Talk:The Sims 2/Archive 1

message: "seventh and an eighth aspiration, the Pleasure and Grilled Cheese aspirations"
I have seen the seventh in nightlife, but I haven't seen the eighth; is this a hidden aspiration, or  subtle vandalism? --Quantum Burrito 01:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's real; it's hidden in the aspiration-change thingamajig in the Nightlife expansion pack. It's an aspiration reward and if you use it below gold aspiration, there's a chance it will fry your sim's brain and will make your sim a Grilled Cheese sim. :) :: DarkLordSeth 01:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have got to try that! --Quantum Burrito 01:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Grilled Cheese

message: What are the guidelines on submitting game screenshots? are they entangled by copyright?
:This has been extensively covered elsewhere, but game screenshots are covered under fair use.  I think Maxis stamps each screenshot (if you use the built-in "photo" utility) with a "Sims" logo, but we can use them here.  If you like, you can even crop out the logo and just use a portion of the screenshot.  But if you do upload an image, make sure to mark it with the  tag.
:Next, please sign your posts.  You can do this with either 3 or 4 tildes. ~~~ signs your name and ~~~~ signs your name and also leaves a timestamp.  Either is fine, but the latter is usually preferred. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:14, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
:Just make sure you add .
::Screenshots taken in-game with the photo utility do not have the Sims logo on them.  -- asciident 16:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Screenshot copyrights

message: I removed that ickle "few bugs" tidbit because I can see where TS2 is going: Right down the EA-rushed-release-with-many-bugs debacle-lane in a handbasket. Expect the patch at the beginning of the holiday season. Only it will be called an "Expansion Pack" and you'll have to shell out 50 bucks for it. Never buy EA products. Either you screw them over or they screw you over by taking your money, giving you a lousy unfinished product and treating you like poo afterwards. DarkLordSeth 23:17, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "few bugs" 

message: Maybe we should move the "Bugs" section to a new Wikipedia article, because the section is so long and actually has very little to do with the actual game itself. Any thoughts?
Bbhtryoink 21:18, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving the "Bugs" section to a separate article 

message: If the game has a more-than-average amount of bugs, you can mention it.
Describing every little bug is not an encyclopedia's job and therefore shouldn't occur.
Most games have bugs, hence there has to be a lot of them that it should even be mentioned they exist.
* Made a compromise. Bugs are mentioned and VERY briefly explained. Will probably add some links to resources soon, but right now, I simply don't feel like looking up the external links. Anyways, hope this makes all parties involved happy. Also, pretty please sign and timestamp your posts by adding ~~~~ ( 4 tilde characters ) to any comments on talk page. It will look like this: DarkLordSeth 00:46, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we perhaps make it a subarticle? I hate to lose all that detail. Everyking 00:48, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: * See above discussion, item nr. 5. I don't like to see all the details go as well, considering I put quite some time in them as well, but I think it's for the best to briefly touch the subject only. The whole bug-handling and solving issue is not encyclopedic IMHO and, more importantly, it's EA/Maxis' damn job. They have a support department and I don't think that'd be us. I suggest someone puts up a link to the TS2 bbs, where the best solutions to the most recent bugs can be found. Those people are far more "on top of things" then we are, I presume. :: DarkLordSeth 01:10, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bugs 

message: Take a look at the information and screenshots here: http://ds.ign.com/articles/605/605207p1.html
----
: I know. It sure is awesome. I am going to get it on Nintendo DS and possibly PlayStation 2 or GameCube. I already have this game on PC.  • Thorpe • 08:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awesome! Nintendo DS Version 

