The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 9

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

The Sims Wiki Battles

We are already in the midst of creating a Sims Wiki Battles feature. These battles will work like the battles at the Final Fantasy Wiki and the Kingdom Hearts Wiki. Users can vote for or nominate a fight between two things in The Sims series. These things can be Sims, Objects, Life states, anything like that. After a fight is chosen, users can then vote for which of the two things they want to win. After the fights time is up, the thing with the most votes wins, and a new fight is chosen from the nominations. We have already created the Battle layout and are considering the Sims Wiki page it will be on. Please feel free to tell us what you think about this new feature. Thank you. --Random Ranaun 22:18, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

I've added my take on how to implement this. I made a template {{Simbattle}} and you can see it in action with three examples here: The Sims Wiki:Sandbox/SimBattle. Duskey(talk) 03:45, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

We really need to implement this soon. People are using the Featured Articles as popularity contests. The featured articles are supposed to represent the excelence of The Sims Wiki's articles, yet users are voting for the article of their favorite Sim, even if it only has one sentence! The Sims Wiki Battles should be added so that users could use it for their populartiy contest urge, while the featured article will become much more professional. If anyone has any ideas for this feature, please don't be afraid to voice your opinion here. --Random Ranaun 03:46, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you could ever really get rid of that urge... my only idea for featured articles would be to have them change every 2 weeks or 1 week rather than once a month - but that's not important right now. I like this idea, but I doubt it will decrease the favoritism that goes into the Featured Article selection. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 05:58, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we could add a policy for the featured article? Like, only registered users can nominate and vote, and the article must not be a stub, to name a few. --Random Ranaun 23:54, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

It still needs some work before it's implemented. So someone needs to work out the last kinks and have a way updating and maintaining it regularly. --Duskey^talk 11:34, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Its a really good idea. I think we can let unregistered users vote to, since its a favorite thing. BobNewbie ^{talk • blog} 16:59, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

Done BobNewbie ^{talk • blog} 17:42, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes patrol

DarthCookie has suggested that we enable Recent changes patrol which basically means that edits in RecentChanges will be colored yellow (Similar to how NewPages already is) until someone with "patrol rights" marks it as "patrolled", which means it's been checked and it's okay. It can be set so users with a special patrol rank can mark edits as patrolled or it can be set so only administrators can mark pages as patrolled. Be sure to check out "New Pages" to see an example. What do people think? --Duskey^talk 16:10, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Who will get patrol rights? - JEA13 ^[iTalk] 16:13, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I would say that bureaucrats and administrators would get the rights automatically upon receiving a position, perhaps even automatically giving them to rollbackers. I would say that receiving patrol rights could be given out to other users based on trustworthiness. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 18:12, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion would be that rollbackers and admins get patrol rights. --Duskey^talk 19:23, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support- Same reason as above. ---Guilherme Guerreiro 19:27, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I was basing it off of wikiHow's patrol app, which allows all registered users to patrol articles, talk pages edits, etc. ---DarthCookie 04:30 September 19, 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be in favor of extending patrol rights automatically to all registered users, since it would be easy for a person who wishes to do harm to create a name, log in and cause damage that way. I think allowing users to apply for it (with prerequisites lower than that of a rollback or administrator) would be a better idea, since the bureaucrats handling appointments would be able to sort out the good users from the bad ones. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 04:43, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant. Besides I would be the first to apply, I love patrol on wikiHow.--DarthCookie 07:36, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest that rollbackers automatically get patrol rights. They're already trusted persons and it would prevent the ranks from being overly complicated. --Duskey^talk 22:01, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, my rollback request is still pending. :angry face:--DarthCookie 22:03, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Is this going to be done, or not? Dharden (talk) 15:40, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

Detail

I'd just like to explain in further detail about what this will mean for people who are bestowed with patrol rights: It means that every edit in "Recent changes" will be marked with yellow until someone clicks the edit, checks it out and clicks the link, letting other patrollers know that it does not contain anything which goes against our policies or rules. --Duskey^talk 21:58, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Excisting rollbackers

At the moment we have some rollbackers who haven't edited in many months. I suggest they're demoted and the active rollbackers are informed of their new added responsability. --Duskey^talk 01:30, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Featured Articles

I think it's time what we have a major and serious discussion about how we select and manage our Featured Articles. There are a number of issues I'd like to address, and a number of insights I have:

