So, in the process of wiki-browsing, I've noticed that many articles contain a lot of information that isn't exactly verifiable or even proven. The information is sometimes included with phrases like 'it is believed that,' or 'one theory is' or 'some players think', but a lot of these speculative phrases are more-or-less passed on as fact. Examples exist on many Sim pages, especially those with complex family webs, memories or other things. So, what I'm wondering is, since this is a wiki and wikis are meant to provide accurate information, what is the feeling about speculative statements? Do we want to include them with a disclaimer, or just not include them at all? -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 21:32, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really sure of this, but in the case for some Sims, memories are what makes the speculations. Speculation of some Sims exists because the bios, memories, skills, relationships, etc. implicitly describe that specific Sim, which leads to theories. We can't really prove existing theories or speculations such as Bella's disappearance. As for some articles, that works different. It needs source unless it's already proven in-game. NikelTalk 11:35, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Nikel. In case of townies, where we have no evidence of anything really since they don't have any biographies, memories and family ties, speculation should be automatically removed. In the case of pre-made Sims, I would say putting some of the player's theories would be OK, but we can't push it too far. --RoseGui (talk here) 13:27, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
The speculations will exist whether we mention them or not, and that they exist is itself information. Sometimes, speculation persists despite evidence to the contrary, and when it does, that should be pointed out. Sometimes, the information we're given about a Sim is incomplete or ambiguous, either intentionally or through oversight. That encourages speculation, which I see as a good thing. However, many players seem to assume that their speculations and beliefs are much more definite than they are. To say that, while many players believe "X", "X" is speculative is a useful thing, but it requires mentioning "X". Dharden (talk) 14:52, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
Maybe I can state something similar with speculations. The other speculation is, which is more nonsensical, about Sims who are assumed to be based on real world people. There's been many cases of this, but the 2 I still remember is Lil Bling who was said to be based on Justin Bieber and Tom Wordy who was said to be based on both 50 Cent and Usher (lolwut?). Is this supposed to remain on page or deleted? NikelTalk 07:04, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
February marks the 1st edition of the Newsletter under new editors (me and MTDM couldn't make one this month because there have been a couple of issues and the content couldn't be transmitted to each other) and I think the newsletter should have a new face - which it will - but the logo is kind of a bummer.
So, I made this cute little logo for our newsletter (personally, I think the "The Sims Wiki" letters could be in a different colour, but that depends on the community's opinion) and I'd like to know what do you think of we switching the current logo to the one I made. DanPin • talk • contribs 22:26, January 19, 2012 (UTC)
I think it looks cute, however, I agree that the lettering could be written in different color. Unfortunately, I don't know what color that would be. --RoseGui (talk here) 22:19, January 20, 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking about something more like our current wiki wordmark, in blue and white. DanPin • talk • contribs 22:47, January 20, 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, a blue/white color would look better, I think. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 19:13, January 21, 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I have improved the logo (the new version is where the old one, since it's a new version of the file). I'd like to receive feedback from you, so that this subject reaches its conclusion before the next edition (1st week of February). DanPin • talk • contribs 22:04, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
This proposed version is far better than the old one. Support. 1358(Talk) 23:52, January 27, 2012 (UTC)
No offense DanPin, but I don't really like it all that much. It's too different from our current Wiki logo imo. —Random Ranaun(Talk to me!) 00:11, January 28, 2012 (UTC)
That's awesome! I've often wondered why we don't just use the same type/font as the TS logo, so I think this looks pretty cool! -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 00:25, January 28, 2012 (UTC)
I like it. I think it could be improved even more if you maybe changed the font of newsletter to the same font as the wiki title, and maybe made it have a color scheme similar to the normal wordmar. Other than that, its obviously a huge improvement over the old one (as well as over the other one you made) :) ―ฬђtalk01:13, January 28, 2012 (UTC)
First of all - RR, I tried to have the same scheme as the old logo (the Wiki's name on the left, a Plumbbob in the middle and the word "Newsletter" on the right). Secondly, I chose this font for the newsletter because it is a kind of monthly publication, and several newspapers around the world, like the NY Times or the Portuguese Diário de Notícias have fonts like these. Also, making the word "Newsletter" in the Series' logo font is a little hard for me, because I basically copy-pasted the "The Sims" from the current logo and the "Wiki" from an old logo proposal back at the Monaco days. DanPin • talk • contribs 10:52, January 28, 2012 (UTC)
Who made The Sims Wiki logo again? Can't we ask him/her to create another? I hope it wasn't Bob. Though the newsletter font is based on newspaper, I think it's a bit off from the design. It doesn't really match, IMO. NikelTalk 15:18, January 28, 2012 (UTC)
It was Erry who created the wordmark, but I haven't seen that user here for a long time. Also, since it's almost the end of the month, I think we should start a vote. DanPin • talk • contribs 19:45, January 28, 2012 (UTC)
Erry's newsletter logo.
I've asked Erry to create a Newsletter logo on the IRC Channel (he's active on there, actually. :P). I like it better since it fits our current logo's style a bit more. What do you guys think? —Random Ranaun(Talk to me!) 07:10, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
We are now seeking consensus on approving the new logo for The Sims Wiki's Newsletter. Please indicate your support or opposition, with reasoning, below. This consensus period will be timed for 7 days - Remaining: 20:00:00 February 4, 2012 UTC
Please respond below to the following question - Do you consent to using the new logo designed by DanPin for the Newsletter?
