Talk: Community Portal/Archive 15

Archived page

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Archive Pages for The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal:
1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20

Community input on rollback requests

I know there's probably been a discussion about this already, but since it seems that nothing has taken effect I'm going to start a new one.

I do not believe that we need as much community input on rollback requests. I think input from bureaucrats and possibly admins should be enough. What do you think? --Bleeh^{(talk) (blog)} 17:15, August 31, 2011 (UTC)

I agree. If a bureaucrat doesn't feel that someone would be capable of using the rollback rights correctly then I strongly doubt that a bureaucrat would give them to the user in the first place. Plus, having rollback isn't as much of a leap forward from being a user as much as becoming an admin is; rollback only requires someone to show that they do want to improve the wiki and fight vandalism and I don't think a community vote is required to judge that, whereas it's a different story when it comes to admins and bureaucrats. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 17:25, August 31, 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well. DanPin (Talk) 17:43, August 31, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, consensus for admins and bureaucrats could be enough. --RoseGui (talk here) 19:03, August 31, 2011 (UTC)

As it stands, only Bureaucrat applications receive a community "vote" of consensus. Administrator requests technically can be processed by a bureaucrat the moment they're posted, but usually as a courtesy and to allow for community discussion, the requests are left open for an acceptable length of time. Honestly, the only time it's ever necessary to give feedback on a rollback nomination/application is if there's some compelling reason why the person shouldn't be in that position. For what very little a rollbacker can do above a regular user, we put a lot of weight in that position as being sort of a stepping stone to administratorship, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way.

As it is, I think we put way too much scrutiny into rollbacker candidates; not every user gets much of an opportunity to do anti-vandalism work, since most of the time the admins are the ones that undo vandals and issue blocks (obviously, in that case). I think as long as a user shows they've been around for a bit of time (like, a month or more) and shows that they're at least moderately comfortable with wiki controls, then they should be free to receive rollback status. I wouldn't go so far as to say that user feedback on rollback applications should be prohibited, but I would say that it really is unnecessary - if a user thinks a candidate for rollback shouldn't get it, they should take it up with a bureaucrat, or even address the candidate to try and work out why. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 01:22, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

I will say I agree with the scrutiny part. I remember some time ago before the requests for administratorship page was opened, the candidates for deletion page was pretty active and I remember myself leaving messages for administrators when we had mass vandals. Now that we have more administrators, unnecessary pages and vandals are usually caught on the spot and dealt with in a relatively short amount of time, meaning that someone who is willing to help revert vandalism and nominate pages for deletion may not get much of a chance to do so. Like LiR said, if someone wishes to request for rollback rights who has been about for a reasonable amount of time, worked to improve the wiki and has not caused/participated in disruptive behavior then I don't see a problem with giving them the rollback flags. Again, another good point is that if a user has doubts about another with the rollback tool then they are free to voice their opinion as long as it's used to try and guide the user in the "right direction" (and if it's of a sensitive nature then they can email a bureaucrat of PM one via IRC).

To sum things up, I agree that rollback requests shouldn't rely as much on a community discussion unless there is a reason why someone shouldn't be given the rights and that we could loosen the requirements for the rights as rollback isn't as much of a big deal as administrator/bureaucrat rights and they can easily be removed if a bureaucrat sees fit. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 14:48, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

That sounds fair to me. If a bureaucrat approves it, chances are it's a good decision, and if need be users can contact the crat who made the decision. ―ฬђ ^{(t) • (c)} 06:58, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

We may as well try and wrap this up. I think the best way to go about this is to put less emphasis on anti-vandalism work when it comes to approving rollback requests and when a user requests, I think that the community should be allowed to ask questions to the nominee, which is an optional process as some users may not find the need to ask the nominee any questions, and if someone is aware of a recent issue regarding that user, they should be able to ask about that in a question to the nominee about it. A user may also mention why the user shouldn't receive rollback rights on the nominations page (with a compelling argument) and in a more severe case, they can contact a bureaucrat via email or IRC. Feel free to suggest something different if you think it would be for the better but I'm just offering this so that there would be less scrutiny and community input on rollback requests. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 16:40, September 9, 2011 (UTC)

i think, we must look at the history of the user when they apply for rollback. i think this is the number 1 priority when deciding to give that user this right beside community support.

For example User:The Black Scorpion his history show he is perfect to have this right, good correction and anti vandalism record! so he got this right.