1. The Featured Article should always illustrate our highest quality, best-written articles. However, people have been using the FA selection as a way to choose their favorite Sims, games, neighborhoods, etc.
2. A number of the articles that have won or that have been nominated simply are not up to Featured Article quality. For example, this month's featured article Sarah Crittur is, in my opinion, not Featured Article caliber, as there is simply no information on this page and it's poorly written.
3. Many users on TSW vote for Featured Articles (or other featured content), but have made no other contributions to The Sims Wiki. In other words, users are registering, voting for FAs, then disappearing.
4. Further advancing the 'Featured Articles is a popularity contest' idea is the fact that, once one particular article gains a lead in votes over other articles, it receives a lot more votes; people are drawn to vote for the likely winner, simply because it is likely to win.

Therefore, I am going to propose the following:

A suspension of present Featured Article Selection.

Under this suspension, the administrators would select the featured article until a new selection process is laid out and running. Such selections would be based solely on article quality or timely information (for example, having November's featured article as The Sims 3: Late Night), and would end as soon as is reasonable.

Establishment of a minimum Wiki requirement before voting for Featured Content.

I think that requiring users to have some contribution outside of Featured Content is important. It will help us ensure that only those users who are participating here have a say in what articles we feature. Just as a base, I would say that editors must have 10 mainspace edits prior to any nomination or vote on Featured Content pages. Further, I would say that unregistered contributors should not be allowed to vote or nominate there.

Have Selection of Featured Articles based on quality, not on popularity.

This first and foremost means that the present democratically-selected Featured Article process, where articles are selected based mainly on favoritism, would become a thing of the past. There are multiple ways to implement this, but here is one idea:

• At the beginning of the month, open up the Featured Article nomination page for the next month. Allow each registered user who has at least a minimum number of mainspace contributions to nominate one article for the Featured Article distinction. Nominations must include justification of what makes a nominee worthy of Featured Article Status. Each nomination must be seconded by another regular user who meets contribution requirements. This period would last approximately 10 days.
• During the nomination period, users can evaluate the quality of nominated pages. If a user or administrator feels a page, for whatever reason, isn't FA quality, they can bring it up for discussion. For any articles brought up in this way will be discussed starting on the 10th day of the month, until the 20th day of the month, and a consensus will determine whether the article is of adequate quality, with those articles not of adequate quality being removed from the running for that month.
  • During the nomination period, users can attempt to address issues with pages in order to make them FA worthy. For example, resolving cleanup or clarification issues in an article may solve problems related to its FA worthiness.
• The final period, starting on or around the 20th and lasting until the end of the month, would be the actual vote for featured article. Each user meeting minimum contribution criteria would be allowed one vote, and votes must justify why the article is worthy. After this, administrators will determine which article received the most votes, accompanied by the best justifications, and that article will become the Featured Article.

Establish a Featured Article criteria page.

Create a page which highlights qualities of FA articles. This page would align closely with our Manual of Style and would help to demonstrate best practices, as determined by the wiki community.

In closing, the Featured Article receives a heavy inflow of reader traffic while it is featured. The featured article, in that respect, demonstrates what we as a community have decided is the best-of-the-best; when we select articles which are clearly not of featured article quality, we negatively reflect the quality of all other articles on this wiki.

I hope that we can have a serious discussion about this issue, as well as possible solutions. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 20:30, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Oh, God, you are absolutely right, actually I normally vote for big and clean articles that are about my favorite ones, but yes people should not vote for their favorite sims and stuff, We should vote for the informative and good written articles. ---Guilherme Guerreiro 20:35, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

I say that you 1. Have to state why you are voting for the article. 2. Any votes to do with popularity should be removed. 3. The most voted for articles should be checked by an admin, and he/she wil decide based on quality. 4 Need at least 40 edits, and may not vote if your an anon. BobNewbie (talk)(blog) 13:47, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Given how few people participate in voting, I suspect that many users won't notice a suspension, but suspending the current system until a new one if put in place sounds fair to me.

I definitely agree with not allowing anon users to nominate or vote, and with requiring a minimum number of mainspace contributions before allowing a registered used to nominate or vote. I think much of this could be accomplished by semi-protecting the nomination/voting pages. It'll block anons, and if new accounts have to wait a few days before being able to nominate or vote, that may not be a bad thing.

