The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal

Incoming Wikia Chat feature
I'm not sure if everyone has heard but Wikia have added a new chat feature to the MediaWiki software, as stated in this tech update. Dopp had written: "THIS JUST IN: Chat is now enabled on Community Central! You can access it via the sidebar from any page except for the homepage, as long as you're logged in." on that blog. Currently it is in testing and only avaliable on Community Central.

Basically, this section is asking - do we want this feature activated? I've been made aware that Wikia are planning to add it to Wikia Labs for anyone who wants to try it out. Personally, I don't think it would be a good idea as it would defeat the purpose of IRC channel. I have tried out the feature and being used to IRC, I can't say that I am a massive fan of it due to the various browser issues that it causes and disconnections but it doesn't mean everyone will think the same way. For anyone who wants to try it out, click here. 19:43, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - This add-on is completely pointless. There are no PMs, no IP addresses, and no topics. - XoTulleMorXo  ( talk and  contributions ) 19:54, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - per the reasons that are mentioned above. Also, the Wikia feature is more prone to vandals. On IRC, we can just block their IP and it's settled whereas on Wikia Chat, they could just make a new account every time and we'd have to go to a lot of trouble to ban them efficantly and even then, it would still cause problems. I'm more comfortable with using the IRC channel. 20:03, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Much like the users above, I feel this add on is pointless. I also feel the IRC channel is better, we are all used to it, we have bots for it, and we should not leave it for this inferior system. -- WoganHemlock (talk) · (blog) 22:14, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Granted, I wouldn't use it any more than I use the IRC channel, but since the IRC channel is established, enabling this here would be reinventing the wheel. Dharden (talk) 23:40, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a bit premature to be taking a stance against something that isn't completely -- or even close to completely -- developed. I don't think we've yet seen the potential of this tool, and I think it's unwise for us to make a decision until we can be at least somewhat sure we know what we're making the decision about. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 05:08, April 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on the negative consenseus and what LiR had mentioned above, I'm thinking that we could trial the feature when it is added with Wikia Labs, which is when Wikia would have had time to improve it. After or during the trial, we could have another vote to see what the community thinks of the "improved" version. 21:43, April 20, 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I'm late. Well, the feature is undoubtedly improving for sure. When I first got on, it barely worked. Comparing that with how it works now makes it clear Wikia are working on the bugs. Yes, we have IRC, but even now after so much growth its still pretty unused; once one looks at the amount of users we have. The feature isn't fully-grown yet, and that's why Wikia has been activating it; to grow it. I support it being activated on a trial basis, though just to see how we can use it for positive gain. -- Zombie talk • blog 09:46, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to be more stable now but there now doesn't seem to be that much usage on Community Central and there seems to be a bug that clones users. Furthermore, you seem to be disconnected from the chat randomly when your connection slightly drops in speed. I'm not opposed to trialing the feature when it's released into Wikia Labs but I'd rather use IRC as a) it's already there, like Dharden said, b) it is more reliable and c) Wikia Chat doesn't feature a way (yet) to join other wikis chatrooms or change nicks, like IRC. 10:01, May 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * GEORGIE, I think you're missing something. The Wikia chat feature exists for chat between Wikians on a Wiki so that they can covers about things faster, not to talk to other Wikis. If we want to talk to others, we can simply go to theirs or visa-versa, or we can still keep IRC. I don't see how enabling it will effect the IRC much. Most, if not all, users will still stay on the IRC if they have for as long as they have. Zombie talk •  blog 10:17, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * If we adopt chat, we don't need to drop IRC. However, I think having chat rather than an IRC channel would save a lot of headaches in moderating, and would allow us to apply blocks to users, creating a clear link between chat and the wiki where currently one does not exist. As with all new features, there are bugs that need to be worked out, but those initial bugs should not be the reason you don't support a feature. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 15:07, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if we get chat, I don't know how it will go. I've been to some other wikis, and while there is a couple of users on chat, there is heaps more (in one case 10 times more) on an IRC channel. If this happens here, I don't see the point of it. --W H  (Talk) 05:23, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: Wikia are implementing a private message feature and the Chat feature is expected to hit Wikia Labs by the end of the month. 21:19, June 20, 2011 (UTC)

Votes to activate the feature when released into Wikia Labs
Apparently, Chat will be released as part of Wikia Labs in the middle of June. The feature does seem to be improving and Wikia seem to be working hard to make the feature even better. I don't think that Chat will ever replace IRC but if the community are interested in the feature, then we could activate the feature on a trial basis when it is released into Wikia Labs. I suggest we vote below and decide on what we'll do based on the consenseus. 21:51, May 24, 2011 (UTC)

- Support - Well, the feature is certainly seeming more and more promising. I personally don't see any highly excessive problems that may come with it, and I believe that the IRC won't be effected by this at all (most users will stick with the IRC instead of abandon it completely). Anyway, I support a trial run for a month or so -- Zombie talk • blog 21:56, May 24, 2011 (UTC)

- Support - I can't see any harm in giving it a trial. I don't think it will really affect our IRC channel or be more popular, and there is no reason why we shouldn't trial it. --W H  (Talk) 05:08, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

- Weak Support - I support this, but I actually fear it replaces IRC. -- Guilherme Guerreiro ( talk here ) 10:59, June 18, 2011 (UTC)

- Strong Support - Since I cannot use the IRC, this would be a much safer way to chat with the other users. And, they have made a few tweaks to the program, so it works out for vandals and spammers. It's easy to access too. -- XoTulleMorXo  ♥talk  and  contributions♥  20:42, June 20, 2011 (UTC)

As I have seen no opposition and the feature is now in Wikia Labs, I have enabled the chat feature for a 2 week trial. 20:41, June 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * Respecting all opinions in the vote below, I would just like to ask MTDM if he's completely sure that would happen? As most of the IRC users, if not all, have made the point that they will be sticking with IRC. -- BobNewbie  ∞(Talk)∞  18:24, July 4, 2011 (UTC)

