Talk:The Sims Online

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Video games (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wrong company infos ![edit]

Maxis is dead since they are in EA, since 2007 the Maxis logo was removed from The Sims franchise ! It's no longer Maxis but it's EA Games only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Code Red?[edit]

The Sims Online is currently in a zone of 'Code Red'. This means that The Sims online has less players than it did earlier, due to extreme botting Cheat programs in which causes players to stop playing. See below under 'economy' for more on the issue.

The sentences above are not structured very well and when did this 'Code Red' phenomenon start? I've never heard of it (I've heard of the cheating, but have not heard of it being referred to as 'Code Red'). Would someone mind clarifying and editing this information? --Funnykidrian 20:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Simolean selling is not illegal, while botting is illegal. Stratics, while the official message boards, bans people from posting, and allows others to scam in the Swap Meet section. I do not think it should be listed, and think that Stratics is basically unfair, since many moderators believe they run the game, when in fact, all they do is play it. They have an unfair influence on the game, which is why I removed it from the External Links. --DaKing 20:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I do know that. But also, since Stratics is the only news source for The Sims Online, I feel it needs to stay in the site section. --Smuznikrovf 22:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I added the "references" template. This has some STRONG allegations of illegal activity (Child prostitution? Mafia rule?) without any articles as "back-up."

lol look into the map of the game you will see strong mafia. most of the child invole in child prostitiution left the game i'm not sure i use to play the game but then left the game due to EA/Maxis poor business pratice. but it is true tho there is strong mafia rule there.

Okay - so find a news or reference source that indicates mafia rule, cite it, and remove the references template. --Thoughtfix 23:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Opinion (on the scandal)[edit]

I don't really think the scandal should even be part of this discussion anymore. He doesn't play the game anymore, and he never did anything good for the game. He spread bad publicity for The Sims Online in order to make himself popular. He violated the Terms of Service, which is the real reason why he was banned. There is no secret agenda, and there is no scandal. Many people are banned on a weekly basis for breaking the rules, and he was just 1 person who did this. Yet, he made a stink, and got airtime from the wonderful newspapers in the world who didn't have enough murders to cover the headlines with, hence the "TSO scandal." Can we drop this crap, and talk about the game, the updates, and concentrate on TSO as a game, and even avoid the Stratics groupies and the same people getting the spotlight, over and over again. - --DaKing 20:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Release date[edit]

The article states that it was both released in November of 2002 and December of 2002. Which is it? Frecklefoot | Talk 20:17, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

There were a string of "Open Betas" for the program, with the last one occuring in November 2002. On Thanksgiving they wiped all the servers, and restarted with a 1 week free open pre-release. The game was officially released to stores in December, with the free pre-release ending in January 2003. At that point anybody that did not purchase the game had their account suspended. Mushrom (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This subject should be addressed in greater depth (for example, what kind of criminality was discovered?) A link to the story would be a good start. Cohen the Bavarian 21:32, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My guess is that the scandal(s) referred to are the much publicized exposures of professor Peter Ludlow, which first hit the big news in The New York Times on January 15 2004, I believe. Ludlow has put a wealth of material on his internet site including links to other sources, so that might be one relevant link to include. -Morten R. Sorensen 14 Apr 2005

There is now nothing on the allegations of impropriety in the article. This is unacceptable for wikipedia, if you ask me.

Some subjective thoughts on the "Scandal" part[edit]

I won't, at least as of yet, try to suggest an actual edit of the Scandal part of this article, but I do feel like adding some comments I feel relevant to take into consideration.

The article ends with the statement, "As of yet Maxis's only response has been to ban the researchers from the game." This is, to the best of my knowledge, accurate. However, while at a quick glance it looks fairly objectively phrased, my feel is that it could come bring across a feeling that there's something suspicious about Maxis' silence, the more so because of the use of the word "researchers" which is likely to create an image of scientists conducting unbiased investigation in many minds. While Ludlow has beyond any doubt carried out much investigation right down to actually involving himself in the game, questions may certainly be raised about his bias. This is not intended as a criticism of Ludlow who has every right to promote his own agenda, just a reminder that he certainly has one of those, and that any mention of his work here ought to reflect that. That agenda, simply put, is trying to force Maxis to impose a much higher level of censorship onto the game than it currently employs, particularly when it comes to controversial sexual themes played out through game characters, e.g. prostitution and sado-masochism. (Recently he has directed his efforts to another on-line game, which is reflected in a change of title of his site, though, suggesting to me that he finds "worse" things going on there.) It should be noticed that Ludlow clearly acknowledges that he does have a cause, in that the motto of his site is the charmingly humorous motto, "Always fairly unbalanced".