Support - Since it was my idea, it's implied I support it. :P DanPin • talk • contribs20:08, January 28, 2012 (UTC)
Support - While I think that it should have a closer resemblance to the TSW logo, the proposed logo is still heads and shoulders better than the current logo and thus is still a remarkable change. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 20:31, January 28, 2012 (UTC)
Support - I like the current logo, and I also agree with Georgie. --RoseGui (talk here) 20:45, January 28, 2012 (UTC)
Seeing as RandomRanaun has submitted a logo as well, we should re-start this, if for no other reason than to avoid confusion regarding which logo is being supported.
Option AOption B
Please indicate your support for one of the following options
Option B - The logo on the right, created by DanPin
Option C - Other/none of the above (please state in your response what you would prefer)
I will re-start the countdown at seven days to allow sufficient response. Time remaining is 20:22:00 February 7, 2012 UTC
Please place your responses, along with reasoning, below.
Option A - It's more consistent with the wiki logo, meaning it's better suited for the newsletter imo. Option B is still a cool logo however. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 20:47, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
Option A - While I do like the logo I made, I agree with GG (Option A is more consistent with the wiki wordmark). DanPin • talk • contribs 21:10, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
Option B - I changed my mind. I prefer the one I created because it shares a resemblance with the series' logo and it is more" newspapery". DanPin • talk • contribs 15:40, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
Option A - Due to all the reasons stated above. --RoseGui (talk here) 22:15, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
Option A - ^^^ Ѧüя◎ґ 23:54, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
Option B - Call me an outcast, but I like this logo better. ~ MTDM00:15, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
Option B - Like a pro news letter! :D Wiryawan310 12:00, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
Option A - It matches the wiki's theme. NikelTalk 15:15, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
Option B - I could support a compromise like having option A but newsletter in option B's font. 1358(Talk) 16:01, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
Option B - More newsletter-y. ―ฬђtalk03:32, February 2, 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I think it's about time we re-open this can of worms. We've held multiple discussions on this in the past, and each one has for one reason or another fizzled out, either because of doubt that the TSMW community would support a merge, or that the quality of TSMW articles is on par with our own. I say, enough of that! Let's simply look at the facts.
1 - The Sims Medieval Wiki is dead. No one edits there anymore - Well, almost nobody, to the tune of 6 edits within the past 7 days (at the time of this writing). The last edit to that wiki by a registered contributor was by Woganhemlock on January 4, resigning as an administrator. No one edits on that wiki, and very very little new information is being added. Quantcast puts this in another perspective; montly pageviews on thesimsmedievalwiki.wikia.com are ~16,100, whereas monthly pageviews on sims.wikia.com are ~476,300, or about 30 times more. The Sims Wiki, on average receives about as many page views in a single day as The Sims Medieval Wiki gets in an entire month!
2. There is no community on that wiki. There is no one there to say either way that the wiki should or should not merge.
3. That wiki has a large knowledge base on The Sims Medieval that this wiki does not have.
4. No new expansions for TSM are presently announced to be in production. This is important to this discussion, because if a new expansion were publicly-known, more people might visit that wiki, complicating any efforts we might choose to make to merge.
Now, here is opinion. I think it was stupid to create a separate wiki for The Sims Medieval, and I think we should make an effort to bring the information from that wiki into TSW. Why? Because we should be a central source of information for The Sims series of games, including spin-off titles like TSM. We should be looking out for anyone who is looking for information on Sims titles, including TSM.
So, we as a community should reach a consensus on what we will do. I suggest that, after we decide, we contact Wikia to ask them if there is any special procedure with absorbing another wiki. Wikia is extremely reluctant to eliminate wikis that have existing communities, so we'll have to prove beyond doubt that their wiki is dead and that the information there is better suited on this wiki. Perhaps Wikia has a tool that would allow movement of multiple pages at a time, and would be able to work with us to take in and categorize those pages properly.
So, how do you all feel about finally putting this issue to bed? -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 20:37, January 21, 2012 (UTC)
I feel the exposal of these facts proves that the The Sims Medieval Wiki needs help, and its information would be suitable on this wiki since we are a database for The Sims which includes The Sims Medieval. Therefore, I agree on the merge, but we need to know how we are going to do it. --RoseGui (talk here) 20:45, January 21, 2012 (UTC)
Additional information on their administrative staff. TSMW currently has two users with sysop flags and three with bureaucrat flags (not including the bot that has both sysop and bureaucrat flags for some bizarre reason, or the misspelling of DarthCookie that was given bureaucrat flags). Of those users, the last one to edit the wiki (aside from Woganhemlock, as before mentioned) was DarthCookie (the real one) on November 23, 2011. The only administrators/bureaucrats on that wiki that are or were not also admins on this wiki are Life_Matters and God of the sims. God of the Sims is the wiki's founder, but has the fewest edits of any human bureaucrat or sysop on that wiki, and hasn't edited since November 10th.
