FANDOM


(New Wikia Editor)
(New Wikia Editor)
Line 251: Line 251:
 
{{VoteFor}}'''Support'''. The editor will be more enchanced and I believe we will soon find its benefits. [[User:Nikel23|Nikel23]] 16:40, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
 
{{VoteFor}}'''Support'''. The editor will be more enchanced and I believe we will soon find its benefits. [[User:Nikel23|Nikel23]] 16:40, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
 
----
 
----
{{VoteFor}}'''Strong Support''', because the current editor is getting old, and anyway, something new is something better. And after all, it is simplier. |_'''[[User:Andronikos_Leventis|<font color="#A60914" size="2px">Andronikos Leventis</font>]]'''<sup> ''[[User_talk:Andronikos_Leventis|<font color="#1404A2" size="1.3px">Talk</font>]]</sup>'' 16:47, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
+
{{VoteFor}}'''Strong Support''', because the current editor is getting old, and anyway, something new is something better. And after all, it is simplier. |_'''[[User:Andronikos_Leventis|<font color="#A60914" size="2px">Andronikos Leventis</font>]]'''<sup> ''[[User_talk:Andronikos_Leventis|<font color="#1404A2" size="1.3px">Talk</font>]]''</sup> 16:47, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
 
----
 
----
 
{{VoteAgainst}} '''Strong Oppose''' - I simply don't like it. --[[User:Guilherme Guerreiro|<span style="color:orange">Guilherme Guerreiro</span>]][[File:Thanks rose.png]]([[User talk:Guilherme Guerreiro|<span style="color:orange">talk here</span>]]) 18:00, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
 
{{VoteAgainst}} '''Strong Oppose''' - I simply don't like it. --[[User:Guilherme Guerreiro|<span style="color:orange">Guilherme Guerreiro</span>]][[File:Thanks rose.png]]([[User talk:Guilherme Guerreiro|<span style="color:orange">talk here</span>]]) 18:00, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
Line 260: Line 260:
   
 
:::It doesn't need consensus. It's coming sooner or later, whether you like it or not. It's better we do it now so we can figure out how it works before '''we're forced to use it'''. Reactivating. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 18:26, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
 
:::It doesn't need consensus. It's coming sooner or later, whether you like it or not. It's better we do it now so we can figure out how it works before '''we're forced to use it'''. Reactivating. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 18:26, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
  +
----
  +
{{VoteFor}} '''Support''' - Wikia will probably force us to work with it sooner or later, might as well get used to it. --'''[[User:XoTulleMorXo|<font color="purple">XoTulleMorXo</font>]]''' <sup>'''[[User talk:XoTulleMorXo|<font color="seagreen">♥talk</font>]]''' and '''[[Special:Contributions/XoTulleMorXo|<font color="seagreen">contributions♥</font>]]'''</sup> 20:24, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:24, June 22, 2011

Community Portal Talk Page

Balloon chatting
Welcome! This is the general discussion page for The Sims Wiki! Feel free to discuss anything you want regarding the wiki here or at the forums. Any questions regarding the gameplay features or modding for The Sims series should be taken to our Questions forum. Policy proposals should be made here.
Broken Links
Moodlet notperfect
If a link to a particular discussion has brought you to the top of this page, instead of to the actual discussion, then that link may be broken. Please check the link and make sure that the section name is correct, and that the section in question hasn't been archived.

Balloon books Contents

Balloon chalkboard Noticeboard(edit)

  • Most recently archived on August 23, 2012 -- LiR speak ~ read 00:38, August 23, 2012 (UTC)
  • Notices for community discussions are placed here as necessary. Any user may add their notice. Please sign your notices! -- LostInRiverview talk · blog 08:55, May 29, 2011 (UTC)


Replacement filing cabinet Archives

1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12


Incoming Wikia Chat feature

I'm not sure if everyone has heard but Wikia have added a new chat feature to the MediaWiki software, as stated in this tech update. Dopp had written: "THIS JUST IN: Chat is now enabled on Community Central! You can access it via the sidebar from any page except for the homepage, as long as you're logged in." on that blog. Currently it is in testing and only avaliable on Community Central.