Votes to keep the feature after the two week trial has ended
As you are all aware, we are into the two week trial of the Wikia Chat feature, which will end on July 15th 2011. Based on early opinions of the feature and further opinions to come during the trial, I think we should start taking votes to decide whether to keep the feature after the 2 weeks. 17:03, July 1, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - I simply dislike the feature and I feel that IRC is more reliable, more user-friendly, more efficiant and it has more features, which makes the IRC channel a pleasant place to be. 17:03, July 1, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Per Georgie, moreover I think if we have wikia chat new users won't search for IRC anymore. -- Guilherme Guerreiro ( talk here ) 17:07, July 1, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Georgie and Guilherme. DanPin .:::. Talk 17:08, July 1, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose -- Bleeh (talk) (blog) 17:11, July 1, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Honestly, I don't mind it staying, hearing what Wikia are planning to incorporate in it. It may be a bit unstable at the moment, though the pace at which it's been improving is awesome. Plus, yes, the IRC is great, and I too personally prefer it, but it's just not as easy to use for some people and no matter what, it wont be as connected to the Wiki as Chat is. BobNewbie  ∞(Talk)∞  17:13, July 1, 2011 (UTC)

Support - I don't think there's a reason to shut it off. It doesn't do any harm by being here. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 18:20, July 1, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral - It doesn't matter if we keep it and it's not used, most folks will stay with the IRC. --W H  (Talk) 23:27, July 1, 2011 (UTC)

Weak Support - Other than the better-looking design, I don't really see the flaw. Still, I believe its feature will be enhanced in the future. Nikel23 03:34, July 2, 2011 (UTC)

Support - I honestly don't see where all the hate comes from. Besides, its presence doesn't cause any harm, and if you don't like it, then you're not forced to use it. :p —Random Ranaun (Talk to me! ) 13:28, July 2, 2011 (UTC)

Strongest Possible Oppose - >.> I'm only part of the IRC. meh friends will abandon the IRC for wikia chat. :c IDGAF for Wiki Chat. 'nuff said. -- M T  D  M  18:20, July 4, 2011 (UTC)

Very Weak Support - Although it's a nice idea it still needs a lot of adjusting, besides it's not very popular and only few users use it. Yummy! 09:59, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

The Wiki Background (again)
Hi folks. Once again, I'd like to ask if we want to do anything to improve our "Bunch of plumbbobs on a green wall" background we have currently? I've said before that I'm not a huge fan of it, but I want some community input and perhaps some ideas on actually changing it. Here are a few options we have at our disposal:


 * 1) We have a background design contest where users can submit background designs. After the designs are submitted, we put each submission as the wiki background for a week or so, and allow people to check it out and vote.
 * 2) We contact the Wikia Content Team and have them work with us on redesigning our background (and possibly other visual aspects of the wiki, if we want).
 * 3) Keep the current background

There may be other options, but those are the three I see right now. What are your thoughts and ideas? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 20:07, May 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we should ask the Wiki Content team to help us out. I have some ideas for a background such as the box art for TS3 (you know, the one with the pictures of the sim's faces) or maybe a screenshot of Sunset Valley. Anyone else have ideas? --W H  (Talk) 07:05, May 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Wogan, that box art idea is awesome! --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 05:23, May 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, we could change the background to make the wiki look more visually appealing. The main issue here is what everyone else wants to do - hold a background contest, keep the current background or ask the Wikia Content Team. I'd suggest having a vote on how we should move forward. 22:43, May 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you really think TS3 box art is a good idea? Some people here don't have TS3... and although it's the latest series, I think we should find other background that resembles all series. Nikel23 08:55, June 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think what Wogan was getting at (correct me if I'm wrong) is that we could have a mosaic of Sim photos in the background... it wouldn't say The Sims 3 on it, but it would resemble TS3's box art. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 14:40, June 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that was the idea. I have actually seen a similar thing used on Les Sims Wiki, but as their main page header. --W H  (Talk) 07:42, June 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi guys. Using Wogan's idea, I made a seamless/tiled image from the faces on The Sims 3 cover. Check out this preview of it from the theme designer. If you like it as it is, just say the word, and I'll upload it. If you'd like me to adjust something on it, or do something completely different, let me know. JoePlay http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb33036/wikia/images/e/e9/WikiaStaff.png (talk)  22:35, June 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * Whoa! You can definitely take my vote for liking it the way it is. It looks great! :D 22:42, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Niiiiice. Great job, I love it. --W H  (Talk) 05:07, June 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * I see there are only about 20 Sims, but I believe more needs to be added. But this is just what I'm talking about... It's The Sims 3 cover! Nikel23 05:42, June 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are 20 different faces on the background, due to the fact that there are only 22 or 23 faces on The Sims 3 cover that aren't partially covered or cut off. Also, it seems that you guys are not in agreement about what the background should be, so I've made another preview using the background found on the landing page at the official site. JoePlay http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb33036/wikia/images/e/e9/WikiaStaff.png (talk)  21:18, June 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * I like both. The second one fits better with our current theme setup. I'll go with what everyone else decides on. 21:42, June 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm, they are both good. I like them both, so whatever gets picked is fine by me. --W H  (talk) 00:45, June 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Scratch that. I think I prefer the second one more. --W H  (talk) 07:07, June 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Woah, I think that's better. I like that. Nikel23 07:31, June 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * They're both interesting, but I really love the second one. -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]]( talk here ) 08:31, June 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * I like both of them, though the second one looks a bit better, in my opinion. -- BobNewbie  ∞(Talk)∞  10:52, June 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, but maybe there's a way we could make use of the first one, in a place other than the background. For instance (and this may not be what we want to do), Les Sims Wiki (French-language) uses a similar portrait mosaic for the area immediately behind their drop-down menus. It would be great if we could find a use for the mosaic, if we're not going to use it as the background. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 16:56, June 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but I don't know where we could put it. I don't really like what it is on Les Sims Wiki. --W H  (talk) 02:30, June 19, 2011 (UTC)

(resetting indent) It sounds like everyone prefers the second background. If you want, I can upload it now, and one of you can message me later when you decide how/where to use the mosaic image. JoePlay http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb33036/wikia/images/e/e9/WikiaStaff.png (talk)  22:28, June 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems as if there's pretty strong support for the second option. Feel free to upload it when you get a chance. Thanks for your help! --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 07:20, June 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late reply. I got really busy late last week. As requested, I just uploaded the background from the second preview. Again, if you guys want to use the mosaic somewhere, just drop me a message. Cheers! JoePlay http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb33036/wikia/images/e/e9/WikiaStaff.png (talk)  22:10, June 28, 2011 (UTC)

