| abstract
| - I know that this idea has already been considered, but I think we should reconsider merging with the Fanon Wiki. One of the main problems recently on this wiki was it's decreasing activity. Many ideas were thought of, and I thought that merging with the Fanon Wiki would be a good way to help increase the wiki's activity. I originally thought of the Fanon Wiki merge about 8 months ago. I thought that it was a good idea to help increase the activity and popularity of both wiki's, and, as you probably noticed, we definitely need help with the activity now. The Avatar Wiki merged with their fanon wiki a while ago. They claimed that it was very controversial, but ended up being a really smart move, as it helped their wiki remain popular and active, even after Avatar: The Last Airbender ended. One of the main reasons that caused people to vote against merging with the Fanon Wiki was that they thought it would be too confusing, and users wouldn't know whether a Sim is fanon or canon. However, using the Avatar Wiki as a role model, we could create a very simple and easy to understand way of merging with the Fanon Wiki. Like them, we could create a Fanon portal, which would act as a main page for the fanon side of the wiki, we could create a Fanon category, along with subsequent categories (Fanon Sims, Fanon neighborhoods, etc.), most importantly, we could create a Fanon namespace (Ex. Fanon:Article Name) so that Sims and other fanon won't get confused as being canon, and we could appoint some fanon administrators to run the fanon side of the wiki. Merging with the Fanon Wiki could be very beneficial to both communities, as it would bring both communities together, increasing activity, and bringing new users to the wiki, increasing popularity. Also, fanon is one of the main features of The Sims series, as it allows players to create their own Sims, neighborhoods, and stories. Many users come here, thinking that The Sims Wiki is for writing about their Sims. Once they find out it's not, they almost always leave, causing the wiki to lose one more contributor. If we merge with the Fanon Wiki, we would no longer have to worry about losing users. And, when a user creates a whole article about a Sim they created, rather than going to the hassle of moving the article to the Fanon Wiki and telling them about it, all we would have to do is move the article into the Fanon namespace. I believe that merging with the Fanon Wiki could be a great opportunity for us, as it could greatly help our wiki by increasing activity. Thank you for reading this (I know it's long :p), and be sure to tell me what you think! —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 22:45, December 20, 2010 (UTC) File:Icon yes check v.svg Support - In the original vote, I voted no because I did not want it to pass without consensus. While I still hope this doesn't pass unless it's clear the community agrees, I think this route is very well thought-out and is a good idea. My questions are only minor, and do not impair me from supporting this idea in its current form. Will player stories be kept in their present location as a subpage of the article, or will they also move to the Fanon namespace? If not, will there be a way to navigate from the Fanon namespace to individual player stories pages? Ultimately, I support this idea. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog 01:00, December 21, 2010 (UTC) Apparently, according to this, player stories are stories and information based on canonical Sims, while fanon is Sims, stories, and other elements that are not included in any game, but treated as canon. So, if we do merge, player stories will stay where it is, but fanon Sims and stories based on fanon Sims will be under the Fanon namespace. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 03:34, December 21, 2010 (UTC) File:Icon yes check v.svg For. One of the biggest sources of vandalism here is fanon being created. If it's allowed, that'll take a load off our backs. Also, even years after the series has ended, we can still have a large active community. --BobNewbie talk • blog 05:56, December 21, 2010 (UTC) File:Icon yes check v.svg Support. It'll help boost the number of active editors and like BobNewbie said, it will save admins and rollbackers a lot of hassle when it comes to fanon. GG (t) • (c) • (b) 10:26, December 21, 2010 (UTC) File:Red x cross uncheck bad.svg OpposeNo, never, I've statted many times why I disagree with this idea and I'm not going to repeat it but my personal opnion is that this will be a huge mess, everyone would write about their stories in real articles and I am seeing a dark future with this merge. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 18:17, December 21, 2010 (UTC) There is one thing I disagree on, the merge. Won't it be easier to only lift the rule of creating fanon articles here? --BobNewbie talk • blog 18:31, December 21, 2010 (UTC) Hmmm.... Bob, I don't think so, are you imagining the huge mess it would be?! If this is approved, at least we should have a canon section and a fanon one, that's my personal opinion but it doesn't necessarily mean that all share this point of view. Thanks. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 18:38, December 21, 2010 (UTC) File:Red x cross uncheck bad.svg Oppose. What are you thinking? There is no way that could happen. In all of a sudden, a wiki named "Oh, I want to write about my own sims and I'm writing it here" merging with a wiki full of knowledge? If someone names a sim Bella Goth, then writing about her in TSW, then the readers won't know which article is the correct one|_Andronikos Leventis 20:20, December 21, 2010 (UTC) Well, like I said above, if we merge, then the Bella Goth article that they created would be under the Fanon namespace. That's how we would know which article is canon and/or fanon. