I know that this idea has already been considered, but I think we should reconsider merging with the Fanon Wiki. One of the main problems recently on this wiki was it's decreasing activity. Many ideas were thought of, and I thought that merging with the Fanon Wiki would be a good way to help increase the wiki's activity. I originally thought of the Fanon Wiki merge about 8 months ago. I thought that it was a good idea to help increase the activity and popularity of both wiki's, and, as you probably noticed, we definitely need help with the activity now. The Avatar Wiki merged with their fanon wiki a while ago. They claimed that it was very controversial, but ended up being a really smart move, as it helped their wiki remain popular and active, even after Avatar: The Last Airbender ended. One of the main reasons that caused people to vote against merging with the Fanon Wiki was that they thought it would be too confusing, and users wouldn't know whether a Sim is fanon or canon. However, using the Avatar Wiki as a role model, we could create a very simple and easy to understand way of merging with the Fanon Wiki. Like them, we could create a Fanon portal, which would act as a main page for the fanon side of the wiki, we could create a Fanon category, along with subsequent categories (Fanon Sims, Fanon neighborhoods, etc.), most importantly, we could create a Fanon namespace (Ex. Fanon:Article Name) so that Sims and other fanon won't get confused as being canon, and we could appoint some fanon administrators to run the fanon side of the wiki. Merging with the Fanon Wiki could be very beneficial to both communities, as it would bring both communities together, increasing activity, and bringing new users to the wiki, increasing popularity. Also, fanon is one of the main features of The Sims series, as it allows players to create their own Sims, neighborhoods, and stories. Many users come here, thinking that The Sims Wiki is for writing about their Sims. Once they find out it's not, they almost always leave, causing the wiki to lose one more contributor. If we merge with the Fanon Wiki, we would no longer have to worry about losing users. And, when a user creates a whole article about a Sim they created, rather than going to the hassle of moving the article to the Fanon Wiki and telling them about it, all we would have to do is move the article into the Fanon namespace. I believe that merging with the Fanon Wiki could be a great opportunity for us, as it could greatly help our wiki by increasing activity. Thank you for reading this (I know it's long :p), and be sure to tell me what you think! —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 22:45, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
Support - In the original vote, I voted no because I did not want it to pass without consensus. While I still hope this doesn't pass unless it's clear the community agrees, I think this route is very well thought-out and is a good idea. My questions are only minor, and do not impair me from supporting this idea in its current form.
Will player stories be kept in their present location as a subpage of the article, or will they also move to the Fanon namespace? If not, will there be a way to navigate from the Fanon namespace to individual player stories pages?
Ultimately, I support this idea. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 01:00, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
Apparently, according to this, player stories are stories and information based on canonical Sims, while fanon is Sims, stories, and other elements that are not included in any game, but treated as canon. So, if we do merge, player stories will stay where it is, but fanon Sims and stories based on fanon Sims will be under the Fanon namespace. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 03:34, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
For. One of the biggest sources of vandalism here is fanon being created. If it's allowed, that'll take a load off our backs. Also, even years after the series has ended, we can still have a large active community. --BobNewbie talk • blog 05:56, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
Support. It'll help boost the number of active editors and like BobNewbie said, it will save admins and rollbackers a lot of hassle when it comes to fanon. GG(t) • (c) • (b) 10:26, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
OpposeNo, never, I've statted many times why I disagree with this idea and I'm not going to repeat it but my personal opnion is that this will be a huge mess, everyone would write about their stories in real articles and I am seeing a dark future with this merge. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 18:17, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
