The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal

Community

Community Portal (talk) · Community Discussions forum
Fanon Portal (talk) · Game Guide Portal (talk) · Custom Content Portal (talk) · Development Portal (talk) · Admin Portal (talk) · Main Page talk

Community Portal Talk Page

This is the general discussion page for The Sims Wiki! Feel free to discuss anything you want regarding the wiki here or at the forums. Any questions regarding the gameplay features or modding for The Sims series should be taken to our Questions forum. Policy proposals should be made here.

---

;Broken Links

If a link to a particular discussion has brought you to the top of this page, instead of to the actual discussion, then that link may be broken. Please check the link and make sure that the section name is correct, and that the section in question hasn't been archived.

Contents

Noticeboard Most recently archived on August 23, 2012 -- LiR speak ~ read 00:38, August 23, 2012 (UTC) Notices for community discussions are placed here as necessary. Any user may add their notice. Please sign your notices! -- LostInRiverview talk · blog 08:55, May 29, 2011 (UTC) Archives 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Fanon wiki merge (archive 5) Articles about unannounced titles Achievements discussion Fanon Namespace discussion

New user adoption

I've been thinking of bringing back New User Adoption, which would allow an experienced editor (can be anyone really) to "adopt" a new user who requests it and they can rely on that user to help them out. BobNewbie originally came up with the concept but it didn't really go too far. I am planning to adjust some of the "guidelines" for this feature as some of them were just drafts from planning (plus a minimum of 700 edits seems too much for someone to be eligible to adopt someone) but we'll come to that a little bit later. For now, I'm wondering what others think of this. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 22:42, February 28, 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It might encourage "newbies" to edit more and feel more helped and less "lost" when the wiki is full of more experienced users. I also feel it would be an opportunity for the community to get to know itself more. --RoseGui (talk here) 22:46, February 28, 2012 (UTC)

I agree as well. I aren't that sure how we'll go around it though, since tbh most people who sign up make a few edits and leave. ―ฬђ ^talk 05:35, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

We can definitely add something to the welcome message regarding it which might build some kind of interest amongst new users. I'll probably start planning the new "guidelines" within the next few days as a draft and see how that goes. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 13:05, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

A very good idea for the new user to become a great professional editor. It can be possible if they will sign up for this, since most (or maybe some) might edit a few and just leave without coming back or they may decline because they are experienced editors from other wikis and/or Wikias. Just saying.

ThomasWikia ^Main|Talk

09:52, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

Game 'generation' portals

Hey all. I'd like to bring up a topic that has been discussed by several people over a series of years. The topic revolves around the idea that we group games together based on their 'generation', and that we create Generation portals that link to games and specific things in each generation (similar to how we have a separate page for TS1, TS2 and TS3 tutorials). The specification of a certain generation would depend on the release date and game engine in the game, but would generally be:

Generation one (2000-2004)

Began with: The Sims in February 2000

Notable additions: Main series games, The Sims Online, The Sims console versions (Bustin' out, Urbz)

Final release: The Urbz: Sims in the City in November 2004

Generation two (2004-2008)

Began with: The Sims 2 in September 2004

Notable additions: Full-3D viewing, customizable neighborhoods, introduction of 'Stuff Packs'

Final release: The Sims 2: Mansion and Garden Stuff in November 2008

Generation three (2009-present)

Began with: The Sims 3 in June 2009

Notable additions: Seamless neighborhoods, release on smartphones, frequent patches and introduction of new features.

Final release: Present generation

What does everyone think of this? -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 22:34, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

I personally think "do not need:" Unless someone was completely new to the game, they should be able to identify the game generation that is associated with the each article. Mind you, we've also got the icons up there to notify readers about what generation(s) the article is relevant to. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 03:28, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, and I'm glad we are finally getting some discussion on this after its been in limbo for so long. IIRC RR made some drafts of the portals a while ago, I'm not sure where they might be though. ―ฬђ ^talk 04:43, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be a good way for newcomers AND experienced players to get to the information they want as fast as possible. DanPin • talk • contribs 21:43, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

Restricting the Fanon namespace

Hi everyone. I've been noticing a lot of problems with anons creating and editing fanon pages. Whether it be an anon vandalizing another fanon page, or an anon vandalizing an admin's user page after having their fanon deleted, I think something should be done about this. I know that it is possible to lock namespaces from being edited by anons (such as with the MediaWiki namespace). Do you think it should be done here? —Random Ranaun ^{(Talk to me!)} 17:56, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