As for the process of merging, it really doesn't seem all that complicated, at least according to this page. If it's agreed that there is not much of a community at TSMW to support or oppose anything, then the next step would be to contact the admins, bureaucrats and founder regarding this idea, and see where they stand. In the previous discussion, Life_Matters came forward with the idea to merge on both TSMW and TSW, so it's clear that he already supports the idea (though he hasn't edited in two months, so he might not be around anymore). If we decide this is something we want to look into, I can try and contact these admins/bureaucrats with the idea. In any case, we should hold off on contacting Wikia until we get our ducks in a row. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 00:25, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure how merging will work. Doesn't that mean the information and content of TSMW will all be provided in this wiki? Or is everything just more complicated? NikelTalk 09:03, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
I believe we should get what we can from TSMW, but write the articles on our own. Let's be serious; the quality of the articles there is horrid. As for TSMW community consensus, most of the editors there are actually editors here as well. 21:02, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
Merging, according to this page, involves talking with the TSMW community (or admins, if no community exists), transferring all the (wanted) information over. Then we contact Wikia (preferrably alongside admins from TSMW, just so it's clear this is a joint decision) and explain that TSMW is inactive and that our wiki can easily assume the roles of that wiki. We then request that TSMW be deleted and that its url automatically re-direct to our url, meaning that anyone that goes to TSMW's web address will end up at The Sims Wiki. As for Andronikos' point, realistically speaking, it would be easier to just transfer over the pages, regardless of quality then improve them to our standards, rather than moving the 'quality' information over piecemeal. Any poorly-written articles can be improved through editing on this wiki. I think the best approach would be to copy over every page on TSMW, with these exceptions 1) Those pages which already exist on TSW, in which case a determination can be made on which information should be kept or carried over 2) Pages that are marked for deletion on TSWM, in which case a determination should be made whether the content should transfer over or just be deleted along with TSMW.
But I feel we're straying from the point a bit - the merge is actually possible, logistically, but this conversation shouldn't be about that (yet). Before any of these questions become issues, we have to decide if we want to go down this road. And if we decide we want to pursue it, we need to convince the admins at TSMW that it's a good idea as well. So, really what I'm asking isn't how we think the merge should be conducted, but if we should even attempt to conduct one at all. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 02:50, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
Well, I for one really want this whole thing of merging/not merging to end, and as I've said before we should just build the content ourselves. Let's be honest, they have no real Manual of style, and as such, the pages are disorganised. No one edits there, so the info is out of date and incomplete, and would just make our wiki look bad. I've looked through the files on the wiki, and nearly all the images aren't licensed/categorised, which would make a ton more work. As well as that, it is very hard to get wikia to merge wikis.
So, here's my solution. We look through the wiki for pages of acceptable quality (if any) which do not exist on our wiki. This automatically means we don't import things like the trait pages. I think that the rest should just be canned and rewritten and remade from scratch on this wiki, as imo it would work more efficiently than cleaning up lots of poor quality pages. ―ฬђtalk01:29, January 28, 2012 (UTC)
I personally agree with Wogan. However, this kind of solution means we don't help TSMW at all, and instead we'll get several advantages from improving TSM articles with TSMW as the source. Though this may be not much as the lack of article management and improvement there. Short, it will advantage us more than we help TSMW. NikelTalk 15:31, January 28, 2012 (UTC)
I'm with WH on this one. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 20:11, January 28, 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. I don't think its a good idea to leave that wiki out to dry, since some people (admittedly, IPs) do still go there to look up stuff and edit. It would be better if that traffic was simply redirected here, which would mean that at some point we'd have to get Wikia to support it. And it's a lot easier to import a poorly-written page with the information already on it, then to delete the page and try to re-find the information and include it again. The job of hunting for this information has already been done for us - why would we want to delete it, only to re-write it again just because the page was poorly organized? It makes no sense to me. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 20:16, January 28, 2012 (UTC)
This topic was basically made under the assumption that TSMW is dead. And actually, it is not an assumption, it's real. After we finish we the merge, TSMW will basically have no reason to exist. It's sole purpose now is for use to use whatever info we can from the articles. There was no reason TSMW was made in the first place, as well as there was no reason we didn't start writing articles about TSM as well. Also, only God of the Sims and Life_Matters are basically users that are there and not here, so we do not kill TSM, but rather move it's contents in a place they will be seen.
I googled "The Sims Medieval wiki" and The Sims Wiki was result #3, while TSMW result number #4. The way I see it, we do more good rather than evil by moving TSMW in TSW, or at least getting whatever sort of information we can use from there and write the articles ourselves. I'm supporting WH here. It's better to write the articles ourselves, rather than just copying and then doing all the work required to improve them. 20:21, January 28, 2012 (UTC)
I would like to note that every independent editor not related to The Sims Wiki who used to be there has been inactive. --RoseGui (talk here) 18:54, February 8, 2012 (UTC)
I want to say that if this is done, this is going to be a big project. We'll have to improve a lot of information about TSM, or otherwise, they'll all need cleanups and remain stubs. This also means we need even more active users who have wide enough knowledge about TSM, and/or admins to take care of it, temporarily until TSM is stable in this wiki. As much as I know, not many people want to discuss about TSM here, or even like to play it, but I hope it will change once it's been merged (assuming the merge is successful) and people will get enthusiastic about TSM more than before in this wiki. See, it's a lot of work later. NikelTalk 13:27, February 9, 2012 (UTC)
I was digging through some of the pages in the Project namespace today, and noticed that we have over 50 project pages. The reason I bring this up is that, many of these projects have few or no members, and none of them are active. In fact, I can't remember these being horribly active, at least since Duskey was around. So, I'd like to know what we plan on doing with these pages. I see a couple possible solutions.
1) Since we want to promote regular user involvement in the wiki, we can keep these projects open and promote them more than we do currently.
