of using the Fanon space much less useful, because there is going to be multiple instances because there is only one name (well, unless you got that patch that allows you to change the name, that is.) and cause many confusions in the search space. I'd suggest making subpages of the Player Stories: I myself read plenty of the player stories, and although many are of bad quality, some are either quite detailed, and in other cases, tie into their own story as well. We might just need to prune the anon contributions, and/or categorize them into a separate subpage inside the Player Stories subpage. Mathetesalexandrou 16:59, December 1, 2011 (UTC)

Requesting Merge

Hey there! I'm an administrator at the Sims Medieval Wiki, to my understanding, The Sims Wiki and Sims Medieval wiki were in the process of a merge awhile back. In my opinion, there is no benefit to having two separate wikis for very similar topics. That is why, I would like to propose a merge. Our community in the Sims medieval wiki is VERY small and is decreasing. We currently have 478 articles of good quality, recently we received a wiki spotlight due to our efforts. As the Sims Medieval Wiki community decreases, I highly doubt we will have any new articles for awhile.

The Sims wiki would benefit from this merge, as the remaining of our community would move over here, along with the pages of the TSM wiki. Therefor, I would like to ask if this would be possible

Kind Regards,

Life Matters

We only just had a proposal for this not long ago, and I feel nothing would have changed. Not only that, but a lot of the content on the wiki is not of the best quality. I'm in opposition to this. ―ฬђ ^talk 04:10, October 10, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm of the same opinion as WH. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 06:48, October 10, 2011 (UTC)

I oppose this proposal, for the reasons Wogan pointed out. --Bob ^๑ 17:15, October 10, 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the above points. I think both wikias would benefit a merge, but this is up to to The Sims Medieval wikia to decide. --RoseGui (talk here) 17:25, October 10, 2011 (UTC)

i think its ok to merge, even the TSM only have medium quality article. he have many user here right? so medium quality article should not become a problem because im sure many of our user here will improve it. with 2 wiki merge and the article improved, the sims wiki article collection will become more complete. :) Wir.wiryawan 14:44, October 11, 2011 (UTC)

Also, with all the "stub" articles, it would encourage more users to edit, and expand the articles. Life 22:06, October 11, 2011 (UTC)

I fully oppose to this, as we declined a request to merge not long ago and I don't believe a merge would be in the wiki's best interests. --Bleeh^{(talk) (blog)} 22:14, October 11, 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree with a merge. Keeping the two wikis separate would, in no way, benefit either TSW or TSMW. TSMW's activity and community is falling, we should be there to help, and a merge is the best option, in my opinion. TSMW's content would receive much more readers and editors, and TSW would receive a multitude of TSM info. By the way, it's not that sensible to oppose a merge due to the quality of TSMW's content, given that TSW hardly has any TSM content. Any type of content would help, and if we take the time to actually improve the content, I see a bright future with this merge. —Random Ranaun ^{(Talk to me!)} 22:19, October 11, 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that this is the closest TSMW has come to discussing a merge on their wiki. Even if we all agree to a merge (which doesn't look very likely at this point), they have their own opinions too and we should respect that. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 23:05, October 11, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, but I prefer O Positive! (Talk) This Plasma Pack tastes fool!11:36, October 12, 2011 (UTC) I personally agree with the merge. I don't know why The Sims Medieval wiki was created in the first place, do be honest. Both of the wikis will only benefit from the merge. Of course, I respect the opinions of the users of TSMW, and if they oppose, I will also oppose here.

I'm open to the idea if the community at TSMW decides it's what they want. Dharden (talk) 17:19, October 12, 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, there really is no community there. Most editing is done by ip's and users who edit for a bit and leave. Not only that but most of the articles are of terrible quality. It would take so much work to bring them to our standards it would be easier if we just made completely new articles. ―ฬђ ^talk 05:38, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see why in order to restore the community in TSMW, they have to merge with this wiki. If there isn't any community activity there, this just means our community will be done without their work. Nikel _Talk 12:58, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

Vote

We may as well gain some general consensus, considering the above discussion. Given that TSMW doesn't have much of a community, it looks like it is our call.