There is one thing I disagree on, the merge. Won't it be easier to only lift the rule of creating fanon articles here? --BobNewbie talk • blog 18:31, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm.... Bob, I don't think so, are you imagining the huge mess it would be?! If this is approved, at least we should have a canon section and a fanon one, that's my personal opinion but it doesn't necessarily mean that all share this point of view. Thanks. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 18:38, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. What are you thinking? There is no way that could happen. In all of a sudden, a wiki named "Oh, I want to write about my own sims and I'm writing it here" merging with a wiki full of knowledge? If someone names a sim Bella Goth, then writing about her in TSW, then the readers won't know which article is the correct one|_Andronikos Leventis 20:20, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
Well, like I said above, if we merge, then the Bella Goth article that they created would be under the Fanon namespace. That's how we would know which article is canon and/or fanon. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 20:39, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
Support. Andronikos Leventis, if you had any brain cells left, than clearly, the fanon Bella Goth article will be under the fanon mainspace, as, Fanon:Bella Goth. If there's more than one fanon Bella Goth article, than the article will be named for it's story, as, Fanon:Bella Goth (The Final War). Anyway, I was for the fanon merge the first time, so I'm for the fanon merge this time as well. [Ѧüя◎ґ]
Oppose If we merge the wikis, even though the fanon articles will have "Fanon:" in front of them, plenty of people, as soon as they see that this wiki includes fanon, they will start making fanon pages without "Fanon:" in front, and they will start putting fanon things on non-fanon pages, and that will be to hard to keep up with, there is also the fact that merging will not very much increase activity on non-fanon pages (except what I mentioned above), it will mostly increase activity on fanon pages.--Eduardog3000 01:45, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
That's why we'll the user about their fanon, and tell them not to make the same mistake next time. [Ѧüя◎ґ]
Yeah. That's basically what's happening now, users are putting fanon into main articles. If we merge, this problem would probably become easier, in my opinion. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 02:10, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
Oppose I think one of the primary problems with this remains the fact that there is just so much Sims fanon. I see so many edit wars over names of pages, etc. How many Bella Goth pages will we end up with, namespace difference or not I see it getting messy. So messy. I also suspect (and it is only a suspicion) that it would increase, not decrease, the amount of fanon-vandalism here, although clearly BobNewbie sees it having the opposite effect. It's only a tentative oppose. I'm open to persuasion and if it happens I'll still be around. Watching this unfold carefully. --- (Kiwi tea 03:37, December 22, 2010 (UTC))
Well, if we do merge, the Fanon:Bella Goth articles would be named after the story they are a part of (i.e. Fanon:Bella Goth (The Final War), or, the creator's username (i.e. Fanon:Bella Goth (Random Ranaun)), with the main Fanon:Bella Goth article as a disambiguation page. And even if it does increase the fanon-vandalism here, it would be a lot easier to deal with. Fanon-vandalism isn't that big a problem at the Avatar Wiki, and even if a user writes fanon in a main article, we could just move it, and tell them about the fanon side of the wiki. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 04:20, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
Let me address some of the opposition.
-The idea that merging will cause problems with people placing articles in incorrect namespaces. The fact is this already happens regarding fanon and player stories. TSW has a more-or-less stated policy among admins that fanon-type content should be moved to the Fanon Wiki, or at the very least onto a user's namespace: this creates a lot of work. Additionally, if we insist that fanon must be placed at TSFW, that ties my hands because I'm not an admin at TSFW so I can't move articles between the wikis. The merge would allow admins to move pages simply by adding 'fanon:' to the front of it; super-simple!
Fanon edit wars will develop over page names. If this would ever happen, the solution is quite simple - make the names different; example being if two users create two Sims named John Smith... their article names would be 'Fanon:John Smith (User 1)' and 'Fanon:John Smith (User 2).' Again, very simple solution.
Sims named after pre-existing sims will confuse readers. Again, as long as the page has a 'fanon:' in front of it and clearly states the fact that it is fanon (we could set this up so pages created in the Fanon namespace have an automatic template, similar to the set-up in the Forum namespace), this should be no issue.