Semitransparent background

 * It now occurs to me, since the background isn't obtrusive and wouldn't be hard to read against, it may be worth considering making our current "content area" background transparent (or invisible). How might we go about doing this? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 22:34, June 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Wiki-transparentbackground.png page displayed with no gray background]] I monkeyed around with my wikia.css (User:LostInRiverview/wikia.css) so that the wiki appears with a transparent background (rather then the current #f9f9f9 gray we use). I've displayed a screenshot. What do you all think? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 22:49, June 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * No way! I dislike it so much. -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]]( talk here ) 22:52, June 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * The background may not be obtrusive, but the variations in shading may affect readability. Also, while the green is not hard to read against, it's not as easy to read against as the #f9f9f9 gray. At least, that's how it seems from my perspective as an older user. Dharden (talk) 23:37, June 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm currently looking for a way to adjust the background so it would be "see-through" but not completely invisible. If correctly done, that might aid in readability. We'll see, as I may not quite know what I'm doing (lol). --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 23:46, June 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * LiR_semitransparent.pngs to JoePlay's awesome assistance, I have this screenshot which shows a white background with 50% transparency. If desired, we can reduce the transparency (i.e. make it whiter and more 'solid'), but I rather like how it looks in the screenshot, minus the gray bar near the header. Thoughts? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 03:29, June 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Much better, IMO. Dharden (talk) 03:38, June 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * That looks great! I've enabled it in my css to have a look, and it's such a good change from the current non transparent one. --W H  (Talk) 06:45, June 29, 2011 (UTC)

Just a note - if you want to test this out on your own css, make a page called /wikia.css and c-p this: .WikiaPage { background: transparent url(http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/joeplayground/images/b/bb/50opacitywhite.png); } .WikiaSearch input[type="text"] { color: #55AA77 !important } Just remove the  tags, and reset your cache, and try it out. --W H  (Talk) 07:16, June 29, 2011 (UTC)

(reset indent) Actually, only the part up to the '.wikiasearch' bit applies to the background, the rest was something I was messing with for the search box (making the text a greenish color). I'm trying to figure out a way to eliminate the gray horizontal bar between the header and the content space, as well as a possible way to make a different design for the header itself; all those will be done on my personal wikia.css page, not on the wiki's wikia.css page. -  LostInRiverview talk · blog 07:57, June 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow! The second one looks gorgeous! And also could we test 30% of transparency, just to see what happens? Thank you =D -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]]( talk here ) 10:25, June 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks great! 11:16, June 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * JoePlay has sized down the mosaic so I could test it out as the header, and I've taken a couple screenshots for a side-by-side comparison:



What does everyone think about this? I personally favor one of those options over the other, but I'd like to hear what everyone has to say first. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 22:06, June 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, The mosaic certainly makes the header stand out. I think it might work. Dharden (talk) 22:14, June 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * I prefer the background with the mosaic header but it looks fine without. 22:14, June 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally prefer the one without header, also could we try a bit lower transparency? Thank you. -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]]( talk here ) 23:04, June 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, we only have available transparencies at and above 50%, so in other words, whatever we change it to (except completely solid) will be more see-through. Unfortunately I don't have the capacity to create the transparent image (JoePlay made those) so we have to take what we can get. This is as un-transparent as I can get it, without it being completely not transparent. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 23:23, June 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, those transparencies are in measures of opacity. For example, 70% opacity is equal to 30% transparency. So if you want to test lower transparency levels (higher opacity), you can. JoePlay http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb33036/wikia/images/e/e9/WikiaStaff.png (talk)  17:05, June 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the tip, JoePlay. -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]]( talk here ) 17:07, June 30, 2011 (UTC)

Vote on header/no header
Let's vote on whether we should have the wiki with the mosaic header, or with no mosaic header.




 * Place your vote below. Voting will last until 23:52, July 13 2011 (UTC) - Countdown 

I am voting for the header as I personally think it looks better. 23:56, June 29, 2011 (UTC)

I am also voting for the header because I think that without the header, the top just looks cheesy. DanPin .:::. Talk 23:57, June 29, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral - I do like the mosiac, but it seems to cover up the Era template. If we can find a solution to this, then I'll support. —Random Ranaun (<font color="#00FF00">Talk to me! ) 00:02, June 30, 2011 (UTC)

I'm voting for without the header. I don't think the box art really looks that good as a header. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 04:11, June 30, 2011 (UTC)

Scrap that. I enabled it on my personal css, and it actually looks awesome! So, I am now For the header. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 08:37, June 30, 2011 (UTC)

I am voting for the header, although I think it will be better if the headshots of Sims in the header are enlarged, as I think it's a bit too small. Nikel23 10:19, June 30, 2011 (UTC)

(Not a vote) This is for those who want to get a good look at what they're voting on. The Wiki is currently set to appear without the mosaic header, so if you vote not to have the header, then you're voting to keep it as it currently appears. If you want to see what the header looks like in action, you can do this with a quick edit. If you don't have one already, start a wikia.css page under your personal namespace. To create this page, click here; when prompted for a page title, give 'User: /Wikia.css' and add the following code: .WikiHeader { background: url(http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/joeplayground/images/6/62/SimsHeader.jpg); } .WikiHeader nav { background:transparent url(http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/sims/fr/images/c/c4/NavigationlongGris.png); bottom: 8px; left: 270px; position: absolute; width: 460px; z-index: 3; -moz-border-radius: 5px; -webkit-border-radius: 5px; border-radius: 5px; -khtml-border-radius: 5px; }

Once you've saved that edit, you'll need to refresh your browser before the changes will take effect.

