Category talk:Candidates for deletion

Please use this page to discuss pages that have been labeled for deletion.


 * Guidelines


 * Make a level 2 header with the link and title of the article/file.
 * If it's a file, include a small thumbnail to the right.
 * Strike out the title when it has been resolved.

Category:Households
I've seen this category has been created twice. The question is, is it worth categorizing each household in the game into this category? There are countless of households in the series already, and it's rather difficult to define whether a group of Sims living together is a "family" or a "household". Also, there's nothing unique that differs a household from a regular family household. Should it really be kept? If it's kept, every single household has to be manually categorized with this.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  14:31, June 7, 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was wondering about that myself. I can't think of how we could automatically categorize families into this category using the Family Infobox, so as you said it would all have to be done manually. I think it wouldn't be impossible to define a household... maybe we just say that it's a family where a majority of the members aren't related to each other. In any case, it's still impractical to try and set this up, so I support deletion. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 16:20, June 7, 2014 (UTC)


 * Yup, in TS2 the only "households" were the university ones. Everything else was insertNameHere family. Yes, even if it was only one sim like Don Lothario, it showed "lothario family." The same for the Singles who were not actually related. They were still called "singles family". In TS3, everything is "household", from the Roomies to the Wan-Goddards to the Bunch'es to the Steel (who is only Chris). And yes, there's a lot of leeway on what consist as an "household". 3 relatives with a live-in roommate\estetician\personal trainer is apparently not an household, but if it's someone with her lover\boyfriend and adoptive son of only one of them, like the Belle's, it's apparently an household. But if the kid actually belongs to both of them, it's a family. But then the kid is unborn and the parents starts out as just lovers and are not even boyfriend\girlfriend, it's an household. And le such. The Bunch'es are clearly a family, but the Sunset Valley Roomies are clearly an household. But what about the Wan-Goddards, or the Andrews? It's really hard to define. Kaiko Mikkusu (talk) 17:01, June 10, 2014 (UTC)


 * You may have a point but I'm not support your answer. Firstly, the Wan-Goddards are basically engaged but (I don't know this) it's said that the household is entitled "family". But obviously, they are still entitled "household". And now the Andrews, clearly they are married, so no explanations to be given.


 * Now for the main discussion. This user added the category because of the titles of the households. And Kaiko is doing the same thing but meaningful. And it is true that Sims that entitled "household" are mostly friends or friends with their daughters/sons. In TS2 and TS3 Universities' houses are entitled "households", but what if the houses entitled them are only Sims who are brothers/sisters or married couples? Examples are the The Brothers household and The Richards Family household. And since The Sims series have more set of families than set of households. And as LiR had said, we may know that this household is entitled "household" and this household is entitled "family" and this household is somewhat their members are related and not. So this category should be delete.  .ThePeculiarMe  |  (talk to me)  |  (my mistakes)  12:20, June 11, 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see any reason why household articles have to be separated from family articles. There are no essential differences between them. They basically go along pretty well sharing the same category, so why does this have to be changed?  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  07:19, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

These household articles are completely redundant. And I'm opposing any separation between household and family articles. I support the deletion. --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 07:54, June 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * Redundant! I think that's the word I've been looking for. :p  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  16:50, June 20, 2014 (UTC)

Deleted -  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 17:07, June 20, 2014 (UTC)

Style
Style was nominated for deletion because it "Doesn't warrant its own page under the notability policy." I'm wondering if someone (perhaps the nominator) can explain what that means. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 07:10, June 22, 2014 (UTC)
 * The content that this article roughly covers is already mentioned in theme. Not to mention the page is not linked to any other article on the wiki and has been abandoned for about two years. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 07:45, June 22, 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, that makes sense. I support deletion. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 07:50, June 22, 2014 (UTC)

Support. --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 05:26, June 24, 2014 (UTC)


 * Deleted. Dharden (talk) 04:25, June 27, 2014 (UTC)

Veloci-Rooster
This is another deletion nomination that needs some explaining... the nomination says that the article doesn't warrant its own page, which I'm inclined to agree with. But should the information on the page instead be merged into another article, and if so, which article? --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 07:14, June 22, 2014 (UTC)

The list of NPCs possibly? But I support the deletion. --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 07:20, June 22, 2014 (UTC)

Template:Rabbit holes
Rabbit holes is a navigation template that contains links to different Rabbit holes in TS3. But, Lot types also has the same links, making the Rabbit Holes template redundant. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 07:50, June 22, 2014 (UTC)

I support the deletion. --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 08:05, June 22, 2014 (UTC)
 * The template is redundant. I support the deletion. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 06:48, June 26, 2014 (UTC)
 * These two templates are completely different navigation templates. None of the rabbit hole links are linked in Lot types. Or are you suggesting merging? If that's the case, then I oppose, because the two mechanics are also completely different to be combined.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  09:27, June 29, 2014 (UTC)
 * Aah, you're right. There's a few duplicates on both templates. I was under the impression that the links were the same on both templates. I oppose deletion. -  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 22:28, June 29, 2014 (UTC)

Willow Creek/Onomatology
Do we just create articles just because it's a redlink / we have to?  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  09:29, June 29, 2014 (UTC)
 * I think most of the onomatology pages are pretty empty. Maybe we can delete all the onomatology pages that don't have content, and modify the NeighborhoodInfobox template to no longer display the link unless the page actually exists. That way, we can still create Onomatology pages if we need to and they'll still be linked to from the template, but only if the page actually has content. -  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 22:30, June 29, 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I prefer it that way.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  07:45, June 30, 2014 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and deleted it. I've made a change in NeighborhoodInfobox so that it won't show the redlink if the onomatology page doesn't exist. People can still create it manually though.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  15:16, July 15, 2014 (UTC)

List of Wishes/Needs
This article was originally nominated for speedy deletion, but as it's not blatant vandalism I felt that deleting the page should be discussed first. From what I can tell, the page's author, Kelenius, is separating the List of Wishes into separate tabs, similar to other large lists on the wiki. They've made 'List of Wishes/Needs', as well as List of Wishes/Skills. Presumably, the list of wishes on each subpage will grow as Kelenius continues to work on it. However, the list of wants is already divided up by expansion pack, so it may not make much sense to re-divide the wishes by type instead. It's something worthy of discussion, which is why I'm bringing it up here.