My position on this whole matter is that our current set-up is essentially only half there... we allow player stories but not fanon. IMHO if we disallow one, we should not allow the other, and vice versa. LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 04:25, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
Support I think it would bring more activity to the site, even though the administrator and bureaucrats would have more work, it would still bring activity, unlike if there was no activity this wiki would die. So I support the idea fully, I have been looking in from the outside for a couple of months and I've seen the decreasing activity.--DarthCookieTalk 09:34, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
Update
Since this move, if made, would have an impact on the jobs of administrators here (i.e. our roles and duties), and may necessitate increasing our staff, I think this matter should be addressed directly to the administrative team to consent to before we ask for community consent. Therefore, I will be starting a sister topic at the Admin Portal talk page (specifically for administrators) to discuss this. If a consensus is reached there in support of this proposal, we will return to seek consensus from the community. Feel free to continue discussion in the meantime. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 04:30, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
Another matter to consider, for anyone reading this; try to think of an arrangement which will best suit everyone. Since the matter is being proposed and is getting at least some positive reaction, at least some people want to see a move in this direction. That means that keeping the status quo is no more consented to than forcing through a change which some disagree with. Therefore, the goal is and ought to be finding the solution which best satisfies everyone. With that in mind, try to find a way to modify the current proposal to make it more agreeable to most, if not all, of the members of the community; this is the art of building consensus.-- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 05:38, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
Oppose I see a whole lot of mess if the two wikis are merged. Confused members will be editing on all of the wrong pages, hundreds of new pages would be created, and with that, a whole lot of work for the admins will be created as well. --Bella Goth 06:06, December 22, 2010 (UTC)Bella Goth
I consider that Kiwi tea and Bella Goth have good points on this matter. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 09:16, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
Bella Goth makes a horrible point, and, I still disagree. If it really is a lot of work for the admins, than we'll just make more users admins. I was thinking about the idea of "Fanon Admin". It gives you the power to give "Fanon Warnings", block users for not adhering the rules, and just clean up. I can see that Random Ranaun really wants us to merge, and the idea to me sounds awesome. You don't know something won't work until you try. I really don't see any mess happening with the two wikis merging. We can always deal with problems as a wiki, and if it really does get out of hand, than we can simply separate them again. It's as simple as that. [Ѧüя◎ґ]
Bella Goth, all your saying is there will be a mess. If we plan this correctly and as a community, there won't be a mess. Kiwi Tea, the main reason is not because of the amount of fanon created, it's that, and dealing with the decreasing activity and to keep a large active community years after the series has ended. --BobNewbie talk • blog 11:04, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
My opinion, from an admin perspective, is that there will be little or no 'mess'... some of the issues with the current system will be resolved, and the new areas were mess would potentially occur would be as simple to handle (or easier) than our current set-up - well within our ability to manage it, especially if one or two new admins were added specifically for the fanon section, as Auror and RR have suggested. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 01:31, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
Before I vote, I would like to address a few concerns I am having to be abe to fully understand this entire situation. If we go ahead with the merge, I see a lot of accidental vandalism coming in. New users, not quite familiar with editing could possibly be changing all the wrong pages. People arguing over their fanons, and many more articles requiring maintence that just two more admins couldn't cover. I understand that you want to get the game alive, years after it is through, but somehow I feel like the only edits that will be made here in the future, will be fanon edits. --Bella Goth 16:14, December 24, 2010 (UTC)Bella Goth
