Replacement filing cabinet
Archived discussion
This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. If you wish to revisit this topic, please bring it up again in a new thread.
Forums: IndexCommunity discussionsThe Customized Sims Wiki | Forum new Post
Icon yes check v
Issue is resolved
The Customized Sims Wiki is up and running, and The Sims Wiki is affiliated with them

It seems that the friendly folks over at Mod The Sims have created The Customized Sims Wiki, meant to be a place for creators to create pages for their custom content. They think that our fanon pages, while effective, don't really give the "feeling of being official", so they want to create their own wiki and achieve their dreams. The problem is, they're not very proficient with wiki-editing, and they would like some help in building their wiki, especially on templates. I can help somewhat with templates, but I do know that the templates here on The Sims Wiki are very complex, so I'd like to ask the community if they would like to help these guys out.

Thoughts? --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 22:47, March 24, 2015 (UTC)


If they need to use the templates here, it would better to create the articles here--rather than a whole new wiki. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 00:01, March 25, 2015 (UTC)

They really need to realise it's a wiki not a wikia. ;P --- ʀodrigo x (talk)(contribs) 00:04, March 25, 2015 (UTC)

Rodrigo X: It's the new status quo Wikia wants to force on us. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 00:55, March 25, 2015 (UTC)
In response to Auror's comment... we discussed that at length on the IRC channel. I tend to agree, but I feel it may be difficult to get that to happen. For one, their issue is that creating CC articles on our fanon namespace diminishes their legitimacy or marginalizes them, in their eyes. They probably aren't happy with simply creating fanon pages, otherwise they'd have already done that. Right now the Notability Policy expressly forbids articles about custom creations in the main namespace on TSW, so we'd either have to amend the rule, force them to use the fanon space, or create a brand new namespace for them. Creating a separate wiki may be the most straightforward solution, especially since any other solution would need to be planned and discussed extensively on TSW beforehand. I'm not opposed to making some changes here to accommodate them, but I'm not sure that any accommodation we'd be able to make would suit their needs or wishes. -- LostInRiverview talkblogcontribs 00:19, March 25, 2015 (UTC)
In any case, I'd be willing to help build templates on TCSW, though I'm not actually going to get involved with the content of the wiki. ―The Tim Man (Infinite HistoriesGalactic CruciblesThe Sims WikiHallows MaleficentWhy I'm here in the first place) 00:27, March 25, 2015 (UTC)
Hmm... My first thought was that is exactly what the fanon namespace is for. I have done that with Fanon:The Genesis Project. But after thinking about it some more, I can understand why they might think it would diminish their legitimacy. They aren't telling a story about a neighborhood in their game like I am doing. Their neighborhood(s) can be downloaded for anyone to play with. It is almost like a Sims 3 Store neighborhood, except that it isn't EA "sanctioned". I do have to admit that the fanon namespace does seem a little too limited for that because it could be possible for someone to create a fanon about their gameplay of one of their hoods just like anyone can with "regular" hoods. Now, I wouldn't be opposed to their being a custom hood/custom content namespace for such purpose, but I don't know if that is something that would be acceptable for them. I guess one reason why it might be unfavorable is that their pages could get "lost" within a larger wiki. Because, lets face it, The Sims Wiki is rather large as it is. However, that might be a reason to be connected because then people could stumble upon their pages being in such a well known wiki. I guess I would need to know what their thoughts are about these possible options. -- Icemandeaf (talk) 04:35, March 25, 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think I'll agree with the opinions of LiR and WikiBuilder. I certainly won't be getting involved in making the templates, because doing that is rather tedious, and I've already had to make a load of templates for one wiki. I also don't think the editors of the Customized Sims Wiki will choose to make fanon here, even if we attempt to make accommodations that would suit their needs or wishes. -- C.Syde (talk | contribs) 04:40, March 25, 2015 (UTC)
It's really hard to say what they would or wouldn't be willing to do, without getting their input. That would mean someone from TSW contacting them (probably K6ka or myself, because we've already reached out) and letting them know that it may be an option to accommodate them here. But I'd be hesitant to extend that possibility if the community wasn't going to back it up. Meaning, I wouldn't want to tell them that TSW would be willing to make accommodations, in the form of a policy amendment or namespace creation, without knowing that the community here actually would support such a measure. Which means any sort of formal proposal to do anything (which hasn't even been proposed yet, I might add), would be hypothetical and contingent on what the others would have to say or what they'd think. That's a pretty difficult position to operate from. Maybe we can start by gauging whether the community here would be receptive to the possible kinds of changes necessary. -- LostInRiverview talkblogcontribs 05:19, March 25, 2015 (UTC)
Edit: I just had an idea occur to me - we could conduct an informal poll, using the <poll> feature. Perhaps put something on the main page asking "would you support The Sims Wiki allowing articles about custom creations?" or something to that effect. We can discuss the possibilities here on the community discussions forum, but not everyone reads it or responds, and a change like the one being talked about here would have an effect on the whole wiki at large. Just some food for thought. -- LostInRiverview talkblogcontribs 05:25, March 25, 2015 (UTC)