---

Oppose - Purely because we had a discussion about this not too long ago which resulted in the two wikis remaining separate. I doubt another discussion will change anyone's minds too much. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 23:04, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

---

Strong Oppose - Poor quality content, discussions before this against it, no community there, etc. We'd be better off making the content ourselves since the quality there is simply terrible. ―ฬђ ^talk 23:07, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

---

Support - Both wikis would benefit from the merge, and since TSMW's activity is falling behind, I agree.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andronikos Leventis (talk • contribs) (UTC) - Please sign your comments with ~~~~

---

Oppose - This wiki already serve some general information about TSMW, and adding more articles related to TSMW game mechanics and gameplays will make this wiki page more confusing for having very distinct theme. As for the community, it's pretty much like my above comment. TSMW will contribute nothing to the community while they share the goodness. Nikel _Talk 12:58, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

---

Strong support - I don't think this really should have much to do with the activity of their community or the quality of their articles. The Sims Wiki should strive to provide as much information as it can about all the games we cover, including Medieval. Having a separate wiki for it only makes it harder for wiki users to find that information, and makes that wiki even harder to keep active (as we can see). If we're looking out for the best interests of the average wiki reader, then combining them really is the best option. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 14:40, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

---

Strong support - per LiR. —Random Ranaun ^{(Talk to me!)} 05:38, October 27, 2011 (UTC)

---

Support - i think its better to create 1 wiki for the entire sim series, about the poor quality article, im sure we can improve it and it is better for us because we dont need to create those article from zero again. Wir.wiryawan 04:17, October 28, 2011 (UTC)

---

Strong Support - I also support the idea both wikias to merge. I think the activity will increase. Alex9400 ♦³ :-) 08:56, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

---

Strong support - per reasons stated above. Cabecote 12:28, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion

There's 6 supporting a merge and 3 opposing a merge. So, it looks like we're merging! :D —Random Ranaun ^{(Talk to me!)} 07:54, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

Uncontrollable Edits in The Sims 4 Prediction Forum

That forum is clearly uncontrollable for edits from anywhere, mostly from unregistered users. I myself found no attractiveness of the forum itself, as my opinion would be flooded and stacked by others, but somehow it's a big attraction to anons. The forum itself is completely neglected. Sometimes they even put some impossible or nonsense inputs for the prediction. Sometimes they even said about things that would raise the game rating (which is of course, nonsense as well)! Yet, no admins have taken care of this. Should we just let it remain unsteady and not maintained? Should we delete it and disappoint everyone's work? Duskey's blog is still worth reading. Nikel _Talk 14:30, November 16, 2011 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that the "abuse" is so much that it ain't even worth moderating in its current state. I don't see much harm in deleting it but if it is decided that the forum will be kept then I'd like to suggest that we start from scratch, incorporate some sort of moderation and (while potentially counter-productive) possibly protect the page from anonymous users. Either way, I think those two suggestions are reasonable. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 21:35, November 16, 2011 (UTC)

I think we should cleanup the forum of nonsense edits and spam. Profanity should also be cleaned up. I also think that unsigned posts should be deleted. And, GG, I think we shouldn't protect the page from anons. It is our major attraction, but it is as attractive as a junkyard. And I don't think this is the way we want this wiki to look... but I believe deleting the page is a step too far. 21:41, November 16, 2011 (UTC)

I think cleaning up the forum will be very painful to us because too many spam, nonsense, etc. i have try to clean up couple month ago and i cant take it anymore... lol. my suggestion is we lock or delete the forum, then create a same forum. but the important thing is the new forum must be protected from anon user! so it will not flooded like the old one. Wir.wiryawan 01:27, November 17, 2011 (UTC)

It's their freedom to share their ideas, even if it's nonsensical (and sometimes nauseous). However, the forum is in high traffic recently, so I agree with protecting the page temporarily. In the meantime, it might also give us little time to clean it up. But the other problems are, abusive comments, and the huge number of mess. Nikel _Talk 14:07, November 17, 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I'm surprised the forum header is still there...only not at the top. Anyway, I think that the best solution (judging from the above responses) is to simply start a clean slate and try and maintain "tidiness" and simply remove any nonsense added to the forum. In regards to the protection, it is indeed unfair to block /all/ anons from editing the page and I think that any protection we add to the page to aid the cleanup/"rebirth" of the page should be temporary if it is to be added at all. We could start within the next few days if everyone else is happy. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 20:44, November 17, 2011 (UTC)

This blog reminds of my Authoritarian city in SimCity Societies. When it was in distress and Anarchy. We should begin the cleanup now before it's too late. This is issue is big and fat and a bleeding wound for our wiki. The fastest we get over with it, the better. 09:30, November 19, 2011 (UTC)

I'm still confused... Start a clean slate... means that we should make a group of selections to be erased? And what to be erased is the nonsense ones? How should we even decide which is nonsense, by feelings? :-/ Nikel _Talk 16:21, November 19, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Might not be a bad idea to archive the page from time to time when it's overfilled (if someone else hasn't already suggested it). Vss2eip^{talk here} 13:37, November 20, 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, we can protect the page so only registered users can edit it, and then start a clean-up on it. This has already been said, though I'm just stating my position on this matter. I can start cleaning it up today.

