Post- This is moved/copied from The Sims Wiki talk:Development Portal
As per this discussion, I think the wiki should come to a more solid decision to decide whether articles should be merged or split up as a general rule to the manual of style.
Merging/splitting via case by case, is not proving effective on the wiki. There are many outstanding merge/split templates with either very little or no community discussions years at a time. So deciding for a more broad spectrum might be in this wiki's best interest at this time.
Sim articles such as Bella Goth should either be fully merged will all Bella Goth articles or all split to each appearance. Alternatively, if all split up an era/overview page can contain all information as well. Basically, having it both ways. As per the suggestion:
| “ | To be completely honest, I believe the most logical and organized thing would be to have multiple articles for every Sim who appears in multiple games. Each article for a Sim would be tabbed and grouped together on one page. In other words, we would have one Bella Goth page that would have tabs for TS1, TS2, TS2 (Strangetown), etc. All Sim articles on MySims Wiki already do this (e.g. Buddy is the main article and Buddy (MySims Kingdom) is a tab). I know it would take a lot of work, but I think it's an option worth considering since there are often inconsistencies across games (for example, many Sims have different zodiac signs between TS1 and TS2 and many characters have different personalities and appearances across TS2 and TS3). | ” |
As far as skill, collection or trait type articles, basically gameplay feature-like articles they should be split by default. There is little need for an era/overview page since by default someone looking up articles of these types most likely are looking up for a game installment in mind. For example if you are wanting to look up aspirations, lifetime wishes, moodlets, recipes, etc. you are usually game/installment specific searching.
For special era type pages such as lifestates, life stages, death, free will, zodiac signs, etc. pages that are of more historical/era significance of evolution as each installment is released (i.e. pages that may contain a Pagecover template), can remain era/overview based. Even if you are not looking for historical era significance the article should be fairly simplistic in which installment with not too many subheadings, most likely no infbox, nor complicated article structure (minimal to no templates and tables).
More splitting would mean the acceptance of some articles that are just going to be fairly short but not considered a stub since not much more information really could be added. If literally, the mention of a game installment over a feature, is no more than a footnote or mention compared to other installments should/could be mentioned as reference to other installments instead of resulting in 1-3 sentence micro pages. But an article with a fully filled out infobox and a paragraph or two can be considered as a non-stub short article.
Either way conforming to a clearer merging and/or splitting policy would benefit the wiki and less outstanding merge/split discussions left for years waiting on consensus that may never come. Please feel free to post your concerns or views on this subject. Lack of consensus due to little/no participation is not reason enough to merge/split/no action a proposed merge/split of an article. A firmer policy without having to go case by case would help upgrade and improve the wiki instead of an indefinite unsure action or inaction. And if no consensus can be reached, ideally if an admin (or two) could make a decision either way they feel best benefits the wiki in the meantime, so a decision is at least made, instead of the currently ineffective case by case we currently have in place, leaving articles in a limbo for years. 
Discussion[]
- I think that's a good idea. There are a lot of pages that have the merge template had it for years now. Something should change. IDontKnowAName3 (talk) 00:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- I second this; I think it'll really help clean up some pages. Having the infoboxes stacked on top of one another is really unpleasing visually. ODAPHII (talk) 22:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- This idea has definitely been floated before, most prominently in the pre-release and immediate post-release period for TS4 (due to the Sims Team basically re-writing canon for some of the established Sims). Searching back ten years into my memory, I believe there was a general, if reluctant, acceptance that it might make sense to split the pages rather than keep them all together, but I think the main proposal of the time was to split off the "alternate universe" (i.e. The Sims 4) versions from the "prime universe" (i.e. The Sims through The Sims 3) versions... so essentially, TS4 versions of established Sims would get a page all to their own, while all the other versions of the same Sim would continue to be on the same page together. The idea of tabbers and subpages was also heavily discussed, but ultimately didn't take place. I think the main concern was an accessibility and technical concern, as the mobile site (at least at that time) did not handle tabbers at all, so you'd end up with a really disjointed, disorganized cluster of articles that are hard to reach, rather than a single disjointed, disorganized cluster of a single article that was, at least, a single article. Before pushing any solution, it'd be worth investigating the technical/accessibility hurdles that might still remain to that kind of solution. I think the intent was always to come up with a unified 'policy' for how articles would be organized (if the decision was made to change it), but because the change never really materialized, neither did the policy.-- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 21:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Even if tabber doesn't work on mobile view of the overview page; the individual subpages would still be available. We could always faux-tabber it too, just make links that look like buttons and it clicks you to the linked page with the same overhead navigation. Besides you know tabber is already widely used on many pages especially sim pages to manage simology. Also, I obviously don't have access to the analytics but is mobile over majority in viewing or PC?
