The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal

Fanon wiki merge

 * Previously-resolved subsections have been archived to The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal/Fanon Namespace

Next step
Okay, as many of you know, the consensus has been long over, and the reception of the Fanon Wiki merge has been overwhelmingly positive. So, we will now move forward to the next step of the merge! LiR has developed a timetable at his blog:


 * 1) As soon as possible: Requests for administratorship will be opened to accept new Fanon Administrators. These new administrators, our current administrators, and the community will collaborate to write Fanon-specific policies.
 * 2) Within 4-6 weeks: The Fanon namespace templates and foundational categories and subcategories will be created.
 * 3) Within 6-8 weeks: The Fanon namespace itself, and the Fanon Portal will be created. TSW's current No-Fanon policy will expire. After this point, fanon will be allowed in the Fanon Namespace (but will not be allowed elsewhere).
 * 4) 8 weeks after adoption and beyond: Additional subcategories and templates will be created as needed. TSW Fanon-specific policies and guidelines will be reviewed by the Fanon Admins and the community. Consensus to merge with the Fanon Wiki would begin.

As you can see, the next step is appointing Fanon Admins and writing Fanon policies. I'll start writing the Fanon Administrator article, and open up the requests, but I'll need help from most of the community to write the policies. So, let's get this merge back on track! — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 02:53, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * I created Fanon Administrators and its request page. They still need a little work, but I think I got most of the main points down. Users are free to request becoming Fanon administrators. If there are any active admins at the Fanon Wiki (aside from A morrs), please let them know so they could apply. Next, we will have to come up with some Fanon specific policies. So, let's get started! — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 03:37, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've started thinking up some rules on my test page, but I think it would be easier for us to develop some core policies that we want to adopt. Here's what I have in mind so far:
 * All fanon content should be substantial (i.e. more than "stub-length") to warrant its own page(s).
 * Fanon that is not substantial, written poorly, or which is abandoned by its author, may be deleted after a set period of time.
 * Fanon consisting of simple Sim bio pages isn't necessarily "good enough," unless there's some underlying purpose for creating their page. By that, I mean that a user shouldn't create a page for a Sim just because they can; they should be telling some sort of story with it, or be using that character in some way.
 * First placement of fanon in the main namespace will warrant a templated advisory message (something like "You have created fanon in the main namespace. In order to maintain the encyclopedic quality of the rest of the wiki, fanon is being restricted to the Fanon Namespace only. Your page:, has been moved to  because it is fanon. Please keep this and all future fanon pages located within the Fanon Namespace."), second placement will warrant an official warning (and movement of page), future placement will result in blocks of increasing severity, as well as deleting incorrectly-placed material.
 * Feel free to suggest changes to these, to suggest new ones or to strike out ones I've suggested. -  LostInRiverview talk · blog 04:49, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * I also have a few policy ideas:
 * Any Fanon page of poor quality should have a special Fanon Clean-up template, added by the creator or a Fanon admin. As said above, it will be deleted after a certain amount of time.
 * A Fanon page that is under construction, and will change over time, should have a special Fanon-UC template.
 * Should a user be permanently blocked, all of their Fanon must be deleted.
 * Should we create a special template to show who owns what Fanon? Also, should each Fanon article, regardless of name, have (Username) behind it? — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 05:16, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * I forgot about that. Maybe have an 'Owner' template to be posted on fanon pages. Obviously, we should have a rule limiting edits to another user's fanon (with limited exceptions). --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 05:20, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * I also already have a fanon cleanup template in the works here; it's not done yet. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 05:21, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * To answer Random Ranaun's question, I don't think we need to add user names to article titles, as long as we use an Owner template to indicate who the page belongs to. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 05:48, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Here's an idea; we use the layout editor to our gain. We can make a standard "Fanon page" which includes the needed templates, and the title can be Fanon: with a space for a title so that users will remember/learn to add it to the Fanon namespace, and it would already be in the FN. Any opinions on using the LE to make fanon pages pre-made? BobNewbie talk • blog 05:14, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm definitely getting ahead of myself, but I created a Fanonheader template. It could definitely use some work, but I think it is basically what the Fanon pages should have. Also, I found a way to make it automatically add it to Fanon pages without messing with MediaWiki. All we need is a Createbox, maybe on the Fanon Portal. Here is an example:

break=no preload=Template:Fanonheader buttonlabel=Create fanon article
 * The preload is set as the Fanonheader template, but since the FN isn't created yet, the Fanon: prefix doesn't quite work yet. Go ahead, try it! Don't save the article though! What do you think? — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 07:00, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Fanon Wiki
It has come to my attention that there has been some confusion about the proposal. My original proposal was for a merge with the Fanon Wiki, not just a creation of a Fanon namespace. While the Fanon namespace would still be created, the original proposal made it so that most (if not all) of the articles from the Fanon Wiki would be moved to the Fanon namespace. It is unclear whether the consensus was for a FN creation, or the real merge. However, a proper merge with the Fanon Wiki would be a better move for us then just creating a place where users can write Fanon. For example, if we just create a Fanon namespace, it would have a very small number of articles, but if we merge with the Fanon Wiki, the FN would have more than 1000 articles; what better way to start off the FN! Also, one of the main reasons for the proposal was to increase our community; how can we do that if the only users editing the FN are the users we have now? If we merge with the Fanon Wiki, our community would greatly increase. Please take some time to consider the original proposal. — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 23:16, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * I read the original proposal as a merge and creation of a Fanon namespace to house the fanon articles, which I did and I still support. GG   (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  23:25, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the measure of consensus above that officially decided this matter was based on the Formal Proposal which had been stated above, but which does not make any mention to a merge with the Fanon Wiki, simply the creation of the namespace. I would say, therefore, that a separate proposal would need to be made in order to merge with the Fanon Wiki. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 23:32, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * So, after we create the Fanon namespace and all of its policies, templates, and categories, then we would have another consensus to see if we should merge with the Fanon Wiki, okay? I added it to the timetable, but right now, let's get back to focusing on the FN creation, until it is finally created. — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 23:50, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I think you could probably ask for it whenever you wanted to. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 02:45, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