2) We can perhaps eliminate redundant projects, narrowing the number down to a more manageable few projects, which can be opened to volunteers.
3) We transfer the duties of those projects to the Administrative projects that we have in place.
I know personally which of these options I would prefer, but I'm interested in what others have to say. If anyone else has a suggestion I haven't mentioned, feel free to add it as well. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 03:33, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
IMO, the "Project" project is kind of obsolete, but abandoning them and not taking a note on this will make it more obsolete. I suppose this kind of projects needs more involvement to the community instead of administrators. Therefore, I don't suppose the projects should be administrators responsibility. I also agree with the point 2). However, the projects lack of update and advertisement, which will make people abandon it once more in a matter of months (or until another bureaucrat cycle). NikelTalk 09:11, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
I remember attempting to "resurrect" the Featured Contests project a little while back via a blog post but it didn't receive much enthusiasm despite the revamp. I'm not saying it'll be the case for everything (seeing as Featured Content is a separate thing for starters) but it would be a shame if we went to a lot of trouble and it turned out to be a waste of time and effort. I'm not sure how it would work out with point 3 seeing as most of the administrators who were about when the projects were active didn't seem to carry them on. I guess I'm going to go with point 2. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 20:40, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
I personally think the projects should merge with Administrative projects. RoseGui (talk here) 21:23, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
On behalf of Random Ranaun, I'd like to open a community discussion about possibly redesigning our wiki's appearance. This stems from a discussion between Random Ranaun, GEORGIEGIBBONS and me on the IRC channel.
I'll let RR get into specifics about what would change, but before that, let me link to a few things that everyone should see before they get into discussion.
Click here to see Random Ranaun's proposed mainpage design. Note that his redesigned headers will not appear using this link, as they do not function in MonoBook.' Following this link allows the content to display in the correct locations.
Click here and copy the code on the page onto your own personal wikia.css page to be able to view Random Ranaun's redesigned headers.
Click here after steps 1 and 2 to view the redesigned mainpage with the new headers. Note that this page will not display contents in the correct places due to the article width limitation in the Oasis skin, but if the code is copied onto your wikia.css page, the headers should appear.
Before any comments one way or the other, I think RR should be given a chance to carry this further. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 09:18, February 9, 2012 (UTC)
I've done one better here... I very very quickly edited the main page to match RR's proposed design, then reverted the edit. The result is a display of the main pagewithout the Oasis-caused distortion. After you've added the code to your wikia.css page, click the link above to see what the main page could look like! -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 09:39, February 9, 2012 (UTC)
Quite awesome. But does every user have to have their own wiki.css to work for the main page?
If the redesign were actually to take place, no. Since this is still in the planning/discussion/development stage, adding stuff to the wiki-wide css may not be the best idea. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 09:44, February 9, 2012 (UTC)
(posting from my phone) it looks awesome! Much better than the wikia default. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 12:56, February 9, 2012 (UTC)
Ugly to see without the css, but super cool with the css! XD I wonder why the header didn't work without css...? Can I suggest that the list of games be shown, collapsed like originally it was? Still, is there any other issues that come with the new design? NikelTalk 13:45, February 9, 2012 (UTC)
Pretty good. Dharden (talk) 13:50, February 9, 2012 (UTC)
I did a capture-edit-paste of the future looks of the main page. It is quite the best layout I find in Wikia.
Nice clip, ThomasWikia! That can easily show people the new appearance! ^^ Okay, I've been asking too many questions now, but I want to ask one more thing... does the current design involve wikia.css coding? NikelTalk 14:20, February 9, 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there is some coding that applies across the wiki (our navboxes are based on .css coding), then some codes that apply specifically to the main page - the mptables. Also, weighing in on the list of games on the main page - I think we should scrap that list, as I don't think it's necessary. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 16:42, February 9, 2012 (UTC)
Point taken. The list of games is accessible through the main navigation menu, so it doesn't need to be on the main page. Dharden (talk) 17:28, February 9, 2012 (UTC)
Nice work :) I'm assuming that if we actually used this we would redesign the other portals and things, e.g. Community Portal and such. Other than that I see no issues with it. ―ฬђtalk20:50, February 9, 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for getting this started LiR. I've been thinking for a while that we needed a change, and like GG said on the IRC, it doesn't hurt to get a fresh coat of paint once in a while. The new main page has many changes, apart from the obvious (tables, headers, etc.), some of the layout has been changed as well. The collapsible game table has been removed, as well as the Contents table, Featured Contest, and the Community Portal table. To me, it seemed as if our main page was far too long and complicated than it really needed to be.
