FANDOM


W fortunecookiemaker
This page in a nutshell
The purpose of this page is to discuss debatable deletions. If the article is marked for deletion, an announcement here is unnecessary unless not dealt with within a reasonable amount of time.
Info information icon
Information
For the deletion discussion of fanon pages, see Category talk:Fanon for deletion.
Replacement filing cabinet
Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15

Please use this page to discuss pages that have been labeled for deletion. Note that this is not a vote; this is a discussion, and as such, comments you add here should explain why you think a page should or should not be deleted. A simple "I support deletion" or "I oppose deletion" is not an explanation or an argument, and does not contribute to the discussion.

Guidelines
  • Make a level 2 header with the link and title of the article/file.
  • If it's a file, include a small thumbnail to the right.
  • <s>Strike out</s> the title when it has been resolved.


File:Artistic (TS3).png and File:Trait Artistic small.pngEdit

I've just been browsing some unused files, and I found "File:Artistic (TS3).png" which is an unused image. However it is a better quality version of another image "File:Trait Artistic small.png" which is far from unused.

I'm inclined to support the deletion of the "Trait Artistic small.png" file and have "Artistic (TS3)" re-named in it's place, to avoid having to manually update the file links on the pages that use "Trait Artistic small". However the "Artistic (TS3)" image is a slightly different size which may cause it to appear differently in the place of "Trait Artistic small".

For those reasons, I've decided not to take matters like this into my own hands, and in any case I wasn't going to take this matter into my own hands, because I want to know what others think about this. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 07:21, October 29, 2015 (UTC)

Template:User democratEdit

A little over a year ago, we deleted a template that stated that a user was in favor of same-sex marriage. The argument that I made, and that ultimately several other people consented with, was that real-world politics should be avoided on The Sims Wiki in order to avoid the conflicts that can sometimes accompany them. I feel that this point is still valid, and as a result I would like to nominate {{User democrat}} for deletion. -- LiR talkblogcontribs 05:19, January 24, 2016 (UTC)

Reviving this discussion in hopes of reaching a consensus. Personally I am neutral on this subject, if only because I wish to avoid having to entangle myself into the spaghetti-mess that is politics, but for sure I can see the arguments for and against this. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:54, October 23, 2016 (UTC)
Sims wiki policy concerning real world politics doesn't have a consistent record. I'm opposing the deletion of the template. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 07:31, December 6, 2016 (UTC)

Template:Warning and Template:Warning-textEdit

I propose that we delete Template:Warning and Template:Warning-text, as they have been superseded by the new user warning templates. Since the main argument for creating the new warnings was the inadequacy of the old warning, we should fully finish the job and delete the original warning template. No user pages contain the template through transclusion so we won't be breaking anything; all references to the template are through links instead, so we could set the template up as a redirect to The Sims Wiki:Warning instead. There may be a historical argument for keeping the template, but I'd argue that any historical benefit to keeping it is outweighed by the possibility that the old warning may be used, when the new user warnings system was designed to replace it. Ultimately I think we lose very little by just deleting the old warning template (and its auxiliary text template) outright. -- LiR talk · blog · contribs 14:05, December 17, 2016 (UTC)

The old warning can be wrapped in <noinclude></noinclude> tags to prevent anything meaningful from being transcluded or substituted. We've kept our old-old warning template for historical purposes and it has never been used, likely due to the fact that it has been moved to another name. Perhaps we can do that here as well. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 14:41, December 17, 2016 (UTC)
FWIW we also can't delete {{Warning-text}}, because the way our old warning template was designed, this template is transcluded onto people's talk pages. Deleting it would break hundreds of transclusions. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 14:14, May 26, 2017 (UTC)

Straud MansionEdit

Discussion moved from Talk:Straud Mansion. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:22, March 23, 2017 (UTC)

Im purposing deletion in this page because i think an individual lot like this doesn't warrant its own page. the information is too minim for lot to have its own page. Wiryawan310 (talk) 00:15, March 23, 2017 (UTC)

Update: the article is merged in Forgotten Hollow page like any other neighborhood. so this page is not needed anymore. Wiryawan310 (talk) 02:01, April 8, 2017 (UTC)
I support deletion. All the information can be found on the List of Forgotten Hollow lots. Gvaudoin (talk) 15:20, March 2, 2018 (UTC)
Another idea: The page could be redirected to "List_of_Forgotten_Hollow_lots#Straud_Mansion". Gvaudoin (talk) 14:56, March 12, 2018 (UTC)

List of Moodlets (The Sims 4)Edit

Is there a reason why this page should be deleted in favour of Moodlet List (The Sims 4)? Even if this were the case, this page renaming/moving was done improperly; deleting "List of Moodlets (The Sims 4)" will result in attribution being lost for everyone who contributed to that page. Page moves should be done with the rename page function, not by copy-and-pasting. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 14:06, May 26, 2017 (UTC)