Fanon Namespace creation
Okay. So, getting back to the FN creation, when should the Fanon Admins be appointed? — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 05:30, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I would personally say within the next one to two weeks. But I'm not a bureaucrat so obviously I can't do that on my own. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 14:34, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Dharden is appointing Fanon Admins now, but they are just classified as regular sysops. Should we consider creating a custom user class for Fanon Admins? — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 04:59, February 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. If nothing else, it would provide another way to locate and identify them. Dharden (talk) 20:43, February 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. So, should the Fanon Admin class be it's own class, like sysop, or a smaller class, like bureaucrat? If the smaller class is suggested, than the Fanon Administrators of the wiki would have both the sysop class and fanon admin class in the User list. What do you think? — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 04:46, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that if it's possible, then the Wikia staff would have to program the "Fanon admins" class to work like the "sysop" class. I'm not sure if it's possible, but we could try contacting Wikia about this. GG   (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  16:18, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm.... as it stands, Fanon admins are sysops who agree to take on responsibility for a specific area (the Fanon namespace). However, someone who just sees that a user is in the fanon admin class may not recognize that that person is also a sysop. So, I say to go with a smaller class that shows Fanon admins as being in both groups. Dharden (talk) 17:03, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with what Dharden pointed out above. GG   (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  17:06, February 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, great! So, should we ask for the Fanon Admin class now, or should we wait until the Fanon Namespace is created? — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 18:56, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Since we know we're going to create the namespace, we might as well ask for the class now. At least, we could say that we are going to create the namespace, and would like to have the class when it's created. Dharden (talk) 19:11, February 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. Above LiR said that we should appoint the next Fanon Admin(s) in a week. It has been a week since then, so I think it is time. After all, we can't move on to the next step until 3-5 Fanon Admins are appointed. What do you think? — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 21:01, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

(Responding to above comment) Obviously, I can't appoint the Fanon Administrators, but I think it should probably be done soon. We need the fanon admins to get together with the admins and the community to draft up formal Fanon policies. I suppose we can simultaneously begin crafting Categories and Templates, as well. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 03:31, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * I approved Auror and DarthCookie, who were the only other users with active requests, so there are now three. Dharden (talk) 16:25, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Great! I sent them messages telling them to come here and help with the creation of the policies. Here is what we have so far:
 * All fanon pages must have the prefix "Fanon:".
 * All fanon content should be substantial (i.e. more than "stub-length") to warrant its own page(s).
 * Fanon that is not substantial, written poorly, or abandoned by its author, may be deleted after a set period of time.
 * Fanon consisting of simple Sim bio pages aren't necessarily "good enough," unless there's some underlying purpose for creating their page.
 * First placement of fanon in the main namespace will warrant a templated advisory message, second placement will warrant an official warning (and movement of page), future placement will result in blocks of increasing severity, as well as deleting incorrectly-placed material.
 * Any fanon page of poor quality should have a special Fanon Clean-up template, added by the creator or a Fanon admin. As said above, it will be deleted after a certain amount of time.
 * A fanon page that is under construction, and will change over time, should have a special Fanon-UC template.
 * Should a user be permanently blocked, all of their fanon must be deleted.
 * So, we have to decide how long until fanon is deleted, and create more policies as needed. — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 21:52, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me. And of course, all fanon must meet the general rules of the wiki. Meaning that any fanon created that is inappropriate, attacks other users and stuff like that will be subject to deletion and the creator will be warned/blocked depending on the severity. GG   (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  21:57, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * A couple other things to perhaps add:
 * Fanon is "owned" by the person who created it, and should not be edited without the creator's consent (except small fixes or edits to correct policy violations).
 * Users must be registered contributors in order to create Fanon (otherwise, how would we monitor ownership?)
 * 'Inappropriate' content in general articles may not necessarily be inappropriate in Fanon. While we obviously shouldn't allow profanity, subjects such as murder, sexual activity and other things which don't necessarily occur in the game but which may be a component of fiction should (in my opinion) be allowed with minimal policing, except simply to ensure that it remains friendly to younger audiences (i.e. no swearing, explicit sexual language, etc).
 * --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 22:08, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Great! Now, how long do you think it should be until bad fanon is deleted? — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 22:35, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * It sounds awesome, but about fanon stubs. Should we just move them to the user's userpage, instead of deleting them, like the Avatar Wiki? The user could continue to work on them, and when the page has reached a certain link, he can move it back to the fanon namespace.
 * That sounds pretty good. — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 23:39, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * In theory that would work, but I have the feeling that if a page were moved onto a user's userspace, they would probably forget about it or be afraid to move it back onto the Fanon namespace. Do you know how we might avoid this? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 03:30, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * We could give them a reminder about their fanon every month or so.
 * That sounds good. I think it's time to officially add the fanon policies. — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 17:43, February 11, 2011 (UTC)

The Fanon Namespace has been officially requested - I just sent in the Special:Contact to Wikia to create both the Fanon and Tutorial namespaces. Note that when the Fanon Namespace is added, it is still "closed" until we put all the pieces in order. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 08:15, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

Fanon Policies
Below are the policies that have been proposed. Before they can become official policy, they must receive consent form the community. Please read the policies below and offer your support or opposition to the policies. If you have comments, please include them in the appropriate comments section. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 22:11, February 11, 2011 (UTC)

Fanon is any story, biography or description of any Sim, family, neighborhood or feature which was not created by EA and/or Maxis and which does not appear in the games at the time of their release. The Sims Wiki has adopted special policies regarding creation of fanon, and has created a special Fanon namespace, where fanon content shall be placed. The following rules apply to fanon content, and all users should familiarize themselves with the rules before creating any fanon.