Another example is User:OMDlovescats, she have anti vandalism record but i dont think she ready with this right because according to her history, she dont have enough experience yet. i think she made a good start and must improve her contribution on this wiki first so she can apply again and get this right. Wir.wiryawan 09:55, October 28, 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as this section is almost dead and somewhat out of control, I'm going to try and make it more understandable. I agree that rollback requests don't need community consensus like if we're promoting someone to an admin/bureaucrat and I'd say if the user who wants rollback has worked constructively and not caused disruption, a bureaucrat should be able to make an honest decision. Besides, if any user has doubts about a decision they can always take it up with the bureaucrat who made it. Therefore I support the proposal. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 21:43, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

Voting for admins/bureaucrats

Hey guys! This thread kind of branches off of the above thread and the points made on that thread that are related to whether there should be community input on rollback requests or not.

Firstly, I personally think that we should shorten the voting period on Requests for bureaucratship from the current two week period to one week as I (and possibly others) have noticed that most of the voting seems to take place within the first week, with very little happening in the second week and given a community of our size, I think one week would be enough to generate an overall consensus.

Secondly, I think we could adopt a similar system when it comes to promoting new administrators via the Requests for administratorship page. While I have no major gripes with requests being left open for a few days so that the community can voice their opinions, I think that there are a few flaws with this system as before, I have seen one request that was accepted within a few days while another was left sitting there for approximately 2 weeks. While it is based of off the proposed changes for voting for bureaucrats, I still think we can have more than one vote going for administrators at a time (like we currently have) for the same reasons that we use that method now. I think if we brought in a one week system, it would make administrator requests more organised, overall consensus would be clearer and it would be more fair overall for every candidate.

Those are the two things I am proposing. What do you think? Also. feel free to suggest a potential change to the proposal if you think it would be better. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 13:04, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

This seems fair to me. If we could add the countdown template to admin requests like the ones for bureaucratship, and have a crat review them when the timer runs out, that would be great. I remember my admin request lasted for two weeks before it was reviewed. I'm thinking one week fr crat requests and 4-5 days for admin requests seems fair, and if need be it can be extended if it is felt there isn't enough consensus. Thoughts? ―ฬђ ^{(t) • (c)} 07:37, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

I agree we need a more fair system for adminship requests, and I agree with both points. The 4-5 days option for adminship requests is the one I like the most. --RoseGui (talk here) 13:37, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with what WH said. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 17:15, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking, bureaucrats are the same as administrators, with one obvious difference. Additionally, this wiki tends to place its Bureaucrats with some sort of mostly unwritten authority. The point I'm making is that administrators are selected because of their ability to administrate, not simply because they are popular users (although that is obviously an advantage). Not all people who are friends with everyone can be productive administrators, so it seems to me the system we have had up to now - where administrator requests are handled by bureaucrats only - is acceptable.

Allowing user comment on administrator selection is a relatively recent occurrence; for example, when I applied for administratorship, there was no user comment of any kind. In fact, the first time I can see any users giving any feedback of any kind on administrator selection was on GG's selection back in March. If the purpose of selecting administrators is to pick users who are experienced and capable editors, then in reality having user feedback and voting is completely irrelevant. As it is, I support the idea of allowing user feedback, but I am opposed to forcing formal votes for consensus for administrators.

The decision to promote a user should reside with the Bureaucrats, since it is the bureaucrat's job to determine whether an administrator candidate is capable of doing the job, not whether the user is popular. -- LostInRiverview ^{talk · blog} 18:08, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

Are we going to change the policies? --RoseGui (talk here) 15:13, September 9, 2011 (UTC)

There's a discussion about it going on - underneath this one, funnily enough. But I'm presuming that some change will happen. ―ฬђ ^{(t) • (c)} 08:51, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Let's start with the first proposal...

I think the best way to deal with this is to have a discussion regarding just the first proposal only, which proposes shortening the voting period for bureaucrats to one week. Personally, I think that Bleeh's RfB should have gone with this one week period (even though we're not a week in yet) but some may argue that it is unfair on other candidates. I would like to discuss just the first proposal alone first and see what everyone thinks about that. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 16:34, September 9, 2011 (UTC)

I think the first proposal is fair, because from what I know, most voting is done in the first week, although I've only seen 3 RfB's while here. So I see no issues with changing the time down to two weeks. ―ฬђ ^{(t) • (c)} 08:51, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, seeing as this discussion has dried up, I'm just going to attempt to gain consensus on this and shorten the voting period. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 17:18, September 23, 2011 (UTC)

I'd say support. --RoseGui (talk here) 21:21, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as this has been up for almost a month with no opposition, the voting time for bureaucrat nominations has been decreased to one week. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 21:22, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