Basically, this section is asking - do we want this feature activated? I've been made aware that Wikia are planning to add it to Wikia Labs for anyone who wants to try it out. Personally, I don't think it would be a good idea as it would defeat the purpose of IRC channel. I have tried out the feature and being used to IRC, I can't say that I am a massive fan of it due to the various browser issues that it causes and disconnections but it doesn't mean everyone will think the same way. For anyone who wants to try it out, click here. Lost Labyrinth Flag united kingdom england (c)(b) 19:43, April 19, 2011 (UTC)


Red x cross uncheck bad
Strong Oppose - This add-on is completely pointless. There are no PMs, no IP addresses, and no topics. -XoTulleMorXo (talk and contributions) 19:54, April 19, 2011 (UTC)
Red x cross uncheck bad
Strong Oppose - per the reasons that are mentioned above. Also, the Wikia feature is more prone to vandals. On IRC, we can just block their IP and it's settled whereas on Wikia Chat, they could just make a new account every time and we'd have to go to a lot of trouble to ban them efficantly and even then, it would still cause problems. I'm more comfortable with using the IRC channel. Lost Labyrinth Flag united kingdom england (c)(b) 20:03, April 19, 2011 (UTC)
Red x cross uncheck bad
Strong Oppose - Much like the users above, I feel this add on is pointless. I also feel the IRC channel is better, we are all used to it, we have bots for it, and we should not leave it for this inferior system. --WoganHemlock (talk) · (blog) 22:14, April 19, 2011 (UTC)
Red x cross uncheck bad
Oppose - Granted, I wouldn't use it any more than I use the IRC channel, but since the IRC channel is established, enabling this here would be reinventing the wheel. Dharden (talk) 23:40, April 19, 2011 (UTC)
Neutral
I think it's a bit premature to be taking a stance against something that isn't completely -- or even close to completely -- developed. I don't think we've yet seen the potential of this tool, and I think it's unwise for us to make a decision until we can be at least somewhat sure we know what we're making the decision about. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog 05:08, April 20, 2011 (UTC)
Based on the negative consenseus and what LiR had mentioned above, I'm thinking that we could trial the feature when it is added with Wikia Labs, which is when Wikia would have had time to improve it. After or during the trial, we could have another vote to see what the community thinks of the "improved" version. Lost Labyrinth Flag united kingdom england (c)(b) 21:43, April 20, 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm late. Well, the feature is undoubtedly improving for sure. When I first got on, it barely worked. Comparing that with how it works now makes it clear Wikia are working on the bugs. Yes, we have IRC, but even now after so much growth its still pretty unused; once one looks at the amount of users we have. The feature isn't fully-grown yet, and that's why Wikia has been activating it; to grow it. I support it being activated on a trial basis, though just to see how we can use it for positive gain. --Zombie talkblog 09:46, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
It seems to be more stable now but there now doesn't seem to be that much usage on Community Central and there seems to be a bug that clones users. Furthermore, you seem to be disconnected from the chat randomly when your connection slightly drops in speed. I'm not opposed to trialing the feature when it's released into Wikia Labs but I'd rather use IRC as a) it's already there, like Dharden said, b) it is more reliable and c) Wikia Chat doesn't feature a way (yet) to join other wikis chatrooms or change nicks, like IRC. Lost Labyrinth Flag united kingdom england (c)(b) 10:01, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
GEORGIE, I think you're missing something. The Wikia chat feature exists for chat between Wikians on a Wiki so that they can covers about things faster, not to talk to other Wikis. If we want to talk to others, we can simply go to theirs or visa-versa, or we can still keep IRC. I don't see how enabling it will effect the IRC much. Most, if not all, users will still stay on the IRC if they have for as long as they have. Zombie talkblog 10:17, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
If we adopt chat, we don't need to drop IRC. However, I think having chat rather than an IRC channel would save a lot of headaches in moderating, and would allow us to apply blocks to users, creating a clear link between chat and the wiki where currently one does not exist. As with all new features, there are bugs that need to be worked out, but those initial bugs should not be the reason you don't support a feature. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog 15:07, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
Even if we get chat, I don't know how it will go. I've been to some other wikis, and while there is a couple of users on chat, there is heaps more (in one case 10 times more) on an IRC channel. If this happens here, I don't see the point of it. --WH (Talk) 05:23, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: Wikia are implementing a private message feature and the Chat feature is expected to hit Wikia Labs by the end of the month. Lost Labyrinth Flag united kingdom england (c)(b) 21:19, June 20, 2011 (UTC)