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 20:39, December 21, 2010 (UTC) File:Icon yes check v.svg Support. Andronikos Leventis, if you had any brain cells left, than clearly, the fanon Bella Goth article will be under the fanon mainspace, as, Fanon:Bella Goth. If there's more than one fanon Bella Goth article, than the article will be named for it's story, as, Fanon:Bella Goth (The Final War). Anyway, I was for the fanon merge the first time, so I'm for the fanon merge this time as well. [Ѧüя◎ґ] File:Red x cross uncheck bad.svg Oppose If we merge the wikis, even though the fanon articles will have "Fanon:" in front of them, plenty of people, as soon as they see that this wiki includes fanon, they will start making fanon pages without "Fanon:" in front, and they will start putting fanon things on non-fanon pages, and that will be to hard to keep up with, there is also the fact that merging will not very much increase activity on non-fanon pages (except what I mentioned above), it will mostly increase activity on fanon pages.--Eduardog3000 01:45, December 22, 2010 (UTC) That's why we'll the user about their fanon, and tell them not to make the same mistake next time. [Ѧüя◎ґ] Yeah. That's basically what's happening now, users are putting fanon into main articles. If we merge, this problem would probably become easier, in my opinion. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 02:10, December 22, 2010 (UTC) File:Red x cross uncheck bad.svg Oppose I think one of the primary problems with this remains the fact that there is just so much Sims fanon. I see so many edit wars over names of pages, etc. How many Bella Goth pages will we end up with, namespace difference or not I see it getting messy. So messy. I also suspect (and it is only a suspicion) that it would increase, not decrease, the amount of fanon-vandalism here, although clearly BobNewbie sees it having the opposite effect. It's only a tentative oppose. I'm open to persuasion and if it happens I'll still be around. Watching this unfold carefully. --- (Kiwi tea 03:37, December 22, 2010 (UTC)) Well, if we do merge, the Fanon:Bella Goth articles would be named after the story they are a part of (i.e. Fanon:Bella Goth (The Final War), or, the creator's username (i.e. Fanon:Bella Goth (Random Ranaun)), with the main Fanon:Bella Goth article as a disambiguation page. And even if it does increase the fanon-vandalism here, it would be a lot easier to deal with. Fanon-vandalism isn't that big a problem at the Avatar Wiki, and even if a user writes fanon in a main article, we could just move it, and tell them about the fanon side of the wiki. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 04:20, December 22, 2010 (UTC) Let me address some of the opposition. 1.
* -The idea that merging will cause problems with people placing articles in incorrect namespaces. The fact is this already happens regarding fanon and player stories. TSW has a more-or-less stated policy among admins that fanon-type content should be moved to the Fanon Wiki, or at the very least onto a user's namespace: this creates a lot of work. Additionally, if we insist that fanon must be placed at TSFW, that ties my hands because I'm not an admin at TSFW so I can't move articles between the wikis. The merge would allow admins to move pages simply by adding 'fanon:' to the front of it; super-simple! 2.
* Fanon edit wars will develop over page names. If this would ever happen, the solution is quite simple - make the names different; example being if two users create two Sims named John Smith... their article names would be 'Fanon:John Smith (User 1)' and 'Fanon:John Smith (User 2).' Again, very simple solution. 3.
* Sims named after pre-existing sims will confuse readers. Again, as long as the page has a 'fanon:' in front of it and clearly states the fact that it is fanon (we could set this up so pages created in the Fanon namespace have an automatic template, similar to the set-up in the Forum namespace), this should be no issue. My position on this whole matter is that our current set-up is essentially only half there... we allow player stories but not fanon. IMHO if we disallow one, we should not allow the other, and vice versa. LostInRiverview talk · blog 04:25, December 22, 2010 (UTC) File:Icon yes check v.svg Support I think it would bring more activity to the site, even though the administrator and bureaucrats would have more work, it would still bring activity, unlike if there was no activity this wiki would die. So I support the idea fully, I have been looking in from the outside for a couple of months and I've seen the decreasing activity.--DarthCookie Talk 09:34, December 22, 2010 (UTC) Update Since this move, if made, would have an impact on the jobs of administrators here (i.e. our roles and duties), and may necessitate increasing our staff, I think this matter should be addressed directly to the administrative team to consent to before we ask for community consent. Therefore, I will be starting a sister topic at the Admin Portal talk page (specifically for administrators) to discuss this. If a consensus is reached there in support of this proposal, we will return to seek consensus from the community. Feel free to continue discussion in the meantime. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog 04:30, December 22, 2010 (UTC) Another matter to consider, for anyone reading this; try to think of an arrangement which will best suit everyone. Since the matter is being proposed and is getting at least some positive reaction, at least some people want to see a move in this direction. That means that keeping the status quo is no more consented to than forcing through a change which some disagree with. Therefore, the goal is and ought to be finding the solution which best satisfies everyone. With that in mind, try to find a way to modify the current proposal to make it more agreeable to most, if not all, of the members of the community; this is the art of building consensus.-- LostInRiverview talk · blog 05:38, December 22, 2010 (UTC) File:Red x cross uncheck bad.svg Oppose I see a whole lot of mess if the two wikis are merged. Confused members will be editing on all of the wrong pages, hundreds of new pages would be created, and with that, a whole lot of work for the admins will be created as well. --Bella Goth 06:06, December 22, 2010 (UTC)Bella Goth I consider that Kiwi tea and Bella Goth have good points on this matter. