The Sims Wiki talk:Policy/Creation Policies

Fanon policies

Moved from the Community Portal talk page

---

It has been over a month since we have allowed Fanon on The Sims Wiki. The Fanon Namespace has proven to be popular in our community, just look at how many fanon pages were created! Now, I think that it is time to re-evaluate our fanon policies, mainly because we have a lot of fanon stubs and messy pages. Most of the ones, like all fanon must be created by registered users, are good, but there are a few I think we should discuss. One, how long should Fanon admins wait until deleting fanon pages that do not meet our standards? Two, should empty bio pages really be accepted on the wiki, even if the Sim is mentioned somewhere else in the users fanon? After accessing the current fanon we have now, I think I've come up with two solutions:

• Empty bio pages should be treated akin to hollow pages.
• Hollow pages should be deleted after one day, with the admin notifying the author the day before, Very Low Quality pages should be deleted after one week, with the author being notified at the start of the "countdown," Low Quality pages should be deleted after two weeks, with the author being notified sometime beforehand.

So, what do you think? —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 04:56, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

I do like this new policy as it cuts down on the poor quality pages and it may encourage the creators to create higher quality pages. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 07:18, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

That should do it. Many users create fanon but have other things to do, and have to come back to it. So, do we presume the fanon is in progress, or delete it if it is of a very short length? Perhaps they could add an "in progress" tempate or something? --WoganHemlock ^{(talk) · (blog)} 08:12, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

There is already a {{fanon-uc}} template, which is place when a fanon page is still "under construction." If the author doesn't add this template on a poor quality fanon page, I believe that we should delete it in the required amount of time. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 15:03, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. How about if a fanon is shorter than a predetermined length, and does not have the in progress template, we notify it's owner, and delete it 48 hours after notification? --WoganHemlock ^{(talk) · (blog)} 23:22, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good. Should we officially add those to the policies now? —Random Ranaun ^{(Talk to me!)} 02:46, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

No, you should wait a week at least for further input. Don't rush these sort of things. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 02:48, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

I think we could wait more than 2 days, regarding poor quality fanon pages, remember not all people edit the wiki that regularly so change it to one week, would be better for me, I think this way would not make this so brutal, unexpected and we wouldn't hurt so much the feelings of editors. Thank you. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 08:13, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

When I said 48 hours, I used it as an example. If this policy passes, we should start a discussion about the length. I'd say a week is too long, but two days is a bit harsh, now I think of it. --WoganHemlock ^{(talk) · (blog)} 08:18, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

How about five days? - LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 19:43, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

Seems okay. Let's waitfor a while to get feedback, and then add it. --WoganHemlock ^{(talk) · (blog)} 02:38, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

It's been a while, and no further feedback has come in, so should we stick with 5 days and add it to the policies? --WoganHemlock ^{(talk) · (blog)} 05:39, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

I've just realized that there are other policies that we need to discuss. For one, how long should it be until a fanon story is considered abandoned, and under what circumstances would it be acceptable to delete it? —Random Ranaun ^{(Talk to me!)} 03:32, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

How about it is considered abandoned if it has not been edited in two weeks? And if a user does not edit it in the 4 days after being notified of it's abandonment, we delete it. If a user receives a substantial block, e.g. longer than the 2 weeks, we could maybe move it to a sub-page in their userspace. --WoganHemlock ^{(Talk to meeee!!)} 04:25, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

Altered fanon policies

Our current policy prohibits anonymous users from creating fanon. This is set up so that fanon is less likely to be abandoned by its creator. However, I think that we should reconsider this policy. To that end, I have an idea.

I think that we should continue to limit anonymous user creation of fanon, but refrain from deleting anonymous user creations immediately. Instead, we should encourage anonymous fanon creators to register an account with Wikia and allow them to reclaim their fanon if they register within a set period of time (say, 72 hours or so). That way, we don't seem so hostile to new editors, we open the door for new users, and we avoid deleting potentially good fanon due to non-registration.

Thoughts? -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 05:46, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me, but as long as we don't get heaps of anon fanon, I'm fine with it. ~>ฬђ ^{(Ŧlยttєгรђא ƒтω!)} 06:02, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

It's a good idea and it would help grow our fanon namespace. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 15:16, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

Fanon Cleanup

I've noticed that there is a policy regarding the {{Fanon-cleanup}} template as well as some text on the template stating, "Only administrators may add and remove this tag."

Personally, I think we should relax whatever restrictions we have in place of users tagging fanon articles and just let non-admins do it too. After all, if the tag is added in good faith then what problems are there? If someone has a problem with someone tagging a fanon article then they can easily take it up with the user who did it or ask for a second opinion. If anyone can add a {{Cleanup}} template to a mainspace article then I don't see what problems arise from someone doing practically the same thing to a fanon article. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 16:24, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

If it's the case that non-admins will be able to add the tag, then I think that non-admins should also be able to remove the tag. Otherwise, you have a situation where non-admins are 'locked in' by the actions of a non-admin that they're not allowed to override due to the rule. Otherwise, I'm fine with this. -- LiR ^{speak ~ read} 17:03, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

I was meant to write that actually - it makes sense for non-admins to remove tags too. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 17:13, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, especially when given that sometimes a mark is needed to alert someone. I did use the cleanup tag on several very poor fanon pages... without knowing the "only administrators may ADD" aspect of it. I definitely say yes to this lifting of restrictions. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 18:05, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

Given that despite little input (considering I've also added this to the IRC topic) there is no opposition, I've gone ahead to make these changes. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 11:33, May 19, 2012 (UTC)

Proposed writeup of de facto policy on rumors

From time to time, rumors about new expansion or stuff packs, or new games, will appear. Since the existence of these rumors and information about them is information about The Sims Series, The Sims Wiki has created an article for them.

• Within the wiki's mainspace, information about rumored expansion packs, stuff packs, or games must be placed in The Sims game rumors. This allows The Sims Wiki to mention rumors and give information about them, while making it clear that they are rumors.

• Statements made on The Sims game rumors must have a valid source.

Dharden (talk) 13:55, October 3, 2012 (UTC)