In addition to those changes, the Community Poll was moved up in the right column, so it could get more attention, all of the Featured Content (Featured Article and Featured Media) has been moved to a big Featured Content table instead of being scattered around the main page, the Forum links were moved to the right, the Wiki News was moved to the left column, and the Battles was also moved to the right column, because, frankly, I didn't have anywhere else to put it. :P
Also, LiR created a nifty little feature. Alongside the Featured Media, with the help of the option tags, the Featured Tutorial, Featured Fan fiction, and Featured Fanon would appear periodically! Hopefully that brings up the interest the other parts of our wiki. :D
Apart from the main page (and possibly the portals), I think we should also change other aspects of our wiki's appearance. IMO, all of this green everywhere is getting pretty dull. I'm not too sure about changing our background, as that is something we would have to decide as a community, but I created and changed some other things. I created a new design for our sidebar (which can be seen on the right). It uses the blue headers and tables from the main page design, and to me, seems much better than the boring grey squares Wikia gave us. :P
There's some other aspects of our appearance I'd like to change, but I'd like to hear what everyone thinks before moving on. —Random Ranaun(Talk to me!) 20:59, February 9, 2012 (UTC)
Support: With all of what I'm seeing, I'm very impressed, and very excited! The look is cleaner and looks much more 'grown-up' than our current 'let's cover everything in green' theme. Our current theme was an improvement over what came before it, but I say that the new theme is even better! -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 21:16, February 9, 2012 (UTC)
Support: It is a very clean, sharp look. Dharden (talk) 21:42, February 9, 2012 (UTC)
Support: I agree with the above. DanPin • talk • contribs 22:29, February 9, 2012 (UTC)
Support Looks good and clean, a nice change. ―ฬђtalk05:50, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
Support - Clean, uncluttered and visually attractive. What's to hate? LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 09:06, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
Support - It's cool! An upgrade of design doesn't hurt, and there doesn't seem to be any issues.NikelTalk 10:09, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
I think I found a minor issue that prettytable for career tables and zebra for LTW table won't appear correctly in edit mode. The borders just won't show up, but when in reading mode, it appears normal and okay. I'm not sure if it has something to do with css coding, but I'm just saying. NikelTalk 10:19, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
Likely a problem with the Wikia Editor, the thing is glitchy at best in Visual and Source mode sometimes. If you give me a link to the page I'll test it out and see what the problem is. ―ฬђtalk10:23, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
Appears fine for me, and even if you are seeing some issues I doubt it would be from the css as it doesn't have references for the edit screen. Likely its a glitch like I said or some browser issue on your end. I wouldn't worry about it. ―ฬђtalk10:36, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
Looks fine to me, at a quick glance. Dharden (talk) 21:39, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
If you say so, Wogan. I trust you. ^^ NikelTalk 15:23, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
Maybe I'm kind of late. o.o But I like it better than the Wikia's, so, I support. --RoseGui (talk here) 17:04, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
Based on community discussion, redesign of the Main Page has been implemented! Visual changes to the portals will likely follow - Please use the Development Portal talk page to discuss ongoing work associated with converting to the new theme. So far, the Main Page, the right sidebar, and the top portion of this talk page have been updated with the new style; updates to the portals and other pages is likely to come in the next few days and weeks. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 02:06, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
Just a reminder that the other navigations' design has not yet been updated. I'm not sure if can deal with it. NikelTalk 07:19, February 22, 2012 (UTC)
As you may recall, GEORGIEGIBBONS recently posted a community news blog regarding our recent drought of new nominations and votes in Featured Content. I believe this problem to be especially critical for Featured Articles. Currently, there is one article up for nomination that has a vote - a single vote in support - with only a handful of other nominees.
The Featured Article nomination process was reformed heavily about half a year ago. Prior to reformation, articles were selected on vote totals alone, meaning that unworthy articles could and sometimes were selected as Featured, simply because they are/were popular. The whole purpose of Featured Articles is to showcase well-written content that demonstrates the best that TSW has to offer, and many of the featured articles of the past were not up to this standard, or so it was argued when reform was being made.
Prior to reforms, many people voted and nominated Featured Articles. Now, we have barely any of either. I believe that this lack of interest may be due to a removal of the popularity factor. Now that articles truly are being sought for their content rather than their popularity with players, fewer 'passers-by' really care enough to hunt down those truly well-written articles, since the articles they're more interested in (the 'popular' ones) are no longer necessarily guaranteed Featured status. But, we cannot sustain Featured Articles without community interest. So we are left with a quandary.
Do we make it easier to nominate and select Featured Articles, with the result being that it will be easier for popular articles to receive a green-lit nomination? Do we try to more heavily promote Featured Articles as they are now? Is there something we can do within the current framework to make the process more popular? Should we just scrap Featured Articles entirely? At this point, I really don't have the answers to these questions, so I'm very interested in knowing what everyone else has to say on the matter. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 16:42, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
I don't think abolishing FAs completely is the right way to go about the problem. I think for now we should try and promote Featured Articles a lot more (and ensure that the appropriate administrator is actually updating the FA). If that fails then we probably could try and find a way to make it easier. As long as a "popular" article isn't overly problematic then I wouldn't be opposed to it being considered as an FA but for now, I think it's just a lack of interest in the feature, or at least I hope it's just that... LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 19:03, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
From what I see (apologies for extending this, if this does not fit here), the drought is affecting the Fanon aspect as well. Despite the recent increase in fanon production and activity, the lack of incentive is severely hampering the development of longer fanons. In fact, I personally believe that it is beneficial at the moment to lax the requirements for now: we don't have the activity level in the wikia itself that will probably lead to things like, say mass nomination for their own articles.
May I add, despite the relative high for the creation of Fanon Sims, there are very little development in fanon stories in a separate articles itself. Currently active fan fictions are The House by 22a5st (which BTW is not categorized as fan fiction when it should be) and my own Time Paradox and that is it, AFAIK. Mathetesalexandrou 05:39, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
It could be true that popularity was what brought interest to FAs. From The Sims 3 base game to Generations, they've all been nominated and won as Featured Articles, even though at that time, I believe, those articles weren't at the top of its best showcase. Sadly, the pattern stopped at Pets, which could imply that there has been lack of interest and popularity since/before Pets. For me, I think I'll go for promoting the FA instead of nominating the popular articles... for now.