Well, I had to made a draft for the contribution taking part of reorganizing/splitting the table/article up into pieces like the template of List of Moodlets (The Sims 4) suggested, and thus Moodlet List (The Sims 4) was born? If you wish to not to delete it (with a valid reason), you can simply remove the nominated deleted template from there and move the information/reorganized version from my newly created page. (DrakonoSkerdikas (talk) 10:20, May 27, 2017 (UTC))

Drafts can (and should) be created in your userspace. This can be done by creating a page under the title User:DrakonoSkerdikas/<name of page you want to create a draft for>. For example, to create a draft for List of Moodlets (The Sims 4)/Life Status, you can create it at User:DrakonoSkerdikas/List of Moodlets (The Sims 4)/Life Status, and then move it over into the article namespace when you're done. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:59, May 27, 2017 (UTC)

I support everything k6ka has said. List of Moodlets (The Sims 4) has now been updated to the same monobook style as List of Moodlets (The Sims 3), so there is no reason for Moodlet List (The Sims 4) and its sub-pages to exist. Keeping Moodlet List (The Sims 4) would probably require renaming List of Moodlets (The Sims 3) as well, which would be some unnecessary work. Also, the majority of visitors are most likely going to search "List of moodlets" rather than "Moodlet list". - SimDestroyer (talk) 15:49, April 12, 2018 (UTC)

Benali family and Lobo familyEdit

These pages have been tagged for deletion with the rationale: "Single living Sims with no relatives don't need a family page."

Which brings up the question: Should single-Sim families have their own family page?

FWIW there's no harm in having the family page, as it provides a place to place the family bio (In previous games; not too sure about The Sims 4). Also, if the family gets expanded in the future, the family page already exists and doesn't need to be recreated. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 14:03, May 27, 2017 (UTC)

Im opposing deletion of the pages since we dont know the future of those families because there still a chance that ea will expand those families in future. I also think single-Sim families can have their own family page with the same reason too. Wiryawan310 (talk) 01:07, May 28, 2017 (UTC)
The reason why I tagged these pages for deletion is, that the family page and the sim page share the same information. Of course it can be changed, but still the family pages in my opinion shouldn't really exist. These two Sims don't have any relatives at all, and they are very unlikely to be expanded or featured in The Sims 5, unless they become very popular, like Don Lothario. There is single-living Sims in The Sims 3 that don't have family pages, and were never seemed to be even thought of having (Correct me if I'm wrong) and Johnny Zest does not have a family page, so why should these two Sims either? And the family bio has seemed to be put under the picture of the Sim (At least with Johnny Zest) because The Sims 4 does not have individual Sim bios. 85.29.96.107 (talk) 08:28, May 28, 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the anonymus poster before me and support deletion. Gvaudoin (talk) 14:59, March 12, 2018 (UTC)

Category:Creative SimsEdit

This category has only one member: Randy Hart, and that's about it. We don't have categories for Sims who merely have a high level in one skill, and we already have a category for Sims who mastered any kind of skill: Category:Sims who have mastered a skill. Right now the name is conflicting with Category:Creative Sims (trait); I suggest that "Category:Creative Sims" as it is now be cleared of its category members and the stuff over at "Category:Creative Sims (trait)" be moved over to this title. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:53, June 25, 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. I strongly support what has just been suggested here. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 00:04, June 26, 2017 (UTC)
I also support this deletion. - SimDestroyer (talk) 14:29, March 12, 2018 (UTC)

Template:TS4Traits and Template:TS4 traitsEdit

I have found two templates that have a list of traits from The Sims 4, and these templates are not completed, and seems to abandoned. Then I found Template:Sims4Traits. This template seems to be completed and ready for action, so those two templates that I have listed for deletion should be deleted as Template:Sims4Traits is much better and completed. SimDestroyer (talk) 15:37, June 28, 2017 (UTC)

Recreational park and MermaidsEdit

This page is just a copy of Park article, but lower quality. SimDestroyer (talk) 12:11, August 22, 2017 (UTC)

Added Mermaids article to this, as that one is also a low quality copy of Mermaid. SimDestroyer (talk) 11:01, August 23, 2017 (UTC)

I redirected Mermaids to Mermaid as an alternative to deletion. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 11:09, August 23, 2017 (UTC)
I vote to delete the recreational park article. ✨AireDaleDogz✨ (talk) 10:41, February 15, 2018 (UTC)
AireDaleDogz, this is a discussion, not a vote; your comments must include some reasoning as to why you made your decision. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 11:37, February 15, 2018 (UTC)
I'd just be restating what SimDestroyer said, though. It's a low-quality copy of the Park article. Is everyone supposed to come up with different reasons? ✨AireDaleDogz✨ (talk) 11:56, February 15, 2018 (UTC)