message: This article is experiencing what I call "link creep"—extern links that are added little by little until the Extern links section becomes a bog of too many sites to be useful to anyone.  I suggest we add a banner that's been used in other articles I participate in.  The banner is an HTML comment so it's only visible to users who try to add a site.  It looks something like this:
:
Then, if anyone adds their pet site without discussing it first, it can be reverted with no remorse.  Truly useful links can still be discussed and added if needed.  It's greatly helped reduce clutter in other articles it's been used in.  What does everyone else think? — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:00, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
* Ah, we can revert without remorse anyways. In fact, if possible, I would like to add naval bombardment and airstrikes without remorse to that list. Anyways, there are quite a few sites in the list already that are nice and decent, yet add little to no content other then the standard info, a basic community and perhaps a small number of original items. This is is not a website directory, though. The HTML comment would be a nice warning, but I somehow doubt people will bother to read it... Still, I suggest we do it. :: DarkLordSeth 18:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Link creep

message: I know this has come up before, but I propose to nix the entire "Community and fan sites" subsection of this article.  Wikipedia is not a link farm, which is exactly what that entire section of the article has turned into.  Links to fan sites and such can be hosted on a Sims fan site—it's not our job to list every friggin' Sims 2 website on the planet.  We should assume our users know how to use Google.  In addition, posting links to fan sites is against Wikipedia policy.  If there is a directory of a huge number of sites out there, that is permissible, but listing them all here is not.  Any objections? — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:01, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
:It's becoming awful to look at that endless list of links, with some websites that aren't even remotely well-known. Kill it. :: DarkLordSeth 16:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've trimmed the list of links and put up a simple link to the DMOZ website directory instead. That should do it for now, at least. I've salvaged the remains of the links, gonna write them down here just for those of you who are interested. :: DarkLordSeth 16:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Simlogical should be added to the links, as it's mentioned in the article. :: Dominie 11:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trim the links

message: First off, I think this section is unencyclopedic.  We could just give short(er) summaries, but it's grown past that.  Next, the whole section addresses the reader: contrary to wiki-standard.  Lastly, one user just added a really poorly formatted section to the section, which makes it look worse than it already did.  Normally, I address these things myself, but seeing how I oppose the section anyway, I couldn't fix it in good concience. — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Buggy bugs

message: What, exactly, is the AFLC rating?  Who uses it?  It's not mentioned anywhere in the latest Game Developer magazine article that discusses rating systems.  Is it really by the Association of Free Lutheran Congregations?  If so, who cares about it?  It is completely a niche rating and should be eliminated.  We're trying to write an article to the broad audience, many of whom are probably not Lutheran (nor Satanists).  Googling for AFLC I only got hits for the Association of Free Lutheran Congregations and nothing for video games. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: AFLC rating?

message: Damn they get dirty not for kids! --MaoJin 16:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, mind explaining how this is relevant in discussing changes for this article? ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 18:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the sexual content should be listed... --MaoJin 19:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fell free to mention it in the article then. I'm not full clear which part of the game you are refering to. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 18:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: you thought wrong unless you were using user made skins. Those are not included in the game. --Crossmr 04:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sexual Content

message: I'm considering removing the 'Farmlife' section, as there hasn't been any official proof (that I know of) of this expansion. Can anyone prove me wrong, or is it safe to remove? PlatformerMastah 04:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Farmlife?

message: Remember, you can also write guides about the game in the Sims 2 section of this article. Improvements and additions are welcome! ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 09:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Sims 2'' in Wikibooks 

message: "Bella Goth
Bella Goth, the wife of Mortimer Goth in The Sims, is absent from the family when the game begins, as it is revealed she was abducted by aliens. A missing person's photograph of her appears on milk cartons seen while preparing some foods, but she can also be found as a townie in Strangetown without her memory of her old residence and family, as well as aboard the hot air balloon seen floating over any neighborhood where that decoration is placed. Several family photo albums also reveal her past actions prior to her alien abduction." Bella is not actually the woman in the hot air baloon, that is a 2-d charecter from the Sims Hot Date. The man with her is another Hot Date NPC. 207.200.116.9 20:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it IS Bella in the hot air balloon with a Hot Date NPC. I think you are confusing her with the Blonde Bombshell from Hot Date. I checked the hot air balloon out before and it is definitely Bella, not the Blonde Bombshell. --70.28.20.10 06:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bella Error

message: not true, if it were there would be simmers dancing in the streets. I think it is someones wishful thinking.Sqityl 22:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparanetly there is some evidence that it is comming from the 2006 E3 event. Screenshots from here: http://www.thesiddog.com/e3/e32006blog_day1_pets.html show pets with Sims in an animation at the EA booth. This is currently reflected in the article. Robovski 01:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pet business? 

