The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal

New background?
There has been a bit of discussion on the IRC channel about the background; many users feel the repeating PlumbBobs are boring. I'd like to propose we update the background... to what, I don't know. I particularly like the background on Les Sims Wiki, and after a short discussion about it I asked a question on the forum, which you can view here. What I said asks what program they used... really couldn't think of a question, honestly. I just wanted more information on the background, haha. Does anybody else think that the background should be changed, and if so, are there any suggestions to what? Don't forget, one or more users can create background, so it doesn't necessarily have to be an image already on the web. Thanks, -- Bleeh (talk) (blog) 01:18, April 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Bleeh. Our plumbob background is getting a bit dull, and it would be good to refresh it. With what, I don't know. I do like the one on Les Sims Wiki, but I don't think we can use that without getting them angry at us. Anyone have any ideas? -- WoganHemlock (talk) · (blog) 01:03, April 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bleeh too. The PlumbBobs are repetitive and boring. Maybe our background could be the Sim images on the box art of TS3, or maybe a static image of Sunset Valley or something? —Random Ranaun (Talk to me! ) 04:27, April 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I don't know what we could make it. I'll have a look, and post some in a few days. -- WoganHemlock (talk) · (blog) 08:02, April 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * I found this on Community Central. Wikia has a team which can be used to redesign main pages, themes, etc. If we can get some ideas, we could ask them to implement a new background for us. -- WoganHemlock (talk) · (blog) 00:26, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

Addressing The Sims Medieval Wiki split
I've mostly maintained my silence on this issue, at least here on TSW. However, as I was partly facilitating the merge of The Sims Medieval Wiki into this one, I feel it is now my responsibility to bring you all up-to-speed and determine a way to move forward.

The Sims Medieval wiki is not merging with The Sims Wiki at the present time, and is not likely to support a merge in the foreseeable future. Within the past few weeks, an active and passionate editor base has developed there, and the new community has decided - some more vocally than others - that they wish for The Sims Medieval Wiki and The Sims Wiki to remain separate. As a bureaucrat here, I respect their right to make that decision and ask that our community members and administrators respect that right as well.

Unfortunately, a divisive exchange, largely between members of this wiki and the Medieval wiki has arisen as has the debate over merging or not merging. To ease this, I would like to make the following fact as plain as possible: The two wikis are not merging, and no amount of debate will change that until the communities of both wikis agree to merge; this is a simple and unchangeable fact. Further, continuing to give the suggestion that a merge should happen is counterproductive when the community there has resoundingly rejected the idea.

As a bureaucrat, I have tried not to put my direct opinion or ideas into community decisions. However, at this point I think that we have reached an impasse and are seeing a breakdown in cooperative, constructive communication between this wiki and The Sims Medieval Wiki. To that end, I am formally proposing the following, to be agreed upon by the communities of both The Sims Wiki and The Sims Medieval Wiki:


 * 1) The Sims Medieval Wiki and The Sims Wiki are affiliate wikis that will cooperate when necessary, but will also focus on information relevant to the wiki's respective series. Neither wiki is superior or inferior to the other - the wikis are sister wikis, not parent/child wikis.
 * 2) The Sims Medieval Wiki and The Sims Wiki agree that, aside from broad articles that cover in a topical nature information highly relevant to the topic of the other wiki, or articles which are of importance to the topics of both wikis, that neither wiki will feature articles highly relevant to the other wiki's topic. For instance, The Sims Medieval Wiki may have an article describing The Sims series of games, but may not have an article for Miss Crumplebottom, as the topic of that article is highly relevant to the topic of The Sims Wiki. The Sims Wiki may have an article describing (topically) The Sims Medieval, but may not have an article describing the Judgement Zone as this article is highly relevant to The Sims Medieval Wiki's topic.
 * 3) Members who are predominantly associated with one or the other wiki will not overly interfere in discussions or decisions made by the sister community.
 * 4) Adoption of this agreement, as well as changes to this agreement, must be supported by community consensus from both wikis.
 * 5) Merging of the two wikis may be considered from time to time, but the decision to merge must be highly supported by both communities before a merge may take place. If a proposal to merge the wikis is unsuccessful, a similar proposal may not be made for at least six months.