DarthCookie ^Talk 17:00, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

For now, I've just archived it. I think it'll make itself a brief timeout. If anyone would do an action or give an idea to this, just do it. I think I'll just leave it there for now. Nikel _Talk 12:03, December 26, 2011 (UTC)

Page protection

Not to long ago, an anonymous user deleted a lot of pages related to the The Sims (series) ex. The Sims: Ambitions. This "incidents" happen from time to time. What I have in mind is to protect the pages related to The Sims games (if not all of them), so that only registered users can edit them. Thoughts about this? Vss2eiptalk here 13:42, November 20, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think protecting a page from anon user is a good idea, because wikia is open for everyone for edit. Beside many anon user adding many valuable information for this wiki too like on the sims social page and I think is not fair if only 1 or 2 anon user vandalize this wiki, all anon user forbidden to edit the article right?

We already have many user with rollback right, so it doesn't matter because we can revert it back if something happen and if someone spot anon user vandalizing, just report to any admin here. I think all admin here will be gladly blocked them and protect the page for limited time if the vandalism happen in a row. Wir.wiryawan 14:35, November 20, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to sound so negative but I think that suggesting such a move is severely jumping the gun. A wiki is for anyone to edit; protecting every game-related page limits who can edit a wiki. As Wir said, we do have anons who make good faith edits and it is unfair to lock out all anons because of the actions of a few. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 15:14, November 20, 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not. Keep in mind that not all unregistered users are vandals. The point of a wiki is for anyone to edit, like GG said. It wouldn't be fair to remove that right for many users, just because a few of them have vandalized. Besides, the page is always in the history, and can be easily reverted. It's not a big deal. —Random Ranaun ^{(Talk to me!)} 00:49, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

Administrators

I am slightly concerned about activity levels with regards to administrators. I've noticed that 4 administrators have gone inactive within a short space of time: two resignations, one can be accounted for and one who hasn't appeared in any shape or form for over a week. Plus one administrative project is completely empty. This situation has got me wondering one thing, should we reopen Requests for Administratorship?

I'll admit that I feel conflicted on whether this should happen or not. I am happy with how the current active admins are controlling things here so that *could* eliminate the need of more administrators but it's a community decision rather than mine alone ;). Having more admins *could* ease the workload but the ultimate question is that if we reopen RFA, how many admins do we need?

What do you guys think? Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 18:55, November 21, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think we should and I think we maybe should not. We should open RfAs due to WH and Bob's absence, but I don't see someone inn our active community that would fit well in an admin's position (including me). We're in a tight spot. DanPin • talk • contribs19:04, November 21, 2011 (UTC)

That's kind of what I was thinking lol. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 19:08, November 21, 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe we need more admins, I do think that Administrative projects are very inactive at the moment. --RoseGui (talk here) 20:55, November 21, 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember who is the 4th absent admin. I agree with DanPin. Let's see... if we just open the RfA, nominees will draw in and we can start the consensus whether he/she is eligible or not. For me, that's not really wise, but that's how vacancy works. IMO, someone can be mutated at the moment, but he/she has to volunteer him/herself. Nikel _Talk 09:55, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is I dont think we need a new admin for now. Because in our active community, I dont see someone is ready to become one. And about one administrative project it is required admin with high knowledge of css thing, etc and I think WH fit for it. Wir.wiryawan 11:35, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

I think we should open up two slots in the RFA and just relax and see who will be most fit for the newly available positions. I'm all in favor of opening them up, of course.

DarthCookie ^Talk 17:14, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

FYI I'm back, I just was in the horrific world of no internets. (and it might be a good idea to open it up, but that said, idk if anyone who wants adminship is still out there now). ―ฬђ ^talk 05:59, December 1, 2011 (UTC)

The two admins who disappeared have now returned, so I'm pretty relaxed on this issue now. I no longer see a need to open RfA but if anyone else thinks we should then I'm open to discussion. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 11:58, December 1, 2011 (UTC)

Add Friends and Enemies to Sims Template

Hellos.