Votes to activate the feature when released into Wikia Labs

Apparently, Chat will be released as part of Wikia Labs in the middle of June. The feature does seem to be improving and Wikia seem to be working hard to make the feature even better. I don't think that Chat will ever replace IRC but if the community are interested in the feature, then we could activate the feature on a trial basis when it is released into Wikia Labs. I suggest we vote below and decide on what we'll do based on the consenseus. Lost Labyrinth Flag united kingdom england (c)(b) 21:51, May 24, 2011 (UTC)


Icon yes check v
- Support - Well, the feature is certainly seeming more and more promising. I personally don't see any highly excessive problems that may come with it, and I believe that the IRC won't be effected by this at all (most users will stick with the IRC instead of abandon it completely). Anyway, I support a trial run for a month or so --Zombie talkblog 21:56, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
Icon yes check v
- Support - I can't see any harm in giving it a trial. I don't think it will really affect our IRC channel or be more popular, and there is no reason why we shouldn't trial it. --WH (Talk) 05:08, May 25, 2011 (UTC)
Icon yes check v
- Weak Support - I support this, but I actually fear it replaces IRC. --Guilherme GuerreiroThanks rose(talk here) 10:59, June 18, 2011 (UTC)
Icon yes check v
- Strong Support - Since I cannot use the IRC, this would be a much safer way to chat with the other users. And, they have made a few tweaks to the program, so it works out for vandals and spammers. It's easy to access too. --XoTulleMorXo ♥talk and contributions♥ 20:42, June 20, 2011 (UTC)

The Wiki Background (again)

Hi folks. Once again, I'd like to ask if we want to do anything to improve our "Bunch of plumbbobs on a green wall" background we have currently? I've said before that I'm not a huge fan of it, but I want some community input and perhaps some ideas on actually changing it. Here are a few options we have at our disposal:


  1. We have a background design contest where users can submit background designs. After the designs are submitted, we put each submission as the wiki background for a week or so, and allow people to check it out and vote.
  2. We contact the Wikia Content Team and have them work with us on redesigning our background (and possibly other visual aspects of the wiki, if we want).
  3. Keep the current background


There may be other options, but those are the three I see right now. What are your thoughts and ideas? -- LostInRiverview talk · blog 20:07, May 17, 2011 (UTC)