I agree with Mathetesalexandrou as well. Apparently, there is much fewer contributors than there used to be. The recent or regular contributors are those who have been good already with editing, known our Manual of Style, and recognized most admins and some other users. In short, they're adept editors. However, these regulars tend to not want to improve article contents. They prefer to add small notes about it. In the past, where the additions of contents are more accepted than the layout and design of a page (making the page sloppy but full of information), there were more users and community interactions. Now... I think we're being so strict that some users just don't want to edit to avoid making mistakes. Is our strict guidelines luring them away? I... hope I was wrong. NikelTalk 15:24, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
Meh, I disagree with the strictness part, although I do have to say that often the new fanons are tagged so quickly that it discourages users, IMO. Secondly, I believe the lack of content improval is because most of the content that are needed are already there. I couldn't but help note this, and most of the canon articles are fairly up to date. (that is, I could only judge TS3 articles). Mathetesalexandrou 17:38, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed for a little while now that the Chat feature seems to be unused for 95% of the time and that the IRC channel seems to be the more popular option for chatting in real-time. I'm not sure whether the somewhat indefinite drought of users making the most of the feature is due to a lack of interest or something else. Having noticed this, I think that as a community, we should decide what to do with the Chat feature.
I have devised a few options with regards to Chat:
The first option is to try and promote the feature a bit more. That doesn't mean we need to ditch the IRC channel. I've seen wikis with a large amount of users in both their IRC channels and on-wiki Chat, as IRC may not be everyone's cup of tea and so on.
The second option I've thought of is to try and shape monthly events around Chat, in addition to the IRC days we currently have. This idea rose from a comment Nikel23 made on the February 2012 Events blog, which would help us use the feature a little bit more and maybe generate some user interest.
The third option is to deactivate the feature completely.
The fourth option (suggested by LiR) is to scrap IRC and use chat as the primary chat function.
I do have my own personal thoughts on what option I'd prefer but I'd rather go by overall consensus and I would like to know what the community thinks too. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 21:28, February 20, 2012 (UTC)
If I may speak personally for a moment, I would prefer that more people used the chat, mainly because my wireless router makes it impossible to maintain a constant connection to the IRC for whatever reason. That being said, we've tried in the past to drum up the chat feature, but our dedicated users, especially the ones that already use IRC, seem totally disinterested in using chat. I can't say I blame them considering they already have the IRC to chat in. So, if I were to advocate for anything, I'd advocate for getting rid of the IRC channel and keeping chat. I doubt that my position on this matter will be very popular at all, especially among IRC users who for whatever reason just don't like Wikia chat (I really don't see why this is - please enlighten me). All that being said, if it were decided not to get rid of the IRC, I would say we should scrap chat since it makes little sense to keep both running simultaneously, and I don't see the point in promoting a feature that few if any regular users are going to want to use.
Tldr: Either scrap the IRC and promote chat, or scrap chat entirely. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 21:57, February 20, 2012 (UTC)
I have never been a fan of the chat, preferring the IRC channel over it, because IRC has more features, like nick changing, the /me command, bots and several other nice things. So, taking all into account, I vote for option 3. DanPin • talk • contribs 22:09, February 20, 2012 (UTC)
Per DanPin. 1358(Talk) 22:10, February 20, 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, Chat seems to be more prone to attacks from trolls, spammers and sockpuppets (three users were permanently blocked on the first day the feature was active) whereas IRC is a little bit more peaceful. Also, Chat lacks a kick function (which when there is someone disrupting IRC, the kick is used as a warning) making it a ban or nothing. Maybe this is an outdated observation but from experience with using Chat, my connection simply lags and constantly disconnects from Chat a lot (and those who use IRC on a regular basis know that my connection can be pretty unstable at times) yet I can stay connected to IRC. Those are just my two cents... LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 22:35, February 20, 2012 (UTC)
Per everything everyone else has said I'm going for the third option. As for why the established IRC users don't want to use chat, I'm not sure, but I think (for me, at least) that they keep it this way since we know what works. That said, if we somehow got people into the chat we might not need to address this. I'm also thinking it might be an idea just to leave it as-is, since chat isn't hurting anyone by existing, and who knows, people might use it one day. ―ฬђtalk00:04, February 21, 2012 (UTC)
I'm just going to cast my vote and go for option 3. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 17:13, February 21, 2012 (UTC)
Since I suggested it, I'd go for option 2, but that's merely because I don't want chat to be abandoned. But if there's no slight interest of chat feature from anyone, option 3 doesn't hurt a bit. NikelTalk 06:41, February 22, 2012 (UTC)
Since voting has pretty much started anyways, I'm going to open this one up for a decision to see where we're going to go from here with this.
Options are:
Promote chat more.
Shape monthly events around Chat to try and drum up interest.
Deactivate Chat.
Scrap IRC and have everyone use Chat instead.