I was thinking..... around that can we add Friends and Enemies to the Sims's characters Template, maybe right under Families? Maybe doing this can be better then just posting them like "Lady Cook is also friends with Alan Stanley". Look at the pic Below. Jones143 ^:DD

That's not a bad idea at all, but with the number of Sims that have already been premade, it's going to require a lot of effort. o_o --TDIFan13 ^{(My Talk and My Contributions!)} 04:35, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

I dont thing adding that on the template is fit, because the template has limited space. for popular sims with many friends and enemies, that will be a problem because the template will be crowded. i think its better to add tables like memories table that RR made for sims page. :) Wiryawan310 05:03, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think using the tables that RR created would be better for this. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 07:50, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I think relationships wouldn't fit templates. Relationships fit the tables way better in my opinion. Thank you. --RoseGui (talk here) 17:56, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

I also disagree with adding them to the templates. As TDIFan13 pointed out, updating the ones in existing Sim articles would require considerable time and effort. Also, it seems like it would make the template more crowded. IMO, it'd be better to use tables or just leave well enough alone. Dharden (talk) 18:32, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

Per the above comments, it would make the template far too large. ―ฬђ ^talk 06:10, December 1, 2011 (UTC)

SisterWiki with SporeWiki

Greetings citizens of the Sims Wiki, I'm Um2k9, and I'm a sysop on SporeWiki. After consultation with users both on the #sporewiki and wikia-sims IRC channels, I thought it would be a good idea for our two wikis to be more closely linked. For example, SporeWiki has a SisterWiki section on its main page, which gives links to wikis regarding a franchise related to Spore. I thought that The Sims was a perfect candidate for the following reasons:

• Both series are, (or began as) a Maxis created series.
• Both have easter eggs about either franchises, from paintings of Spore in the Sims, to the llama references and Simlish in Spore.
• Spore was originally known as SimEverything.

I hope the users of the Sims Wiki agree with this proposal.

-- Um2k9 - Something Wicked This Way Comes... 22:29, December 3rd, 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this affiliation. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 22:31, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

I support this all the way. —Random Ranaun ^{(Talk to me!)} 22:35, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

On SporeWiki we found linking it to its sister sites increases the activity a bit, as new users can easily access them. I believe, while both these wiki's are active, we will have the same beneficial effect for either. Wormulon Talk to me 22:50, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

Fully agreed, we can both benefit from this affiliation.22:43, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

Great, I've asked our resident coder to add a feature showing the Sims Wiki as a sisterwiki on the main page of SporeWiki. Hopefully, she'll be able to do it tomorrow. -- Um2k9 - Something Wicked This Way Comes... 23:01, December 3rd, 2011 (UTC)

In that case, should we list SporeWiki as an affiliate? Dharden (talk) 23:04, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

Done. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 23:14, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

Affiliates

This topic branches off of the above affiliation proposal with Spore Wiki (which was successful). Since Duskey left, we've had noone to take charge of Affiliations with other wikis/sites. It may be beneficial to appoint someone to take over this area from Duskey so that we can continue to affiliate with others. Thoughts? Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 23:19, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm not sure who should perform the job though. I don't think it would need to be restricted to admins personally, so... if anyone's interested post a note below, I guess. ―ฬђ ^talk 08:15, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

As long as whoever does it is competent and doesn't cause disruption to the wiki, I'm cool with that. If noone else wants to do it, I don't mind taking it over but the opportunity is still there if anyone else wants it. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 11:59, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

I would like to do the job, and I think it would be convenient as well, since I have the time for it and I really don't have any special tasks at the moment.12:59, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

If noone has any oppositions then Andronikos is free to take on the task. :) Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 17:52, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we need to appoint someone to take care of our affiliations, and maybe we could do more improvement in it as well. And also, I support Andronikos. ^_^ --RoseGui (talk here) 18:05, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with Andronikos doing it either, since he (presumably) knows what he's doing and seems right for it. ―ฬђ ^talk 04:13, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

This has been sitting here long enough. Approved Andronikos to take on the task. :) Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 20:05, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

New year

Hi guys, I have an idea for celebrating this new year. what if we have an "exchange gifts"? We all play the game right, just upload and share your best and beloved sim for everyone on this wiki to download. you can put the download link on your userpage. What do you think?

note: btw is my idea break wiki tos? Wiryawan310 15:24, December 14, 2011 (UTC)

Awesome idea! But we need to host the files somewhere. And I doubt Dropbox is a solution for that. And I don't have a sims3.com account (I hate official sites!), so... no exchange for me. But you should put that in the community portal. 16:18, December 14, 2011 (UTC)

Note: Copied from the admin portal. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 19:22, December 14, 2011 (UTC)

I'm kind of neutral with this as it is a good idea that could work well provided that a significant number of users take part but it seems to be the whole thing with hosting that causes the most confusion. Whether we go ahead with this or not is fine by me. sig}} 20:00, December 14, 2011 (UTC)

This is my idea how its work, if someone want to join, just put your userpage link here. you can put the download link on your userpage with new header like My New Year Gift For You. the download link can come from your page at the sims 3 website or 3rd party web hosting but if you use 3rd party web hosting, make sure it is free for everyone to download. you can share what you want, a sim, a pet, an object, a household, etc. up to you. the gift is start at 25 december until 2 january. after that, the download link must be removed. what do you think? Wiryawan310 01:15, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