A neat little irony in the whole matter is that Ludlow and his fellow critics of Maxis have made a public issue out of their demand for censorship is being censored by Maxis, in that Maxis is supposed to "go after" any linking to the Alphaville Herald site internally in the game and affiliated sites. They also often claim that Maxis is catching them on technicalities when trying to hush them up, the technicality in the question mentioned being that the Alphaville Herald links to ways of hard-to-catch game cheating, which is clearly against Maxis' interest to promote; the more so as the internal in-game money is now being traded for real money on sites like e-bay. This, of course, is makes Ludlow see the internal TSO money as a fully-fledged real currency, and fuels his claims that what may be seen as a game representation of prostitution by players is indeed real prostitution.

The above comments made by a user who wasn't trying to hide in anonymity, but as a new contributor forgot to log in, for which he begs forgiveness. Morten R. Sorensen 17:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mafia section is misleading[edit]

The information on there appears to say that nothing has been done to combat the Mafia gangs in The Sims Online. This is untrue, seeing as Maxis/EA has changed the way friendship webs worked. There is also a sentence saying that illegal activities occur, which I personally do not see. If they mean the Terms of Service, it should state so, otherwise it is misleading. Zachnorn 10:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Copyvio[edit]

I removed a huge chunk of copied info from the page, copied from here. -Localzuk (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sims Online in Wikibooks[edit]

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

Recent Edits[edit]

I think the following part should be revised/removed from the Overview section:

The Sims Online has been completely ignored by the EA/Maxis Staff. There have been no updates since 2005. The game's economy has hit an all time low and the population is at the bare minimum to even keep a server open for.

Although there have not been significant updates to the game for a while, various contests are still being held by EA (i.e. the recent TSO Jokes Contest - see the TSO website on Stratics for details). --Funnykidrian 05:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Large Edit[edit]

I've finished a large edit that used the information present in the article and attempted to make it easier to read/comprehend. Let me know if anyone figures out what the "group money objects" is meant to be, I bulldozed over at least a few of those in the process, then gave up near the end. My excuse is that I have a cold today. --Mr.Bunny 18:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "group money objects" are the money-making objects that you could only use in a group. For example, in order to operate a pizza-making oven, exactly four players need to use the oven. If they are successful at making a pizza, all four players are paid a certain amount of simoleans (the currency in the game). --Funnykidrian 06:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newer TSO Developments[edit]

Developers of the sims online are currently revamping major parts of the system (allowing custom content, reworking much of the game code, improving graphics, etc.) I, personally, this that this should be mentioned somewhere in the article. Anyone with a firm understanding of whats being revamped willing to contribute?

Ts1and2fanatic (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of controversy at all?[edit]

Seriously this page reads like half-assed ad copy. No mention whatsoever of the presence of organized crime rings, extortion rackets, child prostitution rings, etc. This game is one of the most infamous in online gaming for this kind of thing, and yet the article seems to have been deliberately sanitized in it's entirety, right down to every last statement making a point to cite the lead developer. This seems frankly irresponsible. -- (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence? Sources? -Localzuk(talk) 22:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sims Online was a rather short lived phenomenon. Starting shortly before Second Life, within 6 months it saw it's population decline sharply. This was due to the graphics rapidly growing outdated (based on The Sims 1 graphics). Plus many of the features that were promised were either very delayed in their release (jobs), or never really completed.

I played the game, and there were no real prostitution rings, or extortion. Yes there was sex, but compared to Second Life, it is cartoonish and comical. And with the ability to ban "griefers", the mafias were never as fearsome as they wanted to believe. And considering the game is gone now, it is rather pointless to mention thingsthat were never a major issue. Mushrom (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


That is not the official logo, is it? I thought the official one is that really gaudy one with all the colors?