Please be sure to include reasoning as to why you prefer an option. Time remaining is 09:12:00 February 29, 2012 UTC. ―ฬђtalk09:14, February 22, 2012 (UTC)
Deactivate Chat - it has been unused up to now and IRC is (to me at least) much more convenient and easy to use. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 12:07, February 22, 2012 (UTC)
Deactivate Chat - IRC is better and easy to use. Wiryawan310 12:15, February 22, 2012 (UTC)
Deactivate IRC - I think it would work better to use a system that's tied into Wikia already, rather than one externally. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 18:43, February 22, 2012 (UTC)
Deactivate Chat - Per all the reasons above. ―ฬђtalk20:48, February 22, 2012 (UTC)
Deactivate chat - Everyone [read: IRC frequenters] has already grown used to IRC and its superiority in amount of features. Special:Chat is like IRC minus 90 percent of its features. 1358(Talk) 08:49, February 23, 2012 (UTC)
Shape Monthly Chat - I suppose some users just can't use IRC in some occasions, or those who rarely use IRC might find it easier to use. NikelTalk 12:52, February 23, 2012 (UTC)
Deactivate Chat - Per the reasons stated by everyone else. --RoseGui (talk here) 16:54, February 23, 2012 (UTC)
Deactivate Chat - Per all the people above that support the deactivation of Chat. DanPin • talk • contribs 21:53, February 23, 2012 (UTC)
Consensus was reached in favour of Deactivating chat. ―ฬђtalk08:38, February 29, 2012 (UTC)
I, and possibly others too, have noticed that activity from some administrators seems to be dropping. This is why I'm wondering whether or not Requests for administratorship should be opened for maybe one or two users to apply (two would be enough imo). Before anything happens, I would like to know what the community thinks about this, other administrators and bureaucrats in particular. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 18:18, February 22, 2012 (UTC)
My own personal opinion is that Requests for Administratorship and Bureaucratship should remain open all the time. I think the community and the bureaucrats can make a decision on a case-by-case basis as to whether or not a new administrator or 'crat is needed. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 18:46, February 22, 2012 (UTC)
I've seen that system on other wikis and it seems to work, so I'm not against it. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 18:48, February 22, 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe just open it up all the time and see how that goes for a month or two. I too think we could use one or two more admins, but there isn't really many users who meet the requirements atm, sadly. I can think of one or two though. ―ฬђtalk20:57, February 22, 2012 (UTC)
Well, I think if the requests are opened, you're likely to see one or two applications not long afterwards. The problem I've noticed, especially with RfBs, is that many people sorta fall into this false idea that there must always be someone nominated for it, that the page must never be empty. Additionally, I don't think there necessarily is a magic number of admins/crats, which partly explains why I don't necessarily buy into restricting their applications. I am of the mindset that being an administrator doesn't make you 'above' non-sysop editors, it just gives you some added tools because you've demonstrated that you're capable of using them responsibly. I don't think that 'crats are above sysops and non-sysops either, just that they are very highly-respected active community members trusted with making decisions regarding sysops and bureaucrats. What this all means is that I don't think there's such a thing as too many administrators, and I don't think one needs to be an administrator in order to be an active member and a community leader. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 21:38, February 22, 2012 (UTC)
I guess LiR is right. I don't really think that opening a "Help Wanted" forever is a good solution, but letting it open for request for a month to see what'll come isn't bad either. But I do suppose we'll need an administrator or two to handle the wiki due to uncertainty of activity of an admin. I, too, am going to be absent for 2 months not long after this to study for my final exams. A replacement of any absence isn't compulsory, but responsibility and some help are also needed. NikelTalk 13:04, February 23, 2012 (UTC)
I think we need to open a request for admin who can in charge and handling administrative chores when another admin here is not online. I do that before but I cant do that anymore since my new work place doesn't have any internet connection. we can open it for 1 month and close it when we have a trusted user here promoted as admin. :) Wiryawan310 13:23, February 23, 2012 (UTC)
I think you guys might be missing my point - I'm in favor of leaving the requests open permanently, not just for a month or two. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 14:08, February 23, 2012 (UTC)
I don't think leave it open permanently is a good idea, because not every user here want to read the rules who to be an admin. Even bureaucrats can denied it, some user can have hard feeling and disappointed when they request if denied because they want to become admin too much but they ignored the rules. so I think its better to open it if we need it only. Wiryawan310 14:21, February 23, 2012 (UTC)
I don't really see any good point why it should be open forever... NikelTalk 14:28, February 23, 2012 (UTC)
To counter that, I don't see any good reason why they shouldn't be. I think the option should always be available to those who are skilled wiki-editors to step up and be able to use admin tools, even if it's somehow determined that 'we don't need more admins'. There's no such thing as too many admins, and I think every user who wants the opportunity and who can prove they can handle it (through the application process) should have the chance to apply. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 17:53, February 23, 2012 (UTC)
Seeing as this discussion has evolved from opening RfA to leaving it open indefinitely, I think we should try and gain formal consensus:
Should RfA and RfB be left open permanently (and bureaucrats can decide whether a new Admin/Bureaucrat is needed on a case by case basis)?
Please vote with either Support, Neutral or Oppose.