I'll have to give your proposed replacement system some more thought, but at first read, it looks pretty good. Dharden (talk) 15:55, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was just throwing out an idea. I see preventing anons and short-term users from voting as being pretty logical, but that still doesn't prevent long-term users from voting on favoritism, which many still do. If anyone can determine a more workable system which prevents favoritism voting, I would likely support it. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 18:16, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Since discussion here has essentially frozen, I've proposed the above idea to be added to TSW's policies at The Sims Wiki talk:Policy. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 04:03, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Move the Wiki

I think we should move the wiki to Shout Wiki, so we don't have to switch to the new look.--Eduardog3000 22:21, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

I Don't know, but it is not a bad idea at all. ---Guilherme Guerreiro 16:59, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

Moving wikis aren't easy. We don't "own" The Sims Wiki. Wikia does. Even if we copy all the info to shoutwiki and put a notice that the regular contributors have moved there, we can't delete any info from this wiki without breaking Wikia policies. Users who don't come here that often will of course continue to contribute and use this wiki and in time, new people will take over. We can't "shut down" a wiki on Wikia. --Duskey^talk 11:34, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

The better we should do is proposing ideas to wiki, to improve the skin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guilherme Guerreiro (talk • contribs) 21:39, October 9, 2010 (UTC) - Please sign your comments with ~~~~

Point taken. Since a true move isn't do-able without Wikia's cooperation, and there's no certainty it'd be a net positive even if we got that, and creating a clone sounds like it could well be a net negative, I say we stay and try to make the best of it. Dharden (talk) 22:25, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

I'm against it. I recently downloaded Google Chrome, and the Oasis skin is much faster than the current one. I really think it may be an improvement to the old skin. And like Duskey said, we cant shut down a wiki. It will be to much effort to try to do it, and in that time we could already have gotten used to the new skin.

I'm against it. In the time we would require to move the wiki, we could have gotten used to the new skin. --BobNewbie (talk)(blog) 07:30, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Gotten used to?, for 95% all people (including me) there will be no "gotten used to", the fact of the matter is, the new skin is horrible and we need to move so the Sims Wiki won't lose users, and yes, the Sims Wiki will lose users, A LOT of people will be leaving all of Wikia.--Eduardog3000 08:06, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Please don't make up statistics - I do not believe that 95% of the Wikia community is going to leave because of a new skin. You may be right in saying that a lot of people will leave, but even in that case, new users will eventually come along to replace them; it sounds cruel, but that's the way wikis work. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 14:23, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should make a virtual manifestation against the new skin?---Guilherme Guerreiro 08:29, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, it will confuse users who only contribute occasionally as well as the fact that it would take a long time and it will be a lot of trouble. While the new skin is causing some browser problems, I'm sure Wikia will make some improvements to the skin in the long run. GEORGIEGIBBONS ^talk _{contributions} 09:19, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:Yes, I also think like Georgie, and we should help wiki improving the skin not leaving the wiki because that certainly, will not help. ---Guilherme Guerreiro 09:22, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: I'm sticking with what I said. We can get use to the new skin. I have already. Its much faster than the old one, though it will take some time to get to used to it. Oh, and you cant say 95% are leaving, because you don't know that. BobNewbie (talk)(blog) 14:41, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Eduardo, we can't just "take our ball and leave" because it isn't, properly speaking, our ball. Making a copy of the "ball" and taking it somewhere else would take a fair amount of work. Once it was done, there would be issues of letting people know that it had been done; letting them know where we had taken the duplicate "ball"; and encouraging them to come play with our duplicate rather than the original. It'd be a lot of hassle and grief, with no certainty that the gains would be worth it or even that there would be gains. Dharden (talk) 15:28, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

A recreators' gallery?