So my question to you all: Do you agree or disagree with the proposal? Please also leave comments. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 07:21, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with this proposal. The merge discussion on TSMW did break down significantly and they're better off being their own wiki. 08:20, April 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. Zombie talk •  blog 08:28, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * I partially agree with the proposal. The only part I don't agree with is 2. If anything, TSW should be able to cover anything in The Sims Medieval. Take the Final Fantasy Wiki for example. They cover both FFXI and FFXIV, even though those games both have their own wikis. So, the Final Fantasy Wiki does cover them, but their individual wikis go into much more detail. I think that is what should happen here. — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 15:14, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * I partially agree with the proposal, and generally agree with the point Random Ranaun raised above. I think we can cover, or at least mention, something, and then link to a (hopefully) more detailed article on The Sims Medieval Wiki. Since there's not going to be a merger, redundant coverage is redundant, and detailed articles are likely to diverge over time. Still, people will probably look here for info about The Sims Medieval, so we should be able to say something about aspects of it, even if it's mostly to say that more info is available elsewhere. Dharden (talk) 16:05, April 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * I partially agree with the proposal and I agree with the points Random Ranaun and Dharden mentioned. -- Bleeh (talk) (blog) 16:17, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Response: The TSMW discussion of this proposal in some ways addresses the idea of content sharing. A user there proposed a system which, if thought out correctly and if it is actually possible through MediaWiki, would be (I think) a good settlement to having articles hosted here. If that system described were set up, it would be much easier for us to refer or redirect users looking for Medieval information over to TSMW based on what they search for. I'm not sure I'm quite doing that person's idea justice, so go over to TSMW and take a read. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 17:00, April 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree and mostly with Random Ranaun's point. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 10:02, April 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with LiR, but disagree with Random's point. Ѧüя◎ґ 21:17, April 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with LiR, except for point two, as we should be able to write articles on The Sims Medieval, as it is a sims game and their wiki is not well known. I think Random's point is a good idea, and agree with it. we should have a redirect system. -- WoganHemlock (talk) · (blog)' 09:14, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

Update
I'd like to re-activate this conversation. I need to know, however, if the community will support this proposal if the second point is removed? I think we should reach some sort of formal agreement soon, and if that means waiting before we resolve specific content questions, I think that's acceptable. What are your thoughts? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 05:19, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * If we remove point two, I don't see any problems with the proposal. --Wogan Hemlock  (Talk to meeee!!) 05:23, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * In case point 2 is removed, is see a bright future for both of the wikis. \_Andronikos Leventis Talk 16:39, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Fanon policies
This discussion has been moved in its entirety to the Creation Policies talk page. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 08:04, May 29, 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

Sims YouTube Video Contest
I was recently notified that we have a YouTube account, which made me think that maybe we should use it. It's only a rough idea, but I thought we could have a contest where users make videos using the Sims games and upload them to the site. We could then have a contest, with awards such as most viewed video, highest rated video, etc, as well as awards voted by for the wiki community, that is, users here. The winners of the different categories could be rewarded with a special userbox or something similar. So, the question is, what does the community think about this? -- WoganHemlock (talk) · (blog) 04:32, April 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * I really like the idea. -- Zombie talk • blog 09:40, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it would be something good for the community. The only issue I can think of is a poor connection speed to upload the video to a server and/or a data cap, as some countries (*cough*UK*country*) employ them, reducing internet usage. Other than that, I'm in favor of this. 10:04, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * So, if the idea is put forward, I was thinking we hand out awards, similar to the fannies idea which was proposed a couple of months ago. The only problem that I could see is no one submitting videos, but I suppose we could only have a few, and forget the category thing. I hope it doesn't end up like the first fanon logo contest, though. --W H  (Talk) 05:15, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

Staff Page
I noticed we seem to lack a staff page on this wiki. I realize that there is a small page that lists the admins, however, this page is different. It includes a list of active rollbacks, active/semi active admins, and bureaucrats (active or inactive, they still must be credited). I have seen these kind of staff pages on a lot of wikis, and it would make us look more professional, I believe. -- XoTulleMorXo  ( Talk  and  Contributions♥ ) 01:05, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. It would make it easier for new users to find admins, crats, etc. If this does get created, I suggest that if we do make such a page, we place a link at the top of the main page, so it will be easier for users to find it. --Wogan Hemlock  (Talk to meeee!!) 01:19, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * So, it seems this page is more or less a staff page. I suppose that makes this discussion pretty pointless, although I do think we could put a link to it on the main page. --Wogan Hemlock  (Talk to meeee!!) 09:28, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it doesn't include rollbacks or fanon admins. I am sure that a staff page is really needed for this wiki now, since it is growing and so does the staff number.|_Andronikos Leventis <font color="#1404A2" size="1.3px">Talk 16:01, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * According to this blog, Auror is working on a page, which is here, that is more or less a staff page. I suggest we slightly modify it to include rollbacks, and we can use that. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">Wogan Hemlock  (Talk to meeee!!) 05:42, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we could just use Auror's staff page and, if the community agrees, adding a list of users with the ability to rollback edits. Though, I can think of many disadvantages to that so I support continuing to use the Administrators page, or Auror's staff page as it is currently. -- Bleeh <font color="#489094">(talk) <font color="#489094">(blog) 23:53, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the points made above. I don't think we really need a page with the rollbackers. 06:22, May 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe that we don't need a page for rollbackers, but not because they don't work hard and such. Zombie talk •  blog 16:26, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose you're right. Let's keep it the way it is. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">Wogan Hemlock  (Talk to meeee!!) 00:14, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * If you say so, I just don't think they get credit. But, whatever. -- XoTulleMorXo  ( Talk  and  Contributions♥ ) 01:16, May 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, they do get the credit of being called more-trusted members of the community, and they should know, and most of them do, that we value their hard work and presence. And before anyone asks why admins "get credit", the page exists so that people can easily see who is active, inactive, and which admin they need to contact about a certain thing they need help with. Another thing: If we do have a page for rollbacks, newbies will think that they have administrator tools and will report vandalism and arguments there instead. Yes, we can make a notice, but to tell you the truth people don't read, understand or care about those things, so they'll ignore it. -- Zombie talk • blog 13:13, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