Bella Goth, if somebody makes "accidental vandalism", we can calmly move the page to the fanon namespace, or if they though they were allowed to put fanon in articles, we calmly revert it and tell them. Yes, it's gonna need some heard work, but raising activity is never easy, and we have plenty of hard workers on hand. --BobNewbie talk • blog 16:58, December 24, 2010 (UTC)
One reason to do this is that it doesn't depend on admins here also being admins on the Fanon Wiki. Most admins here aren't admins there (I'm not even active there), so we can't move articles from here to there. Therefore, a policy of having fanon on the Fanon Wiki is something that can't really be enforced. A "Fanon:" namespace is something that could be administered here, merger or no merger. Another is that we do allow some fanon here in the form of player stories. Some player stories pages have gotten long and unwieldy, and it may be time to consider reorganizing them even if we don't reconsider the types of fanon we allow. A "Fanon:" namespace could be one way of doing that. Dharden (talk) 16:16, December 25, 2010 (UTC)
I know it's usually not recommended, but I think there has been enough of a discussion to this to start a formal vote, like the one we had last time. --BobNewbie talk • blog 18:05, December 25, 2010 (UTC)
Well, something this monumental isn't exactly something that can be "voted on"... only community consensus is going to decide this. So the better question to ask is... is enough of the community in support of this for it to be done? -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 19:04, December 25, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thats true. It's me, you, RR, GEORGIE, Auror, DarthCookie and, I am not 100% sure, but I think he does, Dharden, support the idea to merge/create a fanon namespace. Bella Goth, Ed, Guilherme, Kiwi tea and Andronikos Leventis are against it. I may have miscount, but thats 7 users, + Monster, who supported it at the admin portal, which = 8, and there are 5 users who are against it. Though the biggest compliant is that "it will be a huge mess", like I said, as a community we can plan this to avoid that. Yes, it's gonna need some hard work, but raising activity is never easy, and we have plenty of hard workers on hand. We should think of everyone who apposes, but they should make a valid and strong point. --BobNewbie talk • blog 19:31, December 25, 2010 (UTC)
I am not an unqualified supporter of this. I was neutral last time because I can see good reasons to do it and good reasons not to do it. That's still true. What's changed is the balance; I think the arguments for doing it outweigh those against it. Dharden (talk) 22:19, December 25, 2010 (UTC)
Part of what I was trying to point out is that the question of creating a "Fanon:" namespace is separate from the question of whether to merge, and can be separate from the question of what types of fanon to allow. Creating the namespace does not require merging the wikis, and IMO, should be considered on its own merits. Dharden (talk) 22:34, December 25, 2010 (UTC)
So is the next step to inform the community and see there reaction, or is there more to discuss before making this idea public and get a consensus?--Bella Goth 23:19, December 25, 2010 (UTC)Bella Goth
It's already "public" and discussion can be made throughout the process... consensus is being found right now, but this isn't likely to be decided for a couple weeks at least. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 23:20, December 25, 2010 (UTC)
Formal Proposal Let me put this all down in a formal manner:
A new namespace, the fanon namespace, would be created with the Fanon Portal serving as its 'main page.'
One or two users would be made special Fanon Administrators - they would have normal admin powers but would be specifically responsible for monitoring the Fanon Namespace. These admins would be "on equal footing" with all other admins (there should be no hierarchy).
Fanon stories would be allowed only in the Fanon namespace, with admins responsible for moving articles wrongly made in the incorrect namespace (with notices or warnings issued to users who make this mistake).
Fanon stories would be expected to adhere to all other rules and guidelines on the wiki.
Fanon Sims, Families, Neighborhoods, etc. with the same name would be named on the wiki based either on their story content or their creator.
Pages in fanon namespace would be categorized under a main category Fanon, which would contain subcategories related to content in the fanon section.
Pages created in the fanon namespace would receive a template marking them clearly as fanon (and possibly indicating their creator).