I could of sworn this is user made and was posted on the Stratics TSO board... if that is the case, it should clearly be taken down and replaced with the real one. (talk) 20:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Product name is written wrong[edit]

EA Land is written everywhere, including the official website, as "EA-Land". I suggest we move it to the official name of "EA-Land" instead of "EA Land". Agree?

-Smiley Barry [USER] [TALK] [SL] 22:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheat Codes?[edit]

Are there chaet cdes for ealand and how do you get monet on it on the begining Save The HumansTalk :) 23:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no cheat codes, and the only way to get money is to get a job. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a site that gives guides to playing games. Jammy (talk) 08:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EA Land will be closed[edit]

EA Land will be closed... --José Roberto A. JR. (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this page[edit]

I have fixed the article and talk page histories along with associated redirects which were messed up by multiple page moves. If this page needs to be moved again please feel free to carry out, however please do not make copy and paste moves, use the move button. Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more game information[edit]

This entry doesn't give much in the way of what the game actually *IS*. There's far too much focus on the game shutting down than how the game got started, why it failed, and comparison to other Sims games. -- (talk) 05:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sims Online[edit]

Sims Online was a virtual world in which you could visit other peoples' lots and even build your own if you wanted to, just like in the standalone version only it had 1 speed and you could chat to other people.

In its early days most lots were pretty much the same large meta homes which would have everything in them from money making equipment to slot machines to kitchens and even beds.

EA eventually implemented a design feature for players to select what type of home they wanted like work places, entertainment, living quarters, or romance, and the type of furnishings would then be limited to the type chosen. This was to force variety into the lots so that not all lots were the same meta homes. Instead it resulted in a large number of lots being either work places or online brothels, strip clubs, and even crack houses.

Much of the game fell due to the perverse nature of its players and to game exploits. It developed an unofficial name Sex Online as it became overrun with online brothels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name change/closure section[edit]

I propose moving this closer to the end, if no one objects...makes little sense (to me, anyway) to start off the article talking about the game's demise.--Susan118 talk 21:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TSO Restoration Project[edit]

There is a project currently dedicated to bringing TSO back on a private server. This is relevant to the topic of The Sims Online so I have added it. It has a verified reference. If anyone has any objections, please discuss here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GhostV (talkcontribs) 19:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

X-Fi6 You are a former Developer for the said project. You have been one since October and I'm sure have seen the update to this Wiki relating to the project before June 9th. You have left the project on bad terms and only decided to edit the page after your departure. -This makes me conclude that your objection to the properly placed and sited mention of a private server is bias and not motivated on the best interests of the Wiki.

I'll edit it back to what it was before (which has gone un-objected by third party observers since it's creation) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syndicat0 (talkcontribs) 23:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't help the "negative stance" you might associate me with after being booted from the team. But the aim of Wikipedia isn't to present the user with "relevant" content, but encyclopedic relevant content. This 3rd-party TSORestoration team hasn't provided a drop of working progress, especially not to public eyes, so how can they be notable enough to belong in the historical summary of The Sims Online? What significance do these freelance programmers hold on the overview of the game this article brushes, The Sims Online?

    To clarify, I'm not against the website's mention in the article, but I am if it's in the article's summary. X-Fi6 (talk) 04:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


My objection to your edit was that anything you put is bias. Your recent statement proves that. As for your claims that they are insignificant to the importance of "The Sims Online" simply due to lack of progress, there has been releases of trial clients on the website along with YouTube videos on their channel.

It is clear that your editing is extremely bias and malicious. I only ask that you revert the edit back to it's original state where it has been uncontested by third party observers. Please allow any further edit to be done only by a third party observer. This is a reasonable request to maintain the legitimacy of the Wiki. The mention of a private server in development is extremely relevant and in no way unusual for other online game articles to have such in the historical summary. Please find a more productive way to spend your time.