Fanon-sysop class
I think that the time has come to discuss the creation of a fanon-sysop user class. First of all, for those who aren't familiar with user classes, they are groups of users who receive special abilities, and can be seen here. There are user classes for rollbackers, administrators (sysops), and bureaucrats. When the applications for Fanon admins were opened, we did not have a user class for them, so, they were just placed in the sysop user class. Therefore, they received the same rights as regular admins. While I did not have a problem with this at first, I began to get concerned when Fanon admins began applying for regular administratorship. Since they technically already had the same rights, I could only see the process as moot, and I don't think it's fair for them to apply again for something they already have. So, that's why I'm proposing that we create a fanon-sysop user class. If we proceed with its creation, I have thought of a set list of abilities that Fanon admins would receive. Now, I believe that fanon admins should receive just enough abilities to manage the Fanon namespace, so that they won't end up losing sight of their objective and start spending all their time editing canon pages. I am not sure if all of these are possible, so please, bare with me.
 * Deleting fanon pages: Fanon admins should be able to delete fanon pages that do not meet our standards. This does not mean deleting all articles, just fanon ones.
 * Protecting fanon pages: Fanon admins should be able to protect fanon pages from being edited by non-admins, especially if the fanon page is repeatedly vandalized. This does not mean being able to protect all articles, just fanon ones, although they should be able to edit protected main articles.
 * Renaming files: Fanon admins should be able to rename files, especially because users will most likely end up uploading badly named files, usually starting with "snapshot" or "screenshot."
 * Reverting (rollbacking): Fanon admins should already have this since they would have applied for rollback rights before.