 * Fanon content must adhere to all other applicable Wiki policies, including rules regarding profanity and content quality.
 * Fanon may only be created by registered contributors: All fanon contributors must register an account with Wikia and log into their account before creating fanon content.
 * All fanon pages must have the prefix "Fanon:", such as Fanon:. This prefix automatically adds fanon content into the Fanon Namespace.
 * Fanon pages are to be managed by the person who created them. Fanon pages should not be edited without the creator's consent, unless the edit is minor or serves to correct policy violations.
 * All fanon content should be substantial (i.e. more than "stub-length") to warrant its own page(s).
 * Fanon that is not substantial, written poorly, or abandoned by its author, may be deleted after a reasonable period of time.
 * Bio pages for fanon Sims need some purpose for their creation. Bio pages typically should not be created unless the Sim is involved in a story or unless the Sim is referenced elsewhere in a user's fiction.
 * All fanon must be placed in the Fanon Namespace, to prevent confusion between fanon and actual game content (canon). Fanon pages created in the main namespace (i.e. lacking the 'Fanon:' prefix in the page name) will be moved to the correct namespace on the first and second incorrect placement, accompanined with an advisory notice or warning against placing Fanon in the namespace. After two incorrect placements, all subsequent fanon placed in the main namespace will be deleted, and its creator will be subject to a one-day block (which may escalate if needed).
 * Fanon administrators may mark fanon content with a Fanon-cleanup template if the fanon page does not meet quality criteria. If the article is not improved, it will be deleted. Users who are currently working on fanon pages but whose pages may not yet be up to quality criteria may mark their pages with a Fanon-uc template, notifying administrators that the page is being worked on. If the page is not improved within a reasonable time, an administrator may mark the page with the Fanon-cleanup template.

Consent/Dissent
Log your formal opinion below
 * - Support -  LostInRiverview talk · blog 21:56, February 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * - Support GG   (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  22:01, February 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * - Support- --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 22:10, February 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * - Support - 23:16, February 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * - Support — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 04:59, February 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * - Neutral |_Andronikos Leventis Talk 13:53, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

Comments
Place your comments regarding the above rules here.


 * Should we add that strong profanity, sexual themes, and intense violence are not allowed on fanon pages, or is it okay since it is already in the main policies for the wiki? — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 05:02, February 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * If you recall, I had suggested that we have some slightly "looser" rules regarding fanon content, so long as it adheres to the main principles of reader-friendliness (no swearing, profane descriptions, explicit sexual content, etc), but I chose to leave that point out in order to not weaken the idea that we still (and always should) cater to a general audience. I think that can be a guideline to follow, however. Even without a policy regarding it written into the Fanon policies, fanon must still adhere to wiki rules, including regarding inappropriate language. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 05:07, February 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, they should be allowed, as long as it is "PEGI 12". A warning should be added since not many new users read the policy. |_Andronikos Leventis Talk 13:58, February 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that "as long as it is 'PEGI 12'" is what Americans would think of as "keep it PG-13"? Dharden (talk) 01:59, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah. It could also be perceived as "T for teen" as well. Should we create a warning template to place on fanon that is a little more mature (this player story comes to mind)? — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 04:29, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, most definitely yes. I don't have to click on the link to remember that one. It wouldn't just be a notice for users under 18, but for people who just don't want to read something like that. For example, me. Dharden (talk) 07:27, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * A warning at the top of the page which says "This fanon article may have content, which although does not violate the wiki's policies, may be upsetting for certain users." -- BobNewbie talk • blog 19:36, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * How about this:


 * What do you think? — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 21:36, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool. |_Andronikos Leventis Talk 17:59, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Templates creation
The fanon policies have been adopted as written above (minus minor changes to grammar, spelling and links). We now need to create the templates mentioned in the policies - fanon-uc for fanon which is under construction, and Fanon-cleanup for fanon pages which need to be updated. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 18:14, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * How about these:


 * What do you think? — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 05:32, February 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Did a grammar fix to one of them. Otherwise, pretty good. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 05:39, February 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * , They look gorgeous, pretty work guys! I tink they could stay like this. Thank you for reading. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 08:52, February 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Fanon-cleanup, Fanon-uc, Adult, and Evolve have all been created. I will also be creating a template to use on pages that are incorrectly placed, so stay tuned for that. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 23:27, February 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice! Should we create a Fanon Deletion template too? — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 02:28, February 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is one just in case we need it:


 * What do you think? — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 06:39, February 21, 2011 (UTC)

Fanon logo contest
I believe that we should create a "The Sims Fanon Wiki" logo, that would appear on the pages in the Fanon namespace. On the Avatar Wiki, they have an "Avatar Fanon Wiki" logo that appears in place of the regular logo, specifically on fanon pages (see this for reference). It would be a simpler way to distinguish canon pages from fanon, instead of manually adding a template to the top of the pages. So, I propose that we have a Fanon Logo Contest. Thoughts? — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 04:35, February 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * A template already needs to be added to the pages to show who the creator is, but I like this idea too. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 21:22, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * I created the Fanon Logo Contest. All users are welcome to enter a Fanon logo! — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 01:55, February 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, look at the Avatar Wiki's Property template. It has the author's name, the genre of the Fanon, the type of reviews it receives (Very positive, Positive, Mixed, and Negative), and a link to updates about the Fanon. It would probably only be able to be placed on main Fan fiction pages, but it is still a pretty nifty template. What do you think? — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 02:04, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