On a personal note, I don't have a "negative stance" towards you - I don't know you, I just know you're extremely bias and your editing of this article is proven to be maliciously intended due to the timing and your affiliation (formerly) with the said content in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syndicat0 (talkcontribs) 04:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Personal background shouldn't have any effect on deciding whether the content you push is biased or not. Not on the one wiki the world depends on, that anybody can edit, anonymous or not. So I wonder if we can get a Wikipedia mod/admin to close the case on this issue, since I know I'm right. You can't just advertise "Hurr durr I'm bringing back The Sims Online here's this menu I made in GameMaker to prove it" and, essentially, be put in the opening paragraph in the textbooks.

    Remember, Wikipedia is a website that anybody can edit. Having a personal affiliation with a topic isn't enough to even let you add content without citations. You argue that because my personal background causes me to be biased, it directly makes the edits I make "malicious" (as you put it) and not worth considering.

    Whatever the case, a third opinion, unaffiliated with the website, on deciding the most appropriate location for the mentioning of this website's efforts, would be helpful. X-Fi6 (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just one more thing: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Other similar "projects" you cite which made it to the articles of other online games have delivered their promises. But we have no working date of when TSO Restoration will be relevant to the reader. X-Fi6 (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion?[edit]

I'm not quite sure what the dispute is about. If private individuals are set on trying to resurrect the game in their own time and this is supported by reliable sources then it deserves a quick mention. But unless these amateur/independent developers played a defining role in the Sims Online there is simply no case to include their actions in the lead or the body. WikifanBe nice 07:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per the third opinion, I believe placing the project's mention in the Name change and closure body paragraph will improve the quality of the article. I'll wait 24 hours to give Syndicat0 time to respond. X-Fi6 (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- X-Fi6, I simply requested that you leave the article along with any further edits to be done by a third party. The fact that you only choose to edit the article (after it was left the way it was for a six month period of time, in which you have viewed it without contesting it's relevance) shows that whatever you're doing is not in the best interest of improving the article but rather based on your personal feelings.

I believe that, former players of The Sims Online would benefit from the easy, properly cited and properly mentioned existence of a private server under works. This is probably something that would have a significant impact on any reader of this Wikipedia page and deserves a primary mention in the summary. The fact that a community of over 3000 users, former The Sims Online players now exists due to it's mention on the Wikipedia article is a testament to the importance of this project on the now retired game.

The establishment of a private server is completely irrelevant to "name change and closure" of the game. It shouldn't be hidden in the bottom of the article in a category completely unrelated to the topic. I'd also like to point out that your intentions are not for the benefit of the "wiki" but rather a malicious effort to try and hide the existence of the project due to your own new found personal feelings towards it. If your goal is to make wiki a better encyclopedia, than having an easy to find reference point for something that would mean a lot to users who view the page makes logical sense. Stop making changes for things that don't need to be changed and no one worried about before you were removed from the team on bad terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syndicat0 (talkcontribs) 02:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • How does the statement, "We're bringing back the game", mean anything? I can see how powerful it is in your eyes, as it's you who holds personal feelings about the project, not I. As I've said: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The project offers nothing to the table at the moment to warrant its inclusion in the article, yet your stance on its inclusion in the article is that "it'll eventually get there". First of all, anybody can make dramatic statements, but they don't belong in the opening paragraph of an encyclopedia. Second, quoting Wikipedia:

Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented.

Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors.

Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate.

Again, no matter how important you think their notion that they'll one day bring back the game is, it is best left out of the article (out of the lead-in) until it happens. Thanks. X-Fi6 (talk) 02:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few last comments before I make the edit:
  • The website does not have 3,000 users. Only 500 of them have actually made a single post. You won't believe how many spam posts we had to delete every day, while, get this, the administrators never deleted the spam accounts. (500 and even 3,000 people are hardly notable, anyway. Do Facebook groups ever land on Wikipedia?)
  • An administrator of Wikipedia has in the past removed the link to TSO Restoration. Link
Again, I'm fine with the link, but the link belongs as "further information" once the reader has read the gist of the actual game.
X-Fi6 (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're clearly very passionate about this issue! I'm sure it has absolutely NOTHING to do with your feelings towards the project. That is why you choose to edit article immediately after being removed from the team. Not a day before! Fun fact: The last registered user ID on the website on their profile URL is: 4203, the website claims to have 3707 registered users at this time. 496 spam accounts have been deleted and every new spam account that has been discovered is flagged as a spammer and promptly deleted from the database. I'm sure the administrators can verify this. OH.. also: The Administrator removed the direct link, not the mention of the project which was properly cited by a respected reference. We're very fortunate to have such dedicated individuals looking out for the best interests of improving The Sims Online Wiki article. Keep up the good work, hero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syndicat0 (talkcontribs) 22:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not worth arguing anymore. You back your original reasoning (importance of the project's claim which has no clear date for finish, size of the userbase—with 500->3000= 500% extrapolation—, the belief that bias makes edits automatically nonconstructive) each time you respond now, when they've been refuted. I'm here to protect Wikipedia. You're here to advertise. And posting the link there in the lead-in is advertising because the website isn't notable, which I've covered above. If you still believe otherwise, you can follow these steps.
Here is the summary of the dispute:

