The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 1

From The Sims Wiki, a collaborative database for The Sims series
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by imported>Richard1990 at 17:31, 2 January 2009 (Discussions/Sims Wiki Policy moved to The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 1). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page is an archived discussion. To discuss it currently please use the talk page.

Sims Policy

I believe we should have a policy, currently there is none but I believe it should address a few topics which may seem obvious but if it is written out it is more enforceable. Somethings I believe it should contain:

  • A clause about vandalism not being allowed.
  • Mention about inappropriate words such as cuss words.
  • Something concerning new pages. Such as if there is a topic already on that page just with different capitals, should be deleted. Misspelled pages should be either deleted or moved depending on the circumstances.
  • Also with new pages, I suggest that empty pages created after a policy is put in effect be deleted. Example: SimCity 3000 has never had anything on it but can't be deleted per policy because it doesn't have anything on it. But if an empty page were to be created say titled Mirrors but has nothing on it, even though it is relevant to Sims it should be deleted. Maybe something saying you need at least 3 facts in complete sentences to start a page. That way there is something to build off of. Some sort of content.
I'm thinking that we really don't want empty pages at all. I've seen pages like "There's no content here yet 'cause I'm concentrating on categorizing" -- we don't really want that to remain. If the page has no content, it should show up in Special:Wantedpages -- which it won't if it has nothing but that sentence on it. --Narc (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I saw that page too. But I feel rather than deleting old empty pages we should work to improve them unless they show no potential. ~ Makiah 19:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Whether we find them via Special:Wantedpages or otherwise is the same thing in the end. I like what's currently in the proposed rules about using the "Report a problem" feature, since that would probably help prioritize things. --Narc (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Just some starting suggestions. Anyone else have any ideas or comments? Makiah 23:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

If no one has any input by March 12th I will draw up the policy and post it so everyone can see using my ideas. It would be great to have some discussion to include the community! Makiah 01:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, everything you've mentioned so far sounds brilliant to me; please do write it up -- it sounds good. I do have one addition, though: I haven't looked around the Templates and such yet, but I know we have a {{stub}} template. I don't know if we have something like "cleanup required" yet, but we need it, too: several pages I've seen look like they have a bit of info but it's poorly formatted or even unformatted. Again, I haven't had a chance to look at the Templates yet, but if we don't have it yet, we need it. --Narc (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
This is interesting -- 69.254.46.13 used the template {{blank}} (Template:blank) on the page Biotech station earlier today, and it seems a decent way to get lists of blank, but "very" wanted pages. Personally, I'm thinking we might consider using that at first, and then deleting pages after a while if they're not filled in. Though, also personally, I'd prefer such pages were never created in the first place. --Narc (talk) 12:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
That was me! ^_^ I found it yesterday while looking for useless images, when I had to delete a horse picture someone uploaded. I believe I have seen a clean up template somewhere but can't located it right now. I'm sure a little bit more searching and I will find it. ~ Makiah 17:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
If needed, I'll work something up and make a note of it here; this seems to have become our village pump, apparently :) --Narc (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


Everyone can check out the proposed policy at Sims wiki:Policy. Makiah 21:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I added block times so everyone knows the consequences of their actions which hopefully will deteriorate them from breaking the rules. I would like to add a note at the bottom saying that Wikia helpers, janitors and admins may use their discretion when blocking a user as that user may also be vandalizing other wikis. I want to cover every angle...what do you guys think? In the past helpers such as Uberfuzzy have helped us by banning vandals. Makiah 02:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Vandals tend not to read the rules in the first place; those who do and still break them usually have a bone to pick. As far as I'm concerned, the simplest rule you can use is "Whatever the admin wants, the admin gets." As for Wikia people helping, I do believe it can't hurt to make a note of it. Covering every angle, though, that's a tough one. The best way to do that, I've found, is to make short and open-ended rules, without going into much detail about what exactly constitutes vandalism. In short, what you have now is probably best. On that note, however, I would personally recommend against very short blocks (like an hour), since those have practically no value unless they're given immediately once a violation is noted, and that will almost never happen unless someone sits on top of Special:Recentchanges refreshing every minute. I don't know about you, but I don't have that kind of time. --Narc (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Good point, I changed that hour thing. I added the other clause. And I guess this can just go to voting... Makiah 17:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


Sims Policy Voting

After discussing the issue a policy was written up and can be viewed at Sims wiki:Policy. If you agree, you want this policy to be put through. If you disagree, you don't want the policy to be put through. Voting ends 28 March 2008. Please remember to sign your votes!

Agree

  1. Makiah 17:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Narc (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

Disagree

Comments

I overall agree, with one exception. I think the text of rule #5 needs to be clarified or abbreviated; I'd personally suggest something like "Blocks will escalate in severity if multiple offenses are committed" -- assuming that's what you meant. Aside from that, my agree above stands. --Narc (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: I've taken the liberty of copy-editing a bit, which has also highlighted one other question for me: what does it mean to use an inappropriate word "in general terms"? Can you clarify, please? Thanks, Narc (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes I guess #5 does sound confusing. I'll rewrite it to your suggestion. What I meant in general terms, which probably doesn't even need to be stated because I changed the block time. It was supposed to be like a differentiation between using curse words toward someone and using them in everyday speaking. Like for example, if you ask me a question and I reply, "#@&$ if I know!" That's the way I meant it but to make this go quicker we can just omit it since it really doesn't matter now. One other thing, I liked the changes to the policy you made but there was one thing I'm going to change back and that's the unannounced warning thing. No big deal I suppose with you but I don't want anyone to complain they didn't get a warning and me having to leave warnings on IP talk pages. Makiah 23:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Glad you liked my edits. I see what you meant now about the general terms. One question: if a warning is unannounced, is it still a warning? Perhaps consider it more of a "points" system (like for driving), and say "If you do such and such, you will be remembered and blocked if you keep doing it" or something? Or is there an official wiki warning system that actually does something else, and I'm missing the point entirely? --Narc (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
No there is no warning system, it would just mean that every time a minor offense is done once we would have to give a warning. I sorta consider that to be an unannounced warning, it's not hard to remember considering it's all kept in the contributions. Now I know this doesn't happen a lot but I don't want to create a lot of talk pages for IPs that are only going to be seen once. I figure they know what they are doing when they do it so they don't actually need a written warning. ~ Makiah 06:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Considering some people can't figure out "that cupholder thingy" on their computer, I'm not 100% sure that'll work, but we can certainly try it. I'd honestly not mind creating lots of talk pages (it's not my server, and even if it was, it could only be a minor amount of space occupied, compared to the _real_ articles; and with a template to subst in, it shouldn't take more than a minute to create the page), but ultimately it makes little difference to me, since you're admin so this is your job. In any case, thanks for clearing it up for me. --Narc (talk) 12:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)