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 09:16, December 22, 2010 (UTC) Bella Goth makes a horrible point, and, I still disagree. If it really is a lot of work for the admins, than we'll just make more users admins. I was thinking about the idea of "Fanon Admin". It gives you the power to give "Fanon Warnings", block users for not adhering the rules, and just clean up. I can see that Random Ranaun really wants us to merge, and the idea to me sounds awesome. You don't know something won't work until you try. I really don't see any mess happening with the two wikis merging. We can always deal with problems as a wiki, and if it really does get out of hand, than we can simply separate them again. It's as simple as that. [Ѧüя◎ґ] Bella Goth, all your saying is there will be a mess. If we plan this correctly and as a community, there won't be a mess. Kiwi Tea, the main reason is not because of the amount of fanon created, it's that, and dealing with the decreasing activity and to keep a large active community years after the series has ended. --BobNewbie talk • blog 11:04, December 22, 2010 (UTC) My opinion, from an admin perspective, is that there will be little or no 'mess'... some of the issues with the current system will be resolved, and the new areas were mess would potentially occur would be as simple to handle (or easier) than our current set-up - well within our ability to manage it, especially if one or two new admins were added specifically for the fanon section, as Auror and RR have suggested. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog 01:31, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
* Before I vote, I would like to address a few concerns I am having to be abe to fully understand this entire situation. If we go ahead with the merge, I see a lot of accidental vandalism coming in. New users, not quite familiar with editing could possibly be changing all the wrong pages. People arguing over their fanons, and many more articles requiring maintence that just two more admins couldn't cover. I understand that you want to get the game alive, years after it is through, but somehow I feel like the only edits that will be made here in the future, will be fanon edits. --Bella Goth 16:14, December 24, 2010 (UTC)Bella Goth Bella Goth, if somebody makes "accidental vandalism", we can calmly move the page to the fanon namespace, or if they though they were allowed to put fanon in articles, we calmly revert it and tell them. Yes, it's gonna need some heard work, but raising activity is never easy, and we have plenty of hard workers on hand. --BobNewbie talk • blog 16:58, December 24, 2010 (UTC) One reason to do this is that it doesn't depend on admins here also being admins on the Fanon Wiki. Most admins here aren't admins there (I'm not even active there), so we can't move articles from here to there. Therefore, a policy of having fanon on the Fanon Wiki is something that can't really be enforced. A "Fanon:" namespace is something that could be administered here, merger or no merger. Another is that we do allow some fanon here in the form of player stories. Some player stories pages have gotten long and unwieldy, and it may be time to consider reorganizing them even if we don't reconsider the types of fanon we allow. A "Fanon:" namespace could be one way of doing that. Dharden (talk) 16:16, December 25, 2010 (UTC) I know it's usually not recommended, but I think there has been enough of a discussion to this to start a formal vote, like the one we had last time. --BobNewbie talk • blog 18:05, December 25, 2010 (UTC) Well, something this monumental isn't exactly something that can be "voted on"... only community consensus is going to decide this. So the better question to ask is... is enough of the community in support of this for it to be done? -- LostInRiverview talk · blog 19:04, December 25, 2010 (UTC) Ok, thats true. It's me, you, RR, GEORGIE, Auror, DarthCookie and, I am not 100% sure, but I think he does, Dharden, support the idea to merge/create a fanon namespace. Bella Goth, Ed, Guilherme, Kiwi tea and Andronikos Leventis are against it. I may have miscount, but thats 7 users, + Monster, who supported it at the admin portal, which = 8, and there are 5 users who are against it. Though the biggest compliant is that "it will be a huge mess", like I said, as a community we can plan this to avoid that. Yes, it's gonna need some hard work, but raising activity is never easy, and we have plenty of hard workers on hand. We should think of everyone who apposes, but they should make a valid and strong point. --BobNewbie talk • blog 19:31, December 25, 2010 (UTC) I am not an unqualified supporter of this. I was neutral last time because I can see good reasons to do it and good reasons not to do it. That's still true. What's changed is the balance; I think the arguments for doing it outweigh those against it. Dharden (talk) 22:19, December 25, 2010 (UTC) Part of what I was trying to point out is that the question of creating a "Fanon:" namespace is separate from the question of whether to merge, and can be separate from the question of what types of fanon to allow. Creating the namespace does not require merging the wikis, and IMO, should be considered on its own merits. Dharden (talk) 22:34, December 25, 2010 (UTC)
* So is the next step to inform the community and see there reaction, or is there more to discuss before making this idea public and get a consensus?--Bella Goth 23:19, December 25, 2010 (UTC)Bella Goth It's already "public" and discussion can be made throughout the process... consensus is being found right now, but this isn't likely to be decided for a couple weeks at least. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog 23:20, December 25, 2010 (UTC)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)