message: The list of fansites is getting very long again.  Shouldn't we just trim it to some of the bigger ones, such as TSR (which isn't even on the list) and MTS2?  We could just link to the Google Directory for the others. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do it. Wikipedia is not a respository of links, and some of them appear like attempts to advertise a site. I suggest that any website not within The Sims Resource's or ModTheSims2's level of notability should be removed, period. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 20:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've taken out all of them except for TSR (which I added), MTS2, and the Ultimate Sims List.  The Ultimate Sims List should have most of the links, so I kept it. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why was world sims left under the fourms and BBS link? There are hundreds of sims sites that contain forums, and I see nothing special about that place. Its not an official forum.Crossmr 16:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I missed those.  I was only looking in the Fansites section. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Axe the fansites! 

message: This section was mostly biased self-defense, apparently from a member of the mentioned "BBS Mafia". With that removed, the remainder didn't make for much controversy at all, and was unsourced to boot. As we used to say so long ago, *plonk*!Eaglizard 06:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or at leaste, the second part was written by a BBS 'mobster'. --Briar Rose 21:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't written by a BBS mafia member. The very notion is absurd. The second half where policies and methods were further explored was written by me.A person who has been on both BBS's for awhile. All of it is verifiable in the BBS's own rules section and observable if you spend more than ten minutes on the BBS. Wikipedia is here to give a balanced perspective on everything. The Sims 2 BBS shouldn't be exempt from this. I'm sorry that you don't agree. But you have proven me right: Members of the BBS don't want anything bad said about it and refuse to accept the truth of the BBS' more absurd rules and Simmasters. I will re-add my comments because I feel they are warranted or I will start a new section focusing solely on the BBS. I hope that others will add or constructively edit my comments to help provide a fair and balanced view of the SIms 2 BBS.
Aladia 14:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: please reply appropriately, putting in those bogus = symbols created a new section --Crossmr 18:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: no problem, to do so, enter a space if you like and use the colons it will step in to keep a more threaded view. --Crossmr 21:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Website Controversy 

message: Its a daily occurance that we're getting someone who can't spell or form a sentence who tries to add pointless information during E3.  The latest was a list of possible features Maxis might possibly reveal possibly after E3.  I think this article should be locked to only allow edits by non-new accounts for the duration. --Crossmr 07:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock this page during E3 

message: I think the article is getting a little bit too cluttered up; and I know the EP's are a major part of the Sims 2, don't get me wrong, but I think we need some more organization. And I also don't mean seperate pages for each expansion pack/stuff pack; just one page for all of them. Any thoughts about this?
: The expansion packs and stuff packs have thier own pages already. The decription in the Sims 2 article should be at most a short description containing the most salient points. This could be changed into a general overview of the packs and a list of links to the relevant articles. Robovski 03:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page just for EP's and Stuff packs? 

message: There's a Sims 2 site done as a wiki. It's like a wikipedia of the sims 2, modding it, fan sites, etc. Its still being populated, though. Should we added it to the external links section?
:It is an off-shoot of Mod The Sims 2 if anything a small paragraph could be added there. --Crossmr 17:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sims 2 Wiki 

message: OK, over in The Sims 2: Family Fun Stuff I'd like to avoid an edit war and get some outside opinions re: an edit I've brough up for discussion on the related Talk page. I figure the folk here would be the best fit and the most experienced in the matter. You assistance is appreciated. Robovski 21:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion Pack criticisms

message: Continuing to add controversial material without discussing it first can and usually ends up being seen as vandalism. I've left several notes on your talk page which you have not responded to. --Crossmr 22:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jordan199311