Templates change (needs input)
I want to propose you a great change on templates of Sims from Sims 3, Sims 2 and 1, If no one minds please check this article in Les Sims Wiki, Cornelia Goth, I love the way it's organised, and I would like to propose that we could put images of icons in templates for example bookworm in people who have the bookworm trait, unflirty would display for example, we could do the same for sign, typing Capricorn would display a file with a Capricorn icon, we could do the same for age, sex, etc..., just some examples, I think it would be good if you had images and icons in templates, can we make such definition? Please tell me what you, guys think. Thank you. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 13:01, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, and it looks cool. A concern I have, though, is that the text used in that template is very small - so small that even I have problems reading it. Is there any way we could have that setup, but with larger text?--  LostInRiverview talk · blog 18:42, January 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I like it. But if I take my glasses off, I have to squint to read it. We could find a way to make it larger. -- BobNewbie talk • blog 18:47, January 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * It does look cool and organized, and we certainly can make the font larger. Looking at the template, it uses the same parameters that our templates are using right now, so if we do change the appearance of our templates, we would not have to edit every page, like we had to do when we changed Sim to Sim2. So, I support changing our templates to show icons! :) — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 05:42, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm liking this idea. Just so we can see a good example (I'm sorry, but I don't read French so the page for Cornelia Goth didn't make much sense to me), would it be possible for you to make a sandbox page or something with a sample Sim that has the new infobox? That would be awesome -  LostInRiverview talk · blog 07:13, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I'm not very experienced with those templates, but what do you really want me to do? Thank you --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 11:34, January 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * See this would be the new file for romantic interests but only for The Sims 3 sims and this would be the new file for roommates, just examples we have much more to change, and I think we could show icons of traits, age, sign and gender. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 11:51, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I made a page using the new infobox here. I used Bella Goth as the sample Sim, and I merged her TS2 and TS3 information to show each parameter of the infobox. I also made many changes to the original infobox. I made Bella's life state witch, and made it so that the life state icon would appear as well. I made the font larger, and used different icons. I still didn't add any of the other parameters, like major and rep group, but I think it looks pretty good right now. We should also consider making an occupation parameter, showing the occupation's icon at the right. To see the infobox that I used for the test page, see here. What do you think? — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 04:13, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I like your example, RR. There are a couple issues though: the male, female and deceased icons are either .jpgs or non-transparent .pngs... they should all be transparent .pngs otherwise you get those little white boxes. The same goes for the TS2 logo at the top. I have a suggestion too - I think that in the case where a Sim is in multiple games, we should use different colors to identify each game, otherwise you're using a lot of one color and none of the others. -  LostInRiverview talk · blog 04:28, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I really like it RR, it's gorgeous and thanks for trying for me, I would like to say that the current sim templates should stay, they are pretty I only think we should change icons, also we must be sure this definitions include categories stuff. Thanks RR do you want any help? --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 21:47, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've also created a test page to see the functions of the template and it's awesome I must say, you can find it here, I did not put a state because I did not know if normal would display anything. Thanks RR for making these for me. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 22:05, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

I am making changes to Sim/test. The previous test example can still be found Sim/example. I am removing the background colors for now so we won't have to worry about transparent images yet. But we still need images for body shape/build. --a_morris (talk) 23:46, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

Portals for each game
After looking around the wiki, and seeing the recent success of the updated Community Portal, I was just thinking that maybe we should create a Portal for each major game in the series. We already have a Late Night Portal and Fast Lane Stuff Portal, but, in my opinion, those games are so minor, and don't really need Portals just for them. I believe the community would benefit from this, since many users come here just to research one game in the series. If we do create Portals for each main game, we should have a The Sims Portal, The Sims 2 Portal, The Sims 3 Portal, maybe The Sims Stories Portal, if it isn't merged with The Sims 2 Portal, The Sims Medieval Portal, if we are going to cover that game, and a Console Portal, Handheld Portal, and Mobile Portal. Each main game Portal should also cover the expansion packs, stuff packs, and compilations that were released along with the game. Also, look at the main page of the Avatar Wiki. They have a slider that shows the main contents of their wiki. If we create a Portal for each main game, we could feature them on the main page using the slider. Since each game has its own users and contributors, I think that creating Portal for each major game would help our community and easily carry users to their desired destination. What do you think? — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 06:05, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this wiki has a history of downplaying console games, but I'm not sure if creating a separate 'Console Portal' would resolve this, since console games run across all three "generations" of the series, as opposed to the TS1, TS2 and TS3 portals which would be central to their own "generation." As for the rest of your idea... I'm not sure. I'll have to think about it a bit more and read some other opinions. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 07:10, January 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I am really unsure about it. I do think we should have one portal that covers an entire game and expansion/stuff packs. -- BobNewbie talk • blog 12:54, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

lawlz, BobNewbie, that's exactly what he was suggesting. 68.171.234.7 18:13, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Family Tree change
In the past, I created many family trees for The Sims Wiki. One of the main problems that I found in my family trees was that they were unable to link to individual Sims. I added a familytree template to the Phineas and Ferb Wiki, but, thinking that The Sims family trees were too complicated, I did not add it to The Sims Wiki. However, Eduardog3000 just added it to the wiki, and showed a demonstration here. In my opinion, it looks very good and organized, and with the icon next to it, you can view the entire family tree. My proposal is that we change all of our current family trees to the familytree template. Please tell me what you think! — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 03:41, January 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice. But what about using ? --a_morris (talk) 21:10, January 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Imagemap is a kind of complicated, I think the Familytree template is better.--Eduardog3000 22:19, January 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I would personally like Imagemap.
 * Yeah, but like I said, Imagemap is complicated, and hard to get the link in the right place and while Familytree is a little complicated it is much easier than Imagemap. Here are some examples of trees made with the Familytree template: the Landgraab family tree, the Alto family tree, and the Goth family tree.--Eduardog3000 23:25, January 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that it may be too complicated for you, but, we could find somebody that has used imagemap dozens of times, like Aster09. looks unprofessional.
 * I agree with Auror. Imagemap may be complicated, but looks way better. -- BobNewbie talk • blog 15:51, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that the Imagemap feature would be good for the Wiki because of its professionalism in addition to the comments above. GG   (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  16:05, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * As all said above, I think this family trees should be improved, they look to unprofessional and colorless, in my opinion the current ones should remain. Thank you. ---Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 18:42, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think it is colorless, me or Random Raunan could try to edit the Familytree template to give it color, I didn't expect so many bad comments about these trees, they are well organized and easier to update than the trees made of a picture.--Eduardog3000 18:47, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the trees with pictures just look better, plus aid all that much more in finding the Sim you're looking for. I think we should go with Imagemap. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 19:07, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I said Imagemap is to complicated and with the Familytree template it is easier for me and Random Raunan to update the tree. Also, how does the picture tree aid in finding the Sim your looking for. And as for looking better, me or Random Raunan can change the Familytree template to add color and make it look better.--Eduardog3000 19:21, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, If it's a choice between the current trees and trees made with Familytree, I'd keep the current ones. Since Imagemap is an extension, could be possibly write it into a special template, which could make using Imagemap easier? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 19:26, January 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Even written into a special template, it would be hard to pinpoint the exact location of where each link would need to be.--Eduardog3000 19:32, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how the Familytree template looks unprofessional, it looks fine, and as for it being colorless, like I said before, me or Random Ranaun can add color.--Eduardog3000 03:17, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's an issue of looking unprofessional. I think it's a point where Imagemap looks better, no matter what kind of color you add to Familytree; Familytree just looks dull --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 04:55, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, like I said, imagemap is complicated and hard to pinpoint the exact position of where the link needs to be. There is also that updating the trees are easier with the Familytree template than with the picture, as well as with imagemap, after an update is made, you would have to go and edit the imagemap to add link(s) to the new Sim(s) (as well as sometimes moving where pre-existing link(s) are).--Eduardog3000 21:39, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