As mentioned before referring to consensus - if you disagree with any part of this proposal, rather than discounting the entire idea, try to develop a solution which makes all of us as happy as possible. Fee free to suggest a change to what is written above, and we can see what everyone wants. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 01:31, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
For. Tentative support for this specific proposal. I still have huge reservations, but it's worth a try. I don't want to oppose change for the sake of opposing change. --- (Kiwi tea 05:11, December 23, 2010 (UTC))
Oppose.I have been thinking in this merge and I don't think this would result, everyone would be more dedicated to fanon stories than real articles, I think we would lose many of our contributors because they woldn't care for real articles, games, I don't think this is the best time to merge, my previous opinion about this concern remains. Thanks for reading. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 09:59, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
Well if you have reservations, suggest a change that would make you more supportive of this proposal - that's the whole idea. Why should you be forced to accept something you don't really like? -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 05:40, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
I think the only thing that will alleviate my concerns is seeing this work in practice. On that basis, the most sensible thing to do is lend it support. One measure I'd like to see in place though: ALL fanon links contain the associated username. I don't want to see edit wars between users who both want the original "Fanon:Jenny Smith" etc, however unlikely a scenario that might be. (Kiwi tea 09:16, December 23, 2010 (UTC))
The formal proposal is pretty good, but I think we should mention the main Fanon category, that would be under the Browse category, and hold other categories, such as Fanon Sims, Fanon neighborhoods, Fanon families, etc. Also, we should create a template that states an article is fanon, like LiR said before, that we could possibly get to appear automatically on the fanon articles. And maybe if the fanon articles are going to use the same templates as the canon articles (don't worry, {{Checkmns}} makes sure that non mainspace articles do not receive categories ^_^), we should possibly choose a color that would represent the Fanon side of the wiki, since the canon side's color would be green. That way, we could use Checkmns so that if the normal templates, like {{Sim}} and {{NeighborhoodInfobox}}, are going to be used, they would appear a certain color, another way to see if an article is fanon! Seems like a fun idea, don't you think? —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 06:24, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
Along with this proposal is a proposed timeline... this is all preliminary and also subject to change by anyone:
Immediately after proposal is adopted: Requests for administratorship are opened to accept new Fanon Administrators. These new administrators, our current administrators, and the community collaborate to write Fanon-specific policies (these would include rules about linking to videos or other sites, what content is/isn't allowed in fanon-specific articles, rules about who can and cannot edit pages, etc)
Within 4-6 weeks of adoption:Creation of Fanon namespace templates and foundational categories and subcategories.
Within 6-8 weeks of adoption:Creation of Fanon namespace itself, and the Fanon Portal; Formal ending of TSW's current No-Fanon policy at this point in time.
8 weeks after adoption and beyond:Creation of additional subcategories and templates, review and adjustment of TSW Fanon-specific policies and guidelines by the Fanon Admins.
I support this idea fully. BobNewbie talk • blog 08:04, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
This is more than likely jumping the gun quite a bit, but I have started work on the fanon templates in case this should pass. If it doesn't, no harm done because I need practice making templates anyways!
The first is a preliminary topnav navigation template, which would be added to fanon pages... it's quite a simple design, so it could use some more work.
This is a warning
We are warning you because of Fanon.This is a friendly reminder that Fanon (fan-created content) must be located in the Fanon: namespace. Your fanon edits in the main namespace have been moved to Fanon:Bella Goth. For more information on The Sims Wiki's Fanon rules, please go here. If you continue to add fanon to the main namespace, you may be blocked from the wiki. You may remove this warning once you have read and understood its meaning.Thank you.— LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 08:45, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
The second template I'm much more proud of, as it is the {{warning}} template with an added parameter - {{{location}}} in cases where the word Fanon is used in the {{{reason}}} parameter. If any reason other than the word Fanon is used, the main warning text reverts to its usual text. I'm going to try and make this more user-friendly... perhaps changing it up to add a parameter {{{fanon}}} where it can be determined whether the warning is fanon-related or not. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 08:45, December 23, 2010 (UTC
Changed the warning template on my test page so that an optional parameter- {{{fanon}}} - is used to determine the color and wording of the warning... if {{{fanon}}}=y, then (regardless of the reason given), the warning color and text changes, and {{{location}}} becomes a required parameter. You can see this template in action here. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 08:58, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
That's a good idea to go along with. I don't know if I could be an admin, but I could try, after all your already Community Director. We could try to find another Fanon Admin volunteer.--DarthCookieTalk 14:58, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
For ease of determining opinion, please sum up your opinion(s) below so we can easily and readily determine whether the community has consented to this idea. A strong argument will mean more than a simple opinion for the purposes of determining community opinion.