There seems to be some disagreement about whether to allow pictures such as File:Chloe Singles (TS3).jpg, which shows a Sim from The Sims 2 re-made in The Sims 3. Since that's so, and since some people are going to upload them anyway, maybe we could consider having a space for such pictures. Dharden (talk) 15:20, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with. ---Guilherme Guerreiro (Talk here) 20:43, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

I agree too, but we should categorise them. BobNewbie (talk)(blog) 17:59, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

I created the space at Gallery of recreated Sims. Categorize the images if you want, but I think page is better because it allows the images to be captioned. Dharden (talk) 16:13, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

Creating a new section on Family template

Ok I have an idea, why don't we create a new section on the family template, the new section would be economic status including categories like rich families, middle class families and poor families since you have sections with economic status on the Sim template, why don't we create this section, also we should include new created categories to the economic status section on the sim template like: middle class sims, poor sims, we only have rich and unemployed categories. I think it is a good suggstion, but add ideas below to improve mine. ---Guilherme Guerreiro (Talk here) 20:53, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Any opinions??---Guilherme Guerreiro (Talk here) 21:20, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Having the economic status in the family page makes more sense since I think it is determined per household not sim. Adding additional categories for economic situations is a good idea. --a_morris (talk) 17:09, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the {{FamilyInfobox}} & {{Family}} with economicstatus, but have not removed it from the Sim templates. --a_morris (talk) 15:39, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

What's with the achievements?

I come in today, and find that achievements have been enabled. My understanding was that there was a consensus to not implement them here, and there doesn't seem to have been any re-opening of the discussion. What happened? Was this something Wikia imposed without even a by-your-leave, or did something else happen? Dharden (talk) 16:37, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that someone should contact Wikia as this could be a common mistake that staff have made and enabled the achievements on the wrong wiki or someone seems to have gone behind our backs to get them enabled without the community agreeing to it. GEORGIEGIBBONS ^talk _{contributions} 16:47, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

I sent a message to Wikia staff, and posted the response I got at User blog:Dharden/Response from Wikia about achievements . In short, it was a sponsored "premium achievement", and allowing it requires enabling achievements overall. I was told "We have been doing this with a few wikis but this was the first wiki that didn't have Achievements enabled (much less the first one that had said they didn't want it), so the policy on this matter was not clear." IOW, Staff admits that a mistake was made but says they are under contract and will honor it. I was also told "The campaign ends November 21st and I have gotten permission from Ads and our Support manager to turn off Achievements at that time." Dharden (talk) 22:47, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't like the achievements thing.--Eduardog3000 23:24, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

I want the achievements to stay, but whatever the community says. I still got the other two wikis with achievements.--♥DarthCookie♥^♥Talk♥ 06:13, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

EOTM

Hey guys! What do you all think of starting a editor of the month thing? I think it could be cool because it would:

• Showcase hardworking user.
• Be a way to remind user quantity is not the same as quality
• Fun

Here are some rules it could have:

• Users who vote must have more than 50 edits
• Users must nominate, no self-nomination
• Winners get a award of some sorts
• Winners are displayed on the talk page
• If a user has won, they can't be EOTM for about 6-12 months.

What do you guys think? BobNewbie ^{talk • blog} 18:55, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting ;). ---Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 17:52, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

I took a bold step and went ahead and created The Sims Wiki:Featured User. Go ahead and check it out! -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 06:06, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

New Skin

I had an idea, since Monobook will remain an option and with Monobook you don't have to change much, we should just use Monobook for the wiki. I know you won't be able to make Monobook the standard, but you can put one of those messages that is shown above every page saying "This Wiki is made with Monobook, to get the best viewing experience switch to Monobook in your preferences." or something like that.--Eduardog3000 20:35, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Who's to say that in the future Wikia won't take away Monobook too? I personally am alright with the new skin after using it for a while. Maybe instead of complaining about Oasis or trying to get around using it, you should try editing on the wiki for a few days with Oasis on and see how you like it... -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 23:30, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

I am NOT using Oasis, I will be using Monaco until it is no longer an option, then I will use Monobook. If they eventually get rid of Monobook, then I will leave the wiki.--Eduardog3000 01:07, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly what I mean. Why do you hate Oasis so much? Have you even used it? -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 04:04, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Frankly I love the new skin, it's a huge adjustment but I like it. It's more...it's just better.--♥DarthCookie♥^♥Talk♥ 06:10, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

I will do the same as Eduardog3000, without the radical 'leaving the wiki' part. I don't like this new skin either and I think making it the only chooseable one is pure cr... better not say it. Keep it as default, I don't care, but just make it not the only one available at the options. -_- --- » Яσdяigσ X ^{[̲̅т̲̅α̲̅l̲̅k̲̅]}_{[̲̅b̲̅l̲̅σ̲̅g̲̅]} « 10:56, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