I think we should ask the Wiki Content team to help us out. I have some ideas for a background such as the box art for TS3 (you know, the one with the pictures of the sim's faces) or maybe a screenshot of Sunset Valley. Anyone else have ideas? --WH (Talk) 07:05, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
Wogan, that box art idea is awesome! -- LostInRiverview talk · blog 05:23, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, we could change the background to make the wiki look more visually appealing. The main issue here is what everyone else wants to do - hold a background contest, keep the current background or ask the Wikia Content Team. I'd suggest having a vote on how we should move forward. Lost Labyrinth Flag united kingdom england (c)(b) 22:43, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
Do you really think TS3 box art is a good idea? Some people here don't have TS3... and although it's the latest series, I think we should find other background that resembles all series. Nikel23 08:55, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
I think what Wogan was getting at (correct me if I'm wrong) is that we could have a mosaic of Sim photos in the background... it wouldn't say The Sims 3 on it, but it would resemble TS3's box art. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog 14:40, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that was the idea. I have actually seen a similar thing used on Les Sims Wiki, but as their main page header. --WH (Talk) 07:42, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
Hi guys. Using Wogan's idea, I made a seamless/tiled image from the faces on The Sims 3 cover. Check out this preview of it from the theme designer. If you like it as it is, just say the word, and I'll upload it. If you'd like me to adjust something on it, or do something completely different, let me know. JoePlay WikiaStaff.png (talk) 22:35, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
Whoa! You can definitely take my vote for liking it the way it is. It looks great! :D Lost Labyrinth Flag united kingdom england (c)(b) 22:42, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
Niiiiice. Great job, I love it. --WH (Talk) 05:07, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
I see there are only about 20 Sims, but I believe more needs to be added. But this is just what I'm talking about... It's The Sims 3 cover! Nikel23 05:42, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there are 20 different faces on the background, due to the fact that there are only 22 or 23 faces on The Sims 3 cover that aren't partially covered or cut off. Also, it seems that you guys are not in agreement about what the background should be, so I've made another preview using the background found on the landing page at the official site. JoePlay WikiaStaff.png (talk) 21:18, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
I like both. The second one fits better with our current theme setup. I'll go with what everyone else decides on. Lost Labyrinth Flag united kingdom england (c)(b) 21:42, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, they are both good. I like them both, so whatever gets picked is fine by me. --WH (talk) 00:45, June 18, 2011 (UTC)
Scratch that. I think I prefer the second one more. --WH (talk) 07:07, June 18, 2011 (UTC)
Woah, I think that's better. I like that. Nikel23 07:31, June 18, 2011 (UTC)
They're both interesting, but I really love the second one. --Guilherme GuerreiroThanks rose(talk here) 08:31, June 18, 2011 (UTC)
I like both of them, though the second one looks a bit better, in my opinion. --BobNewbie ∞(Talk)∞ 10:52, June 18, 2011 (UTC)
I agree, but maybe there's a way we could make use of the first one, in a place other than the background. For instance (and this may not be what we want to do), Les Sims Wiki (French-language) uses a similar portrait mosaic for the area immediately behind their drop-down menus. It would be great if we could find a use for the mosaic, if we're not going to use it as the background. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog 16:56, June 18, 2011 (UTC)
Maybe, but I don't know where we could put it. I don't really like what it is on Les Sims Wiki. --WH (talk) 02:30, June 19, 2011 (UTC)

(resetting indent) It sounds like everyone prefers the second background. If you want, I can upload it now, and one of you can message me later when you decide how/where to use the mosaic image. JoePlay WikiaStaff.png (talk) 22:28, June 21, 2011 (UTC)

It seems as if there's pretty strong support for the second option. Feel free to upload it when you get a chance. Thanks for your help! -- LostInRiverview talk · blog 07:20, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Vote

I feel the quickest and best way to choose between these three options would be to hold a vote (in accordance with our wiki voting policies. The time to vote will be set at two weeks.


Question: Of the three options below, which would you support?


  1. Hold a background design contest and have the community choose the winner.
  2. Contact the Wikia Content Team and ask them to help us redesign the background.
  3. Leave the background as-is

Time remaining: Expired - Cast your vote below!