More custom namespace ideas?
Since it seems likely that a new Fanon namespace will be created, I thought it would be a good idea to ask if we should add any other custom namespaces to The Sims Wiki. (Wikia prefers that we ask for them all at once.) What are your suggestions for other namespaces? --a_morris (talk) 18:37, January 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikia has a 3 custom namespace limit, this wiki already has the Top Ten namespace, which is one, the there will be the fanon namespace, just leaving one more custom namespace to add.--Eduardog3000 19:54, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said before, so? Having a surplus of custom namespaces isn't necessarily desirable. If we run out of custom namespaces and we want to add another one, then let's talk about this; right now it's completely irrelevant. But if you disagree, propose a removal of Top Ten here on the Comm. portal. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 21:38, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. In my opinion, any page in the Top Ten namespace could just be moved to The Sims Wiki namespace. Maybe a Tutorial namespace? We already have the player tips articles, which I think shouldn't in the main namespace. — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 01:38, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but what's the point of moving the Top Ten into the main namespace unless we need that custom namespace for some other purpose? Like I said before, having "extra" namespaces for our use really shouldn't be a concern. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 02:09, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have a suggestion as well. I've noticed that we really don't have much in the way of technical help related to the games, downloads, mods and technical things. A lot of this info is available at simswiki.info, but that doesn't mean we can't cover it here too. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 02:10, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe, if the fanon namespace is created, we could keep some custom content and mods there (such as InTeenimater and Mermaid) and we could create a Tutorial namespace, which could contain the technical info about The Sims series. What do you think? — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 06:04, January 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * A tutorial namespace is a good idea. I would like to separate some of the step-by-step how-tos found in some articles, like Create a Sim. Is the Top Ten name space really a custom namespace even though it is connected to an extension? --a_morris (talk) 20:36, January 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I'll pop on Community Central and ask in the forum. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 20:43, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

Community Director
I have to leave the wiki due to personal reasons. Yes, I am sure about what i'm doing. I'll still supply our Facebook page with images, but other then that, I am forced to leave.

I hope nobody see's me as a quiter, and I hope I reached my goal; to expand the Sims Wiki as much as I can.

Please appoint a new temporary community director. Thanks to all I have met here. -- BobNewbie talk • blog 12:28, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

Main page redesign service
I daresay that many people who regularly check this page don't often check Talk:The Sims Wiki, where there has been some discussion regarding an upcoming redesign of the Main Page. I suggested the following idea there, but as it would likely need community acceptance before it were requested, I figured it would be easier to bring it up here. Below is my original comment on the other talk page:


 * Additionally, BobNewbie tipped me off to a service that Wikia provides where they come in and do a custom redesign of a wiki's main page, background skin, and theme. This feature is by request only and has certain minimum requirements. If you want to see more, go here.
 * I don't have many concerns about us catching Google traffic (we do a pretty good job of it already), but I do think having this team come in and completely redesign our mainpage is something we should at least consider. This obviously has advantages and possible benefits, as well as some possible drawbacks. One stipulation this team makes is that their design decisions are final, but I assume that if we applied and were accepted that our community would be able to have some input prior to them making the design, so I don't see that as a huge issue.

What do you all think?

--  LostInRiverview talk · blog 02:25, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

I think having people that work for Wikia to come redesign the Main Page is a bad idea. "Oasis" (or "New Wikia Look" or whatever they call it) looks terrible, I don't want even more terrible-ness (probably not a word) added to this wiki.--Eduardog3000 03:22, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you see the work that they've done on other wikis? I don't know how much of a say we'd get if we did this, but I don't think they would try and force us into something we don't like. -  LostInRiverview talk · blog 03:39, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * They forced us into the new Wikia Skin.--Eduardog3000 21:32, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Did they? Maybe if people would spend a little more time giving constructive criticism, and a little less time protesting any form of change that occurs and threatening to leave the wiki or take their wikis off-site, maybe - just maybe - the skin would be a little better. Do yourself a favor and get over it; the old skin ain't coming back. Sorry about that, I'm just getting really sick of complaints about the new skin. If you hate it so much, then leave! No one's forcing you to stay.
 * All that aside, this is a little different situation, since we're actually requesting this change rather than having it "done to us." That said, I cannot imagine this team not taking the ideas and thoughts of the community seriously, if we were to pursue this. I think if we're going to decide this idea one way or the other, it should be based on whether we think the team will do a good job of it, and whether we want to allow someone else to design it for us, or whether we want to have all control over it by doing it ourselves. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 22:07, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

New Main Page
I just updated the Main Page using my design. Take a look. Any feedback at all is much appreciated! — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 03:12, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

 * I think it looks very cool! I'm glad you took the initiative on this, since I was pretty sure that it was never going to happen otherwise! --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 03:28, January 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * Not bad. I won't be seeing much of it, as the new MediaWiki + Oasis doesn't work quite right in Opera, so it's back to Monobook after I post this -- but not bad. Dharden (talk) 04:21, January 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * It is amazing! I love it! It is quite simplier, less confusing, and takes so much less time to load. A+! |_Andronikos Leventis Talk 13:04, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