I'm still not sure if they should be able to block users or not. So, what do you think about creating a fanon-sysop class with these abilities? —<font color="#008000">Random Ranaun (<font color="#00FF00">Talk to me! ) 04:17, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think part of the versatility of the current setup is that fanon admins can take over the role of administrators when necessary, if for instance all the regular admins or bureaucrats are offline. I think an easier solution (and a more preferable one) would be to dissolve the Fanon Administrator positions, make our Fanon Administrators admins in full, and delegate them as our designated Fanon leaders, as a condition of them accepting their position. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 06:15, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with LiR, as admins are not always around, and fanon sysops could help out with their duties, e.g. blocking mass vandals, etc. Also, I don't feel that wikia would be willing to make a new user class for just one wiki. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">Wogan Hemlock  (Talk to meeee!!) 08:12, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't agree. I mean, I like our Fanon Admin system. The Fanon namespace is big and important enough to have it's own list of admins, and I think it's good for Fanon Admins to stay separate from regular Admins. If we dissolve the Fanon Admin positions, and make them regular admins, where would they edit? If we do that, then our admins would most likely just edit either the main articles or the fanon ones, leaving the other in the dust. Also, if we do combine them, they would have a large array of articles to edit, whereas if they stayed as Fanon Admins, they would just have the fanon articles to worry about. And Wogan, it's okay, they've created plenty of user classes for other wikis before. —<font color="#008000">Random Ranaun (<font color="#00FF00">Talk to me! ) 11:47, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should merge the two sysop classes. Even though I have been promoted to a full time admin, I still delete fanon as well as fix fanon pages where neccessary. It would also make things a lot easier for when other sysops aren't about. I think this is the best option we could go for. 15:20, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * If an administrator has in their responsibilities a duty to monitor the fanon namespace specifically, then Bureaucrats would be able to discipline them if they weren't fulfilling that responsibility. Also, the way you talk RR, it's as if you don't want a fanon administrator to ever edit anything else on the wiki - administrators are members too and should be able to edit anywhere they want. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 16:43, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * LiR, I'm not saying that they shouldn't be able to edit anywhere else on the wiki, I'm just saying that their main priority should be to maintain the Fanon namespace, and they should only have admin powers on the FN. Since the Fanon Namespace has different policies and guidelines, so, it should have it's own admins. However, the fanon admins should have less abilities than full admins, but more than rollbackers. So, they should have less abilities, but just enough to manage the Fanon namespace, especially in the absence of a full administrator. —<font color="#008000">Random Ranaun (<font color="#00FF00">Talk to me! ) 20:40, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don not really agree with RR's point. Fanon admins should be as handy as others, a merge seems to me the best option. Thank you. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 20:43, May 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with what RandomRanaun is proposing. In response to WoganHemlock saying that he does not believe that Wikia would create a user class just for one wiki, I believe that each Wikia is allowed to request up to a specific number of user classes just for their wiki. -- Bleeh <font color="#489094">(talk) <font color="#489094">(blog) 03:15, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * After reading the comments, I think we should go for a merge of the two classes, or leave it the way it is. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">Wogan Hemlock  (Talk to meeee!!) 04:22, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * As a resolution to the question of whether Wikia can/will do this, I know as fact that something similar to this has been done for other wikis. So it's not a question of if it can be done, but if it should be done - I don't believe that it should, and it seems that others agree with me. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 05:13, May 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't see why we can't merge the sysop class into normal admins, and their task is specifically Fanon related, but not restricted to it, like me with the newsletter, and Bleeh as a community director, etc. Zombie talk •  blog 15:18, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, as the only active fanon admin, I do think we should just merge the fanon class with the full sysop class. I still do want full access to the original sysop tools I.E. blocking, deleting articles, deleting redirects and all that.
 * FWIW, the full sysop tools which are used everyday on TSW are applicable to fanon admins. If we did put restrictions in for fanon admins and there was an issue in the mainspace that needed sorting urgently and a fanon admin, with restricted rights, was the only sysop about, how could it be sorted effectively? This is why I think we should merge the two classes, it just makes things a lot easier. 11:04, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * We have a lot of sysops and bureaucrats, so I don't think we have to worry about that. —<font color="#008000">Random Ranaun (<font color="#00FF00">Talk to me! ) 20:06, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

Consensus
This section is for gathering consensus for the idea put forward by Random Ranaun above. Please state your specific reason(s) for support/opposition/neutrality/etc. As Random Ranaun proposed the idea, he is obviously in support. If he wishes, he may edit immediately below this line to briefly sum up support for the proposal. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 01:11, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

Place your decision below - please provide justification for your decision, and sign using four tildes ( ~ )

Strong Oppose - I am opposed to the idea of making a separate fanon-admin class. It would mean that they would not be able to take action against vandals when no other users are around and not able to delete spam and vandalism in the main namespace. I feel the best option would be to keep the current system or merge the classes. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 05:29, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - per WoganHemlock. Everything that a fanon sysop would need is available in the sysop class anyway. 06:30, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support - I believe that creating a fanon-sysop class would be much easier for regulating fanon. The Fanon Namespace is large and important enough to warrant it's own group of administrators, and I would prefer them to stay separate from regular sysops. They should only have administrator rights in the Fanon Namespace to make it easier for them to have one priority, which is editing the Fanon Namespace, just to make sure that they are not swamped when trying to edit both the mainspace and the fanonspace. If we have sysops exclusive to the Fanon Namespace, the Fanon Namespace will become much stronger, and vandalism and poorly-written pages in the fanonspace will become less frequent. —<font color="#008000">Random Ranaun (<font color="#00FF00">Talk to me! ) 04:44, May 19, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - More problems arise with creating a different class then keeping them more like regular admins with interest in working with Fanon. -- Zombie talk • blog 12:35, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

Full Oppose - I do not feel that creating this class will improve (if something) much the "admin jobs", I feel like this will limit fanon admins too much, while their main "job" must be fanon I see no reason for why they can't regulate the main namespace as well, limiting them will not make the fanon namespace stronger, and many fanon admins will actually want to have normal sysop rights to be able to regulate both namespaces, this ambition will not definitely make them interested in regulating the fanon. Thank you. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 16:37, May 19, 2011 (UTC)

Archive (no longer) pending
As you may have noticed, this page is getting excessively long. To that end, all conversations that have not been active in at least two weeks of the date I choose to archive will be archived. I plan on archiving on May 11 - if you want a conversation to remain on this page, make sure to contribute to the topic before then. Thanks! --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 05:17, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * As promised, the page has been archived. If a conversation was on this page but is no longer, check this page. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 02:10, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

Images Policy
This discussion has been moved in its entirety to the policy proposal page. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 08:04, May 29, 2011 (UTC)

New way of voting for Featured Articles
Hey guys and gals. I've been working on a brand new way to vote for Featured Articles on The Sims Wiki. The template I wish to put in action uses some of the code used for the battles voting template. Here's the main idea:.