Ask the Content Team - They would know heaps about this sort of stuff, and the contests we have don't always go to well, see January Fanon Logo contest. --WH (Talk) 04:14, June 2, 2011 (UTC)



Ask the Content Team - per WoganHemlock. Lost Labyrinth Flag united kingdom england (c)(b) 20:11, June 4, 2011 (UTC)



Ask the Content Team - They have the most knowledge of this kind of stuff, and seem to be the best option because of that. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 05:30, June 6, 2011 (UTC)



Ask the Content team - per RR and Wogan. ---BobNewbie ∞(Talk)∞ 17:25, June 8, 2011 (UTC)


Result
The content team was contacted


Comments

Looks like we're in! :D Lost Labyrinth Flag united kingdom england (c)(b) 19:27, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

Eliminate Player Stories

I'd like to propose that we eliminate Player Stories from Sim and character pages on the wiki. My reasons are as follows:

  1. The content added to these pages is more often than not of poor or very poor quality, is sometimes profane and unacceptable, and is nearly impossible to moderate in its current size.
  2. The Fanon Namespace has been created, which allows for users who wish to write about the goings-on of their Sims to do so without using an article sub-page.
  3. Contributions to Player Stories pages are very very often not signed and quickly forgotten by the author and by everyone else.
  4. The number of player stories contributors is very low - most users do not contribute to these pages.

Thoughts? -- LostInRiverview talk · blog 01:05, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

