The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal

Families with one member
I'm beginning to see some family pages with one family member. Wolfe household & Curry family to name a few. Perhaps it's time for a policy or guideline stating that these pages aren't neccesary npr do they hold any information that cannot be added to the one Sim in the family. What do others think? To me they're just articles with no info on them, wasting space. Duskey ( talk ) 02:52, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

I think we should keep them anyway. I don't think it matters if its one person. They're still a family. Jason   Talk To Me!   02:56, July 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * There's nothing on the family pages that can't be included in the sim's page, unless that sim is the only person left living in their family (and the other members are visible on the family tree). I say delete the pages. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 02:58, July 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * That's exactly my point, Jason. If it's just one person there is nothing you can add to that page which you couldn't add to the Sim page. If these pages weren't family pages they'd get merged or deleted due to lack of content. Duskey ( talk ) 10:29, August 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * redirect. --a_morris (talk) 23:54, August 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Alright, I did it to the Steel family -> Christopher Steel. I made sure to move the info on the family page to the Sim page and also moved player stories. I also remember to delete the family picture (which wouldn't add anything to the Sim page and was of poor quality). Do you agree that this is the right way to do it? Duskey ( talk ) 16:17, August 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, what about the family difficulty? -- Duskey talk 14:59, September 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * About the difficulty, I would add the category to the family page and add a note could be added to the Sim's article. Eduardog3000 recreated the page because there is a possible second member of the family, Mike Steel, but I still think a family page is unnecessary. --a_morris (talk) 16:56, October 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * I surely agree but something is just wrong.I think that The Sims Wiki should not organise Families with one member as families but just the fact that Family pages add information about Family difficulty and how wealthy the sims really annoy me.Maybe we should reconsider and think about it once more.It will also be harder for people to understand how to search things in a new way.If someone wanted to make a search at the Steel family then he would only be able to see Christopher Steel in Sserch Results for Steel Family.This means that he would have to load more pages.Really bad.Andronikos Leventis 16:58, October 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you find it useful if Sims were listed by last name. Ex. the page "Steel" would link to every Sim with that last name, but the page "Steel family" would only link to "Christopher Steel". --a_morris (talk) 19:01, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Does that mean that every Sim would be categorized based on their last name?-- LostInRiverview talk · blog 19:06, October 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Aren't they already? -- Duskey talk 11:34, October 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * These would be articles not categories. They are now only sorted by last name (within categories and lists) not grouped. Actual articles would make searching easier. They would just be another way of organizing information. Not all family members have the same last name and not all sims with the same last name are family members. It could also be used in onomastics. --a_morris (talk) 17:21, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has gone off on a tangent. Have we made a decision about families with one member in general and Steel family in particular? Perhaps there needs to be a discussion on what information should be included on a sim page vs. a family page. --a_morris (talk) 22:22, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

The Sims Wiki Battles
We are already in the midst of creating a Sims Wiki Battles feature. These battles will work like the battles at the Final Fantasy Wiki and the Kingdom Hearts Wiki. Users can vote for or nominate a fight between two things in The Sims series. These things can be Sims, Objects, Life states, anything like that. After a fight is chosen, users can then vote for which of the two things they want to win. After the fights time is up, the thing with the most votes wins, and a new fight is chosen from the nominations. We have already created the Battle layout and are considering the Sims Wiki page it will be on. Please feel free to tell us what you think about this new feature. Thank you. --Random Ranaun 22:18, August 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added my take on how to implement this. I made a template Simbattle and you can see it in action with three examples here: The Sims Wiki:Sandbox/SimBattle. Duskey ( talk ) 03:45, August 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * We really need to implement this soon. People are using the Featured Articles as popularity contests. The featured articles are supposed to represent the excelence of The Sims Wiki's articles, yet users are voting for the article of their favorite Sim, even if it only has one sentence! The Sims Wiki Battles should be added so that users could use it for their populartiy contest urge, while the featured article will become much more professional. If anyone has any ideas for this feature, please don't be afraid to voice your opinion here. --Random Ranaun 03:46, September 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you could ever really get rid of that urge... my only idea for featured articles would be to have them change every 2 weeks or 1 week rather than once a month - but that's not important right now. I like this idea, but I doubt it will decrease the favoritism that goes into the Featured Article selection. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 05:58, September 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe we could add a policy for the featured article? Like, only registered users can nominate and vote, and the article must not be a stub, to name a few. --Random Ranaun 23:54, September 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * It still needs some work before it's implemented. So someone needs to work out the last kinks and have a way updating and maintaining it regularly. -- Duskey talk 11:34, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Cars & Vehicles
How should we list and categorize cars &amp; vehicles? With FLS incoming we'll need to sort it out. Duskey ( talk ) 16:23, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Once FLS hits I have half a mind to make an extra menu item in the main menu, pointing to the page and associated pages. Duskey ( talk ) 19:05, August 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Menu item would be great, and when it comes to the pages themselves I suggest Car, Motorcycle, and Scooter pages with sections for each buyable car and one section for non-driveable/career reward cars. Ae jarv 20:53, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