May I butt in? Personally, I'd love the idea, but like Andronikos, I don't have an account to official sites either, although I'd be happy to do it in other fashion, such as Mediafire, or even direct mailing. (This is the community portal, right?) Mathetesalexandrou 01:24, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

Yup, you can host it like on mediafire, this exchange gift is for everyone on this wiki so of course you can join! :) Wiryawan310 02:03, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

Good idea! As long as we actually get people submitting something I think it will go pretty well. And as for downloading, I'm not sure, but you might be able to download stuff from thesims3.com, but I haven't been there for a very long time, so I wouldn't be sure. ―ฬђ ^talk 09:12, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

Mediafire probably is the best place for this as it's free and easily accessible. I don't trust EA servers in the slightest. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 09:21, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

If everyone agree with my idea, I will create a blog to announce it. but now I still waiting for others to comment. :) Wiryawan310 09:32, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

Does Mediafire, require an account? I hope not, otherwise I will use something like... I dunno. 20:23, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

It seems a very interesting idea. (: --RoseGui (talk here) 22:01, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

nah, mediafire dont need to create a new account, but if it needed, you can create for free. Wiryawan310 01:16, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

And of course... Before I share any of my sims I'll need to translate my sims' names into English (because I use the Korean locale) Mathetesalexandrou 01:31, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

I have created a blog to anoounce it! :) Wiryawan310 09:02, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

Users KnucklesTheSim and RandomWikiaUser1680

Moved to Talk:Admin Portal

Moving this to Talk:Admin Portal, which is where I meant to post it. Baa! Dharden (talk) 14:06, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

RandomWikiaUser1680 (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) claims to be KnucklesTheSim (talk · contribs · editcount · block · modify rights · logs · block log) under a new name. However, KnucklesTheSim is not blocked, was never blocked, and on one occasion (http://sims.wikia.com/index.php?title=Lyla_Grunt&diff=prev&oldid=284693 ) actually removed profanity from an article. IMO, this is notable because RandomWikiaUser1680 is currently blocked for vandalism and profanity. I am not 100% certain that the two users are in fact the same person. Anybody else have any ideas? Dharden (talk) 13:50, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

I don't doubt that KnucklesTheSim, way back in August changed their name to RandomWikiaUser... but based on KTS' good behavior, I would definitely lean towards thinking that their account was somehow hacked, or perhaps some sibling got a hold of their account. It just doesn't fit their previous behavior at all. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 13:55, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Dharden (talk) 14:03, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

Moving this to Talk:Admin Portal, which is where I meant to post it. Baa! Dharden (talk) 14:06, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

Are These Articles Worthy?

I stumbled upon some old pages and saw numerous of them lack updates. However, that's not the point of this discussion. Apparently, there are some, if not many, articles that, in my opinion, don't warrant their own pages. These articles include unpopular custom contents such as Easter Bunny, Mermaid, and Hack Conflict Detection Utility; as well as mentioned Sims from objects in the Buy Mode, such as Lancing Witthmee and Comte LeClair. I've deleted some of them.

These unpopular CCs are pointless, at least for me. For example, mod like Easter Bunny only adds minor feature, which we can't find anything mentioning about in any other pages. After all, they don't fix any bugs that were left by EA. FFS debugger is good to write, for instance, as it fixes many infamous bugs from TS2 games. For the mentioned Sims, we already have List of minor Sims page. Even though I still don't think they are worthy enough to be said in there.

So, what action should we take? Should we just delete if any other found pages like that? Should we discuss it first? Or mods and mentioned Sims should stay? Nikel _Talk 06:16, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Well, with sims who are only mentioned in descriptions I'd just put a mention of them on the list of minor sims page, and as for the mods I'm not sure, mainly because I don't know if we have any set guidelines on player made content. That said, if we did get rid of the articles on mods there'd be a whole lot of other pages which would be deleted as well, pretty much this whole category, as well as this one too. I'm thinking we should keep the pages on mods but not on the minor sims as people might be likely to be looking for some information on mods, but are very unlikely to be looking for information on a sim only mentioned in one buy mode description. ―ฬђ ^talk 06:24, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

After all, I don't intend to delete all custom contents and mods, but just give them consideration. IMO, a page like List of Mods is a good place to keep those minor CCs and mods. It is hard to define which mods and CCs are important and which are not. Nikel _Talk 06:37, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

I dont think each individual ordinary object warrants its own page. because if they have their own page this wiki will have more then 100000 pages like Comte LeClair. Object that warrant its own page is only object with special feature that can affect the sims game for example cow plant from the sims 3 store.