What to do with Unused Files

This month's cleanup is to use Unused Files. However, there are just some images that are either poor quality, have better quality image in other file name (e.g. icons), or simply not worth being added. Usually, these kind of files are left out in the Unused Files, which might reach few hundreds. I would like to consider that some of these files be deleted, if not possible to be added. This is so that we don't have files lingering to be added for good.
Let me say that some of them are also fanons which are left out and abandoned by the owners. Nikel _Talk 12:02, September 16, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but there are some files that we should keep and add into an article. --RoseGui (talk here) 15:44, September 16, 2011 (UTC)

I'm hoping that we manage to get most of the ones in there used up if possible. However, a large component are from deleted fanon pages. I'm currently trying t find such images and delete them. ―ฬђ ^{(t) • (c)} 22:51, September 16, 2011 (UTC)

Basically, if the image is redundant due to a higher quality version or a deleted page then delete it and if you can add the image to an article, try to do so. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 23:02, September 16, 2011 (UTC)

What's easier to manage for now is, the low quality icons which has been replaced with better ones. I will try to delete them one day, just to make sure nobody minds. Nikel _Talk 09:04, September 17, 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Also, if anyone needs lots of files deleted feel free to give me a list of all the files on my talkpage in the form of [[:File:imagename.whatever]] and I can perform a bot assisted mass delete of them. ―ฬђ ^{(t) • (c)} 09:08, September 17, 2011 (UTC)

Spotlight (again)

Seeing as we acted a little too soon on our original spotlight plans for the Pets release, I have submitted a new request which should (hopefully) come in just in time for the NA release of Pets. Seeing as RfA and RfB are now closed, we should have a good chance of getting it. I'm just hoping we didn't leave it too late. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 20:43, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

It has just been approved, so is this talk still continuing or resolved? Nikel _Talk 05:31, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

Wow that was quick XD. Anyway, I'm assuming it will be up in a month or so, and I'd advise all admins to be alert for vandalism and spamming when it's up. ―ฬђ ^{(t) • (c)} 08:10, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism probably will go up but I'm sure we can handle it. I think once Pets is released, we can just make the release blog as usual and then hopefully it'll help us build up our userbase. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 09:26, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

For those who haven't yet noticed, our spotlight image is up! :D Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 20:27, October 8, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I just saw it change... I can't provide a link but you'll noticed in the spotlight section. It's a one of the photos of Don Lothario with a girl now... It says: "Everybody wants the Sim(ple) life!". O.o Vss2eip^{talk here} 19:08, October 12, 2011 (UTC)

Disable Layout Builder

Wikia has released special:WikiFeatures, which more or less allows admins to turn things off easier, without needing a special:contact. One of the options which can be turned off is the layout builder, which is a tool that allows admins to make preset page layouts. I'm wondering if we should disable it, as new users use it to make pages which are often deleted due to poor quality, most likely caused by layout builder. So, should we disable it or not? ―ฬђ ^{(t) • (c)} 03:57, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I think we should disable it. Layout builder is more-less a "template" for creating page, but it appears that the results are never good. It also seems to be locking the freedom to write our own layout. If I weren't mistaken, if we leave a section blank (e.g. family tree image), it will only make the page more messy. Nikel _Talk 05:30, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more with what Nikel said just above. The only thing the Layout Giver has given us is mess. It may have increased fanon creation, but quality goes over quantity. Perhaps we should try to introduce newbies better to Wikia Features instead rather than giving them a ready (and always messy) layout. And concerning the layout, the once the family tree image is uploaded, it cannot be removed, only changed. Which destroys the whole article. |_Andronikos Leventis ^Talk 08:30, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

While I am in support of disabling the layout builder, we should note that the layout builder would still be used for the pages that already utilise it. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 09:27, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

I am in full support in removing this feature. --Bob ^๑ 11:28, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

I'd say full support. This feature has really caused a mess in many articles, especially in the fanon namespace, and because it's a very sensible namespace, layouts are lowering our quality in the namespace very quickly, if we don't remove them we might end up with loads of poor pages in the fanon namespace. --RoseGui (talk here) 11:30, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

I support that! because many poor fanon created because that layout. --Wir.wiryawan 13:24, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

Given that there has been no opposition, I have disabled the layout builder. We can re-enable it if need be. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 13:26, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

The Era Template

I know there were discussions before, but I'm going to start another one...