- Even if tabber doesn't work on mobile view of the overview page; the individual subpages would still be available. We could always faux-tabber it too, just make links that look like buttons and it clicks you to the linked page with the same overhead navigation. Besides you know tabber is already widely used on many pages especially sim pages to manage simology. Also, I obviously don't have access to the analytics but is mobile over majority in viewing or PC?
- "is mobile over majority in viewing or PC?" According to the wiki's analytics tab, yes. It shows that about 66% of pageviews are on mobile, and about 33% are desktop (1% show as tablets). -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 22:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- And yet no complaints? Because a good portion of sim pages and a handful of major articles are using tabber. As mentioned if widely used yet rejected for this would seem hypocritical TBH but that is me. The singles pages would still available in mobile view and simology tables are already in tabbers even before I came to this wiki, I have just been updating to conform the sim pages.
- And yet no complaints? Because a good portion of sim pages and a handful of major articles are using tabber. As mentioned if widely used yet rejected for this would seem hypocritical TBH but that is me. The singles pages would still available in mobile view and simology tables are already in tabbers even before I came to this wiki, I have just been updating to conform the sim pages.
- Ok, I just checked my phone one how mobile looks with tabber, it just doesn't apply the css (it doesn't break anything per se), the tables are still there, not hidden, and the page would be the same idea as it is currently, instead an overview page on mobile would be the pages in tandem of each other. That doesn't seem bad or a deal breaker, if anything it is more or less the same as what we have, just PC view would have the tabber navigation on the overview pages and the benefit or single pages available to both modes.
- Ok, I just checked my phone one how mobile looks with tabber, it just doesn't apply the css (it doesn't break anything per se), the tables are still there, not hidden, and the page would be the same idea as it is currently, instead an overview page on mobile would be the pages in tandem of each other. That doesn't seem bad or a deal breaker, if anything it is more or less the same as what we have, just PC view would have the tabber navigation on the overview pages and the benefit or single pages available to both modes.
To me with the proposed theme, this looks amazing.
- I noticed that you didn't do separate pages with this version, you know you still can with tabber right? I still think the split article with an overview article is the best choice. As Syntax highlighting doesn't work inside a tabber and would be still a long page in source edit.
- Also, these current talks have technically been since July (from Bella Goth page to development discussions to forums—yep I have been taking this on tour, so to speak), and so far it looks like the majority wants this (especially the high volume actives and editors) and so far concerns have been addressed. And not to pull that line, but "I'd like to wrap this up before Christmas".
- Though this has sparked an edit war (even if just floating out live testing), it was by very low edit count editors who haven't replied to their talk pages to discuss. It was probably, in hindsight, not best to start with a page that would be gaining high traffic due to an EP release, if/when this is implemented maybe it is better when all the CM applicants have been promoted to help the community with the transition. In fact this might be required for any major changes, since this community doesn't ever seem to have any (major changes), even when they could highly benefit the wiki. This is of course of another example, where I believe we should have admins be/have the more action based abilities I mentioned in the roll call thread. Obviously talks of this have been on and off for years and consensus never made so left to inaction. The silent community is use to nothing ever changing, and doesn't participate in the community. Edit: but to be fair there is no need to be apart of the community side of a wiki—if it never really changes.
- Even though consensus appears to be leaning "For" this time, there is still a lack of participation, and would be an ideal time to exercise the my proposal part: where an admin could make the call since because of lack of participation, and that this update could benefit the wiki. Or at this rate this could be another inaction result due to lack of participation, and admins not taking the initiative to push it through, and this will just come up again, and again.