The Beast needs to be moved to "Motorcycle" and have "The Jamboree" added to the page, and The Kenspa needs to be moved to "Scooter" and have "The Scoot Mobile" added to the page, I did that and Duskey changed it back, why?--Eduardog3000 01:06, September 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * If there's more than one scooter and/or motorcycle, then having a "Scooter" or "Motorcycle" article would be consistent with the way similar situations have been handled. Dharden (talk) 01:54, September 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * That is what I am saying, there is now 2 motorcycles and 2 scooters, i tried moving The Beast to Motorcycle, but Duskey changed it back.--Eduardog3000 02:17, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Since everyone seems to be in agreement, I don't see any harm in going through with moving the pages. I know Duskey wanted to wait for discussion, but I really don't think there will be much more of it, and in any case, I really don't think there's much of a disagreement about what should be done, so frankly there's not much to discuss. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 02:49, September 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Having a Car, Motorcycle, Scooter & Bicycle page sounds good to me. Perhaps the motorcycles and scooters can share the page since their function is identical (2 wheels, not useable by children). Then the types would be split in 3: Cars, 2-wheelers for teen+ and 2-wheelers for children+. The tables or galleries of the vehicles should be split between buyable and not buyable, in my opinion. -- Duskey talk 13:37, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

I like a complete list that has all vehicles in a single page. As long as the types came in order (i.e. motorcycles followed by scooters), it should be fine :)

Ilovefoxes 14:29, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

It would be best just to have a page for Cars, a page for Scooters and a page for Motercycles.Eduardog3000 20:38, September 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to say I agree with Ilovefoxes. The vehicles are in the same category in the game, there's no reason they shouldn't be in a list. I suggest a 'Vehicle' article with all the text and a few pictures. It would have sections about cars, motorcycles/scooter and other vehicles, but the actual images and info on each car would be in 'List of Vehicles in The Sims 3'. There should be a list for each game in my opinion. -- Duskey talk 09:29, September 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * I honestly think Scooters and Motorcycles need their own page.--Eduardog3000


 * Having seperate scooters and motorcycles would prevent users from comparing them directly to each other and to cars, which personally is something I'd like since it's not directly available in the game. -- Duskey talk 23:59, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think having three sections (4 wheels), (scooters/motorcycles), and (bikes) that would redirect to a list of each respectively would be best. The gta wikia has something like that65.33.138.203 20:06, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's try and resolve this pretty quickly. What are everyone's thoughts? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 04:14, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's try and resolve this pretty quickly. What are everyone's thoughts? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 04:14, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes patrol
DarthCookie has suggested that we enable Recent changes patrol which basically means that edits in RecentChanges will be colored yellow (Similar to how NewPages already is) until someone with "patrol rights" marks it as "patrolled", which means it's been checked and it's okay. It can be set so users with a special patrol rank can mark edits as patrolled or it can be set so only administrators can mark pages as patrolled. Be sure to check out "New Pages" to see an example. What do people think? -- Duskey talk 16:10, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Who will get patrol rights? - JEA13  [ iTalk  ] 16:13, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - I would say that bureaucrats and administrators would get the rights automatically upon receiving a position, perhaps even automatically giving them to rollbackers. I would say that receiving patrol rights could be given out to other users based on trustworthiness. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 18:12, September 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * My suggestion would be that rollbackers and admins get patrol rights. -- Duskey talk 19:23, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Support- Same reason as above. ---Guilherme Guerreiro 19:27, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - I was basing it off of wikiHow's patrol app, which allows all registered users to patrol articles, talk pages edits, etc. ---DarthCookie 04:30 September 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be in favor of extending patrol rights automatically to all registered users, since it would be easy for a person who wishes to do harm to create a name, log in and cause damage that way. I think allowing users to apply for it (with prerequisites lower than that of a rollback or administrator) would be a better idea, since the bureaucrats handling appointments would be able to sort out the good users from the bad ones. -- Patrick (LostInRiverview) (talk)(blog)(random page) 04:43, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I meant. Besides I would be the first to apply, I love patrol on wikiHow.-- DarthCookie  07:36, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that rollbackers automatically get patrol rights. They're already trusted persons and it would prevent the ranks from being overly complicated. -- Duskey talk 22:01, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my rollback request is still pending. :angry face:-- DarthCookie 22:03, September 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this going to be done, or not? Dharden (talk) 15:40, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to explain in further detail about what this will mean for people who are bestowed with patrol rights: It means that every edit in "Recent changes" will be marked with yellow until someone clicks the edit, checks it out and clicks the link, letting other patrollers know that it does not contain anything which goes against our policies or rules. -- Duskey talk 21:58, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Detail