What are we going to do with the Era template? It was decided to not use it, however, the Era template is very useful, at least for me. Here's a small list of pros and cons about this template:

The Pros

• The Era template makes pages tidier, because it shows which features appear in which games, without overfilling the page.
• It doesn't take over a large amount of a page, and it's clearly visible.
• It provides links to pages, which is good because it saves time.
• Many pages already use this template, and it's proved to be good, besides the glitching.

The Cons

• The Era template is known to cause glitching to pages.
• It's a very complicated template, and in my knowledge Random Ranaun is the best when it comes to editing this template.
• The template breaks easily if not edited correctly, and what's worse is that many pages already use this template.

Sooo... I'm curious... Should we put this template in use or no, because there's more games to be released which will need their own era template and it should be known for all users that this template is in use or isn't? Vss2eip^{talk here} 12:11, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

First, I was aware that this era caused glitches, but it was once fixed and I realized the template no longer caused glitch. So, if you know any glitch, will you state it? Because I haven't encountered any glitch since it's "fixed".
The very last issue doesn't seem to be very crucial. It can be fixed anytime, unless I didn't catch what you meant. Also, Random Ranaun is responsible in keeping this template updated, but he seemed to be less active in the wiki. I wish someone would be able to make the template, or at least RR himself would teach us how. Nikel _Talk 13:12, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

Oh! I has been fixed? =O I didn't know about that... I only read the text about the template here which states that it's not functioning correctly. Someone should remove that then... I mean, if it's really fixed. Vss2eip^{talk here} 13:20, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say it's completely fixed, but it might be temporary. However, it looks quite fine in most pages. We need RR's input for the warrant, I believe. We mustn't rush now, because RR plays an important role in this template, unless he says he wants us to develop it. Nikel _Talk 13:44, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

The biggest cons with the era template in my opinion are:

• It's not practical to put the era template on every single page on the wiki.
• When Wikia update the layout of wikis, it usually messes up the template and causes a new set of glitches and issues. Even minor changes tend to make large problems.
• As Vss said, it's both a complicated and a difficult template in general. There have been cases where the template has disrupted the layout of many pages for almost a day's time in which nobody was exactly sure how to fix it.
• What looks good in one skin may not look so good in another. It's hard to keep track of all the errors found in Oasis and Monobook, and even harder to fix one error and not causing another to pop up on the other skin.
• It isn't needed in general. All pages clearly state in which game a Sim, etc, is found, usually in the page lead.

However, there are still some pros - Vss did a nice job of listing most of them. The template is tidy, easily seen, and it isn't excessively large. I have to admit that I like how Featured Articles and protected pages use the template, and perhaps we can even start using them more on some parts of the wiki. But I believe it's a bad idea to use them much more than only that. This discussion doesn't need to reach a consensus immediately - RandomRanaun's decision is important in this as he's been a massive help in the development of the template and I feel it would be respectful to leave a while for him to give any comments that he has. Besides, for now, the template is only being improved and is not being added to any pages, meaning that we can freely take a while to discuss this without any hassle. --Bob ^๑ 13:52, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

IMO it should be kept to just featured articles, it's kinda inconsistent how it is right now, being on some pages and not on others. As for implementation of the template, I could be able to add it to groups of similar pages, e.g. sims who are all from one ep very quickly with my bot account. I see the issue not as if it is possible to add it to every page, as it is, but rather if it shouldbe added to every page. As pointed out above it's not that necessary, but I have seen it used very effectively on other wikis, most prominently The Vault (fallout wiki).

Not only that but it is still somewhat glitchy, I've looked through the history of the page and I've noticed that it was created by RR back at the end of 2009. It's taken an enormous amount of changes to make it, both in the template itself and to the mediaWiki:common.css page.

As for the question of actually editing it, I could maybe try to work out how to edit it if I get time. ―ฬђ ^{(t) • (c)} 02:59, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Redesign of monobook skin

I've recently switched from the normal wikia skin to monobook, which is an optional skin more like the monaco skin which was phased out. However, I've noticed our monobook skin is drab, dull and boring. So, to this end, I feel we should redesign it. I've started work on a first design for it on a test wiki. I feel our inferior monobook skin brings the look of the site down, and is old, and since many users are now switching to monobook since it is exempt from many of the major changess wikia implements, we should have it looking it's best. What do you think? ―ฬђ ^{(t) • (c)} 02:08, October 6, 2011 (UTC)