: I Support creation of a Fanon Namespace, selection of Fanon Admins, and the creation of policies handling fanon articles, as outlined above. I think this will increase activity, reduce confusion, make the admin job easier to do and improve the wiki. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 23:14, December 25, 2010 (UTC)
: I do not know if the proposal outlined above will increase activity, but from an admin POV, I believe it will make handling fanon/player stories easier. Dharden (talk) 00:40, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
: I support the proposal on the basis that it's worth testing. I remain skeptical that this move will reduce confusion, but I think it will increase activity. I'm looking forward to playing a constructive part in the changes if they go ahead. (Kiwi tea 01:05, December 26, 2010 (UTC))
: I guess there is no harm in trying this out. I must admit I haven't been on the wiki in a while. Perhaps this new project will draw back. I am still not 100% certain this will be a good decision, but as I stated above, let's give it a shot. --Bella Goth 03:54, December 26, 2010 (UTC)Bella Goth
: I support the proposal, on the grounds that will most likely help increase our activity, increase our number of users, make our wiki more popular, and help simplify the admin job of moving fanon. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 04:15, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. As in all other decisions, if it turns out not to work out, the community can decide to undo it or to eliminate certain changes. - LostInRiverviewtalk ·blog 01:26, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
: I support creating 1, 2 or possibly 3 fanon admins, new policies for fanon and the fanon namespace being created. I believe it will raise activity and number of users. BobNewbie talk • blog 13:05, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
: I don't support this, I'm still seeing a huge mess, new users will think "here I can write about my stories" and if they don't read policies carefully they will add a lot of accidental vandalism into pages, increasing activity is a good aspect but if there is too much activity it will make difficult to catch vandalism and clear it, I don't think this will do admin job much easier at all. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 10:31, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
This has been brought up multiple times and the issue you're discussing is possible, but you have to understand that people already make accidental vandalism because they don't understand our policies; this change would make this understanding easier, not harder. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 18:28, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
LIR is right. The whole "accidental vandalism" thing has been decided on. The point you make isn't really valid. --BobNewbie talk • blog 18:43, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
Existing policy would apply. Dharden (talk) 18:54, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
I believe the Fanon namespace will make things easier with regards to identification. GG(t) • (c) • (b) 19:36, December 27, 2010 (UTC)
I think this will be the best thing for the community, it will bring more users and people will have something to do again.--DarthCookieTalk 14:55, December 29, 2010 (UTC)
Since it is a merge, then one site has to link to the another. So, to enter the wiki, will users have to use www.sims.wikia.com or www.simsfanon.wikia.com?|_Andronikos Leventis 14:06, December 30, 2010 (UTC)
: If this really does happen, what will happen to the stories and admins on the fanon wiki? Will they lose their positions, or will they become the new fanon admins on the main wiki? [Ѧüя◎ґ]
No, this decision would not be a merge with the Fanon Wiki, it seems. - LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 18:49, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
Actually, when I first made the proposal, it was that a Fanon namespace would be created, and the articles from the Fanon Wiki would be moved here and placed under the Fanon namespace. Somehow though, the proposal morphed into just a creation of the Fanon namespace. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 04:26, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
I asked the administrators that my wiki, Sims Daily Planet Wiki, be more suitable to replace the fannon that is already in place. My majority of openion is that The Sims Wiki and Sims Daily Planet Wiki to coensist as sister projects. Basically, what I am saying, is that my wiki and The Sims Wiki to use each others templates, categories, and such, but, my wiki has more options to do stuff like creating your own player stories, television shows, and whatever the user like to do. But I am placing my on hold. SundogsCurrent wikis' talk page • Wikias' Talk Page • Wikis Managing 16:00, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
First off, I've never even heard of the Sims Daily Planet Wiki, so I wouldn't consider it a very good target to merge into, no offense to you. Looking at your wiki, you don't really have an infrastructure or contributor base established, so this merge for you guys could be pretty hard. I would say, if your wiki and TSFW were to merge, that your wiki should merge into the Fanon Wiki, not the other way around.
Second, this still doesn't solve our problems here at TSW. We would still have an issue with fanon being created here, with our admins having no power to move it to the correct wiki. As stated before in all of this discussion, many of us here (myself included) simply are not satisfied with the status quo here regarding fanon; agreeing to your proposal would largely maintain that status quo.
Note also that this proposal, although titled a proposal to Merge, should more properly be called a proposal to expand TSW to include fanon. Under this proposal, we would not be seeking to merge with any wiki, so TSFW and SDPW would be allowed to exist even after this idea is adopted. The proposal would create a Fanon namespace. I consider this the best idea because TSW has the traffic and the contributor community necessary to oversee new articles and to take on more administrators.