- Even though consensus appears to be leaning "For" this time, there is still a lack of participation, and would be an ideal time to exercise the my proposal part: where an admin could make the call since because of lack of participation, and that this update could benefit the wiki. Or at this rate this could be another inaction result due to lack of participation, and admins not taking the initiative to push it through, and this will just come up again, and again.
Hi! Person who made the Nervous Subject/Nyon Specter tabber page.
The reason why I put Nyon first and did it most recent to oldest appearance is because, as much as one may disagree or dislike this fact, TS4 is the current generation, and I just feel like somebody searching for him is seeking out his most recent appearance as that is the currently played game? Does that make any sense?
Yes, his TS2 appearance is the most iconic, but let's face it, we're nearing 25 years into the franchise. People are more than likely going to search Nyon out instead of Nervous.
That said, I would love it if we could expedite the process. It's a horrible mess trying to group everything together on one page! You can't even see his milestones LOL it's quite... Compacted together? ODAPHII (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- As someone who is mostly a Sims 3 girl here, even though I am just now trying out Sims 4 in the past 2 maybe 3 weeks, because Life & Death intrigued me. Even if I don't end up really getting into, like I did with Sims 3, can at the very least use the resource files for the wiki, the bottom line is the pages being looked up tend to be for Sims 4. A newest to oldest order seems the most logical, even if in the end it might not be the most popular (but I don't know if this will truly be the case). You cannot even buy Sims 2 anymore, I tried cause was thinking I could to help the wiki if I could get a good price (even thinking about Sims Medieval too). And Sims 1 even for nostalgia would be hard to play these days graphics wise (we've gotten so spoiled). I thought if pages split up people could look by installment without getting spoilers from other installments, with the option of the overview page with tabbers, if curious to see the installment history.
- Also, and this may be reaching, due to more attention from this wiki to the older installments, I worry with lack of Sims 4 representation from a viewer's view point, there are other database sites with more Sims 4 data. That is one reason I want to tackle the Sims 4's missing resources and information. But buying everything is a bit rich for my blood if I might not end up playing it much in the end (unless someone wants to sponsor me LOL). Our pool of Sims 4/Sims 4+ editors seems to be the majority currently of most active and high volume editors, another reason this may want to be in this order. I spent my first three/four months mostly focusing on Sims 3 info and I am not done, but then looked to Sims 4 information needing more love so I shifted my focus there. Sims 4 is not the Sims wiki, but we have to admit it is the currently active installment, where people are probably coming to view or edit.
- One last thing, now this might just be me, so take no heed if this is an unpopular opinion, I don't care enough to actually push for it. But I think that console/handheld/aka non-PC versions of a Sims should be completely on it's own even from the overview page.
- As someone who doesn’t even play TS4 I think the latest version should show up first, even if I don’t like it. I think the tabbers are far neater than the current state of the articles. If I have one thing I would recommend sidelining the pointless gallery versions of Sims for their TS3/TS2 appearances. I’m K.P.! Toss me a message if you need help! 00:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × 3)I had spent fifteen minutes typing up a response but I got an edit conflict and the fandom editor decided it was hungry and ate my post so I am just going to summarize my points very quickly:
- I don't want to improve the desktop experience at the cost of mobile viewers which make up a lot of page views; this would need to be addressed.
- I like the tabbers overall.
- I would be uncomfortable just implementing a change this large even though I admit I think it would probably be a good one; it would need to be agreed upon by the community and probably have something written about it somewhere.
- Oh, yeah lately my posts are getting eaten left and right, I copy my responses before posting now. #1 I believe I already addressed the mobile view (above with LiR), tabbers would just put the overview articles with them (the smaller articles) in tandem of each other (very similar to what it is already). It would be different, but it didn't seem to look broken when I looked. If someone could show me an example page where tabber has broken a page in mobile view, I'd be more than happy to investigate, other than that my quick look over to articles with tabber seemed fine in mobile view.
- Oh, yeah lately my posts are getting eaten left and right, I copy my responses before posting now. #1 I believe I already addressed the mobile view (above with LiR), tabbers would just put the overview articles with them (the smaller articles) in tandem of each other (very similar to what it is already). It would be different, but it didn't seem to look broken when I looked. If someone could show me an example page where tabber has broken a page in mobile view, I'd be more than happy to investigate, other than that my quick look over to articles with tabber seemed fine in mobile view.