You're biased because you were banned from the website. Your edits are not in the interests of Wikipedia.
Personal background does not have effect on deciding whether the content you push is nonconstructive. Wikipedia is a website that anybody can edit, anonymous or under a pseudonym. The edit must itself change the point of view of the article and/or constitute a negative change to the quality of the article for it to be considered malicious. One only then considers the *cause* of that malicious edit (for none other than curiosity), and whether or not it was the source of a bias.

TSO Restoration is notable because they are doing a big thing.
Making a statement is not a big thing.

Making the statement is notable to the reader because regardless of its future, the project means a lot to the reader.
The aim of Wikipedia isn't just to present the reader with "relevant" content, but *encyclopedic* relevant content. You can't just advertise "Hurr durr I'm bringing back The Sims Online here's this menu I made in GameMaker to prove it" and, essentially, be put in the opening paragraph in the textbooks. For the statement to have any relevance, it must quite clearly demonstrate that it will serve what it says at a predetermined time, with chance of delay or failure at next to none. The reason for this is that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Writing that the project "could" succeed is inappropriate.

TSO Restoration, regardless of if they succeed or fail, has lots of people signed up in high hopes, making the project very notable.
3,000 is an exaggerated figure because spambots are not deleted in the database. Only around 500 users were found to have made at least one post. Regardless, 40 people's death on Flight 93 makes the event notable. Even a million people who "joined" a Facebook group does not make it notable for inclusion on Wikipedia.

I believe TSO Restoration is 'too big to fail', due to the large size of its userbase.
TSO Restoration is a group of freelance programmers. We can trust a corporation like Microsoft to do what they claim for the future. And if they fail or had been lying to public, the failure or lie itself would be enough to make for its article on Wikipedia because of its shock value. (For example, WinFS, PlayStation Network outage.) We cannot expect a group of programmers to do this "in their free time" "for no money in return", to quote the only publically accessible page on the private website. Therefore, informing the user of this would be a crystal ball statement.

The fact that the team is at work, possibly hard at work, at bringing the game back, itself plays no defining role in The Sims Online. It cannot be promoted to the lead-in paragraph of the article. In the same manner, it does not deserve a dedicated section in the article. The Name change and closure explains to the reader what's happened from the time of closure and onwards. Here, making a notice that there is a team of programmers doing something to bring the game back suffices, at least to resolve the question, "what's the community doing?".

X-Fi6 (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I did make such claims, I do not speak on behalf of TSO Restoration but only as another concerned Wikipedia user. The wording and interpretation is also different from everything I said.
I am proposing that your editing was based on personal feelings which is why I asked that you don't edit this article. You can argue that you're allowed to edit and lie about how this all for the "good of Wikipedia" but you and I both know that this edit was done immediately after you were removed from the team - making it malicious, bias and pointless. The fact that you choose to spend this much energy on taking the mention of the potential private server off the article summary NOW, instead of the six-month period of time when you've seen the article before and done nothing proves this.
The fact of the matter is, this mention would be better in the summary and not in "name change and closure." You're not the sole authority of Wikipedia, it is not your place to say that "it is not worth arguing anymore." Good encyclopedic content is one that is filled with as much verified facts as possible and placed correctly. This mention meets all the criteria, there was no claim that you project would be successful, only a mention that the project was in existence. For people interested in The Sims Online, having it easily viewable in a correctly placed area of the article would enhance Wikipedia. Life, like Wikipedia rules, are not black and white. If your intention is really to provide this specific article with relevant encyclopedia content, you'll stop spending your time trying to remove it from it's uncontested place previous to you leaving the team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syndicat0 (talkcontribs) 18:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It doesn't matter my intentions. Your passion to advertise the website in the lead-in is obvious and doing so reduces the quality of the article. Also, my wording and interpretation is a summary of everything you brought up to put reason into putting the advert in the lead-in. You can't turn around now, saying "That's not what I said".