I agree, looking at our Monobook skin, it's very unattractive, especially since most of our templates and such directly cater towards the standard wikia skin. We should remember that there are others who use Monobook. If the first thing they see visiting our wiki is the ugly Monobook main page, we won't gain many new editors. —Random Ranaun ^{(Talk to me!)} 02:45, October 6, 2011 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. Even though Wikia do not focus on monobook any longer and there aren't a great amount of new users who use it (I'm speaking entirely out of experience so correct me if I'm wrong), there are still a large amount of users (most of them experienced editors) who use the skin. Catering to how they work on the wiki would be a step in the right direction for sure. --Bob ^๑ 06:23, October 6, 2011 (UTC)

A quick example of a customised monobook skin - click the image for full size version

I made a quick design for my own personal use, which is on the side of the page. Basically, I feel that we should keep a somewhat similar look to the standard skin while making it, well, monobook. The skin in the image can be found here. I've managed to work out things like how to acieve transparency of the page, and to round out or in some cases remove borders. As well as this, I'm trying to tweak a vector like skin as well (fyi, vector is the one used on wikipedia). Of course, it's only a work in progress and will be much different to a finished product - it goes without saying Rainbow Dash won't be in an actual TSW skin =P ―ฬђ ^{(t) • (c)} 06:44, October 6, 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 07:00, October 6, 2011 (UTC)

What I want to know is, isn't Oasis skin set as default? I assume the only users who use monobook skin is senior users. But other than that, I agree if monobook should be improved. Nikel _Talk 10:25, October 6, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think redesigning the Monobook skin should be an actual wiki-wide project, since our wiki is directly catered to the Oasis skin. However, if any users who want to redesign the skin should be free to do so. --Bleeh^{(talk) (blog)} 15:25, October 6, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Bleeh. I think it could be redesigned if it's unattractive though. --RoseGui (talk here) 17:13, October 6, 2011 (UTC)

A redesign using a screenshot of Sunset Valley - click for full size

I've made a new design that could be used, pictured on the image on the right. I'm not sure what I could use as a background, so I got a screenshot of Sunset Valley as the image. If you cilck on the image you should be able to get a larger version of it. If you want to try it for yourself, copy everything from this page into a page called User:yourusername/monobook.css, go to Special:Preferences and change the default skin yo use to monobook, and then refresh the page. If t doesn't work at first you may need to refresh one or two times, as I had to do when I made the actual thing. ―ฬђ ^{(t) • (c)} 01:45, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

Wogan, that is tremendous background! When I previewed the monobook, the first thing I found it the least attractive was the leftside navigation. I also think the other thing that makes difference is the width of monobook. But the width should be the specialty of monobook over oasis skin. Nikel _Talk 10:45, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

I like the background too. I think it is possible to make some CSS modifications to Monobook (Uncyclopedia changed the look of it completely), so feel free to try. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 16:24, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

I've enabled the new background since the discussion here has pretty much dried up and no one seems to oppose it. If anyone has problems/issues with it, leave me a message and I'll fix them up, or at least try to. I'll be adding extra styling to it in the next few days/weeks to make it better as well, however these changes wouldn't be major. ―ฬђ ^{(t) • (c)} 05:01, October 11, 2011 (UTC)

Mandatory new navigation bar

Seeing as this will eventually become mandatory across the whole of Wikia (sadface) and we can activate it here for a trial, I'm asking whether or not we should activate the new navigation bar to try and get used to it. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 21:05, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not jumping up and down with enthusiasm about it, either, but since it's coming whether we want it or not, we might as well get used to it. Dharden (talk) 21:11, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

I truned it on briefly yesterday to see what it looks like, and I noticed that the sim faces mosaic header thing doesn't work with it. We may have to ask someone how to get it to work with this new header. Other than that there's no issues. ―ฬђ ^{(t) • (c)} 22:57, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, there is nothing really wrong with the navigation. We just need to get used to it. Other than the issue Wogan said (and hopefully there isn't more), we had better not moan this as much as this one. Nikel _Talk 15:56, October 8, 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as there has been no real opposition, I have enabled the new navigation bar. We may as well try to find a workaround for the technical problems that have been caused. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 23:03, October 11, 2011 (UTC)

Newsletter logo

Hey guys, I know some ideas have been thrown around for this before but I felt that we may as well officially bring it into the light. I, and possibly a few others, feel that the current logo we have for newsletter is kind of dull and I was thinking that we should change it and make it more visually appealing. I know that some ideas for a logo contest for the newsletter were thrown about and I'm happy for that to take place and I'm open to any other ideas that someone may have for changing the logo (or keeping the current one if they wish). Thoughts? Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 22:46, October 12, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, especially if the changed logo could be more colorful. --RoseGui (talk here) 21:22, October 13, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. That said this has been discussed before and nothng much has happened. I'm not sure if someone should just design a logo or if we should hold a competition or what. ―ฬђ ^{(t) • (c)} 05:34, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