Rather than locking an entire namespace, I think it would be better if we adjusted our fanon policies a little. A proposal was made some time ago and I'd rather go along with what LiR proposed back in August. That way, it may give less of an opportunity for an anon to vandalise an admin's userpage as a response to their fanon being immediately deleted. As for vandalising other fanon articles...I've only seen it happen on a few occasions in the past and I'd go along with how we'd deal with any other form of vandalism. Then again, I was, and still am, absent so I'm not sure how much of it has happened lately.

tl;dr? Go along with this rather than locking the fanon namespace. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 18:43, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, what he said :p -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 22:11, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

If we could actually manage to get discussion going on a policy for once, the one LiR made god knows when would be good. Otherwise this would be the way to go, since anons aren't allowed to make fanon anyway. Imo if they really want to they can just create an account. ―ฬђ ^talk 04:03, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it a little soon for a consensus? I think we should discuss this a bit further. —Random Ranaun ^{(Talk to me!)} 00:25, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I would have left it open for a bit more. That said, discussion can happen while consensus is being gathered. ―ฬђ ^talk 01:21, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

Consensus

We are now seeking consensus based on these two options:

• Option A - Protect the fanon namespace completely from anonymous editors.
• Option B - Amend the policy based upon this proposal.
• Other - Other/none of the above (please state in your response what you would prefer).

The discussion will last for one week. 23:42:00 March 17, 2012 UTC. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 23:42, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

---

Option B - This would be a much more generous solution to actually give anonymous users the chance to write their fanon and keep it rather than locking them out of the namespace completely. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 23:42, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

---

Option A - If they want to make fanon so much, they can just make a account. As it is, 95% of fanon now is made by registered users, so it wouldn't change much, and might even get more users registering this way. ―ฬђ ^talk 01:19, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

---

Option B - We are having a surge in Fanon creation, and accepting anons (and gradually inducing them into making accounts) will be much welcome. Hopefully they'd participate in voting for featured fanons... Getting more active members are an start. (And LiR's got a point there, as do GG: it's simply unfair to willing anons, and making a Fanon page means that they might have some experience. However, it should be emphasized that anons should be directed towards making an account.) MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 02:40, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

---

Option A - Registering is free, so there is no reason for not register to create fanon. If we protect the fanon namespace, that will be easier for us to manage the fanon and prevent this unnecessary situation: no more deleting fanon by anon, no more angry anon because their fanon deleted on someone talk page (like what happened to mine...), or angry anon because their fanon deleted on someone registered user fanon (like what happen yesterday and andronikos take care of it... lol), and the important one is will be prevent blocking anon that angry because their fanon deleted then vandalizing someone page. Wiryawan310 03:49, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

---

Option A - Per Wogan and Wir. If they really want to make fanon, all they have to do is register. It'll make our jobs much easier. —Random Ranaun ^{(Talk to me!)} 04:10, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

---

Option B -I don't think it's fair to delete a person's fanon simply because they didn't register in advance, since they may not be aware of the policy we have in place. I think giving the anons notice once they've created fanon that they need to register is much better than just deleting it entirely. And I think locking the fanon namespace altogether to anons is fraught with problems, one of which being that it might actually violate Wikia's rules. Aside from that, I think it sends a completely wrong message; where we should be open and inviting, we're instead hostile to those who haven't registered, blocking them from trying to make a contribution when we should be allowing that contribution (with the stipulation that they register) and trying to recruit that user. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 04:44, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

Katy Perry

I just got some info from external site that this exchange page is official from katy perry herself. She uploaded her self sim and I believe its really her because after I download and look carefully that sim is 100% same like katy perry sim used on trailer. Since EA has launched The Sims 3 Showtime Katy Perry Edition, I think we need to create a page for Katy perry sim. what do you think guys?

Note: She also upload a cat named kitty purry but it already removed. I still have the copy of the cat...

Wiryawan310 15:05, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

I say we should hold off on creating a Katy Perry page unless EA offers an official Katy Perry downloadable Sim or unless she appears in the Katy Perry Edition as an NPC (similar to Christina Aguilera or Drew Carey). It would be hard to prove that a particular exchange page was owned by a particular person, unless that person themselves announced it, in which case I'd say we need more definitive proof than an external site just saying so. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 20:23, March 9, 2012 (UTC)