Expanding the Forums
Since the Fanon namespace is going to be created, and very possibly a Tutorial namespace, I think we may need to expand our Forums. Right now, we have two main Forums, Doo Peas Corporate Tower and Central Park. Doo Peas Corporate Tower is for general discussion about the Wiki, and Central park is for general discussion about The Sims games. Since we are going to create the FN, we should consider creating a special Forum just for general Fanon discussions. If the Tutorial namespace is going to be created, we wouldn't have to worry about creating a special Forum for that, since we already have the Questions forum, which is about game help. However, since it is safe to assume that our community is going to grow, we should also consider creating an off-topic Forum, where Users would be able to just chat. I know that I may be getting ahead of myself, but I also thought of names for these two new Forums. Since our Forums are currently named after locations in the games, I thought that the Fanon Forum could be named "Wright Reading Room," named after the Library in Riverview, and the off-topic Forum could be named "Hogan's Deep-Fried Diner." What do you think? — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 06:35, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 21:46, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good idea as then there will be a place where fanon can be discussed, reviewed, new ideas etc. Plus the off-topic forum would be a good addition in addition to the IRC channel, where users may also chat. GG   (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  22:10, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * I created Wright Reading Room and Hogan's Deep-Fried Diner. They still need a little work, but what do you think? — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 07:00, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

Tutorial namespace proposal
This idea was suggested above, but I think it needs a bit of discussion and consensus in a new section.

The general idea is to create a new namespace which will house game help, tutorials, how-to's and tips for players playing the games. The general idea is to move some pages located on the main namespace here where they would be more relevant, and to significantly expand the help that The Sims Wiki offers to players on the technical side of things. We already have a very significant knowledge base about game characters, neighborhoods, objects, and the games themselves, but this wiki does lack a lot of technical information which could be used to help players figure out how to improve their games, identify and address bugs, install modifications, install downloadable content, and other activities.

So I am proposing that a new namespace, with a name to be determined by the community, will be created to house and to gather knowledge about the technical aspects of the games, including information on troubleshooting, play tutorials, tips and how-to's so that readers and users can get the most out of The Sims Wiki and their games.

Discussion? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 23:17, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good idea as we can help others as well as provide information. GG   (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  23:28, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I definitely support the creation of a Tutorial namespace. We have a lot of basic Sims information, and soon we would have a place for users to write about their own Sims, but what we're missing is game help and technical information. I feel that creating this namespace would not only increase our base of information, but also increase our traffic, user base, and community. — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 03:12, January 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I always search for game tips, and other simmers out there also do so. This will increse traffic to maximum. Well, if it is done correctly... |_Andronikos Leventis Talk 07:55, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * It would also allow moving much of the how-to-do-it info out of mainspace articles. Dharden (talk) 05:28, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with this idea, it would help us to stay our wiki cleaner, and well organised, if we do have a fanon namespace, the tutorial one could exist in my point, it would help us to search for articles, organise and separate what's fanon from what's canon. Thank you. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 17:51, February 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with this idea, it would help us to stay our wiki cleaner, and well organised, if we do have a fanon namespace, the tutorial one could exist in my point, it would help us to search for articles, organise and separate what's fanon from what's canon. Thank you. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 17:51, February 11, 2011 (UTC)

I've sent in a Special:Contact to Wikia for the creation of the Tutorial namespace. This seemed to be the name that most people agreed with, plus it pretty well serves the purpose of the new namespace. Now it's just wait-and-see to see when the new namespaces are added! --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 08:17, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

Clean-up
Please note that many discussions were removed from this talk page. Most of the Fanon Namespace/Fanon Merge discussion has been moved to The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal/Fanon Namespace, while other topics which were completed or had not been discussed in a while have been moved to The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 10. I think some of the topics archived have been forgotten about, so if you think they are worth discussing and possibly resolving, please start a new section below and provide a link to the archived discussion. Thanks! --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 23:45, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

What is the official policy for pictures of items and Sims?
I have to ask this, because the official policy appears to be to use the extremely poor-quality screenshots carried in the Sim and object files. This works okay some of the time, certainly it works sufficiently with the Sims, but it looks awful compared with large, well-lit and detailed screenshots from in-game. Compare the majority of shots [|on the Sims 3 fridge section] with the high-detail shots on [|cameras] or [|treadmills]. I think this applies to objects much more than to Sims, and I think this boils down to a question of what we want to represent on this Wiki.

Do we want to present Sims and objects as they are in-game, when players are interacting and engaging with them most, and in high quality, detailed images? Or do we want to present Sims and objects in low quality but "official" formats?

Personally I recommend drafting a set of guidelines for reasonably neutral, standard-sized screenshots, and using them instead of the low quality EA ones, but I'd like to debate the pros and cons of "icons" versus "screenshots" to represent objects and Sims on the Wiki. If necessary, I'd advocate we vote on the matter.

Thoughts? Opinions?

(Kiwi tea 09:01, February 1, 2011 (UTC))
 * First off, we don't 'vote' on things; we allow the community to show consensus. Second, we don't have any official policy regarding image quality, but I agree that we should be trying to provide the highest-quality images that we can. However, I don't see much of a way to regulate the quality of images which people choose to upload, so I don't know how successful writing an official policy would be. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 15:18, February 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * While we should use the best-quality images we can, as a practical matter, we often have to take what we can get, as long as it's not so poor that it can't be made out. A poor-quality image that still shows what an object looks like may be better than no image at all. Also, for TS1 objects and Sims, the game's own limitations place a limit on image size and quality. I usually get images of TS1 objects by finding them in The Sims Transmogrifier, taking a screenshot that shows it at maximum zoom, and using Paint to save the image of the object as a JPG or PNG file. A screenshot taken in-game at maximum zoom would be no better or larger. A screenshot of a Sim taken in-game will still be low-quality compared to what's possible with TS2 or TS3, simply because it's not possible to zoom in as close. Dharden (talk) 16:33, February 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * Firstly, sorry for my poor use of terminology. I'm not trying to make the wiki out as a democracy, it's just that consensus gathering seems to meet the definition of a "vote", just a very loose one. Secondly, another reason for about asking this is that as long as I've been on this wiki I have seen multiple users go systematically through pages (especially pages for Sims) replacing high quality in-game screenshots with comparatively low quality "official" icons. I have never changed the pictures back for fear of starting an edit war, but it seems to be very common practice. I notice that all the in-game shots of WA Sims are gradually, in chunks, being replaced with icons, for example. (Kiwi tea 01:06, February 2, 2011 (UTC))