So, should we delete the subpages of List of Wishes and keep the list organized the way it is, or complete the process of subdividing the list by type instead? --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 11:17, July 24, 2014 (UTC)


 * It doesn't really make much sense to separate wishes by the expansion pack. It should be noted, but it's definitely not the main parameter that separates them into categories. Skill wishes should be grouped together, not separated because some of these skills are only available in the expansion packs. Second, the page is already pretty bloated, and there are many more wishes that are not currently listed. Which is why I think there should be subpages. Kelenius (talk) 11:27, July 24, 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Kelenius. I'm sure the idea is to break up the master list into separate subpages based on categories. It makes more more sense if these wishes are classified by category instead of EP, much like List of Moodlets and List of Memories. If this is a work in progress, I suggest we not delete it.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  11:35, July 24, 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that might work too. And it makes sense. So this should not be deleted.  .ThePeculiarMe  |  (talk to me)  |  (my mistakes)  11:41, July 24, 2014 (UTC)

Based on the discussion here, the article will not be deleted. -  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 11:46, July 25, 2014 (UTC)

Category:LGBT Sims
Is it worthy to add this category with only one or two or more Sims? I know it can be add in some time but some of the Sims that stated in this section has said they are possible in LGBT category and this is unpredictable unless the developers said this who actually is or not. (Only the Davis-Welles couple had a same-sex relationship of other Sims and the Shear couples.)  .ThePeculiarMe  |  (talk to me)  |  (my mistakes)  00:21, July 26, 2014 (UTC)
 * IIRC, there is already a category for homosexual Sims. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 00:39, July 26, 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure there's more than one LGBT Sim. Audrey Shear, Mark Davis-Welles, Michael Dandy, Rita Davis-Welles and Virginia Supine would all properly fall into this category for sure (I don't know why they're not listed). I'm ultimately on the fence about whether this should be deleted, since it could be implied that there are several other Sims in the series that could be LGBT but who we can't confirm. -  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 00:45, July 26, 2014 (UTC)


 * Fishy, Nikel reverted IP's edit. I don't know why. :|  .ThePeculiarMe  |  (talk to me)  |  (my mistakes)  01:01, July 26, 2014 (UTC)


 * While there currently are only four Sims that definitely fall into this category, the release of The Sims 4 isn't that far off. Since EA has finally "breached the wall" of including Sims who are definitely in same-sex relationships, it seems possible that there could be some in that game, so I think we can leave it for the time being. Dharden (talk) 02:35, July 26, 2014 (UTC)

I'd be fine with keeping the category, however the structure should be totally changed. Gay Sims, Lesbians, Bisexual Sims -> LGBT Sims -> Sims. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 04:19, July 26, 2014 (UTC)


 * I never thought about that. We should keep this since TS4 will may have more LGBT Sims. And yes, since there are no transgender Sims, if there are any it will said by a Sim's bio or an extension of a spa or hospital interaction in the next game/s.  .ThePeculiarMe  |  (talk to me)  |  (my mistakes)  04:29, July 26, 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to think that we should keep the category, at least for now, but change the name so that it refers to relationships. After all, preset relationships are something we can see in all games, whether or not we can see preset preference scores. Dharden (talk) 01:25, July 27, 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd probably go with Dharden's suggestion myself. One question though - would possibly gay or bisexual Sims like Circe Beaker, Titania Summerdream, Ariel Capp, Kent Capp, Nervous Subject and Jason Cleveland fall under this category. Or is this category only for Sims who are gay / bisexual in their pre-set back-stories? --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 07:11, July 27, 2014 (UTC)


 * I think we should limit it to those cases where there's a pre-made relationship or it's explicitly part of the back-story. Those preset preference levels in The Sims 2 are only stable as long as those Sims don't engage in any romantic interactions, and which way they ultimately go is up to the player. Those preset preferences aren't so high that a moderately determined player can't eventually change them. Dharden (talk) 13:13, July 27, 2014 (UTC)


 * Can we can the category into Sims who are engage in a same-sex relationship or something shorter than this? And getting the subcategories as Auror suggested or all the Sims will be in one category.  .ThePeculiarMe  |  (talk to me)  |  (my mistakes)  13:21, July 27, 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, apologies. At that time, I thought the anon only did that to Audrey. I didn't see the rest of his contributions. I'm just afraid if The Sims 2 editors would exploit this category and claim everyone who has slight preference to the same gender to be gay/lesbian/bi, even though it might just be an oversight and not intended that way. It's actually happening with elders and Sims who have different genetic hair color with their physical hair color, and they're claimed to have dyed their hair. I really don't believe that's the case at all. I agree that we should limit the usage like Dharden explained though.


 * I'm not sure if we should keep the category or not though...  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  05:45, July 28, 2014 (UTC)


 * Per Dharden and Nikel. --  C.Syde  ( talk &#124;  contribs ) 06:10, July 28, 2014 (UTC)