A note on the Era template... that template already has problems, as it often clashes with the Wikia bar and is generally in a not-very-visible location. Additionally, it doesn't have a ton of usage; only about 100 pages use it, which isn't a lot. Regardless of the vote here on this matter, I wouldn't cry too much about just getting rid of the Era template altogether. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 01:30, June 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, if it goes ahead with the header, could it be kept how it is by using a custom background in personal css? --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 04:12, June 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm actually not sure. I've tried testing it out on a test wiki, but so far I can find nothing that disables the header background if a header background is set in the wiki's wikia.css. I'll ask around on Community Central. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 04:33, June 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to clash with the UTC clock, and it becomes very difficult to read the clock. I've had a look through the coding of the clock, and can't see a way to change the color of it to make it easier to view. If anyone knows how, please tell us! --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 08:59, June 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have edited the Era template so that it no longer appears in the very top right corner of articles. So, I now vote for the header. —<font color="#008000">Random Ranaun (<font color="#00FF00">Talk to me! ) 10:16, June 30, 2011 (UTC)

I am voting for the awesome looking header. -- BobNewbie  ∞(Talk)∞  10:51, June 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not want to seem like a black sheep but I vote for the one without header. And also shouldn't the option of keeping the current on exist? Many people may want the current one. -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]]( talk here ) 15:03, June 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * There is something you can add in your personal wikia.css page which will override the wiki's selection (if the header is approved).

.WikiHeader, .WikiHeader nav {background: none !important;}
 * Putting this code into your wikia.css page will eliminate the mosaic header from your viewing, but will allow anyone else to see it.
 * All this, of course, if kind of funny considering we have the tools to voluntarily place it and to voluntarily not place it. The only thing that's really up for a vote is what we want the wiki's default to be. There's no point to that comment, I just think it's sort of interesting. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 16:53, June 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Execuse me if I misunderstand but are you stating that people who want the header can add it without necessarily becoming default? -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]]( talk here ) 17:00, June 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right. The vote is basically on what the default for the wiki (header or none) will be. If you have your wikia.css page set up, you won't see it either way. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 17:31, June 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * Important
 * I've just edited the wiki's topnav menu, meaning that those users who are using the new header will have a screwed-up topnav menu. I've edited the code above to the correct dimensions; please swap out the code in your wikia.css for the new code. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 17:42, June 30, 2011 (UTC)

Vote
I feel the quickest and best way to choose between these three options would be to hold a vote (in accordance with our wiki voting policies. The time to vote will be set at two weeks.

Question: Of the three options below, which would you support?


 * 1) Hold a background design contest and have the community choose the winner.
 * 2) Contact the Wikia Content Team and ask them to help us redesign the background.
 * 3) Leave the background as-is

Time remaining: Expired - Cast your vote below!

Ask the Content Team - They would know heaps about this sort of stuff, and the contests we have don't always go to well, see January Fanon Logo contest. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 04:14, June 2, 2011 (UTC)

Ask the Content Team - per WoganHemlock. 20:11, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

Ask the Content Team - They have the most knowledge of this kind of stuff, and seem to be the best option because of that. —<font color="#008000">Random Ranaun (<font color="#00FF00">Talk to me! ) 05:30, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

Ask the Content team - per RR and Wogan. --- BobNewbie  ∞(Talk)∞  17:25, June 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * Result
 * The content team was contacted

Comments
Looks like we're in! :D 19:27, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

Eliminate Player Stories
I'd like to propose that we eliminate Player Stories from Sim and character pages on the wiki. My reasons are as follows:
 * 1) The content added to these pages is more often than not of poor or very poor quality, is sometimes profane and unacceptable, and is nearly impossible to moderate in its current size.
 * 2) The Fanon Namespace has been created, which allows for users who wish to write about the goings-on of their Sims to do so without using an article sub-page.
 * 3) Contributions to Player Stories pages are very very often not signed and quickly forgotten by the author and by everyone else.
 * 4) The number of player stories contributors is very low - most users do not contribute to these pages.