Late Night, zodiac signs

I was wandering about signs in Late Night and I remember we should update template simbio3 because we don't have sigs section on there. Any thoughts? ---Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 18:22, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

I agree BobNewbie ^{talk • blog} 18:42, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

sign has been added to {{Sim3}} and {{Simbio3}} and so far works exactly the same as for The Sims 2. --a_morris (talk) 04:09, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

Montys in Veronaville

In The Sims 2 Pets, there is a girl named Bianca Monty. And she is married to Johnathan Monty and have 2 children. But if you go to "Monty Family" on the sims wiki and go down to the family tree it shows that Bianca isn't married. Explanation anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.129.116 (talk • contribs) 4 November 2010 (UTC) - Please sign your comments with ~~~~

Don't know, I've seen her married though.--♥DarthCookie♥^♥Talk♥ 03:00, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

It is not the same Bianca, the Bianca Monty you saw is from TS2 Pets, but the Bianca Monty's article is about another Bianca from base of game, they are not the same person. ---Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 12:06, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

Opening admin requests

Lets face it, this is no longer a small wiki. We are growing at a extreme rate, and I believe we should open admin requests again. There are to many inactive ones, and users who deserve it but don,t have admin rights. Should we open admin requests again? I believe 2-4 are more than enough. Thanks. BobNewbie ^{talk • blog} 19:04, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

I agree --Monster2821 (Talk) 19:08, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be open, we need more admins, for example I have seen a lot of uncleared vandalism arround here and we need to clear this things since we could take an action more quickly to the vandals, just an example, this wiki is also needing activity, we are having lack of it, I was checking recent changes the most recent were 10 minutes ago, for example and then 1 hour ago just an example. ---Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 19:19, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

Also, it could be good to have more admins because even if some admins are not inactive, they don't edit for quite a while. I also agree with Guilherme about the dropping activity on this wiki. BobNewbie ^{talk • blog} 19:36, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

Note: this isn't the time to set up 'agree', 'disagree', and 'neutral' sections... more discussion should occur before that point.

I think it should be open for the simple fact, there's decreasing activity on this wiki and we need people who revert the vandalism. I would love to be one of the first participators in adminship request.--♥DarthCookie♥^♥Talk♥ 02:53, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

Anyways, for point of reference, below is the list of admins and bureaucrats as of this point:

As you can see, we have 11 active bureaucrats or administrators. Although a couple of the 'active' people are current not here, we still have a good collection of active admins/crats; Me, A morris, Dharden, Monster, and Random Ranaun come to mind. Whether 5 active administrators is 'enough' for a wiki of this size is a matter for debate. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 19:11, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

Also, a point to keep in mind is that bureaucrat rights can't be revoked except by Wikia staff and only then for good reason. Therefore, those 4 inactive bureaucrats are likely to remain with bureaucrat powers indefinitely. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 19:13, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

LIR, I understand about 'crats rights not being revoked, but i'm talking about being here now. 11 admins and 'crats active now? I have been active for 3 months now, and I have never seen Makiaha, Bob Newbie is kl, KazeNoYouko, Bayoubash, Bella Goth, Matta jr and TheDataMonster on the wiki. Duskey is currently not here, and Bleeh is the only user who states that he is inactive. That means that Dharden, A morris, JEA13, you, RR and Monster2821 are the only current active admins and above here now. Here comes my point: that totals 6 users. This is a large wiki, and Dharden mentioned that not everyone is on at the same time everyday. Thats why i'm saying we could use a few more active users. Get what i'm saying? BobNewbie ^{talk • blog} 18:54, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually against the idea of opening the adminship page. I see no one capable at this time of having the Admin rights. You guys are a bit impatient to become an admin as well. (I actually wrote something much larger than this, but Wikia was having technical issues and I couldn't save it) [Ѧüя◎ґ] 23:05, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

Certainly? I don't think we have "enough admins", we are having lack of activity around here I noticed, I think we are capable for more 1 or 2 admins, after that probably no more. ---Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 00:23, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

Its not about everyone wanting to become admins, its about the wiki. Activity is falling and the wiki could use 2 more admins. BobNewbie ^{talk • blog} 09:10, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

So, BobNewbie, could you at least tell me who would become the 2 new admins if the request pages were open? [Ѧüя◎ґ] 18:57, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