All in all, my opinion has not changed. I think we should push forward with this proposal. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 20:40, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
Just for the record I did indeed ask for that my wiki and The Sims Wiki be affiliated some weeks ago and it was, by consinsous, that both should not be affiliated. My main point that I did say, in a more confusing way, but now, clarifying it now, that I would add The Sims Wiki's administrators to help me and my team of administrators to have a better infrostructure and lay down the foundation of what my wiki will do instead of having it here at The Sims Wiki (for example - user created player stories is the main vocal-point of it all). The other thing that I did ask for is that, with permission from ALL administrators (which I can clearly see that there are absent administrators on here; see here for more details, that my wiki site may duplicate some to all templates, BUT, can be inspired by The Sims Wiki's templates. Once again, the administrator how replied, Duskey is the one who replied; check my post in Doo Peas Forums and Wikia talk-page for details, that he (or she) believes that it was not a good idea.
Before anything else, please keep in mind that I may be all over the place, but, that is apart of my mental disability; so please that in mind. Also, I am direct and to the point. I must ask you to do some digging around or ask questions if you don't understand and here I go; To respond to your comment, Lost-In-Riverview, that most to all of my wikis administrators are on everyday, or every other day, but, I am usually on editing there. You can click here to go to our wiki to see what it is. I agree with you about the lack of structure of the site. That is why that I insisted that there will be representatives from The Sims Wiki administration as our administration team for help. Appearantly, I did not communicate this in the post. I'm sorry; please forgive me for this, but, my intentions are there. I personally need help with the structure of the wiki, which I said earlier as a hybrid of the encyclopedic style seen here and the fanon style seen over at Sims Fanon wiki, but the overall is user-created input that, in what I have to learn from by The Sims Wiki's rules and bylaws that are not allowed to be here on The Sims Wiki but on the fanon. But, my question is, which you certainly can check in the fanon's forums, that makes me to believe that the administration team on the fanon site is not, or rarely is, on the site on a regular basis; unlike the Sims Daily Planet Wiki has. I am the founder there and like I said earlier, I am on everyday, but, my administration team is on, at least, three days a week. So, I am appealing to this merger request as a chance to strengthen our core audience, but, to expand our creative ways as an encyclopedic-fanon hybrid site that everyone can come to and create anything, real or fictional, to the site without being going to a site that has hardly any leadership to confer with questions, ideas, or any sudden need that the site needs. I believe, and yes speaking for every administrators at Sims Daily Planet Wiki, that we may have issues, BUT, we can overcome with help. If you recall Lost-In-Riverview, that the main sims encyclopedic resource site has standards and things that the wiki does not associate with and that is where Sims Daily Planet Wiki comes in. We take anything that is not covered by The Sims Wiki, but, in interest of fairness, I think that if both administration teams from both wikis come together and make a deal, of some sort, and agreed to upon both sides, I think that the new proposal has a better way of having an exceptional outcome.