Please try to include a reason as to why you prefer an option. Time remaining is 16:30:00 March 1, 2012 UTC. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 16:30, February 23, 2012 (UTC)
Neutral - I see many advantages and disadvantages of keeping it open permanently. But I'm all in favor of openining requests for administratorship. --RoseGui (talk here) 16:50, February 23, 2012 (UTC)
Weak support - I'll support this on the condition that it only affects RfA; seeing as we don't need any new bureaucrats anyway, I think we should retain the current system for RfB in addition to the fact that RfB doesn't need this system, especially as bureaucrats are still considered as sysops. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 17:01, February 23, 2012 (UTC)
Support - As I state above, I don't see any good reason why we need to close the requests. Repeating my point, I think every user who wants the opportunity and who can prove they can handle it should have the chance to apply, even if it's determined by others that we don't 'need new administrators'. The determination of how many admins we 'need' is pretty arbitrary as it is. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 17:53, February 23, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - I believe it would be a bother to decline RfA requests just because they are not needed, and potent editors can always request later, when we need one or more admins. I do know that "administrator activity dropping" also includes me, and the reason for that is simply that I have no time at this period. I'll make up for it some time later. But, for now, I'm not against opening RfA (though as GG said, we don't really need any new bureaucrats atm, so I'm against opening RfB). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andronikos Leventis (talk • contribs) (UTC) - Please sign your comments with ~~~~
Support - I think that if we opened RfAs permanently it wouldn't hurt. We could tighten the rules a bit to prevent users that don't read the application rules from applying carelessly. DanPin • talk • contribs 21:46, February 23, 2012 (UTC)
Partly Support for lack of a better term. Imo keep the RfA page open but keep the RfB page the way it is, since there is rarely a need to use the b'crat tools and between this and the fact there is a few active ones at the moment means we don't really need more except in rare circumstances. Tl;dr, we need more admins but not more crats. ―ฬђtalk05:44, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - I don't see the good if we open the the page permanently. If this wiki dont need more administrator why we open it? all application in will be 100% declined because we do not need new admin on that time. Wiryawan310 10:38, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
Weak Support - I never like the word "Forever", though long-term open RfA might interest me more. I also don't think RfB should be open for requests, as RfA is enough. I believe it will be a good idea if RfA is left open, several users will be interested and motivated a bit, and it sounds inviting, but if this only makes pointless crowds of requests, I'll take my words. In this case, when random users are trying to call upon themselves for the requests, I think we should make a "timeout" to let things cool off a bit and then we can continue open the RfA again. NikelTalk 10:54, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
Support - Per Nikel, the RfB shouldn't be open for requests; there's really no need. However, having RfA open forever, or at least a long while, sounds interesting. Ѧüя◎ґ 21:58, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
Based upon consensus, RfA will be opened and left open long-term. However, RfB will not be opened and will retain the current system based upon the majority of votes. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 16:30, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
Hi guys, I just found that many sim on bridgeport has hidden trait. are those hidden traits should be added on the sim bio?
if yes, all Hidden trait like vampire, mummy, etc should be added too even we know each occult has hidden traits and all foreign citizen has their hidden culture trait because those trait are hidden traits.
there is 1 problem about that, the sim bio template only allow 2 hidden traits to be shown for the example is on Jessica Talon page. she have 3 hidden traits, pyromaniac, immune to fire, and vampire. only pyromaniac, immune to fire is shown.
can someone update sims3 template so it will allow max 10 hidden traits to be shown?
note: why 10? because those template is used for fanon too, if the fanon sim has 10 hidden traits, the author still can write it there.
Wiryawan310 15:36, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
I don't really think so. Sims not normally have that many hidden traits. And even for fanon purposes, it's too many. NikelTalk 16:06, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
I failed to edit the template, it still only 2 shown on the bio. Wiryawan310 16:08, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
I don't know whether I can post here or not. But I want to discuss an issue.
Everyday, I check the IRC to see what's going on. Unfortunately, the IRC is like... a ghost town with dead people lying around (a simile). I replied a simple "Hello" in the channel and no one replies.
I understand that most (surely 99%) are either away from IRC or busy in the computer and doesn't want to be bother, but as a community, we should at least cherish a moment, to have fun chatting one another, to discussing something new, to talk about a particular topic (like Showtime).
Maybe we can host more IRC days (but that idea will fail anyway). Or we can have a schedule of different time zones on when we can meet one another, together.
This is just my opinions. I don't think I'll get harsh comments over this.
From what I've heard from other users, there seems to be busy hours in the IRC, and they mostly have quite a lot of conversations. I myself barely experience this. It's said that you're from Singapore (I'm from Indonesia, which is not so far from there). It looks like due to the time zoning, our available time in IRC is different from them. When we're there, they might be still sleeping or at school. :/ NikelTalk 12:23, March 5, 2012 (UTC)
Nikel is pretty accurate here - the IRC is more often than not completely silent, but can 'wake up' seemingly instantly and become quite active. There's no real way to prevent these 'ghost town' moments because, unfortunately, that's just the nature of online chatting across the globe in all different time zones. Even with heavy promotion of the IRC you're still likely to have a lot of time when no one is talking. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 22:14, March 6, 2012 (UTC)
What you describe is the "graveyard zone". WoganHemlock has experienced this phenomenon many times due to his time zone. Also, even when there are other people there, not all of them are active. I find it more interesting. Also, remember that #wikia-sims is a channel for chatting about almost anything, so what are the changes anyone will ever talk about The Sims series anyway? 13:46, March 10, 2012 (UTC)
(talk here) 13:27, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
• (c) • (b) 20:31, January 28, 2012 (UTC) 
(talk here) 20:45, January 28, 2012 (UTC) 
MTDM 20:09, January 29, 2012 (UTC) 
21:56, February 2, 2012 (UTC)
21:02, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
• (c) • (b) 20:11, January 28, 2012 (UTC)