I'm at loss here. What exactly is the other wiki about again? At first I thought it was about TS modding or CC database wiki, but it's also about fanon wiki? A more open fanon wiki? Nikel Talk Vote! 13:43, March 30, 2015 (UTC)

It's basically a wiki that allows custom content creators to create articles on their work, such as Widespot and the remade Riverside project, and any characters in those projects. It may be different from our fanon, as we usually have characters that only the author(s) play (so it's a bit more private and it's easy to fake stuff), while on the other wiki, the Sims can be played by anyone when you download the neighborhood. Unlike a fanon, they don't usually evolve -- they just provide information and backstory on the neighborhood players are downloading, and the rest is up to the players to decide personally. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 14:31, March 30, 2015 (UTC)
They're writing articles about neighborhoods, Sims, and lots, just as we'd write articles about those topics. The only difference is that the content they're writing about is all player-made. That's an important thing to understand, and that makes it distinct from fanon. Fanon, at least by TSW standards, is players telling a story about their creation, or about their own personal spin on a Maxis creation. The Customized Sims Wiki is focused on talking about custom content in an encyclopedic manner, not on telling a story. -- LostInRiverview talkblogcontribs 14:55, March 30, 2015 (UTC)
Oh... okay. I'm kinda fond of the idea of a separate modding / CC wiki. Sometimes I feel like we could have somewhere to organize information about mods and CCs but not here. Nikel Talk Vote! 12:08, March 31, 2015 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this, and I think we shouldn't create a "custom" namespace. But, I think that we should allow articles on custom content and mods in the main namespace, to a greater degree than we currently do. — LostInRiverview talkblogcontribs 23:53, April 29, 2015 (UTC)

IDK what we should do 'bout it. I think we should try and help, I mean, it's on Wikia as well. I'll go see it :) thatKitten come and chat! 05:08, May 2, 2015 (UTC)


Since it seems the consensus is more-or-less to keep things on TSW as they are, the next logical question is whether we should seek affiliation with the Customized Sims Wiki. We do have the benefit of seeing the wiki develop and, while it's still in relative infancy, it does look like there are still a couple people there who want to see it developed further. The project is a bit lacking in contributors, but an affiliation with us might aid them in building up their editor base. Since we're not moving to incorporate their particular kind of content, this seems like a win-win; we give people a space to create that content and keep our Fanon and Canon spaces as they are, while promoting that project and helping them become more firmly established.

I'm proposing affiliation on the Customized Sims Wiki as well. Since they have only a few dedicated editors, I expect a decision from them will be quicker. But any sort of "formal" affiliation won't move forward unless both wikis support such a move.

So, what do we think? - LostInRiverview talkblogcontribs 01:08, May 30, 2015 (UTC)

Edit: I've started a sister discussion on The Customized Sims Wiki, which you can read here. - LostInRiverview talkblogcontribs 01:34, May 30, 2015 (UTC)
Support. I think, if both communities would prefer things to stay on separate wikis, they should at least have some connections instead of being "distant relatives that I lost the phone number and email address for." The Customized Sims Wiki is always free to ask us for help if they need it. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 03:22, June 2, 2015 (UTC)
Bump. This request cannot pass with only two people supporting it. - LostInRiverview talkblogcontribs 14:43, June 18, 2015 (UTC)

Support. I believe some connection between our wikis would only be appropriate. I therefore support affiliation. —The Tim Man (IHGCTSWAHContribs) 14:49, June 18, 2015 (UTC)

Support. Same as already stated. -- Icemandeaf (talk) 18:13, June 18, 2015 (UTC)

Support. Prob's too late for this but whatever! thatKitten come and chat! 02:02, June 23, 2015 (UTC)

Result: Due to consensus in favor, The Sims Wiki has agreed to affiliate with The Customized Sims Wiki (assuming it isn't completely dead already). - LostInRiverview talkblogcontribs 03:04, July 23, 2015 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.