This template has a drastic change on voting: It features an "oppose" column. The specific reason I included this was because currently, any article can be nominated, and at the same time, any article can be featured. A prime example of a featured article that was nowhere near one of the best on the Wiki was Sarah Crittur. While we have taken action to get users to vote for articles on a basis of quality and not popularity, I fear it just isn't enough.

The template has the following things:
 * 1) Simple to use. Anybody who has voted in a battles will be able to use this easily.
 * 2) Has a link to the page on the one side, a reason to be featured in the center and on the other side the nominator can sign their name.
 * 3) Support section and Oppose section are neatly organized.
 * 4) Bottom has a place for comments that can be made.

Any opinions? Thanks! -- Zombie talk • blog 11:39, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * I really agree with, though the template could be improved, if this was implemented I think we could review the list of featured articles on this wiki, and see if they fulfill certain conditions, otherwise the article would be not be considered featured anymore. Thank you! --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 12:11, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * The link Bob provided led to a deleted page. Here's the actual page (I think) he was referring to. Now, a specific question: will administrators be allowed to moderate submissions? So if, for example, a person nominates a Sarah Crittur-like article, will the administrators be able to remove it from the list or somehow make it ineligible until the article is improved? One of my criticisms of the current system is that we are largely locked down to whatever is decided, and we really have no control over which articles get chosen as our "best" articles. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 12:12, May 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * I also thought about each having to be moderated by an administrator. There should be a criteria, and failing it = failing featured article nominations, for being, for example, too short, too long, too little images, etc. Basically, I I wanted a low-quality to be featured at this moment, all I have to do is wait till it gets featured, and a criteria would help the situation. Zombie talk •  blog 12:20, May 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the idea could work well, though honestly I don't really like the template. If we just added an Oppose option to the current style of voting and let administrators moderate the submissions, then I think that could work out better. -- Bleeh <font color="#489094">(talk) <font color="#489094">(blog) 14:59, May 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * Mmm, then an article can be nominated, an admin can moderate it and if it fails, voting is not allowed, but if it succeeds, users can fully give their opinion instead of being restricted to ignoring it or voting for it. Zombie talk •  blog 15:41, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * I like this idea. It's very similar to the one large sties like Wikipedia and Uncyclopedia have, and more feedback on the articles. As a side note, this system could also be used for featured editor voting. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 05:29, May 19, 2011 (UTC)

Consensus for Fanon Article comments
A previous Community Portal discussion posed the idea of implementing comments sections to the bottom of articles. While the community was generally opposed to article comments, there was an exception to this opposition for articles in the Fanon Namespace. One main argument for Fanon namespace comments was that it allowed more direct feedback from readers (versus making posts on the talk pages of articles) and might serve to encourage users to continue writing. So, I would like to determine whether there is or is not community consent for activating the article comments feature in the Fanon Namespace.

Place your decision below - please provide justification for your decision, and sign using four tildes ( LostInRiverview talk · blog 20:28, May 16, 2011 (UTC)) : - Strong Opposition - No, it would rather look like a blog, vandalism would be easier and more difficult to caught and I don't want to loose talk pages anyway. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 20:43, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * My mistake, this topic was already discussed here --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 20:45, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I don't think the other consensus was very conclusive. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 20:54, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Why were the article comments enabled? We didn't really get a consensus, article comments should be enabled just after a consensus. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 20:31, May 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * Guilherme, we already had consensus reached, and the majority of users supported it. Even if this doesn't work out, we can easily turn it off and switch back. -- Zombie talk • blog 20:35, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * But we have a problem with it, talk pages and discussions on fanon have disappeared, I wouldn't really support this since the current discussions will be lost (fanon). Thanks. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 20:36, May 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * No, they're still around, just a bit harder to reach. Here's one. Zombie talk •  blog 06:52, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no link to get to the talk pages, soI presume you just type "Fanon talk: to get to the page. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 07:02, May 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * We can add links to the talk page by editing certain templates. Zombie talk •  blog 05:08, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Unexperienced users will probably not figure it out, this is an issue. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 16:24, May 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, as far as I can see, unexperienced users coming here to make Fanon barely (though I've never seen it) used the talk page anyway, and we can still, as I said, add a link in the respective templates. Zombie talk •  blog 16:39, May 19, 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? --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">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)

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? Time remaining: - Cast your vote below!
 * 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

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)

New spotlight request
I believe it's almost time for a new spotlight request to be made. Yeah, the last one didn't work out to well, but if I may, I believe the problem was the blog contest that gave out badges. It got out of control, but I think that a spotlight would be perfect for bringing up the Wiki's activity, and this time, we'll advertise the Wiki and not a blog.