- I think we should do that too, and have the overview page with tabbers.
- I think we should do that too, and have the overview page with tabbers.
- Yeah, considering how much tabbers are already used on the wiki, it seems silly to try to deny it now.
- Yeah, considering how much tabbers are already used on the wiki, it seems silly to try to deny it now.
- Just came to say, i think this idea is really great and it would help immensely with how many mainline sims there are and their alt versions. WizardJeremy (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
What to split up and what to keep as a legacy or parent page[]
- My suggestions
- Individual Skills should all be split up per installment (unless a hidden skill, then it can be put on the Hidden skill parent article).
- A specific call out to Cooking (The Sims 4) and Gourmet cooking. Even though cooking unlocks gourmet cooking is should get it's own article like Baking. If you want an overview of all sims 4 food then Food can be used (but note this article should also be split by installment as well).
- Individual Life states and Life stages should have a legacy article and have an article for each installment if it runs long (basically what we already have going more or less for Vampires for example). Ghost for example should have an article for each The Sims 2, 3 and 4. The article is getting too long.
- Handheld, console and app information should be untangled from PC articles and be on their own. If they don't have enough information to have stand alone articles then umbrella/parent articles just for that installment should be utilized. One suggestion I had was to have hubs for the major installations, but it was pointed out the smaller ones should have one too, so ok, organized the smaller installations and handheld/console/apps articles—then it would be feasible.
- Sims, as mentions in this post, a legacy article containing tabs of the articles with installment counterparts. Separating hidden, alternate universe and console/handheld/apps—off the legacy article. With only one redirecting link at the top of the articles (to keep it tidy) as a {{Disambig}} link of the sim, so people can find which version they are looking for that way too.
- Split articles if they use a different mechanic in one installment or EP compared to another. I'll use the example I recently did. Alchemy is a skill in Alchemy (The Sims 3) and considered a spell/school of magic in Alchemy (The Sims 4). This was my reasoning for splitting without waiting for discussion, they are both utilized in different ways and long enough articles spilt up to be on their own. Though it made sense if you just considered them recipes articles, but usually this wiki does tend to split up articles that aren't the same thing, even if the same name.
- When splitting these articles you may want to also update all the links that "links here", I did most for alchemy. They are two different things, so naturally I updated the skill template to the skill alchemy for example.
- Note: Let's stop worrying and over tagging {{Stub}} templates on articles, unless it is truly the case. Considering the majority of viewers are mobile, scrolling down a long article to see every installment when you come for one installment seems unnecessary. In the case of sims they may only be interested in the infobox and maybe the simology anyways, unless it is legacy characters like the Goths or Specters. Worst case add an {{Expand}} template can be used.
- I'm bumping this thread to bring it back towards the top of the forum list. I think there's still matters here that aren't fully resolved, and I don't think this thread is ready for archival.
- In regards to the list, I don't have any major objections to what's being proposed. I think the end goal should be implementing whatever is going to make it easiest for readers to find the information they need. I don't want to implement a solution that is going to be non-functional on mobile platforms, since that's where the readers are (and will increasingly be), but if those technical hurdles can be overcome, I'm broadly supportive of "outside the box" solutions to organizing this information. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 05:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- As I said before I think it is best to have both split pages for each installment, world or otherwise. With an option for an era/legacy page if applicable and warranted (which can be organized by tabbers as they still show in mobile view and do not seem to break anything). Run-on articles really only benefit PC view and even then they are looking too long. The rest of my notes are already mentioned above, this just seems to have a lot of support without nailing down the needed details to properly implement and place into policy.
- As I said before I think it is best to have both split pages for each installment, world or otherwise. With an option for an era/legacy page if applicable and warranted (which can be organized by tabbers as they still show in mobile view and do not seem to break anything). Run-on articles really only benefit PC view and even then they are looking too long. The rest of my notes are already mentioned above, this just seems to have a lot of support without nailing down the needed details to properly implement and place into policy.
I want to also want to have a special mention how apps should be left to their own pages. These pages have very little information (unlikely to be expanded much) and really have no place on era/legacy articles, and serve better as notes within their own app overview pages such as The Sims FreePlay/Updates and Added Features.