About CC, I strongly disagree that they have their own page on this wiki. they are fan made and NOT official from EA. Our wiki only add stuff that originally from EA right? so all cc here doesn't warrant its own page.

Now about Mod, I think we only give a mod that help players to fix the game from glitch. example like to awesomemod that fix many glitch on the game, etc. this is needed because the game from EA has annoying glitch! but if the mod only add additional gameplay, tuning, etc like Easter Bunny, it will not accepted on the wiki because they are not official from EA. Our wiki only write that originally from EA so all mod that only add additional gameplay, tuning, etc doesnt warrant its own page.

That is my opinion :) Wiryawan310 07:24, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps things like the Hack Conflict Detection Utility are best covered in a list of tools. However, popular or not, it is (IMO) a must-have for Sims 2 players who use hacks and mods. Dharden (talk) 13:15, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

I have undeleted Hack Conflict Detection Utility on the grounds that, if it is to be placed on list of tools. the information about it needs to be available. Dharden (talk) 13:22, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

A "must-have"! That's a better term to use than "popular"! Exactly, Wir. Fan-made CCs are unacceptable, unless they are made by EA themselves, such as the running scissors, pinball, and Cowplant. About mod... so we define them as a "Must-have" instead of popular, well-known mod? Nikel _Talk 13:12, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

Well known is not same with must have, so they are unacceptable. must have also must be described, because people perception is different, 1 people can say must have but other can say no. This is my opinion about description of must have mod, a mod that help player to fix glitch on the game or help to fix broken features that already on the game but not function properly. only that. :) Wiryawan310 13:18, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

Well, at least I thought it's closer to importance. Now the hard part is to decide whether a mod is important or not. Nikel _Talk 13:41, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

Nikel, the two are not necessarily identical. I would think that many mods which are well known and popular are not truly essential, even if they are often useful. Wir, we do mention the dangers of mod conflicts, so I think it is proper that we mention tools designed to detect mod conflicts.

We do need to mention that any lists of mods or tools we create will be incomplete. I don't think a complete list of mods is possible, and anyone who wants a reasonably complete list of tools can go to SimPrograms. However, we can say things that others will not and/or cannot. Dharden (talk) 13:57, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

Curtis Paradis

I guess there's one more page in question. Should we keep Curtis Paradis page? It's was supposed to be discussed for deletion. Nikel _Talk 09:11, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

I agree to delete this page because its is not related with the game. Even curtis has strong follower and his creation is great, he just ordinary sims player like everybody else, not related with the game, publish his sims game video via youtube like many player else. Wiryawan310 18:38, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

Fully agreed to delete the page. I don't like that guy, personally, but I can build great lots too. Still, I'm not gonna get a page here. The page is written like (and basically is) and advertisement, and therefore I agree with it's deletion. Perhaps we should search for more similar pages. 19:58, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as the person that initially created the page, I made it because he's a notable player. I would think that having a page about a player that creates content is similar to a player that creates mods (such as a page about J. M. Pescado, who created the site More Awesome Than You and the AwesomeMod) - where do we draw the line on who we should/should not cover? That said, I've deleted the page as per discussion. Remember that we have Category talk:Candidates for deletion for discussing page deletions. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 22:45, January 18, 2012 (UTC)

I nominee the page for deletion too because the author doesn't warrant its own page, but their creation. Wiryawan310 03:20, January 19, 2012 (UTC)

Note: Please see the Candidates for Deletion talk page to discuss articles nominated for deletion. - LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 03:28, January 19, 2012 (UTC)

Page protecting and vandalism

I've noticed what seems to be a noticeable uptick in the number of pages being fully or semi-protected recently. I know a lot of these initiatives are done in the vein of 'preventing vandalism,' but I'm concerned that it's getting to the point where articles are being locked, sometimes indefinitely, when there has been no serious increase in the amount of vandalism being perpetrated on the page. Simply because a page has been vandalized multiple times doesn't mean that the page suffers from excess vandalism... this is especially true on popular pages - the more popular a page is to readers, quite obviously the more popular it will be to bad faith editors. That's not necessarily a reason to prevent good faith editing by anonymous users, in my opinion.

Additionally, I've noticed some pretty uneven application of protection to certain templates, especially the main page templates. Now, I for one don't support sysop protections for any of the main page templates (just like the main page itself isn't sysop protected), but even if that were alright, the fact is that not all the templates are equally protected. For example, {{Featured Article}}, and some others, are sysop protected, while {{Contents}} and {{Battles-mp}} (and others) are only semi-protected, and {{Random Quote}} isn't protected at all. I would suggest that all these main page templates receive the same level of protection.