Now, there are two reasons I believe we should do this in July. Firstly, because there's bureaucrat voting going on now which'll have a ton of contributers possibly voting in without really having true say in why/why not the user should/shouldn't get the rights, and secondly because there may be a higher risk of vandalism and many admins are currently busy with exams.

So..yeah. My idea is we should request a spotlight to promote the Wiki in July. Any opinions? Thanks! -- Zombie talk • blog 20:08, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be cool if we timed our spotlight to tie into a game release. We've missed the boat for spotlighting Generations, but perhaps we can catch the traffic from a fall expansion release (there will probably be one in October or November, by the current rate). This would be especially useful if the game to be released is of a particular popular nature (you know what I mean). So, perhaps we wait until the new EP is announced, then we reqest? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 20:11, May 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * Get exactly what you mean. I just want some more takes, but I like your idea. -- Zombie talk • blog 20:19, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * I too think it would be good if we could time the spotlight with a game release, but I don't see a problem with getting one at any time, because, face it, a spotlight is a spotlight, and people will check the spotlights regardless of game releases. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 08:15, May 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think a game release would be a great time to plan a spotlight, since there needs to be many admins when both are happening. You might want to see if you could get one soon though, as Generations comes out next week! -- Bleeh <font color="#489094">(talk) <font color="#489094">(blog) 03:22, May 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a note - Wikia needs substantial notification for spotlights, i.e. more than a week, so we can't do one for Generations. However, we could get one for a later expansion, there will probably be one around November. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 05:03, May 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * It's too late to ask for a Spotlight to tie in with Generations now, as it is released like, tomorrow! :P But if The Sims 3: Unleashed or whatever EP is confirmed for October/November then we should easily be able to get one for then,, as we could benefit from it if we asked ourselves unlike one EP ago where all we got were IP vandals. 22:58, May 29, 2011 (UTC)

OK, The Sims 3: Pets has been announced and confirmed by EA and it is likely that the game will be released in October, with one source saying October 29th. I think we should plan how we're going to go through with this. After some discussion on IRC, we've accepted that we are likely to notice an increase in vandalism either way and it's something that our rollbackers and administrators are just going to have to deal with, but it should be easier to patrol this time round as a) we have more admins and b) we're actually planning it ourselves rather than having the Achievements feature activated and us being spotlighted out of nowhere. Any suggestions on how we go through with this? 20:17, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, update. The way things stand, we have 3 active bureaucrats, 5 or 6, active admins, 1 active rollback and 2 active fanon admins. Note - I'm going off how recently the users have contributed. I think that should be enough to cope with a wave of vandalism, and, let's face it, that will happen. We have a sysop on around the clock usually, so not much will happen. I think we should just take it as we go, for now. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 00:11, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Requests for administratorship and fanon administratorship are also open currently, but no one has applied yet. If we get applicants that ultimately become (fanon) administrators, that will only help when traffic increases. I support a spotlight request for the month of October, even with the present number of administrators. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 00:30, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Should we make the request soon? I think we should get this confirmed, because these spotlights can be really difficult to get. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk)

World Adventures

 * Recently i have realised that a majority of the families of the destinations have very little information or none at alll and i think it is a issue that needs sorting and quite a few need pictures so i think this is something people need to address now i know i'm just a rondom wiki contributer but i have uploaded a few WA pictures to families and ghosts so please help. 109.153.78.39 14:43, May 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * Your help is appreciated :). Most, to all of us, know that we've been lacking in quality for WA townies, but the problem is that there isn't much to add. -- Zombie talk • blog 15:53, May 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * I made this a major project of mine quite some time ago - when I first arrived here, in fact. There is information there to add, but it is substantially less that the more fleshed out personalities of the main hoods. I simply haven't had the drive to complete it. I think most of what's there is my work. If anyone wants to help complete it, that would massively restore my motivation. It's hard work, gathering all those pictures and all that info. (Kiwi tea 15:47, May 25, 2011 (UTC))
 * I made this a major project of mine quite some time ago - when I first arrived here, in fact. There is information there to add, but it is substantially less that the more fleshed out personalities of the main hoods. I simply haven't had the drive to complete it. I think most of what's there is my work. If anyone wants to help complete it, that would massively restore my motivation. It's hard work, gathering all those pictures and all that info. (Kiwi tea 15:47, May 25, 2011 (UTC))