With all of this said, but, I think that I am all over the place but the bottom line is; I am proposing that both leadership teams from both wikis come to agreement with what one wiki can do, what that one wiki will not do, exchange ideas to each other, and, not last off, with the agreement of an affiliates on both ends. I hope I am clear enough this time. I would like some The Sims Wiki's administration to help our wiki out by helping us structure the wiki (with rules, bylaws, warnings, templates, and so forth) to our site and when the The Sims Wiki's decision on when to be removed from leadership role at our wiki when they thinks that the wiki can be stable without them, or have an agreement on to stay on in the leadership role until we have found suitable replacements for the out going leaders. I hope this helps. I wanted to be an affiliate to this site and to the fanon site, but since there is a merger talk, I believe that it may be suitable for us to be the beneficiary of the merger since we are classified as encyclopedic-fanon site; which another wiki site has requested as to be clearly defines exact labeling; if that makes any sense at all. But, I do believe that we should be the ones to be asking for the merger with the affiliation to this wiki. SundogsCurrent wikis' talk page • Wikias' Talk Page • Wikis Managing 21:48, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
What about templates do you guys want that a fanon sim to appear in a category such as Grumpy Sims, I don't think weshould mixture them we should make templates for fanon stuff? --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 17:46, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
Where do I begin...? I see what you're saying. However these decisions are almost never made exclusively by our admin team here... they're made by the community in general. So, for the purposes of this decision, I've separated the sections accordingly. Responding personally, however, I'd have to say that this still doesn't solve a lot of our problems here. But, if this is what the TSW community wants and it's what TSFW and SDPW wants, then so be it. - LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 18:49, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
We could make templates for fanon stuff and we should create fanon categories in the template, for example if i put blue eye in a fanon template section, the category would appear "Category:Fanon/Blue eyed Sims" what do you guys think? --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 22:42, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
Well, with {{Checkmns}}, users could use the {{Sim}} and {{Simbio}} templates for their fanon pages, and they won't receive the same categories as canon Sims. :) —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 05:20, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
Seeing no real support for your proposal, I'd consider it dead. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 11:50, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
This is not a vote, this is simply an attempt to best determine the level of consensus for the formal proposal. Please sign below with a {{VoteFor}}, {{VoteAgainst}} or {{Neutral}} template, along with your approximate level of support (i.e. Support, Strongly Oppose, Support with hesitation, etc.)
To wrap this up relatively soon, the final push for consensus will be timed. Please note that silence is not consent; if this fails to receive a sizable amount of support from the community, it will be considered failed even if the idea is overwhelmingly supported by those who choose to voice their opinion. To keep this orderly, please keep your statements below very limited; if you've got something to say or argue (aside from a short sentence), put it in a section above and continue the discussion there.
Please keep in mind that small details of the proposal can still be changed, regardless of the outcome here. KEEP YOUR STATEMENTS SHORT.
Time remaining to sign below: 12:00:00 20 January 2011 UTC
Strong Support The only things I would like to point out to users who oppose it for the "accidental vandalism" and "bit mess" parts, remmember that those points aren't really valid as discussed. Feel free to still add it though. I am dedicated to making this all work out. --BobNewbie talk • blog 12:45, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
Support I wish to point out that BobNewbie is pushing this "those points aren't valid" way too hard. I do consider some of the concerns voiced extremely valid concerns. I'm not certain this will make vandalism easier to deal with, and I do expect there to be a lot more conflicting attitudes towards pages and the proper attitude towards canon if this goes ahead. All of these concerns are valid, but they are also nebulous and impossible to prove without running the experiment. That all said, I say give this a go. And I welcome the cautious disagreement of those who vote against so long as they are willing to work towards a better wiki no matter the outcome. -- (Kiwi tea 14:06, January 6, 2011 (UTC))
. Strongly Oppose, I'm sorry to say that I still see accidental vandalism towards canon and I don't think this is an invalid point at all, I'm still very concerned about this, like Kiwi tea I also think there will be a lot of conflicts, though if community decides to go on with this I will support no matter what, and I'm ready to help community. Thank you. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 17:31, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
Strongly Support - Like Kiwi said, there's no way to know if it works until we try, but I'm confident that this will be a good move for our wiki. -- LostInRiverviewtalk · blog 21:22, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
Strong support - I agree with Kiwi tea's point (which LiR has mentioned above) and I think that the merge will encourage more activity and I think the Fanon namespace will work. GG(t) • (c) • (b) 21:40, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
Strong Support - I don't have much to say on this basis. [Ѧüя◎ґ]
Strong Support - I, too, agree with Kiwi tea's statement, which LiR mentioned. I also believe that the merge will be very beneficial to our wiki, even if it means some extra work for our admins. ;) —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 04:45, January 7, 2011 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose - Sorry, this idea is something I cannot accept, I think this will alter the quality of the articles. |_Andronikos Leventis 10:37, January 7, 2011 (UTC)
Support --a_morris (talk) 19:17, January 9, 2011 (UTC)