At the moment we have some rollbackers who haven't edited in many months. I suggest they're demoted and the active rollbackers are informed of their new added responsability. -- Duskey talk 01:30, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Excisting rollbackers

Featured Articles
I think it's time what we have a major and serious discussion about how we select and manage our Featured Articles. There are a number of issues I'd like to address, and a number of insights I have:
 * 1) The Featured Article should always illustrate our highest quality, best-written articles. However, people have been using the FA selection as a way to choose their favorite Sims, games, neighborhoods, etc.
 * 2) A number of the articles that have won or that have been nominated simply are not up to Featured Article quality. For example, this month's featured article Sarah Crittur is, in my opinion, not Featured Article caliber, as there is simply no information on this page and it's poorly written.
 * 3) Many users on TSW vote for Featured Articles (or other featured content), but have made no other contributions to The Sims Wiki. In other words, users are registering, voting for FAs, then disappearing.
 * 4) Further advancing the 'Featured Articles is a popularity contest' idea is the fact that, once one particular article gains a lead in votes over other articles, it receives a lot more votes; people are drawn to vote for the likely winner, simply because it is likely to win.

Therefore, I am going to propose the following:

Under this suspension, the administrators would select the featured article until a new selection process is laid out and running. Such selections would be based solely on article quality or timely information (for example, having November's featured article as The Sims 3: Late Night), and would end as soon as is reasonable. I think that requiring users to have some contribution outside of Featured Content is important. It will help us ensure that only those users who are participating here have a say in what articles we feature. Just as a base, I would say that editors must have 10 mainspace edits prior to any nomination or vote on Featured Content pages. Further, I would say that unregistered contributors should not be allowed to vote or nominate there. This first and foremost means that the present democratically-selected Featured Article process, where articles are selected based mainly on favoritism, would become a thing of the past. There are multiple ways to implement this, but here is one idea:
 * A suspension of present Featured Article Selection.
 * Establishment of a minimum Wiki requirement before voting for Featured Content.
 * Have Selection of Featured Articles based on quality, not on popularity.
 * At the beginning of the month, open up the Featured Article nomination page for the next month. Allow each registered user who has at least a minimum number of mainspace contributions to nominate one article for the Featured Article distinction. Nominations must include justification of what makes a nominee worthy of Featured Article Status. Each nomination must be seconded by another regular user who meets contribution requirements. This period would last approximately 10 days.
 * During the nomination period, users can evaluate the quality of nominated pages. If a user or administrator feels a page, for whatever reason, isn't FA quality, they can bring it up for discussion. For any articles brought up in this way will be discussed starting on the 10th day of the month, until the 20th day of the month, and a consensus will determine whether the article is of adequate quality, with those articles not of adequate quality being removed from the running for that month.
 * During the nomination period, users can attempt to address issues with pages in order to make them FA worthy. For example, resolving cleanup or clarification issues in an article may solve problems related to its FA worthiness.
 * The final period, starting on or around the 20th and lasting until the end of the month, would be the actual vote for featured article. Each user meeting minimum contribution criteria would be allowed one vote, and votes must justify why the article is worthy. After this, administrators will determine which article received the most votes, accompanied by the best justifications, and that article will become the Featured Article.

Create a page which highlights qualities of FA articles. This page would align closely with our Manual of Style and would help to demonstrate best practices, as determined by the wiki community.
 * Establish a Featured Article criteria page.