Notice: Policy discussions
Please note all that the Policy page has been redone, and we now have a dedicated page to discuss policy proposals. I've relocated a couple discussions from this page to their relevant pages, and I ask that policy discussions from now on be conducted on the appropriate talk pages. I may come up with some sort of noticeboard system on this page so users starting discussions elsewhere can notify readers of this page, so keep posted.

The fanon policies discussion and images policy proposal have been moved as a result of this change. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 08:10, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Noticeboard has now been added, along with a general redesign of this talk page. This notice here is now completely irrelevant. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 08:55, May 29, 2011 (UTC)

Trait Images for TS3: Console Versions
Could someone please try to find/upload the images for Wii and DS The Sims 3 traits? We're in need of them. Thanks! -- Zombie talk • blog 15:21, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever traits are the same can stay the same but I am aware that there are some standalone traits for the Wii version. They may be hard to get as the Wii discs are propreitary technology, meaning they can't be read by a PC and extracting the images can be hard without a third-party mod. I've seen screenshots from the DS version on the wiki so however they're captured, I guess the same method is used. 23:01, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * On a related note, we need images of Rebellious and Nutruing for Generations. I'd get them myself, but I don't have Generations yet. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 08:10, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * As soon as I posted, I realised we already have the images, haha. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 00:04, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

Administrator Selection Process
Alright, I want to propose a new method for selecting our Administrators. This would not change the requirements for applying or make it any more or less difficult to apply for. It would, however, ensure that all our administrators have tasks and duties to perform that are specific to them, and so we can manage parts of our wiki that have been forgotten or ignored. To that end, I am proposing the following (with justification provided in italics).

<ol><li>The Fanon Administrator class is to be combined with the Administrator class. ''This allows the Fanon Administrators to function as full administrators without limit. There has been difficulty in finding users to permanently fill Fanon Administrator positions because many view it as a step on a latter, being that Administrators are somehow "higher" on the latter than Fanon Administrators. Merging the class would solve that issue as well.''</li> <li>All Administrators must sign up or choose a select number (I'm thinking two each) Administrative Projects to lead. The projects are:
 * Image and file maintenance - Responsible for keeping our images neat, organized and copyright compliant.
 * Fanon Administration - Responsible for maintaining an orderly Fanon namespace and working with fanon editors.
 * Categorization and layout - Responsible for improving wiki navigation and layout for users and readers.
 * Visual improvement - Responsible for making the wiki visually appealing and for bringing the wiki under a unified visual theme.
 * Community involvement - Responsible for communicating to readers and editors on the projects of the wiki, and in planning wiki events.

''The logic behind this is that each administrator will have pet areas they are responsible for working on. The Bureaucrats would, when placing an administrator, ask what jobs the admin would like, then act accordingly. This also allows us to focus on which areas need improvement (and thus, administrators) and which areas do not.''</li>

<li>Administrators are required to make meaningful contributions in their Administrative Project areas. Administrators are encouraged to edit across all spectrums of the wiki, but must be sure to perform their required duties for their AP.</li> <li>Bureaucrats may determine that an administrator is not working sufficiently within their AP and request that the administrator address the issue. If an administrator, within two weeks of this request, cannot show improvement, they may risk action including possible removal of administrator rights.</li> <li>Administrators may request a temporary (not to exceed one month at a time) break from an AP due to real-life circumstances. Administrators may also request a change to a different AP. Requests must be approved by a bureaucrat, and requests to change APs will be dependent on the number of administrators working in each project area. Thoughts? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 23:47, May 31, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that it's a good idea to merge the two user classes as it solves the shortage of fanon admins and introducing the new APs allows for admins to work more efficiently in a specific area of the wiki. 00:01, June 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Georgie, though I have a question: What will happen if there's too many administrators in one AP? -- Bleeh <font color="#489094">(talk) <font color="#489094">(blog) 00:20, June 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Since bureaucrats would be responsible for determining who serves in which AP, bureaucrats would prevent one AP from having too many administrators working in it. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 00:42, June 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * I like this idea. However, will administrators be able to choose more than two APs? —<font color="#008000">Random Ranaun (<font color="#00FF00">Talk to me! ) 00:56, June 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * The potential issue with that is that if we allowed everyone to choose more than two, there may not be enough APs for everyone. 00:58, June 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can have too many people working on an AP, only too few people on an AP. So I think admins should be able to choose as many as they want, so long as we have enough people working on each AP. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 01:07, June 1, 2011 (UTC)</li></ol>
 * I do like this idea. With it, we will be able to make sure that specific areas are taken care of. I presume that, if a merge between the classes happens, the Fanon Admins would still have fanon as one of their projects. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 05:13, June 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * At the start, yes the Fanon Administrators would. They could request to pick up other APs and drop the Fanon one if they wanted, depending on which APs need more administrators and which do not. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 18:01, June 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a pretty cool idea, but what will happen to the Special positions once APs are implemented? —<font color="#008000">Random Ranaun (<font color="#00FF00">Talk to me! ) 19:41, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I reckon that the special positions will probably remain, as they don't reflect on wiki editing as a whole. I know one of them which "someone" has doesn't even have anything to do with editing the wiki! ;) 20:07, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * The special positions may be phased out eventually, with a special process to select the Ombudsman (since they don't need to be administrators). It's been too difficult to get administrators to apply for these positions. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 21:56, June 3, 2011 (UTC)