Various Get to Work SimsEdit

I nominate these following pages for deletion:

I'm very sure that all of these Sims only appear in The Gallery and not in any promotional material for The Sims 4: Get to Work. - SimDestroyer (talk) 14:38, March 12, 2018 (UTC)

I think you are right and therefore support deletion. When the page for Miss Hell was nominated for deletion I suggested that a way to establish relevance for articles about Gallery Sims would be to reference at least one piece of promotional material that features the Sim. (see Talk:Miss_Hell#Merge) Gvaudoin (talk) 15:15, March 12, 2018 (UTC)

I don't think your arguments are a good enough reason to warrant deletion. Are they playable in-game? Are they official Sims? If yes, that's good enough for inclusion on the wiki. Is there a specific reason as to why Sims that only appear in the gallery should not be given an article on the wiki? —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:18, March 12, 2018 (UTC)

Right, so as far as I can tell, all of these are artists whose songs were featured in the game or maybe one of the trailers. They were never actually seen in any way. The articles are also poor quality and don't provide much information besides character traits and appearance. Not even the names are constistent and there are no pictures. While MaxisCreator_01 uploads Sims that appeared in trailers and renders, they have also uploaded completely random stuff espectially in the beginning. Their latest upload is meant to showcase the Final Fantasy XV Outfit for example. Sims like these don't appear to have any relevance to the Sims universe and could simply be added to the List of Sims used in promotional materials but I don't even think they are relevant enough to be featured there since they never really appeared anywhere. I don't see any relevance at all to be honest. Gvaudoin (talk) 17:21, March 12, 2018 (UTC)
Wait, who is this "MaxisCreator_01" guy? Are they an official EA/Maxis account? If not, then the Sims listed here are little more than fanon Sims, and can be deleted (since MaxisCreator_01 doesn't seem to be on this wiki, unless Jackboog21 is MaxisCreator_01, which I highly doubt). —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 19:41, March 12, 2018 (UTC)
It's semi-official I think. The account is definitely controlled by SimGurus; see this tweet: https://twitter.com/SimGuruJM/status/930906630824140800 Some SimGurus have their own accounts too but not everything they upload does actually appear anywhere other than the gallery. Sometimes it's just random stuff they made. That's why I suggested there should be some relevance to the Sim universe to warrant an article. Gallery Sims like Babs L'Amour, Iggy Pancakes, or Jordan Mayer are featured heavily in trailers and on renders, have their own backstories and are connected to other Sims, and even appear on front cover art. But the ones that SimDestroyer nominated are just gallery uploads that were never used for anything. Gvaudoin (talk) 20:23, March 12, 2018 (UTC)

Career expansion comparisonsEdit

I have nominated Comparison between The Sims 2: Open for Business and The Sims 3: Ambitions and Comparison between The Sims 3: Ambitions and The Sims 4: Get to Work for deletion, as both have been combined into Comparison between work themed expansions. - SimDestroyer (talk) 15:14, April 2, 2018 (UTC)

Im strongly supporting deletion due to duplicates. Cheseburgermac (talk) 10:08, May 23, 2018 (UTC)

AtticEdit

This page was deleted before, but I didn't really remember think at all on how these deletions actually went. Sorry. But anyways, attics aren't actually a real build mode feature in The Sims 4, which this page seems to tell about. It's stub and there really isn't that much information that could be told. The only things that could be told are just "They can be build inside roofs, have objects and windows like in normal rooms, but the player has no control over on what the wall papers on the roof are." It is a stub and probably stays as a stub, without over exaggerating the length of the text of such small info, which wouldn't really be a great idea. - SimDestroyer (talk) 18:00, April 29, 2018 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand. Is the attic in TS4 significantly different from the attics you could create in TS2 or TS3? In those games, you can place objects underneath a roof, provided there's enough vertical clearance. If this is the case, I'd most likely lean towards keeping the article but re-writing it to not be TS4-specific. If this is something unique to TS4, I'd need to know more about it before I'd be able to for sure support keeping or deleting. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 03:49, April 30, 2018 (UTC)
No. Attics in The Sims 4 aren't that unique compared to normal rooms. The player just places objects underneath a roof. In fact, they're more restricted than normal rooms. - SimDestroyer (talk) 04:50, April 30, 2018 (UTC)

BusEdit

I found this page to be very unnecessary. It also appears to be a poor quality copy of the Carpool page, just about one type of carpool. IsaiahhsnobgIsaiahScribblenauts PlumbobDisscuss - My Fanon 13:01, May 18, 2018 (UTC)   