In closing, the Featured Article receives a heavy inflow of reader traffic while it is featured. The featured article, in that respect, demonstrates what we as a community have decided is the best-of-the-best; when we select articles which are clearly not of featured article quality, we negatively reflect the quality of all other articles on this wiki.

I hope that we can have a serious discussion about this issue, as well as possible solutions. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 20:30, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
Oh, God, you are absolutely right, actually I normally vote for big and clean articles that are about my favorite ones, but yes people should not vote for their favorite sims and stuff, We should vote for the informative and good written articles. ---Guilherme Guerreiro 20:35, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

I say that you 1. Have to state why you are voting for the article. 2. Any votes to do with popularity should be removed. 3. The most voted for articles should be checked by an admin, and he/she wil decide based on quality. 4 Need at least 40 edits, and may not vote if your an anon. BobNewbie (talk)(blog) 13:47, October 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Given how few people participate in voting, I suspect that many users won't notice a suspension, but suspending the current system until a new one if put in place sounds fair to me.


 * I definitely agree with not allowing anon users to nominate or vote, and with requiring a minimum number of mainspace contributions before allowing a registered used to nominate or vote. I think much of this could be accomplished by semi-protecting the nomination/voting pages. It'll block anons, and if new accounts have to wait a few days before being able to nominate or vote, that may not be a bad thing.


 * I'll have to give your proposed replacement system some more thought, but at first read, it looks pretty good. Dharden (talk) 15:55, October 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I was just throwing out an idea. I see preventing anons and short-term users from voting as being pretty logical, but that still doesn't prevent long-term users from voting on favoritism, which many still do. If anyone can determine a more workable system which prevents favoritism voting, I would likely support it. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 18:16, October 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Since discussion here has essentially frozen, I've proposed the above idea to be added to TSW's policies at The Sims Wiki talk:Policy. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 04:03, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Move the Wiki
I think we should move the wiki to Shout Wiki, so we don't have to switch to the new look.--Eduardog3000 22:21, October 7, 2010 (UTC)

I Don't know, but it is not a bad idea at all. ---Guilherme Guerreiro 16:59, October 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Moving wikis aren't easy. We don't "own" The Sims Wiki. Wikia does. Even if we copy all the info to shoutwiki and put a notice that the regular contributors have moved there, we can't delete any info from this wiki without breaking Wikia policies. Users who don't come here that often will of course continue to contribute and use this wiki and in time, new people will take over. We can't "shut down" a wiki on Wikia. -- Duskey talk 11:34, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * The better we should do is proposing ideas to wiki, to improve the skin.


 * Point taken. Since a true move isn't do-able without Wikia's cooperation, and there's no certainty it'd be a net positive even if we got that, and creating a clone sounds like it could well be a net negative, I say we stay and try to make the best of it. Dharden (talk) 22:25, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm against it. I recently downloaded Google Chrome, and the Oasis skin is much faster than the current one. I really think it may be an improvement to the old skin. And like Duskey said, we cant shut down a wiki. It will be to much effort to try to do it, and in that time we could already have gotten used to the new skin.

I'm against it. In the time we would require to move the wiki, we could have gotten used to the new skin. --BobNewbie (talk)(blog) 07:30, October 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * Gotten used to?, for 95% all people (including me) there will be no "gotten used to", the fact of the matter is, the new skin is horrible and we need to move so the Sims Wiki won't lose users, and yes, the Sims Wiki will lose users, A LOT of people will be leaving all of Wikia.--Eduardog3000 08:06, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't make up statistics - I do not believe that 95% of the Wikia community is going to leave because of a new skin. You may be right in saying that a lot of people will leave, but even in that case, new users will eventually come along to replace them; it sounds cruel, but that's the way wikis work. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 14:23, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should make a virtual manifestation against the new skin?---Guilherme Guerreiro 08:29, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, it will confuse users who only contribute occasionally as well as the fact that it would take a long time and it will be a lot of trouble. While the new skin is causing some browser problems, I'm sure Wikia will make some improvements to the skin in the long run. GEORGIE GIBBONS  talk contributions09:19, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:Yes, I also think like Georgie, and we should help wiki improving the skin not leaving the wiki because that certainly, will not help. ---Guilherme Guerreiro 09:22, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: I'm sticking with what I said. We can get use to the new skin. I have already. Its much faster than the old one, though it will take some time to get to used to it. Oh, and you cant say 95% are leaving, because you don't know that. BobNewbie (talk)(blog) 14:41, October 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * Eduardo, we can't just "take our ball and leave" because it isn't, properly speaking, our ball. Making a copy of the "ball" and taking it somewhere else would take a fair amount of work. Once it was done, there would be issues of letting people know that it had been done; letting them know where we had taken the duplicate "ball"; and encouraging them to come play with our duplicate rather than the original. It'd be a lot of hassle and grief, with no certainty that the gains would be worth it or even that there would be gains. Dharden (talk) 15:28, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