    I said that it wasn't worth arguing anymore because you had exhausted all your reasons and started to reuse them. I've answered them.

    Finally, placing the mention in the lead-in won't help Wikipedia because it brings NOTHING to The Sims Online, as of yet, and it will be completely irrelevant in that location. Placed in the correct category, it seems "buried in the article" to you because you only hope for lots and lots of people to see it, rather than caring for the interests of the actual article. X-Fi6 (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • After just a quick glace at what is going on, I agree with X-Fi6. It is not notable enough for the lead, if at all for the article. Maybe if it gets closer to release, or the development of it gets significant coverage. Also, please calm down, both of you. This is just a Wikipedia article. According to the stats, 450 people read the article per day. It really doesn't matter. I think BOTH of you need to step away from the article due to possible WP:COI violations. Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^ I pledge to step away from editing the article, I agree that X-Fi6 should as well. That was my original intent - to point out the conflict of interest of his edits. I'd also like to point out that the cited mention never said it was "released, close to release, or soon to be released" or stated any project/developmental success. It simply stated the existence of the said project, which relates to the topic of The Sims Online, as other projects (in development or no longer in develoment) involving private servers for games are found throughout various game articles on Wikipedia. This is in no way unusual for a quick mention to be noted. It can only add to the encyclopedic value of Wikipedia. Knowledge is power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syndicat0 (talkcontribs) 21:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Heh, we do each have a personal motivation in winning this dispute, but not (purposely) in conflict of interest with the article. So it's not irrational that we've been fighting to the bone over this one article. As long as Wikipedia doesn't take damage, it's alright.

    Fortunately, neither of us threatened the other or made insults. We didn't have a C&D for defamation (lol). I had time for this because I'm a summerfag at the moment. Don't know if the other guy has a job. Overall, I had fun with this debate. I guess I'll lay off now. X-Fi6 (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the thing is that just because it exists does not mean you should put it in the article. There is not a List of unofficial Pokémon games. Only things with significant coverage in third party reliable sources are notable. One source just saying this "remake" "is coming" does not allow it to be on Wikipedia, even as a mention in the article, much less in the lead of the article. Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, I'd argue it is better to have a little more knowledge than a little less knowledge. Things like this are clearly not black or white, as you'll find a List of Video Game Emulators on Wikipedia as well. | The article is cited from a reliable source. I don't think there was ever any question about that and I'm sure I can find additional reliable sources if one is not enough. As for significant coverage, do a google search and you'll see the impact on hundreds of websites. I won't do any further edits but this is some food for thought. I really do not see how how a quick fact-based and properly cited mention does anything negative to the quality of the article. Syndicat0 (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some emulators are notable, and some fan-made games are notable, but they usually are not. This fanmade revival of this game does not seem to be notable. Is this the only source you can find? It does not seem to be very reliable, as it looks like a random blog. Thus, it should not be mentioned in the article. If it gets coverage in third party reliable sources, then it can be mentioned, maybe even to a larger degree depending on the coverage amount. I am going to WP:IAR and just let this be, because I frankly don't care. I am just letting you know why it isn't allowed, and why somebody else might want to remove it. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forth opinion[edit]

TSOR should be mentioned since it was popular enough to draw EA's attention months before it the cease and diciest was revealed, but it should be kept short and to the point. Plus I should mention that before the project closed, the source code was released to the public on Google Code. --Zc456 (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

→This is just a quick reminder to anyone who would attempt to add a note to this dead project again, this project is long dead and obviously deserves no mention, but, the EA letter was never proven. It was more than likely written up by the project leader, Ghost, and posted. They gained thousands of dollars in donations and then shut the website down. I'm pretty sure the entire project was a scam operation from start to finish. (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]