Finally, I've noticed the use of protection by administrators for administrator user pages and archives. I have to disagree with this use of administrator powers for seemingly personal benefit - regular users don't have the luxury of protecting their pages, so unless an admin can show just cause why they need page protection (i.e. someone consistently vandalizes their page), I don't really agree with admins protecting their own user pages, as it seems to be an abuse of powers.

To conclude my questions/rant, I'd like to address what I see as a growing anti-vandalism crusade here on the wiki. While we all know that the goal of dedicated users, especially our admins, is to keep the wiki clean and reader-friendly and to weed out bad-faith editors, I think some people are losing sight of what is truly vandalism. Let me quote wikipedia (from Wikipedia:Vandalism):

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page.

Vandalism is prohibited. While editors are encouraged to warn and educate vandals, warnings are by no means necessary for an administrator to block.

Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful.

I'd like to focus on the last paragraph here. It's easy to say that every detrimental edit must be vandalism and that all vandals should be handled swiftly, but we stand to lose a lot when we act that way, without considering whether an editor is simply misguided as opposed to deliberately seeking to harm the wiki (i.e. the difference between bad faith and good faith). I'd perhaps go so far as to suggest that some users ought to tone down their anti-vandalism speech, and accept that vandalism is the natural by-product of having an open wiki. I for one would gladly accept a little (ultimately harmless and easily undo-able) vandalism if it means having a project that is inviting to everyone, even new users who don't necessarily know any better.

Tl:dr - please stop over-protecting stuff, and please don't paint everyone who makes a mistake as a ruthless vandal that needs to be stopped at all costs. End rant.

-- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 09:18, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

I've just looked at the protection log and it does seem out of control. WH and myself are currently (at the time of writing) going through to see what does and doesn't need to be protected. For even the smallest thing, 1 month is too long...assuming it needs to be protected at all. One little bit of vandalism doesn't warrant indefinite protection, even if it's happened multiple times over a long period. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 09:37, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

I've managed to work out how to unprotect via AWB... long story short, I'll have cleaned it out mostly by tomorrow, if GG hasn't beaten me to it. ―ฬђ ^talk 09:45, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

It's a lot cleaner now than it was (after I flooded the protection log). I have a few ideas in my head on how to control how protection is applied but I'll save them as I build up the concept... Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 10:08, January 10, 2012 (UTC)

Fanon pages getting cleanup tags too soon?

From what I've observed, new fanons (especially considering the recent increases in new fanon pages) generally get the cleanup tags not long after it goes up: for example, a page was tagged about an hour and a half after the page was created, despite the fact that the page was new and it had the construction tag as well. Personally, this was the reason for my choice to stick to the userspace until I deemed it to have a reasonable amount of content to be able to stand there without being tagged up for cleanup, especially in the light of the fact that some of the fanons have a good chance of being taken care of by the author, and related pages are getting worked up to be of acceptable quality. Mathetesalexandrou 19:40, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

And speaking of that, many of the fanon articles with the construction tag don't really need the construction tag: the evolve tag is a better tag IMO, and some are not being changed and the construction tag really doesn't have a place in recently untouched articles. Mathetesalexandrou 19:56, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious as to whether the admins have some sort of 'rule of thumb' regarding when they tag fanon with {{Fanon-cleanup}}, and how long they wait after tagging for cleanup before they delete unimproved pages. I definitely think 1 1/2 hours isn't long enough to wait, especially if the page was tagged under construction. I would guess that a lot of creators make the page in its basic form (without much information), then come back after their pages are created to add the info and to polish it. My main concern in all of this is how quickly low-quality fanon is being deleted... would any admins have any idea of how long the wait is before cleanup-tagged fanon is deleted? - LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 22:27, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

If I see a new fanon page, I'll tag it f it doesn't meet standards for me. Usually that is no infobox, formatting errors, etc. I usually check the page history before I delete it, generally I leave a week after I tag it before I consider deletion. ―ฬђ ^talk 22:42, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

I love reading fanon here and I usually tag a new fanon with fanon clean up template as a mark that the fanon still need improvement (content, story, format, etc and as my personal mark to read the fanon again in the future :p ), if the new created fanon has enough content, I will not tag it with fanon cleanup. Just continue to improve your fanon and the tag will be removed. I usually wait fanon for 2 week until 1 month after I tag it, if the author not make at least 1 edit to improve the fanon, I will delete it. :( Wiryawan310 02:40, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