A recreators' gallery?
There seems to be some disagreement about whether to allow pictures such as File:Chloe Singles (TS3).jpg, which shows a Sim from The Sims 2 re-made in The Sims 3. Since that's so, and since some people are going to upload them anyway, maybe we could consider having a space for such pictures. Dharden (talk) 15:20, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with. ---Guilherme Guerreiro (Talk here) 20:43, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

I agree too, but we should categorise them. BobNewbie (talk)(blog) 17:59, October 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I created the space at Gallery of recreated Sims. Categorize the images if you want, but I think page is better because it allows the images to be captioned. Dharden (talk) 16:13, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

Creating a new section on Family template
Ok I have an idea, why don't we create a new section on the family template, the new section would be economic status including categories like rich families, middle class families and poor families since you have sections with economic status on the Sim template, why don't we create this section, also we should include new created categories to the economic status section on the sim template like: middle class sims, poor sims, we only have rich and unemployed categories. I think it is a good suggstion, but add ideas below to improve mine. ---Guilherme Guerreiro (Talk here) 20:53, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Any opinions??---Guilherme Guerreiro (Talk here) 21:20, October 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Having the economic status in the family page makes more sense since I think it is determined per household not sim. Adding additional categories for economic situations is a good idea. --a_morris (talk) 17:09, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * I've updated the FamilyInfobox & Family with economicstatus, but have not removed it from the Sim templates. --a_morris (talk) 15:39, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

What's with the achievements?
I come in today, and find that achievements have been enabled. My understanding was that there was a consensus to not implement them here, and there doesn't seem to have been any re-opening of the discussion. What happened? Was this something Wikia imposed without even a by-your-leave, or did something else happen? Dharden (talk) 16:37, October 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest that someone should contact Wikia as this could be a common mistake that staff have made and enabled the achievements on the wrong wiki or someone seems to have gone behind our backs to get them enabled without the community agreeing to it. GEORGIE  GIBBONS  talk contributions 16:47, October 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * I sent a message to Wikia staff, and posted the response I got at User blog:Dharden/Response from Wikia about achievements . In short, it was a sponsored "premium achievement", and allowing it requires enabling achievements overall. I was told "We have been doing this with a few wikis but this was the first wiki that didn't have Achievements enabled (much less the first one that had said they didn't want it), so the policy on this matter was not clear." IOW, Staff admits that a mistake was made but says they are under contract and will honor it. I was also told "The campaign ends November 21st and I have gotten permission from Ads and our Support manager to turn off Achievements at that time." Dharden (talk) 22:47, October 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't like the achievements thing.--Eduardog3000 23:24, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

I want the achievements to stay, but whatever the community says. I still got the other two wikis with achievements.-- ♥DarthCookie♥ ♥Talk♥ 06:13, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

EOTM
Hey guys! What do you all think of starting a editor of the month thing? I think it could be cool because it would: Here are some rules it could have: What do you guys think? BobNewbie talk • blog 18:55, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Showcase hardworking user.
 * Be a way to remind user quantity is not the same as quality
 * Fun
 * Users who vote must have more than 50 edits
 * Users must nominate, no self-nomination
 * Winners get a award of some sorts
 * Winners are displayed on the talk page
 * If a user has won, they can't be EOTM for about 6-12 months.