 * Well, I have to agree with Dharden. There is no way to make an image from The Sims 1 look as good as one from The Sims 2 or The Sims 3, but still, an image which is nearly impossible to see might make readers to start avoiding the article and eventually, The Sims Wiki. I personally use (when I want to, I am not so interested in "official" images from Sims) SimPE to extract the image from the sim, found in his character file, and upload it. However, I am running in a video card excellent to play The Sims 2 so my images there are excellent quality. If the subject is an object from The Sims 3, well, I agree, we can't use in-game thumbnails because they're too small and have low resulution. |_Andronikos Leventis Talk 15:48, February 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * I also agree with Dharden, the screenshots are limited to which game they are coming from. And there is a limit on how much you can edit them to make them look "better".  But I do agree that we should find the best ones that are available, but going so far as to asctually making a policy on them, I don't think so.  It'll stagnate a lot of images.--  DarthCookie  Talk 22:54, February 9, 2011 (UTC)

Merge with The Sims Medieval Wiki
Yes, another dreaded merge proposal. This one is comparatively straightforward, however. I am proposing a merge with The Sims Medieval Wiki.

I've posted a proposition on the Community Portal talk page at TSMW and so far it's received support, so this seemed like the next logical step. Here's approximately how this would happen:

Assuming community consent at both wikis, we would likely file a request to merge through Wikia. They would either perform the merge, or assist us in exporting The Sims Medieval Wiki and importing their articles onto The Sims Wiki, which we can than re-arrange as needed or reconstruct The Sims Medieval Wiki's organizational system for Medieval-specific content. Once that is complete, an administrator will need to send another Contact with a request to shut down The Sims Medieval Wiki, including a link to the community discussions that show consent for the proposal.

I largely covered these points already at TSMW, but I'll briefly state them here. The Sims Medieval wiki has a much smaller traffic rate than we do; moving the info here gives it a better opportunity to be found and improved upon by The Sims Medieval players (once, of course, the game is released). We already have an existing and quite functional wiki governance system here, and we are relatively stable. Finally, merging the wiki increases our quite paltry knowledge base about Medieval, which is a huge benefit to the hundreds or thousands of TSM players or prospective players that may come to TSW looking for information, only to be disappointed.

Thoughts? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 04:57, February 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * Full Support There is no reason for readers to have to go to a different wiki to read about The Sims Medieval. LIR, you make a good a point, if we don't have articles about The Sims Medieval most readers, or even users, are going to leave because The Sims Medieval is very likely to be a hard game, so walkthroughs will be needed. |_Andronikos Leventis <font color="#1404A2" size="1.3px">Talk 08:02, February 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Support I feel that TSM wiki is dead, we have no activity and now Sims wiki concluded to cover The Sims Medieval game, the reason why this wiki existed is no longer valid. I support this idea with much excitement and hapiness! Thank you for reading. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 09:06, February 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - the activity on TSMW is very low compared to the activity on TSW. A merge will be better for information (as all Sims info will be in one place) and for the site traffic. GG   (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  10:12, February 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Support There's no question for this case. Merging it is definitely a very good idea. So users can view different informaions on the same wiki at the same time. -- WG_94  Talk  -  Blog  15:00, February 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Support A merge would be very beneficial to both wikis, and I'm all for expanding our info. (as you could probably tell, :p ) — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 06:03, February 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * - Strong Support. I think this would be a very smart move, we need to have all Sims information in the same place anyway.  Anyhow, it would raise the activity here, with the merge with TSFW and TSMW, this is a great time for it.  You have my full support.--  ♥DarthCookie♥  23:00, February 21, 2011 (UTC)

Fanon Wiki
Now that we have adopted a new policy containing fanon contents, I am quite concerned about the destiny of The Sims Fanon Wiki, since we are much bigger and well known, and very active when comparing to the Sims Fanon Wiki, wouldn't this destroy the little activity they have? Seriously, does this make their function, redundant? Wouldn't be preferable a merge with them, instead of this? Could community share your opinions with me? Thank you. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 20:20, February 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think what were doing is good, it'll bring us more activity, and a lot of users here edit there. So it will give us a better reputation and more activity.  It'll be alright.--  ♥DarthCookie♥  21:08, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think Guilherme is concerned about us, she's concerned about them. I have to agree with what she's saying (if that is indeed what she means), and I've sent along a message to one of TSFW's active administrators, but have heard nothing back. Ultimately, I think we should engage the members at TSFW and offer them the chance to merge into TSW, but it's entirely their choice. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 21:23, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the original proposal was for a Fanon Wiki merge, but it somehow morphed into just a Fanon namespace creation. Most of the admins at the Fanon Wiki are inactive (save for A morris), but there are still users who edit there. I'm all for a merge, but I'm not sure how we can do it if there is only one admin at the Fanon Wiki. :( — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 00:45, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we could offer some help to them, it could be our choice too, and we have to help them if they want to merge with us, I am really concerned about the idea of destroying their chances to be an active wiki, that's what concerns me, the most. Thank you for reading. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 17:38, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * At least for me, it's easier to consider a Fanon Wiki merge knowing that, if the decision to do it is made, we will have policies for handling fanon content and a place for that content to go. Dharden (talk) 19:08, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * While I support a merge with the Fanon Wiki, I came up with some pros and cons to merging:
 * Pros
 * More articles - probably enough to get the Fanon namespace up and running quickly.
 * More users.
 * More activity for both communities.
 * Bigger community and possibly much more traffic to the wiki.
 * More unity between communities.