I agree fully with changing the logo (hopefully this discussion will lead to something for a change :P). I don't know about it being a contest though, seeing as it's relatively small compared to, say, the wiki-wide Oasis logo contest we had, but if everyone believes that's the best option then I'm fine with it. --Bob ^๑ 05:54, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

Agree! we must refreshed the logo so it will become more interesting! we can create a contest for it! :D Wir.wiryawan 09:56, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

I do remember that the fanon logo contest took place twice because there were so few logos the first time around and the one we did pick wasn't that well received. We could just go for another contest but it's likely the same thing that happened last time could happen again or we could just ask someone to make a logo. Either way, I don't care how we approach this. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 11:48, October 23, 2011 (UTC)

Message Wall

my name is reggie i sometimes edit http://muppets.wikia.com with no account and i am a fan of the sims 3. i see they use the message wall on muppets wiki and i like it and i heard wikia will let every wikia use it soon thru labs so they can decide to make it optional or not and i think u should get message wall here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. muppet (talk • contribs) (UTC) - Please sign your comments with ~~~~

I don't believe you are here long enough to propose such a huge change on our wiki - since you recently joined. Anyway, while Wikia is still deciding whether Message Wall will be optional or not I don't think we should use it, for now. Thank you. --RoseGui (talk here) 17:36, October 26, 2011 (UTC)

This blog only states that the feature will be added to Labs (which hasn't been done yet) and that they're "unsure" of whether it can be optional. As for enabling it here, I am of two different opinions simply because I'm unsure if Wikia will make the feature optional or keep it mandatory as they originally planned.

If they are to make it optional then I am strongly against enabling the feature here as it is not at all suited for a wiki, it carries too much of a social network system and it is easily abused - an ordinary user can't remove posts from another user's message wall in the case of vandalism and I can predict that some users may just leave messages on the wall that you would tend to leave on a Facebook wall.

If they do decide during the testing run that it will be a mandatory feature, I'm neutral with enabling it here early as while we probably should try and get ourselves familiar with the message wall, I would like to continue using talk pages for as long as possible.

They are just two opinions I have towards this, given that I don't know what Wikia's final decision about making the feature optional or not will be. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 17:41, October 26, 2011 (UTC)

iam only suggesting so u dont need to be mad at me because iam new here and iam just saying i like message wall and all wikia could benefit from it

I appreciate that you're a new user here who has acted in good faith to see whether we want this feature or not. Noone here is mad at you - it may just seem that way because a lot of people don't want or like the feature but we don't mean any offence to you whatsoever. :) Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 18:12, October 26, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we aren't really mad at you. ^_^ We're rather mad at wikia. Thank you for wanting the best for us. (: --RoseGui (talk here) 18:25, October 26, 2011 (UTC)

I personally really have the message wall, and I think we should stick to talkpages for as long as possible. However, I'm intending to set it up on my test wiki when its ready and I'll try to add some .css to make it fit our wiki theme better. I'm hoping it'll be optional myself :D ―ฬђ ^{(t) • (c)} 02:59, October 27, 2011 (UTC)

Somehow I think new users will be easier to get accustomed to the wall, as they have not yet been sticking with the old traditions and won't be surprised with (sudden) major change. Old users, on the other hand, have found it comfortable with what is being used right now. I don't say I support the idea, but I guess we'll have to get used to it -- the fate! :-/ Nikel _Talk 11:38, October 27, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, but I prefer O Positive! (Talk) This Plasma Pack tastes fool!20:42, November 1, 2011 (UTC) As GG said, Message Wall is terrible anyway. If they have a testing period on labs, I think it would be best if we tested it for a while at a test page of some sort, just to experiment with the .css properties and stuff. In that case, I will go neutral. In case however Wikia decides to make this mandatory (something that I completely despise), I will go for neutral as well, since we won't really have a choice. Either way, what difference will it make?

Sims 3 Pet ageing

Is there an option in sims 3 pets for your pet to age before it's birthday? It doesn't allow an option when I go to the cake to blow out candles for my puppy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChippyChip (talk • contribs) (UTC) - Please sign your comments with ~~~~

Moved to a forum page. Lost Labyrinth • (c) • (b) 23:22, November 4, 2011 (UTC)