I agree. For the record, they are subpages, and don't go towards our article count, so I see no problem there. --WH (Talk) 01:06, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
I also agree. Player Stories pages are usually overlooked, and because of that, they are often of horrible quality. Users abandoned their stories, and many are very short, inappropriate, and just... bad. Now that we have the Fanon Namespace, I believe that the Player Stories pages are unneeded. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 01:15, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
I disagree, even though player stories are not that controllable we should remember that no all people are allowed to write their own stories, for these people player stories is still a good way to share their gameplay, but a new policy could be applied regarding this matter. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 07:30, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
I agree, though fanon Sims work a bit different than player stories, as player stories actually uses premade Sims or townies. But it's true, the content are poor and badly organized. Every story is random and made-up by users. I mean, who wants to read Mortimer Goth's player stories all the way down? We should only keep theories for certain Sims, like Bella's disappearance or Olive Specter as murderer. Nikel23 07:50, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
Guilherme, what did you mean by "Not everyone is allowed to make fanon"? If you are referring to anons not being able to, I think they should just make an account. --WH (Talk) 07:54, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
I suppose that's why authors never sign their stories. They could be anonymous, not regular users. Oh yeah, having player stories page means number of Sims times two, because nearly every Sim has this. I dislike wasted pages. Nikel23 07:58, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
For the record, the Player Sstories pages are subpages, and don't go towards the article count. (You know, the one that says x pages on this wiki, above the activity feed.) --WH (Talk) 08:01, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
Mmm. I don't know...what about the occasional good quality story? Some users worked hard on making them, and I don't see how we're going to be able to notify every single one of them to tell them to make a page or lose their work. Aren't some people going to be negative upon finding out their stories are gone? Zombie talkblog 09:29, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
Most users forget about their player stories, so I don't see an issue there. As for telling them the stories have gone, we'll just have to accept that it would take far too long to do so. --WH (Talk) 09:37, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
I totally agree with Bob, and I think this is a very harsh suggestion, yes I meant anons in the previous comment Wogan. I disagree that users forget about their player stories, I have actually seen many completing it and ending it, I do not think people forget that easily, if this is approved, I think there will be a significant number of users with a "broken heart". --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 10:44, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
Us eliminating the pages wouldn't be done in secret. If we end up eliminating the pages, such action will be announced long before any deletion actually occurs, to allow people who have stories they'd like to save the opportunity to do so. Any person who visits the wiki even semi-frequently (and therefore, a user that is more likely to care about the story they wrote) will have the chance to move it to the Fanon namespace or save it onto their computer before we ever delete it. And while I admit that every once in a while there is a good story there, these are very few and far between and, in my opinion, don't justify us having the pages and in having to manage such a vast amount of content. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog 11:25, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
If we can give people a while (and by a while, I mean half a year) to 'save' their stories, I'll support this. And Wogan, some people still come on, and leave with the thought 'hey. I wrote a story! Now it'll stay and people can read it forever!'. They might forget it, but when they added it, they didn't know that it wont stay forever. --Zombie talkblog 11:59, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
I don't suppose users esp. anons would remember they've made a player story if they don't even sign their names. I believe they won't even visit the same Sims' player stories. It just doesn't make sense if they play the same Sims but make different scenarios, I mean, who wants to play Goth family over and over from beginning? Whenever they made a player story, they shared it there, didn't sign the story, and it will remain there not updated and forgotten. Nikel23 16:01, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
Nikel, I have some things I disagree with. Like I said: they might not have bothered remembering because they thought that it would be there forever and that they've did their part. And almost every new Wikia user I know doesn't remember to sign, or is just oblivious to the fact. Just because they don't/don't know how to sign doesn't mean they don't care about their stories. I play the Goth family and the Wolff family almost every start of a game if I don't make my own Sims because it's a preference. Plus, I have another problem with the play stories being deleted: even if they did come to retrieve it, and still want it on the wiki, what if it just isn't enough to make a Fan fiction page with? A few paragraphs is a lot on Player Story pages, but is normally a low-quality fanon page which will be deleted soon. So, users might get upset that their stories, which used to be fine, is now 'low-quality fan fiction'. Even if they care about the stories, what if they don't have the time to make a quality fanon page, yet still want the story to be available for people to read? Zombie talkblog 18:35, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
I agree that we should abolish the Player Stories pages as their only contributors are anons and they can easily create an account to create fanon. I've even seen one fanon article based on a canon Sim in an imaginative way and is a more detailed article. Lost Labyrinth Flag united kingdom england (c)(b) 19:35, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Bob, player stories shouldn't be deleted due to the reasons he mentioned. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 19:47, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with Bob. So many of these people aren't even registered users in the first place. Although there are some exceptions, most often anonymous users don't stick around unless they actually register an account. If these people didn't do that, then the odds of them even coming back to their player stories is pretty low. Also, half a year? That is an astronomically long time... I would say 1 1/2 to 2 months at the very most. If a user doesn't visit here at least once every two months, then they probably don't care much about their story. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog 19:50, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
(added more). Another point brought up that I'd like to address. Guilherme pointed out that anonymous users can't create fanon articles - that's true. However, one added 'benefit' of this is that users who wish to make those sorts of stories then register an account. Once they do that, they're much more likely to 1) become active members of the wiki and 2) improve their story and keep it up to date, both of which are very good outcomes. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog 19:52, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
Still, every being has a right to remain anonymous. It's like we're telling them "create an account, or your story isn't allowed here". Get what I'm saying? --Zombie talkblog 19:54, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
But LiR remember that people do not add their player stories to always improve them, as many of them end the stories they write, they won't check them to improve it as it's ended, I think that's understandable, so deleting those stories is for me a bad option. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 19:56, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
Idea: We could archive them all, possibly? Zombie talkblog 20:00, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
What's the point in short stories? The whole point of a story is something that's interesting to read - if all we have are thousands of "This Sim got married, had some kids, and died," stories, then quickly player stories become very boring to read (which they currently are). Just like fanon stories have a minimum length requirement, I think all stories should, simply for the sake of the story itself. Since so few player stories existing now ever hit that threshold, I think they should as a whole be ditched.
(added) I don't think we should archive, because most of them honestly aren't good enough to save. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog 20:03, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
But LiR, boring is your opinion many people may not see them as boring (excluding the ones like "Hannah got married and then had a kid"). Thank you. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 21:34, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
At first, I felt strongly towards this, but now I'm not so sure. I think, while this idea is good in theory, it would be really hard to implement. I'd say that we should look through and get rid of a lot of them, i.e. the bad ones, but that would be incredibly tedious and time consuming. I'm starting to think, "If it's not broken, don't fix it." I think we should just leave the system as-is. --WH (Talk) 09:23, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
Still, we can't compare which is good and which is bad if we want to get rid of bad ones. Since no issue was made... what's actually the real problem happening? The reasons LiR stated are not real problems, right? Nikel23 11:01, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
They are problems, because we have a large volume of very poor material sitting on our wiki. Is that something we should just continue to ignore because it would be difficult to fix? I say no. If we can't get the authors to improve the quality (which would be impossible considering how many authors there are, and over the period of time they were written) and we can't spend the time picking out good stories from bad, then the last logical option is to delete the pages.
Here's my honest thought on the matter. I don't think anyone is going to care. I think that certain people are really concerned that all these users are going to cry and be very upset if they player stories go away, but I am willing to bet that few, if any, of these users will even give it a second thought, especially if we have a period prior to deletion to allow story recovery. The bottom line is that the player stories pages are shamefully bad, so bad that there is no hope for improvement, leaving us with only one justified solution - delete. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog 13:23, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
I do not think so. My final position on this is weak oppose. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 13:53, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to say Neutral. --WH (Talk) 07:14, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