Very interesting ;). ---Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 17:52, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I took a bold step and went ahead and created The Sims Wiki:Featured User. Go ahead and check it out! --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 06:06, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

New Skin
I had an idea, since Monobook will remain an option and with Monobook you don't have to change much, we should just use Monobook for the wiki. I know you won't be able to make Monobook the standard, but you can put one of those messages that is shown above every page saying "This Wiki is made with Monobook, to get the best viewing experience switch to Monobook in your preferences." or something like that.--Eduardog3000 20:35, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Who's to say that in the future Wikia won't take away Monobook too? I personally am alright with the new skin after using it for a while. Maybe instead of complaining about Oasis or trying to get around using it, you should try editing on the wiki for a few days with Oasis on and see how you like it... --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 23:30, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

I am NOT using Oasis, I will be using Monaco until it is no longer an option, then I will use Monobook. If they eventually get rid of Monobook, then I will leave the wiki.--Eduardog3000 01:07, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what I mean. Why do you hate Oasis so much? Have you even used it? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 04:04, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Frankly I love the new skin, it's a huge adjustment but I like it. It's more...it's just better.-- ♥DarthCookie♥ ♥Talk♥ 06:10, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

I will do the same as Eduardog3000, without the radical 'leaving the wiki' part. I don't like this new skin either and I think making it the only chooseable one is pure cr... better not say it. Keep it as default, I don't care, but just make it not the only one available at the options. -_- --- » Яσdяigσ X  [̲̅т̲̅α̲̅l̲̅k̲̅][̲̅b̲̅l̲̅σ̲̅g̲̅] « 10:56, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of Achievements
Please use this area to discuss the Achievements feature. A couple questions exist regarding this feature. The first, and most significant, is whether we as a community want to keep Achievements after November 21st (for full explanation, see here) or whether we want to get rid of them. If you support keeping Achievements, then please comment and address these issues: 1) How will we discourage "Badge Boosting" i.e. users making pointless edits and comments simply to earn points? 2) Are there new achievements that should be added to focus on other areas of the Wiki or to focus more on quality, rather than quantity? If you support removing Achievements, then please comment and address this question: How do we best increase community interaction without utilizing the Achievements feature?

If there isn't a clear consensus, a vote may be started so that a formal decision can be made. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 04:34, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion/Comments
Oppose - I think they encourage badge boosting too much, and don't focus on encouraging good constructive edits. Instead, I say implementing an Editor of the Month feature would be more beneficial, as that would give some target for editors to aspire to. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 04:35, October 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Support, I think it would boost the flow of users here a bit more. Just look at TSM, we have had achievements basically as soon as we started the wiki. Now for your answers.


 * Q. How will we discourage "Badge Boosting" i.e. users making pointless edits and comments simply to earn points?


 * A.Why even discourage it when you know it will still happen, even in the subtlest of ways. But I say that you could warn the user about badge boosting, always check recent changes. it'll put the rollbackers to work.


 * Q. Are there new achievements that should be added to focus on other areas of the Wiki or to focus more on quality, rather than quantity?


 * A. They could focus on areas and quality, you could make different ones for the users who love to categorize (me), build stubs etc...the achievements will be a success, I already know it.


 * And there answers, I support the achievements fully. I hope they stay, or I guess I'll just have to keep the achievements up over at TSM.-- ♥DarthCookie♥ ♥Talk♥ 06:07, October 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The system does not distinguish quality from quantity, and only rewards quantity. It does not appear to distinguish an image added by a template from one uploaded by a user. It does not appear to distinguish changing the caption alignment in a gallery from adding an image to it. It does not distinguish a good-quality image which helps to illustrate what an article is about from one that will end up being removed for poor quality; or for being redundant, or irrelevant to the article, or fanon, etc.


 * As for "badge boosting", one issue I see is that receiving a badge for something can imply approval of it. Yes, there will always be people who make pointless edits, but without achievements, they do not receive a reward for doing it.


 * I think recognitions/awards that come from the community, such as the proposed "Editor of the Month", might help. Dharden (talk) Open the Web! Wikia, support all browsers! 15:31, October 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I feel that keeping it here will make editors make poinless edits just to get more points. Plus, I feel that this Wiki is too old for it to be implemented as users won't get points for edits made before the achievements were put into place, whereas on The Sims Medieval Wiki, we are a new Wiki and we can be rewarded for what we do in a better way. I think that the "Editor of the Month" idea is a good idea as it rewards as well as giving editors a good target, which can be achieved by making good quality edits! GEORGIE  GIBBONS  talk contributions15:45, October 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose- I think this new system is not working here I catched out some users making pointless edits or copying info and pasting again into the article just to earn points and badges, this wiki is very old and most of editors are not adapting to this new "project", this wiki will only loose with achievements, I agree mostly with Dharden as he said this rewards don't distinguish quality from quantity, so it is better not keeping them. Users are also becoming obesessed with this and make mostly pointless edits instead of improving the article. ---Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 17:34, October 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I just don't like the achievements.--Eduardog3000 18:05, October 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Discussion - Here's some further evidence that supports the idea of users "Badge Boosting." These comments (from registered users) are from The Sims 3 Late Night "Blood Rush" blog (here):
 * "i didnt get ma badge and i typed 4 comments!!!"
 * "Neither I took my badge! Look, am I wasting my time here?"
 * It's pretty clear that a lot of users are commenting there just to earn the Platinum Badge. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 17:35, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