Guilherme, Rodrigo X, you and DarthCookie come to my mind. Possibly someone else. The point is, we need more admins. Why do you ask, Auror?BobNewbie ^{talk • blog} 19:11, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

I really don't want to be a dick, but I really disagree with that. I personally think none of us are really ready for the rights yet. If you guys still don't agree with that, we can have a vote, whether or not the request page be opened or not. [Ѧüя◎ґ] 19:16, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

Auror, I understand if you disagree. But remember, you are a long-term and experienced user, along with Rodrigo X, and both Guilherme and DarthCookie are hard working users who have admin rights on other wiki's, so they understand how to use the tools. Also, there are plenty of names I did not name who could be admins. BobNewbie ^{talk • blog} 19:21, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be rude or anything but I don't think that the requests should be open at this time. I do agree that there are users on this wiki who would make great admins but I just don't see the demand as this Wiki doesn't have that many problems with vandalism and any stupid page edits can just be safely reverted/rolledback. The current admins are doing a very good job and like I said, there are more who would make great admins and probably could become admins one day but currently, I just don't feel that the requests should be opened. Regards, GEORGIEGIBBONS ^talk _{contributions} 19:34, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to speak here from an administrator perspective, but I'm going to try and be as neutral to support/opposition to opening requests as I can. I can say that I am on the wiki sporadically throughout most days unless I am extremely busy. The amount of time I spend here varies based on many things, but I can often spend a couple hours browsing around looking at things, largely just making sure everything's running (relatively) smoothly. I will be the first to admit that the admins don't always catch the vandalism right away, and sometimes we really don't notice it, and it takes one of our rollbackers or users that use the undo feature to draw the matter to our attention. Whether adding more admins to the wiki will resolve that matter is a matter of discussion. Regardless, it is impossible to say, even if we had dozens of admins, that all vandalism would be caught in a timely fashion.

I like to think that the admins here do a good job keeping the wiki running smoothly and that we are relatively trusted individuals in the community; I know I've had a couple incidents with some users here, but I like to think that given time and understanding, we all will move on and that what I say and do is appreciated and that my words are listened to, both as an admin and as a member of the community. So I say this - it really is up to the bureaucrats to decide when we start taking on new admins. I have full faith in A morris, Dharden and Duskey (whose absence is unexplained to me, by the way) to judge when TSW will need more admins; if they do this by way of a vote held here, more power to them (and to the community), but ultimately, whatever they decide I will support. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 03:28, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that the current admins/'crats are doing a great job, but as my first point states, they can work on new projects. BobNewbie ^{talk • blog} 16:49, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what Patrick said, what ever one of the 3 (or two o_0) 'crats decide, I will support, and I agree they are doing their job amazingly. I think there are reasons as to why it should and should not be opened:

• The work admins/'crats do could be made easier with help, so that they can work on new projects
• More help for the community
• A bigger chance of vandals being caught

BobNewbie ^{talk • blog} 16:52, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

In response to what Dharden has said on BobNewbie's talk page, I think the best situation would be, if we opened up admin selection again, that an administrator is selected that doesn't live in the western hemisphere... this is because most of the active administrators here are North American (either Canadian or from the United States), so while we are largely busy during our daytime or while we are sleeping at night, there are few (if any) admins left to patrol. So if admin requests were open, I would hope to see people from Europe or Asia apply, over people from the Americas. Granted, I don't agree with denying a request simply because a person comes from the wrong location, geographically. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 21:20, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

In terms of raw numbers, I think there are enough active admins at this time. However, that isn't the only issue that needs to be considered. One question that doesn't seem to have been raised is whether there's enough slack in case someone needs to take a break for more than a couple of days, or needs to be absent due to Real Life. Dharden (talk) 23:11, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

Is this section closed?--Monster2821 (Talk) 20:57, November 24, 2010 (UTC)

Neighborhood Stories

Hey guys! The wiki already has a place for fanon about Sims and pre-made neighborhoods, but should we have a place for fanon neighborhoods? BobNewbie ^{talk • blog} 16:15, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

I think that it should (if not already) be covered at The Sims Fanon Wiki as users are allowed to write about their CAS created Sims there. GEORGIEGIBBONS ^talk _{contributions} 17:58, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Player stories about pre-made neighborhoods is one thing, but stories about custom/fanon ones belong on the Fanon Wiki. Dharden (talk) 19:02, November 19, 2010 (UTC)