I'm talking about transportation in The Sims Bustin Out. Cheseburgermac (talk) 13:05, May 18, 2018 (UTC)
However, still isn't necessary, as it has the same usage of travel in the Sims 2, 3 and Life Stories IsaiahhsnobgIsaiahScribblenauts PlumbobDisscuss - My Fanon 13:07, May 18, 2018 (UTC)
I oppose deletion. Cheseburgermac (talk) 13:10, May 18, 2018 (UTC)
Also, too late, since another user redirected it to Carpool. IsaiahhsnobgIsaiahScribblenauts PlumbobDisscuss - My Fanon 13:11, May 18, 2018 (UTC)
The information about the bus from the console games can be added to the carpool article. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 13:14, May 18, 2018 (UTC) 
I would like that. Cheseburgermac (talk) 13:15, May 18, 2018 (UTC)
Soooo... end of discussion. The page is a redirect now. IsaiahhsnobgIsaiahScribblenauts PlumbobDisscuss - My Fanon 14:46, May 18, 2018 (UTC)
Just one point of clarification (as I don't have any of the console games): is the bus functionally identical to the carpool, or does it use different gameplay mechanics? I would consider it functionally identical to the carpool if it shows up in front of a Sim's house to take them to/form work/school; if it is, say, like an actual public transit service where Sims can wait at a bus stop for scheduled buses to come and pick them up, then it could go into its own article. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 14:41, May 19, 2018 (UTC) yes I guess it could be moved to the carpool page. Why it's just like a carpool. 
Thanks,Cheseburgermac (talk) 09:57, May 23, 2018 (UTC)

School bus Edit

useless redirect page. Cheseburgermac (talk) 22:06, May 18, 2018 (UTC)

Eh, not really. There is no harm in keeping such a redirect alive, as some users/visitors could search for "school bus". With having this redirect, they would be directed to the carpool page. No need to delete it. - SimDestroyer (talk) 22:10, May 18, 2018 (UTC)
I strongly appose the deletion due to the same reasons stated by SimDestroyer. IsaiahhsnobgIsaiahScribblenauts PlumbobDisscuss - My Fanon 00:27, May 19, 2018 (UTC)

No seriously Cheseburgermac, please stop joking. What's your rationale for nominating this page for deletion? —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 03:16, May 19, 2018 (UTC)

I strongly oppose because this was a mistake on my behalf. Cheseburgermac (talk) 10:06, May 23, 2018 (UTC)

Category:Sims named after real people Edit

This is a duplicate category of one that already exists. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 17:31, May 20, 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if this is how the categories are used, but you could argue that "named after real people" and "based on real people" don't mean the same thing. You could make a Sim that resembles and has the same characteristics as a real-life person, but give that Sim a completely different name, or you could create a Sim with the same name as a real-life person but give them differing characteristics. Like I said, I don't know how the categories are actually used in practice, but I don't know that the two are mutually inclusive. -- LostInRiverview talk · blog · contribs 17:37, May 20, 2018 (UTC)
Wouldn't it seem that all Sims "named after real people" are also "based on real people"? For instance we don't know what Julius Caesar looked like exactly in real life, yet the Sim version of him is definitely both named and based on the real person. Of course, the difference between "named after" and "based on" would need to be defined first. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 19:08, May 20, 2018 (UTC)
I strongly oppose because of the reasons stated by lost in Riverview. Cheseburgermac (talk) 09:59, May 23, 2018 (UTC)

Template:TeenEdit

This "infobox" template has no real parameters and seems to have been created by mistake. Additionally I think we should just make it a speedy deletion criteria so we can delete these erroneous templates without having to go through this venue. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:31, May 21, 2018 (UTC)

This does fall under speedy deletion criteria: (1) Reposted content that was already deleted according to policy. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 11:52, May 22, 2018 (UTC)
I support the deletion, for the same reasons that I said regarding the Sim maker template. - SimDestroyer (talk) 17:10, May 22, 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I support deletion. I do have to the same reasons that I had for the Sim maker template. Plus, this one might have been made by mistake since no parameter but the defaults were made. IsaiahhsnobgIsaiahScribblenauts PlumbobDisscuss - My Fanon 12:10, May 23, 2018 (UTC)
if it's in Speedy deletion criteria why don't we put the template  on there? Cheseburgermac (talk) 10:03, May 23, 2018 (UTC)
I also support deletion as the infobox doesn't have a good appearance in comparison to the {{Sim}} infobox and it doesn't appear to be of any use to the wiki as it seems to have been made by accident and I don't particularly want another Sim maker type infobox on the wiki. Daryurian (The Mighty Turian) 08:27, May 24, 2018 (UTC)

Romerjon17productions.comEdit

Inviting Auror Andrachome to explain why she thinks this page should be nominated for deletion here. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 19:25, June 2, 2018 (UTC)

Template:AriesEdit

Again, appears to be a template created in error. I'm starting to wonder if the interface for new users is so confusing that they wind up creating these useless infoboxes (which would be a problem on Wikia/FANDOM's end). —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 18:40, June 3, 2018 (UTC)