 * Cons
 * Messy and unorganized articles from the Fanon Wiki will come to our Wiki.
 * Many users will likely be confused.
 * As you can see, there are a lot of good reasons to merge. We would have more articles, a lot more users for both communities, more activity for both, a much bigger community and more traffic, and more unity between ours and the Fanon community, since I can often tell that we aren't that much affiliated with each other. On the other hand, the Fanon Wiki has a lot of messy and bad articles. If we merge, these articles will come here, which will mean a lot of cleanup, deletion, and overall work for our admins and Fanon admins. Also, if we merge, more than a few users will likely be confused, and a lot of Fanon will probably lose its creators, which again means deletion or adoption. I definitely support a merge between the Wikis, and will do my best to make sure that it is as smooth and as clean as possible, but I would like to see what the community has to say before I go and formally request a merge over there. Thank you! — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 04:42, February 20, 2011 (UTC)


 * You make some pretty good points here RR. The thing is, the Sims Fanon wiki is gonna take a hit if we don't merge. Activity is going to fall over there, and they can't really stop us from merging. A merge is going to be the best option, and we should ask the admins there (if we are going to merge) to give users as much info about whats going on. -- BobNewbie talk • blog 06:36, February 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not correct. Wikia generally wants community feedback and agreement on things, so we can't unilaterally decide to merge without getting approval from The Sims Fanon Wiki's community. In fact, I'd suggest getting their feedback first, before you seriously try and debate it here. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 06:46, February 20, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that a merge would be best, but we should get their community's feedback on it. If they agree, then its a merge, if they don't.  We will just have to wait and see.--  ♥DarthCookie♥  21:39, February 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * I just posted a merge proposal at The Sims Fanon Wiki at their Community Portal. So, let's wait and see what they say! :D — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 06:42, February 21, 2011 (UTC)

Consensus
Now that I have officially proposed a merge between TSW and the Fanon Wiki, let's start getting community consensus from our wiki. Strong Support - As you can tell, I believe that a merge between the two wikis will be a great move for all of us. — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 22:30, February 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Support with conditions - Assuming we can get some community members who actually edit on TSFW (rather than TSW users) to support this, I will support it as well. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 22:32, February 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - Not only will it increase site traffic and gain more members but it will also make administrator's jobs easier and allow more freedom. GG   (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  22:35, February 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. I agree with Georgie, and it will give a lot of people here more things to do. It will certainly decrease my boredom.-- ♥DarthCookie♥  23:14, February 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Support with concerns I'm voting for this because I don't want to destroy The Sims Fanon Wiki, though I have some concerns about organizing Fanon. Although, I think we'll have a bigger and participative community, that can give us a lot of advantages, and I hope we all collaborate for a common goal, making this wiki, a good-quality one. Tank you for reading. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 18:16, February 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * Extreme Oppose. I would like to say that whenever I visit the Fanon Wiki, I get sick of their articles. In my opinion, it is a perfect idea, in case we are planning to destroy ourselves. The Fanon Namespace is far enough. |_<font color="#A60914" size="2px">Andronikos Leventis <font color="#1404A2" size="1.3px">Talk 19:42, February 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * Mountainous Oppose. I'm no against a fanon namespace, but a merge with the Fanon wiki would ruin our wiki. Like Andronikos Leventis said before me, their articles are too different from the ones we actually have, and I personnally hate these articles.JM9193 19:59, February 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * Opposition, Due to personal reasons, and a checking to fanon articles on Fanon wiki, I've changed my vote to Opposition. Be aware that I did not propose a merge, though, I think we should find a solution to make fanon wiki not disappear, thank you for understanding my reasons. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 20:12, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

Although I respect your opinions, you guys have to understand that we can work around those problems. We have a lot of Admins, Fanon admins, rollbacks, and users who can help. We can add cleanup to articles, and delete the ones that are bad, messy, abandoned, or who's creators are banned. I'm not saying that it'll be easy, it won't, but I really believe that it would be a successful move for us. Think about it, if we don't merge soon, everyone's either going to go to TSFW or TSW for their Fanon, and the wiki that they don't go to will suffer. Merging would be great for both of us, but we're going to have to cleanup and delete certain articles from the Fanon Wiki once or before we merge. Thank you for understanding. — Random Ranaun ( Talk to me! ) 21:49, February 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * support -- CookieMonster888 talk 01:54, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. We have a FN, but I don't like the Fanon Wiki. They have way to many articles nobody wants to read. I supported the FN creation, but this is like shooting ourselves in the foot. Then cutting off the toes. -- BobNewbie talk •  blog 19:19, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a request... can we please keep the descriptors of opposition down to simple weak or strong (i.e. weak oppose, strong oppose, or just a plain old 'oppose' etc). This whole Mountainous oppose and Extreme oppose is a little crazy. In all of these cases, a simple strongly oppose will suffice (the same goes for anyone in support). -- 19:40, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

Fanon Critic
I had an idea to give some popularity to Fanon Articles. People can write critic on a Fanon article's talk page, then an "average score" thing can be put up, like Metacritic. You can rate it on the talk page as 10%, 20%, etc up to 100%. You can also write a review about the article. Reviews MUST be constructive. What do you think? BobNewbie talk • blog 19:15, February 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * This is very interesting, but still someone might write a bad review on purpose. I really don't know if a bad review for an article would break someone's heart. |_<font color="#A60914" size="2px">Andronikos Leventis <font color="#1404A2" size="1.3px">Talk 19:20, February 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, this would get people to try to write good stories instead of a waste on purpose, and if I write a very bad story, the negative critic is fine, but they have to make a good point on whats wrong with the story. BobNewbie talk •  blog 19:24, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * I support the idea, as long as the negative reviews aren't used for personal attacks against the creator. GG   (t)  •  (c)  •  (b)  19:44, February 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * Like I said, they have to have a good reason. And it can't be: You spelled "dog" wrong so I'm giving you 20%. -- BobNewbie talk • blog 19:46, February 24, 2011 (UTC)