Thoughts? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 01:05, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. For the record, they are subpages, and don't go towards our article count, so I see no problem there. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 01:06, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I also agree. Player Stories pages are usually overlooked, and because of that, they are often of horrible quality. Users abandoned their stories, and many are very short, inappropriate, and just... bad. Now that we have the Fanon Namespace, I believe that the Player Stories pages are unneeded. —<font color="#008000">Random Ranaun (<font color="#00FF00">Talk to me! ) 01:15, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree, even though player stories are not that controllable we should remember that no all people are allowed to write their own stories, for these people player stories is still a good way to share their gameplay, but a new policy could be applied regarding this matter. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 07:30, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, though fanon Sims work a bit different than player stories, as player stories actually uses premade Sims or townies. But it's true, the content are poor and badly organized. Every story is random and made-up by users. I mean, who wants to read Mortimer Goth's player stories all the way down? We should only keep theories for certain Sims, like Bella's disappearance or Olive Specter as murderer. Nikel23 07:50, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Guilherme, what did you mean by "Not everyone is allowed to make fanon"? If you are referring to anons not being able to, I think they should just make an account. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 07:54, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose that's why authors never sign their stories. They could be anonymous, not regular users. Oh yeah, having player stories page means number of Sims times two, because nearly every Sim has this. I dislike wasted pages. Nikel23 07:58, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, the Player Sstories pages are subpages, and don't go towards the article count. (You know, the one that says x pages on this wiki, above the activity feed.) --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 08:01, June 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * Mmm. I don't know...what about the occasional good quality story? Some users worked hard on making them, and I don't see how we're going to be able to notify every single one of them to tell them to make a page or lose their work. Aren't some people going to be negative upon finding out their stories are gone? Zombie talk •  blog 09:29, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Most users forget about their player stories, so I don't see an issue there. As for telling them the stories have gone, we'll just have to accept that it would take far too long to do so. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 09:37, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with Bob, and I think this is a very harsh suggestion, yes I meant anons in the previous comment Wogan. I disagree that users forget about their player stories, I have actually seen many completing it and ending it, I do not think people forget that easily, if this is approved, I think there will be a significant number of users with a "broken heart". --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 10:44, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Us eliminating the pages wouldn't be done in secret. If we end up eliminating the pages, such action will be announced long before any deletion actually occurs, to allow people who have stories they'd like to save the opportunity to do so. Any person who visits the wiki even semi-frequently (and therefore, a user that is more likely to care about the story they wrote) will have the chance to move it to the Fanon namespace or save it onto their computer before we ever delete it. And while I admit that every once in a while there is a good story there, these are very few and far between and, in my opinion, don't justify us having the pages and in having to manage such a vast amount of content. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 11:25, June 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * If we can give people a while (and by a while, I mean half a year) to 'save' their stories, I'll support this. And Wogan, some people still come on, and leave with the thought 'hey. I wrote a story! Now it'll stay and people can read it forever!'. They might forget it, but when they added it, they didn't know that it wont stay forever. -- Zombie talk • blog 11:59, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose users esp. anons would remember they've made a player story if they don't even sign their names. I believe they won't even visit the same Sims' player stories. It just doesn't make sense if they play the same Sims but make different scenarios, I mean, who wants to play Goth family over and over from beginning? Whenever they made a player story, they shared it there, didn't sign the story, and it will remain there not updated and forgotten. Nikel23 16:01, June 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * Nikel, I have some things I disagree with. Like I said: they might not have bothered remembering because they thought that it would be there forever and that they've did their part. And almost every new Wikia user I know doesn't remember to sign, or is just oblivious to the fact. Just because they don't/don't know how to sign doesn't mean they don't care about their stories. I play the Goth family and the Wolff family almost every start of a game if I don't make my own Sims because it's a preference. Plus, I have another problem with the play stories being deleted: even if they did come to retrieve it, and still want it on the wiki, what if it just isn't enough to make a Fan fiction page with? A few paragraphs is a lot on Player Story pages, but is normally a low-quality fanon page which will be deleted soon. So, users might get upset that their stories, which used to be fine, is now 'low-quality fan fiction'. Even if they care about the stories, what if they don't have the time to make a quality fanon page, yet still want the story to be available for people to read? Zombie talk •  blog 18:35, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should abolish the Player Stories pages as their only contributors are anons and they can easily create an account to create fanon. I've even seen one fanon article based on a canon Sim in an imaginative way and is a more detailed article. 19:35, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bob, player stories shouldn't be deleted due to the reasons he mentioned. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 19:47, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Bob. So many of these people aren't even registered users in the first place. Although there are some exceptions, most often anonymous users don't stick around unless they actually register an account. If these people didn't do that, then the odds of them even coming back to their player stories is pretty low. Also, half a year? That is an astronomically long time... I would say 1 1/2 to 2 months at the very most. If a user doesn't visit here at least once every two months, then they probably don't care much about their story. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 19:50, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * (added more). Another point brought up that I'd like to address. Guilherme pointed out that anonymous users can't create fanon articles - that's true. However, one added 'benefit' of this is that users who wish to make those sorts of stories then register an account. Once they do that, they're much more likely to 1) become active members of the wiki and 2) improve their story and keep it up to date, both of which are very good outcomes. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 19:52, June 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * Still, every being has a right to remain anonymous. It's like we're telling them "create an account, or your story isn't allowed here". Get what I'm saying? -- Zombie talk • blog 19:54, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * But LiR remember that people do not add their player stories to always improve them, as many of them end the stories they write, they won't check them to improve it as it's ended, I think that's understandable, so deleting those stories is for me a bad option. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 19:56, June 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * Idea: We could archive them all, possibly? Zombie talk •  blog 20:00, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * What's the point in short stories? The whole point of a story is something that's interesting to read - if all we have are thousands of "This Sim got married, had some kids, and died," stories, then quickly player stories become very boring to read (which they currently are). Just like fanon stories have a minimum length requirement, I think all stories should, simply for the sake of the story itself. Since so few player stories existing now ever hit that threshold, I think they should as a whole be ditched.
 * (added) I don't think we should archive, because most of them honestly aren't good enough to save. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 20:03, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * But LiR, boring is your opinion many people may not see them as boring (excluding the ones like "Hannah got married and then had a kid"). Thank you. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 21:34, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * At first, I felt strongly towards this, but now I'm not so sure. I think, while this idea is good in theory, it would be really hard to implement. I'd say that we should look through and get rid of a lot of them, i.e. the bad ones, but that would be incredibly tedious and time consuming. I'm starting to think, "If it's not broken, don't fix it." I think we should just leave the system as-is. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 09:23, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Still, we can't compare which is good and which is bad if we want to get rid of bad ones. Since no issue was made... what's actually the real problem happening? The reasons LiR stated are not real problems, right? Nikel23 11:01, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * They are problems, because we have a large volume of very poor material sitting on our wiki. Is that something we should just continue to ignore because it would be difficult to fix? I say no. If we can't get the authors to improve the quality (which would be impossible considering how many authors there are, and over the period of time they were written) and we can't spend the time picking out good stories from bad, then the last logical option is to delete the pages.
 * Here's my honest thought on the matter. I don't think anyone is going to care. I think that certain people are really concerned that all these users are going to cry and be very upset if they player stories go away, but I am willing to bet that few, if any, of these users will even give it a second thought, especially if we have a period prior to deletion to allow story recovery. The bottom line is that the player stories pages are shamefully bad, so bad that there is no hope for improvement, leaving us with only one justified solution - delete. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 13:23, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not think so. My final position on this is weak oppose. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 13:53, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to say Neutral. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 07:14, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

For me, Player Stories should definately be deleted. They were useful once upon a time, but now with the Fanon Namespace, it is unlikely they will ever be needed again. And, as it was pointed above, nobody even actually reads these stories, so, how can anyone care?. So, I'm saying Strong Support. \_<font color="#A60914" size="2px">Andronikos Leventis <font color="#1404A2" size="1.3px">Talk 13:00, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I couldn't say it any better than Andronikos just did. Strong support. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 13:08, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Somehow, Fanon has its own weakness. The main difference I could seek is the simplicity. Making a fanon page is complicated and not simple, and it will be hard especially for beginner users who are not really good at editing pages yet. On the other hand, player stories can be used as simple means to share the stories, and it could be a good editing beginning for all beginner users. Some new users who prefer sharing their stories will be more likely to make player stories than articles, so player story is a basic and simple way for them to start their editing experience. I'm sure it will be recklessly written, but that's better than they edit an article, right? Nikel23 15:49, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Due to Nikel's reasons I am going to change my position to oppose. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 18:25, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I do want to keep the player stories, but, I do want to eliminate all player stories that are left unsigned. Ѧüя◎ґ 18:48, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Or maybe we should make an eye-catching noticeboard or template so that writers actually read the template to sign? The current template is boring and contains too long words. Nikel23 02:18, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have read through the comments again, and have changed my opinion to Weak Support. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 07:40, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * My position is Strong Support. Let's face it, according to Wikia, stubs should only make 1/5 out of all pages on a Wiki. This includes other namespace pages and sub-pages. Since many player story pages are unedited and empty (mainly for townies, NPCs, and deceased Sims), our stub count goes way over the limit. And what's worse? The player story pages that are longer than stub-length are of horrible quality, with bad language, spelling, grammar, and punctuation. They are also near-impossible to maintain, due to their length. Users do not sign their stories, and, come on, who really cares to read them? Player stories make our wiki look bad, and therefore, should be removed. —<font color="#008000">Random Ranaun (<font color="#00FF00">Talk to me! ) 02:34, June 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak support. -- Bleeh <font color="#489094">(talk) <font color="#489094">(blog) 02:39, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