I just found something. If you go to your preferences, under "Misc", the last check box is, "Hide my achievements on my user page when I visit it and don't notify me of earned badges".--Eduardog3000 22:16, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah but that does not resolve anything because other users continue see your points.---Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 14:13, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

Vote
In order to have this decision made before November 21, the vote is being started now. The vote on this issue will end at 18:00, November 18, 2010 (UTC) - countdown:.


 * Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: The Sims Wiki should keep the Achievements Feature and expand its usage on the wiki.

Late Night, zodiac signs
I was wandering about signs in Late Night and I remember we should update template simbio3 because we don't have sigs section on there. Any thoughts? ---Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 18:22, October 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree BobNewbie talk •  blog 18:42, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * has been added to Sim3 and Simbio3 and so far works exactly the same as for The Sims 2. --a_morris (talk) 04:09, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

Reopening Featured content discussion
There are still some things to discuss regarding changes to the Featured Article and Featured Media systems. Please participate in determining the new system.


 * Copied from The Sims Wiki talk:Policy

I agree that the featured content should be based on quality rather than popularity. But the system you've outlined above I think would take a lot of work in a short period of time. Perhaps we could separate the review and the voting to separate months or separate the reviewing from the nominations. What I mean by the latter is that articles could be submitted for review then given a quality rating and the nominations for featured article could come from the articles with the highest rating(s). Either way, once an article, etc., is deemed of good quality, I don't think it's necessary for voters to give an explanation. The only reason I could see that being necessary is if they wanted it featured for a specific month. Also, before we can implement this we need to outline the criteria for a quality article, which you mentioned on the community portal talk page. --a_morris (talk) 21:12, November 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * In a situation where items are submitted for review and given a quality rating, would that inhibit the ability of regular users to nominate items for FA/FM? Also, do you think that we should or could coordinate the establishment of criteria with a possible update to the MoS (if you think the MoS needs an update)? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 21:32, November 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Any user could nominate an item but there would be a limited number of articles that could be nominated. Although anyone could discuss the quality of an article, only an administrator would assign the article a rating. Yes, the criteria should be consistent with the MoS, though it does need updating. I've also been looking at how Wikipedia does it. --a_morris (talk) 22:07, November 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I like that idea. I'm going to pull the policy proposal from here and start a new discussion in the Community Portal instead. Hopefully we can get some engagement this time around... --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 22:25, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
As you can see above, the general idea here is to:


 * Revamp the Featured Article and Featured Media selection process to make them less favorites-oriented.
 * Establish a quality ranking system where articles can be ranked based on level of detail, quality of information, layout, etc.
 * Set up an alternative way for users to nominate articles for Featured status.

Speaking directly to the idea of ranking articles, I think this can be useful even outside of Featured Article selection. If, for example, we choose to rank our articles by some general categories (say, 'A grade', 'B Grade', 'C Grade' and 'Stub Grade'), we can categorize pages into these groupings, which will allow us to focus on improving the lower grade articles. On Wikipedia, I know that an article's ranking is usually saved in a template on the article's talk page - we can design just such a template, that is placed on the talk page of a page that has been ranked and which will automatically categorize that talk page into a quality category (this may seem a bit confusing - Wikipedia sorts articles in this manner on the talk pages, not on the content pages themselves).

Ultimately though, the decision falls with the community. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 15:20, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. This could work. I'm also getting really irritated with the FA. BobNewbie talk • blog 15:32, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I do agree with this. Plus, I think that the idea of new users having to make a certain amount of edits or wait a certain amount of time before voting is a good idea as I remember a recent case where a CheckUser found a number of accounts on the same IP who were just voting in FA and FM while making no other edits. GEORGIE GIBBONS  talk contributions 16:09, November 4, 2010 (UTC)