Same here: I myself enjoy reading the fanons, and am quite disappointed that many of them (some of them quite old) tend to be undeveloped, and many not making reasonable progresses. However, my main concern is the fanons which have a significant chance of being developed. I haven't seen fanon deleted too quickly in most cases (to my relief), with the exception of the Oleg Nazarov page that IMO definitely was likely to be developed, since the related page Anna Nazarova made good progress. Speaking of that, LiR's got a point here: people are not going to write a 8k+ byte's worth of fanon in a single edit, and as such it is definitely going to look underdeveloped, and he hit my point and rationale for my choice to start at the userspace. Mathetesalexandrou 02:53, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

I don't like fanons, though I usually check some up. If not wrong, I never tagged a cleanup template unless it has under development template. The thing is, none of the fanons I tagged with cleanup also had the under development template. So I guess we need a new policy... for the admins? Nikel _Talk 09:26, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

It's mainly me, Wir and GG who tend to clean out the fanon cleanup category, I've noticed from going through the delete log. Maybe it would take a bit more work, but we could perhaps make it so admins must let the user know their fanon page(s) have been deleted, and perhaps tell them that we can restore them as a subpage in their userspace until we deem them as meeting standards. Thoughts? ―ฬђ ^talk 10:45, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

I say yes to the userspace idea, although I am apathetic to the idea of requirement to admins notifying users. However, I am somewhat concerned about other issues as well: the cleanup tag might be shocking to new users especially unaware of this thing and as such, it'd be a good idea for active members to make them aware of the fanon policies. There are also so many articles that have the construction tag that just doesn't need it since it's not been edited for ages. Mathetesalexandrou 01:36, January 18, 2012 (UTC)

Copyright infringement

I saw a site one day and found out that there are wikis that are copied (most contents might have been copied) from the wikis in Wikia. I was also shocked that The Sims Wikia is also copied to their site. There are some useless stuff in it.

I wrote the email to them regarding this issue. It goes:

Dear sir/madam,

I have noticed your site and found out that there are a lot of wikis in your sites. Most of them are copied from the Wikia (http://wikia.org/). I was surprised that you or the members of the site have copied everything from the Wikia and posted into your site and edit some stuff in it, which this is referred as "copyright infrigement".

I was shocked to find out that this site has copied some contents to the site (http://sims.wikia.org/). As a member of the site, I told the owner of the wiki and he is quite angry at that point. He might also write an email regarding this issue.

Copying contents from somewhere without permission is not allowed, thus breaking the rules of piracy. I am now advising you that you must remove every single wikis you or your members have posted within a week or there will be lawsuits waiting for you.

I hope you understand this email. Hope you reply back as fast as possible.

Yeah, I did some lying about talking to the owner of The Sims Wikia to convince them that I am serious.

So what shall we do for the moment?

ThomasWikia ^Main|Talk

14:42, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes some things must be said. And in your case, I'd say you shouldn't have done that. We were already aware of that, and GG made a blog about it. Such decisions are also taken by the community or the admins. In that case, we decided to ignore the copyvio. Though your intentions were (presumably) good, the results of your actions may not be quite as good. I don't know what should be done, but I insist you ought to have done some more research before you acted. I'm not sure what to think of your actions. 15:53, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

Just relax, they pathetic counterfeit facewiki will never beat the original! Wiryawan310 18:19, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not a lawyer, but I would advise you not to go around threatening lawsuits, as in some cases that can be considered harassment. Additionally, since we are a sub-entity of Wikia, the ball would be in their court if they wanted to pursue legal action - we aren't the 'owners' of this wiki, when you get right down to it, and we can't collectively decide to take legal action. If a lawsuit regarding this incident were to happen (that itself is extremely unlikely), Wikia would have to be the one pursuing it.

As far as 'speaking for the community,' I won't attack you for doing it because I think your heart was in the right place, but for the matter, don't do it. Even our bureacurats rarely, if ever, go outside the wiki and represent it as a whole - the diversity of users and opinions on any one issue is too broad for a single person to relay, unless the community were to determine the message they wanted to send and select who they wanted to represent them.

And I have to agree whole-heartedly with Wiryawan. That site is not very well done at all, does not have a dedicated editor base improving it, is not tied into the Wikia network (which, despite all its flaws, does help our wiki by bumping us up in search rankings and in directing some Wikia traffic in our direction) and it is not established in any community whatsoever. TSW is used as a reference by many players, most of whom will never edit a page on the wiki. That copycat wiki can't claim that - no one knows it exists, and it's going to stay that way. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 21:38, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

I got your point. For now I still never receive a message from them. I do agree with Wiryawan too. This is way better than the other one.

But I still do not know whether it is counted as "copyright infridgement".

ThomasWikia ^Main|Talk

12:12, January 18, 2012 (UTC)

(Note: removed links and references to the site, as they were tripping up on Wikia's spam filter. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk ~ blog} 17:29, June 4, 2014 (UTC))