What I have determined so far: three users (Andronikos, Random Ranaun, and I) are in strong support, two users (Woganhemlock and Bleeh) are in weak support, Guilhermen Guerreiro is in opposition, and Auror has opposition to deleting all player stories (which for the purposes of determining consensus would count as an 'oppose'). I wish to wrap this up before too long, so I'd encourage everyone to give their final thoughts, and would encourage users who have not spoken up yet to speak up within the next five days or so. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 06:23, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * I change to full support in eliminating player stories. Ѧüя◎ґ 06:33, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Even though, many of you are right about player stories quality, I think we should respect the users who have made the stories who thought they would be there forever, also we are also guilty about player stories quality since we didn't control them from the beginning, nor we did make a policy very strict to these player stories, so I suggest instead a new policy, eliminating all player stories seems to me unfair for me and for users who didn't make stories with profanity or bad language, and even if we have time to save the stories in our computer before they get deleted, many will not remember all the stories. It's unfair. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 11:48, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * What would be the new policy that you're suggesting? And as well, how would you enforce it on the hundreds of stories that have been completely abandoned by their authors? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 15:05, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course many of them have been abandonned because many users have already ended their storires, I just think it's unfair to delete them altogether, a new policy being more strict with the player stories could help. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 15:14, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * You're saying... you're remaking the player stories instead of deleting it? Sorry if I don't get the point. I'm clueless over time. Nikel23 16:03, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nit exactly remaking them, but kind of, I know it would be hard, and I do not know how to do it, though I' think on it. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 16:07, June 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * I am in full oppose of deleting player stories. I just feel it's wrong to delete them, as nobody ever gave any guidelines except for the user to sign them. Even if they didn't sign them, nobody ever did anything about it, when we actually should have. I would feel, like Guilherme said, guilty that they were removed when people thought, no matter what the quality is, that they could entrust us and leave them here. And for a whole bunch of other reasons states above. BobNewbie   ∞(Talk)∞  16:58, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * I was missing the word, what I meant was guideline not a policy, we should have given guidelines from the beginning, and the player stories not having good quality is partly our fault, because we did not care about them. For users who are in the beginning it's so much easier to write a player story rather than making fanon, and also player stories are for users who want to tell their pre-made Sims stories, though they can create a fanon about a pre-made Sim, I don't think they understand that message, as there are very few fanon pages about pre-made Sims or so. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 17:20, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * I support per all of the support votes above. 17:36, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright... I've noticed player stories only seem to be posted every few hours, they aren't that popular. So why don't we maybe delete all the current stories, and simply moderate all future story submissions? We could add it to tasks for administrators with the Fanon admin project. Other than this, I don't see a way around this. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 05:40, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, will the Theories pages still remain if the player stories are deleted? BobNewbie  ∞(Talk)∞  10:22, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, they're pretty much player stories too, and have the same isses as well. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (talk) 05:26, June 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't, because player stories and theories are different! Theories are only in certain Sims. If player stories are deleted, we won't have as many issues in theories, right? At least so. Nikel23 06:23, June 23, 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward
This issue seems to have stopped being discussed, so I've done my best to figure out what's going on. Although strictly by the numbers, it appears that only two users who voiced up are vocally against these deletions, I think even some supporters may be somewhat hesitant to go along with this, even with votes of support. Therefore, what I'd like to do is shift away from the idea of deleting all player stories, at least for now, and instead focus on a different issue.

It is a fact that we have over 1000 player stories pages that have no stories on them. A lot of these pages are for NPC Sims or very obscure Sims that don't get a lot of playtime. What I would like to propose, in lieu of deleting all articles, is for us to delete all empty Player Stories pages. We can adjust the Sim template so that the link that appears is no longer red (but still says 'create player stories page') but the Player Stories pages won't exist until someone wants to use them.

Deleting the empty pages means that no stories get deleted and we massively decrease the number of pages that sit empty and unused. Thoughts? (I want discussion, I do not want votes right away). --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 06:13, July 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, good idea. Maybe change the text to "player stories" instead of "create player stories", as sometimes new users are hesitant to create pages. But, other than this, I see no issues with what you are proposing. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 07:46, July 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Subpages don't count in number of pages in wiki, right? And if one of the issue is to remind people to sign their stories, maybe the Player Stories template should be redesigned to be more attractive. If their stories aren't signed, then it will be likely to be deleted... or so. Nikel23 09:04, July 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't so much player stories being signed, but more what to do with the empty page. But, yes, we need to try to get them signed somehow... --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 00:09, July 4, 2011 (UTC)