Proposal consensus
It seems as if most response so far has been positive and supportive. Therefore, I will open this up for official consensus. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 05:47, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

Support - --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 07:15, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support - It will help maintain order on the wiki, and increase interest in Fanon administratorship and special positions. —<font color="#008000">Random Ranaun (<font color="#00FF00">Talk to me! ) 08:43, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

Scratch this actually. Since I have seen no opposition, I'm going to presume support and begin implementation. If there is any significant opposition to the proposal, I will seek formal consensus. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 15:29, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

- The proposal is adopted.

List of Objects in Various EPs
There are so many Categories: Objects in (Expansion Pack), while many objects in the categories are incomlpete, e.g. Category:Objects in Apartment Life only contains 2 objects, while there are many objects with special purposes shipped in the game! And also, all the object pages are stubs. It only contains 1 or 2 paragraphs, leaving the page to be inevitable as a stub. Pictures of the objects also don't match with others, because they're taken by different people in different situations. Details of objects are also... not detailed. It lacks information like price, type of objects, etc.

I suggest that we create a list page that instead of making Category, the page itself is a list of objects with special purposes for each EPs. The objects are for example instruments, gym equipment, and bubble blower that only came from University, or sewing machine, restorable car, and train set from FreeTime. I have suggestion that the page design should be like this. Info on the left, picture and details on the right.

I know this means we'll be deleting the object pages, but I think that's better because those pages are not well-organized anyway. This page will make the list of those objects more well-organized.

What do you think of the idea? (I'll make the page if no one minds) Nikel23 01:00, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are proposing to make a list of objects, I think that's a great idea. We have lists of heaps of other things, e.g. List of Moodlets. As fr why some objects have their own pages, they are usually notable objects, e.g. things like cars, or they are an official EA object. I agree, it is a bit iffy about what deserves a page and what doesn't, but I see no problems with a list of objects. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 04:17, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * It's true, some objects are notable (I don't intend to add ALL objects though). But those objects like pirate ship couldn't be elaborated more than one paragraph, so it would waste a page. Cars are different as they're quite special objects. Also, we don't really have to explain everything about one certain object. Just the main point, or the summary. Nikel23 05:56, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * True, there isn't much to write about for many objects. I say the list seems fine, but I don't really want to delete all the pages on things like the pirate ship, even if they are stubs. I think that we should have a page like the list of moodlets one, but for objects. We would then let special objects (haven't thought of a definition for what we can call spacial, any ideas?) have their own page. Thoughts? --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 05:29, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think common objects such as chairs, desks, or desks don't need to be on the list, as we could assume the function are just the same. In my opinion, "special objects" means objects that come only from one or some EPs. We (might) know pirate ship only comes from BV, right? And chopper only from AL. That's what I think of "special objects". How about that? Nikel23 12:29, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I made an example of the page at the sandbox. Will you check it out and give your opinion? Of course the images will need cleanup too. Nikel23 14:14, June 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I like it. As for the definition of special objects, that makes sense. I think that you intend to only make a section for special objects on the page, as the load time on slower browsers would be horrid if you did it for every object. I think you should make it, but maybe wait a bit or feedback from other users. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 00:15, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Allright, I start thinking the title is sort of... discriminating. Of course this page list is intended for TS3 too (though I believe there are more special objects come with it), but I don't have TS3. That's why I made title like that at the first place. If anyone wants to consider it about TS3, feel free to give your opinion. Nikel23 07:26, June 4, 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)