Talk:The Sims 2: Family Fun Stuff

Edit "The Sims 2 series" box
Hello

I'm new here, so I hope you can help me out. On the bottom of my article about The Sims 2: Family Fun Stuff there is a box with all the Sims games in it. But since a new expansion is coming, how can I edit that box?

Thanks for the help Jort227 14:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You can edit the template at Template:The Sims series. I hope that helps. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 14:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks you that indeed worked. I changed it now :). --Jort227 16:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone added..,, Kiss my a** b*tch*es. I removed it. please do not do it again. dreamer893

Gameplay
I've added mention of the added gameplay elements that are installed/activated if not yet already installed/activated. Robovski 23:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms Edit
I've cut the following text previously:

Some have felt that the concept of stuff packs was created to increase profits made from the franchise while minimizing cost of production by including a less than satisfying amount of content in each release. In this release, for example, many customers felt that the content should have been either made available for free via the web or included with the most recent or upcoming expansion pack. Others however, like the idea of stuff packs, citing that they can give you quite a few nice objects, and if you don't like the sound of what objects come with the stuff pack, just don't buy it.

OK, I don't have a problem with the fact that some people don't like Stuff Packs. Does that really belong in the Wiki encyclopedia article, as it is just opinion. These comments are far more suited to a discussion board or review. Obviously, at least KnowitallWiki doesn't agree as KnowitallWiki is the author of the comments and the person who put them back in after I removed them. So instead of getting into an edit war, can we have a few more opinions on the subject to decide the issue? Robovski 21:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Opinion does not belong in wikipedia articles. Unless credible sources can be provided (message forums are not credible sources) this should not be in the article. --Crossmr 22:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * While I agree that opinions of individuals should not be part of Wikipedia, criticisms by the masses should not be ignored. Ignoring these criticisms is like pretending the controversy and criticisms of the Dixie Chicks never existed, and that's just wrong (I love the Dixie Chicks, but my point is you have to include what's relevant). Maybe a rewrite of this section is warranted instead of deletion? Am I clear with my point? Because it's 3:00 AM here and I might not be communicating my point clearly. --Funnykidrian 06:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless you can credibly source per WP:V these criticisms of the masses then no, they can't be included. Forums, blog postings and other self-published sources by random internet users cannot be used as primary or secondary sources. Combining all those things to form an "opinion of the masses" to put in this article is a violation of WP:V and WP:OR--Crossmr 13:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Still, does everything on Wikipedia have to have a direct citation? I mean its common knowledge that Hilary Clinton is married to Bill Clinton, but if it doesn't have a citaton, it can't be put? If you go to the Sims forum, it's obviously this stuff pack was not well liked. And with other gaming articles we DO mention the fan reaction. So I feel that this article should have the Critisms thing added back in. For example look at these links. [] [] []

This game was obviously disliked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowitallWiki (talk • contribs) 15:57, 9 July 2006
 * Yes everything does have to have a citation. Hillary Clinton being married to Bill Clinton is generally common knowledge or easily verifiable. Her official website, campaign info, etc can be added as a general reference where that material can be quickly verified by a reader. Criticisms of a product, or more non-general knowledge has to always be verified. Assembling user opinions and claiming that the users didn't really like the game or thought poorly of it is original research. Statiticians put very little weight in online polls, surverys, opinions written on message forums, etc because these areas are likely to draw people with strong opinions and not be representative of the population as a whole. Companies as a general rule also put very little weight in what happens on a forum, or complaints they receive via e-mail as oppoosed to other channels for the same reason. Metacritic, even if it was usable as a source for what you want to use it, 3 votes is hardly significant, a 7.2 on Gamespot is pretty average, and game planet gives it a "good" rating. So I'm not sure what the point of those links were.--Crossmr 19:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty then. I guess you can't win 'em all. I still think we should put the criticism section back but, oh well, you're probably more experienced on Wikipedia. Knowitall 03:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)