New Wikia Editor
The new Wikia editor is now online, and can be activated via an admin on WikiaLabs. Should we activate it now, since I believe this is going to be global sooner or later, so that we can start getting used to it? Or is there opposition to turning it on at this time? -- BobNewbie  ∞(Talk)∞  10:40, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral, leaning towards oppose. I really don't like the editor and if I knew that the current editor would still be usable at the same time, I would make this an oppose vote but if it is eventually going to become mandatory then I really don't care whether we activate it or not. 11:40, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Support. The editor will be more enchanced and I believe we will soon find its benefits. Nikel23 16:40, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support, because the current editor is getting old, and anyway, something new is something better. And after all, it is simplier. |_<font color="#A60914" size="2px">Andronikos Leventis <font color="#1404A2" size="1.3px">Talk 16:47, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - I simply don't like it. -- Guilherme Guerreiro ( talk here ) 18:00, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

changed opinion to Neutral (leaning towards Weak Support) - while I personally do not like it, as LiR stated, it's best to get use to it and realize how it works because whether we like this or not it will become mandatory. And anyway I'm already getting used to it. -- Guilherme Guerreiro ( talk here ) 20:22, July 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's been activated by an admin. So...time to edit! :P. -- BobNewbie  ∞(Talk)∞  17:38, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * It's now inactive as we haven't really got enough consensus. -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]]( talk here ) 18:10, June 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought about that, though didn't expect to find a log of it anywhere and thought Wikia already made it default lol. BobNewbie   ∞(Talk)∞  18:13, June 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't need consensus. It's coming sooner or later, whether you like it or not. It's better we do it now so we can figure out how it works before we're forced to use it. Reactivating. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 18:26, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Wikia will probably force us to work with it sooner or later, might as well get used to it. -- XoTulleMorXo  ♥talk  and  contributions♥  20:24, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral I see no difference between using it and not using it. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (talk) 05:27, June 23, 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the New Wikia Editor could use some improvements when it comes to its appearance, to fit better in this wiki. For example, the new "Publish" button could be made green. |_<font color="#A60914" size="2px">Andronikos Leventis <font color="#1404A2" size="1.3px">Talk 10:25, June 23, 2011 (UTC)

Support I have no real preference for one or the other, but sooner or later, the new editor will be standard. We might as well get used to it sooner rather than later. Dharden (talk) 21:47, June 23, 2011 (UTC)

Portals for each game / generation
I know this idea has been floated around before, but I think it might be worth taking another look at the idea of creating portals for our games. I'm thinking creating a portal for Generation 1, Generation 2, and Generation 3, with each portal linking to the base game/eps and stuff packs/standalone and console games for each generation, as well as to a few important pages relevant to that generation, a link to the generation's tutorial portal and other information. Each portal would be themed in a particular color (the colors could be based off the colors used in the new Sim templates). I'd like some feedback on this idea, as well as some ideas on how to improve this idea. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 02:45, June 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, but when we make the portals I think we should add something to the topbar of the interface, so everyone can notice it, or I think people won't really know of it's existence. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (talk) 04:31, June 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with this, since it will help every user or reader of this wiki to see exactly the games in this series and locate them easier. However, as WH said, a nav template will be needed. But there could be a further use to it, since it could replace the "The Sims Series" column in the main page. |_<font color="#A60914" size="2px">Andronikos Leventis <font color="#1404A2" size="1.3px">Talk 10:29, June 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't a vote. I'm actually looking for ideas on what the portals should have and what they should look like. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 16:45, June 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen some of the trial ones that have been made, and I can't say I have any suggestions about how to enhance them. My only concern is making them visible to users. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (talk) 07:21, June 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen some of the trial ones that have been made, and I can't say I have any suggestions about how to enhance them. My only concern is making them visible to users. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (talk) 07:21, June 24, 2011 (UTC)

Should we add a webcam chatroom to the wiki
it would allow others to chat but i want to use webcam why can't we? RebeccaBlack 21:37, June 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, we have the IRC channel if you would like to chat with other users. Secondly, even though it would probably never happen, I would oppose having that feature as 1) some users may feel sensitive about this and 2) some internet connection speeds may not be able to cope with it, as real-time streaming can be pretty bandwidth intensive. 21:33, June 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should because of the points I mentioned above. 21:43, June 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * No. A chatroom that required participants to have webcams would exclude users who don't have webcams or don't have 'net connections that can handle real-time video streaming, and would probably limit those who have connections with bandwidth caps. A chatroom that didn't require particpants to have webcams would be redundant, since there's already an IRC channel. Dharden (talk) 22:15, June 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * I go for the sensitive reason. SOme people are just shy, you know. They might feel confindent if they webcam-chat with their close friends. Nikel23 02:33, June 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * No, per all above. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (talk) 05:18, June 24, 2011 (UTC)

Ideas for future cleanups
Hello TSWians! In case you didn't know already, the July Cleanup of the Month (CotM) has just begun. This month we're focusing on adding links to orphaned pages. However, I'd like to have the cleanup be a regular feature of The Sims Wiki again, so in order to do that, I need ideas for areas that could use improvement.

That said, is there any area that could stand to be helped by multiple users on the wiki? These should be simple to moderate tasks that most anyone can perform, and when performed, help the navigation or appearance or usefulness of the wiki.

Here are a couple of my ideas:


 * Work on adding pictures to all the pages in Category:Articles requiring images. There are just over 200 pages that need photos added to them.
 * Work on Category:Stubs - there are over 400 pages marked as 'stub', some of which may not actually be stubs.

Do you guys have any other ideas? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 18:04, June 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd just go with those two. The images one will make image patrol easier and we'll have less images lurking about that are unused or uncategorized while the stubs one will help us with our Spotlight request. 21:34, June 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Something like working on correctly categorising and licensing images would be cool as well. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 05:27, June 30, 2011 (UTC)

Biweekly Poll
The biweekly poll, featured on the Community Portal, often gets very little votes compared to when it was on the main page. As such, I haven't been updating it on the proper date as to get more votes. I would like to suggest that if possible we could add it to the main page. Otherwise, if we can't, I think it could be worth it just to get rid of this feature. What do you all think? -- Bleeh <font color="#489094">(talk) <font color="#489094">(blog) 17:58, July 1, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support -- Guilherme Guerreiro ( talk here ) 18:04, July 1, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support - yeah, it would help a lot if it was somewhere where everyone looks pretty often as it would generate more votes. 18:05, July 1, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support - I agree with the above. DanPin .:::. Talk 18:07, July 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * let's put it on the main page. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 18:34, July 1, 2011 (UTC)

Layout Builder
I have noticed as of late that some users have been creating fanon articles using the Layout Builder, which makes it very hard for both users and admins to cleanup those articles in addition to it being hard for a user to write a high quality piece of fanon with the Layout Builder. Personally, I think that we should uninstall the Layout Builder (as it is rarely used anyway) to make it easier to patrol fanon amongst any other articles created on the wiki. What does everyone think? 18:42, July 11, 2011 (UTC)