For me, Player Stories should definately be deleted. They were useful once upon a time, but now with the Fanon Namespace, it is unlikely they will ever be needed again. And, as it was pointed above, nobody even actually reads these stories, so, how can anyone care?. So, I'm saying Strong Support. \_Andronikos Leventis Talk 13:00, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't say it any better than Andronikos just did. Strong support. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog 13:08, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
Somehow, Fanon has its own weakness. The main difference I could seek is the simplicity. Making a fanon page is complicated and not simple, and it will be hard especially for beginner users who are not really good at editing pages yet. On the other hand, player stories can be used as simple means to share the stories, and it could be a good editing beginning for all beginner users. Some new users who prefer sharing their stories will be more likely to make player stories than articles, so player story is a basic and simple way for them to start their editing experience. I'm sure it will be recklessly written, but that's better than they edit an article, right? Nikel23 15:49, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
Due to Nikel's reasons I am going to change my position to oppose. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 18:25, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
I do want to keep the player stories, but, I do want to eliminate all player stories that are left unsigned. Ѧüя◎ґ 18:48, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
Or maybe we should make an eye-catching noticeboard or template so that writers actually read the template to sign? The current template is boring and contains too long words. Nikel23 02:18, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
I have read through the comments again, and have changed my opinion to Weak Support. --WH (Talk) 07:40, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
My position is Strong Support. Let's face it, according to Wikia, stubs should only make 1/5 out of all pages on a Wiki. This includes other namespace pages and sub-pages. Since many player story pages are unedited and empty (mainly for townies, NPCs, and deceased Sims), our stub count goes way over the limit. And what's worse? The player story pages that are longer than stub-length are of horrible quality, with bad language, spelling, grammar, and punctuation. They are also near-impossible to maintain, due to their length. Users do not sign their stories, and, come on, who really cares to read them? Player stories make our wiki look bad, and therefore, should be removed. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 02:34, June 10, 2011 (UTC)
Weak support. --Bleeh(talk) (blog) 02:39, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

What I have determined so far: three users (Andronikos, Random Ranaun, and I) are in strong support, two users (Woganhemlock and Bleeh) are in weak support, Guilhermen Guerreiro is in opposition, and Auror has opposition to deleting all player stories (which for the purposes of determining consensus would count as an 'oppose'). I wish to wrap this up before too long, so I'd encourage everyone to give their final thoughts, and would encourage users who have not spoken up yet to speak up within the next five days or so. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog 06:23, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

I change to full support in eliminating player stories. Ѧüя◎ґ 06:33, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
Even though, many of you are right about player stories quality, I think we should respect the users who have made the stories who thought they would be there forever, also we are also guilty about player stories quality since we didn't control them from the beginning, nor we did make a policy very strict to these player stories, so I suggest instead a new policy, eliminating all player stories seems to me unfair for me and for users who didn't make stories with profanity or bad language, and even if we have time to save the stories in our computer before they get deleted, many will not remember all the stories. It's unfair. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 11:48, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
What would be the new policy that you're suggesting? And as well, how would you enforce it on the hundreds of stories that have been completely abandoned by their authors? -- LostInRiverview talk · blog 15:05, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
Of course many of them have been abandonned because many users have already ended their storires, I just think it's unfair to delete them altogether, a new policy being more strict with the player stories could help. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 15:14, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
You're saying... you're remaking the player stories instead of deleting it? Sorry if I don't get the point. I'm clueless over time. Nikel23 16:03, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
Nit exactly remaking them, but kind of, I know it would be hard, and I do not know how to do it, though I' think on it. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 16:07, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
I am in full oppose of deleting player stories. I just feel it's wrong to delete them, as nobody ever gave any guidelines except for the user to sign them. Even if they didn't sign them, nobody ever did anything about it, when we actually should have. I would feel, like Guilherme said, guilty that they were removed when people thought, no matter what the quality is, that they could entrust us and leave them here. And for a whole bunch of other reasons states above. BobNewbie ∞(Talk)∞ 16:58, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
I was missing the word, what I meant was guideline not a policy, we should have given guidelines from the beginning, and the player stories not having good quality is partly our fault, because we did not care about them. For users who are in the beginning it's so much easier to write a player story rather than making fanon, and also player stories are for users who want to tell their pre-made Sims stories, though they can create a fanon about a pre-made Sim, I don't think they understand that message, as there are very few fanon pages about pre-made Sims or so. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 17:20, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
I support per all of the support votes above. Lost Labyrinth Flag united kingdom england (c)(b) 17:36, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
Alright... I've noticed player stories only seem to be posted every few hours, they aren't that popular. So why don't we maybe delete all the current stories, and simply moderate all future story submissions? We could add it to tasks for administrators with the Fanon admin project. Other than this, I don't see a way around this. --WH (Talk) 05:40, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, will the Theories pages still remain if the player stories are deleted? BobNewbie ∞(Talk)∞ 10:22, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

New Wikia Editor

The new Wikia editor is now online, and can be activated via an admin on WikiaLabs. Should we activate it now, since I believe this is going to be global sooner or later, so that we can start getting used to it? Or is there opposition to turning it on at this time? --BobNewbie ∞(Talk)∞ 10:40, June 22, 2011 (UTC)


Neutral
Neutral, leaning towards oppose. I really don't like the editor and if I knew that the current editor would still be usable at the same time, I would make this an oppose vote but if it is eventually going to become mandatory then I really don't care whether we activate it or not. Lost Labyrinth Flag united kingdom england (c)(b) 11:40, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
Icon yes check v
Support. The editor will be more enchanced and I believe we will soon find its benefits. Nikel23 16:40, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
Icon yes check v
Strong Support, because the current editor is getting old, and anyway, something new is something better. And after all, it is simplier. |_Andronikos Leventis Talk 16:47, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
Red x cross uncheck bad
Strong Oppose - I simply don't like it. --Guilherme GuerreiroThanks rose(talk here) 18:00, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
Looks like it's been activated by an admin. So...time to edit! :P. --BobNewbie ∞(Talk)∞ 17:38, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
It's now inactive as we haven't really got enough consensus. --Guilherme GuerreiroThanks rose(talk here) 18:10, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
I thought about that, though didn't expect to find a log of it anywhere and thought Wikia already made it default lol. BobNewbie ∞(Talk)∞ 18:13, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't need consensus. It's coming sooner or later, whether you like it or not. It's better we do it now so we can figure out how it works before we're forced to use it. Reactivating. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog 18:26, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Icon yes check v
Support - Wikia will probably force us to work with it sooner or later, might as well get used to it. --XoTulleMorXo ♥talk and contributions♥ 20:24, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.