- Weak Support - While I think they could be disabled (as it has been causing major damage on pages who use it) I don't know what we should do to pages that use them, delete them and recreate without the layout? -- Guilherme Guerreiro ( talk here ) 19:05, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there any way to make the layout builder more user-friendly, rather than just disabling it. -- 20:41, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Since posting this, I have tried to think of a possible way of making the Layout Builder more user-friendly without causing collateral damage to those articles that already use it. Given that I haven't used the tool, I'm kind of unsure how it works but if anyone here has used it, here or another wiki, and they have an idea, feel free to post it. 20:46, July 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * If we disable it, we should recreate the pages rather than delete them, as most are only poor quality through the layout builder. But I feel the decision to uninstall it is best. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (talk) 23:19, July 11, 2011 (UTC)

Fork discussion
Hello TSW community, I would like to open the subject of mving The Sims Wiki from Wikia -which is a free hosting company for wikis- to an independent site. Wikia is a for-profit company, and they put money first and content second. This means that they regularly alter the wikis to make more money through adverts, they have added more and more adverts, including putting them inside the content area.

One big change was the introduction of a new skin Oasis which reduced the size of the content area, very difficult to use, loaded slower and added alot of unwanted features. The new rules at Wikia forbid us from altering the design of the wiki in any way except its colour. Despite thousands of users expressing their dissatisfaction with this skin. Wikia ignored them and are making it mandatory, removing the option to use the old design, because of this, I think we should move. I have considered these options, and everyone's different point of view, but I recommend the fork.

Now by this move we will have more control over our wiki, because its is our wiki and not Wikia's, example imposing the rules we find suitable to apply not what Wikia tells us to, we will have our own domain name(example.com) rather than a sub domain, we will have the ability to heavily customise the skin or configure advanced settings, we can add or remove advert as we wish, and not let it reduced the content area, we will have more space for content. We wont be alone, we will be joining igwn, which is an upcoming network of independent gaming wikis (including GTW and Halopedia), which will help solve many of the problems of moving away from Wikia, each site on this network is owned by its community and has full control and is free to leave at any time. Thanks for your time.--Hiola 21:46, July 12, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support - I support the fork because there are more benefits than staying.Hiola 21:49, July 12, 2011 (UTC)

Support - I support the move only if someone who did it before help us rather than that I don't.Marandram 22:16, July 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand this. Most people already got used to this skin x_x, most of us already understand its tools and we have figured out how to work with it, why would we know what to change for something that has to be paid? -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]]( talk here ) 21:51, July 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * I am strongly opposed to leaving Wikia. Yes we did have issues with Oasis back in October and we got over all of them. We also decided in the past not to move away from Wikia. The problem with having our own domain is that someone has to pay for the domain, the server hosting etc. I think we're better off being hosted by Wikia. 21:52, July 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * The domain and hosting is not an issue that can be arranged.Hiola 22:02, July 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * There are any number of reasons I could give for my opposition. For one, this change happened over six months ago, and we've heard virtually no complaints within the past six months about the new skin. Wikia's rules on graphic redesign are not as strict as the message above would have you believe - Wikia staff themselves have been very helpful in making these changes. The hassle required to move the entire wiki is far too much in my mind to justify it. And finally, there's no way to close down sims.wikia.com if and when the wiki moves, so all a move would do is split the TSW community.


 * Long story short, splitting off is a bad idea and will not have my support. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 21:55, July 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Alot of wikis has forked before and they found it the better choice than staying.Hiola 22:02, July 12, 2011 (UTC)

Comments


 * We will not be alone on this one igwn will be with us Gboyers will lead us through this. We will have a better skin than Oasis, it will load faster and will have larger area for the content--Hiola 22:04, July 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * I am the founder of Grand Theft Wiki, which moved away from Wikia last October. Wikia chose to keep a copy of our site, rename it, and compete against us. There are many benefits to moving - ranging from your staff having total control, being able to tailor the site to your users, and not having it covered in adverts to line the pockets of Wikia board members. There is significant effort required, particularly with regards to the hosting, but there are ways around that, and with a good community it's definitely worthwhile. However, because of Wikia's dominance and size, it is a tough undertaking - they won't close this site, they will treat you as an illegitimate fork, not allow any links to the new site and (at least) demote staff members who move. I am very proud of Grand Theft Wiki, and I am still very glad that we moved away from Wikia, even if they still get more traffic, we have the better site. You shouldn't stay here just because you think it's easier - you should do what is right for this wiki, its community and its visitors. Maybe a fork is the best path, of course some people could choose to stay here, but you really need the support of a large chunk of your community to be able to effect a move. Interestingly, Grand Theft Wiki and Halopedia are forming a network of independent gaming wikis, which could be what you guys need to get you off the ground. You can all contact me at my talk page. Good luck, whatever you do! Gboyers talk 22:36, July 12, 2011 (UTC)

Voting on "Fork"
As per the wiki's voting policies, only Administrators are allowed to start official votes. Since this issue has been debated previously, we shall proceed to an official vote, which will last for two weeks. Before voting, please be aware of the wiki's voting requirements.

Question: Do you agree or disagree that The Sims Wiki should relocate from Wikia to an independent site? Time remaining to vote is.

Agree

 * 1) As I said I agree only if somebody who did it before lead this one rather than that I don't.Marandram 22:19, July 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree.Hiola 22:24, July 12, 2011 (UTC)

Disagree

 * 1) Per my reasoning above as well as LiR's. 22:19, July 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]]( talk here ) 22:20, July 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3)  LostInRiverview talk ·  blog 22:20, July 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) —<font color="#008000">Random Ranaun  (<font color="#00FF00">Talk to me! ) 22:23, July 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong Oppose - I have seen other wiki hosting sites, and I do not like them one bit. If this was to go ahead, I would leave TSW. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W  H  (talk) 23:38, July 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) even wikia have some issue, wikia still the best hosting wiki Wir.wiryawan 03:06, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Strongest Oppose Possible This Wiki is perfectly fine in here and I don't see a reason to change.  DanPin  ( Talk ) 12:08, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

 * There is an issue on the Admin Portal regarding this which requires urgent attention. 07:37, July 13, 2011 (UTC)