Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-25150955-20160909010405/@comment-896291-20160918031714

[Not a Signature] @C.Syde65: I can acknowledge that using the term "Wiki[a] Staff" is by and large a misnomer, esp. if they're not the ones in charge of anything beyond mediating wiki disputes and simply announcing the changes that the technical team that's actually in charge of influencing changes here. They're the messengers, they just get shot for the promotion (to be metaphoric).

I can also acknowledge that, by and large, the users who decide to continue to use this chain of websites (purely for the advantage of its free hosting, not unlike Livejournal, tumblr, blogspot, and dreamwidth) have the choice to roll with the "new improved changes". Others also have the choice of leaving, as they've expressed, for places that are purely Wikipedia-like resources only and engage in "fandom" in other ways without detracting from their site's goal. I'm not interested in the latter, so I voice my discontent on their announcement blogs.

My main point was that posts like, "well, you'll get use to it eventually" and "boo-hoo stop complaining, you'll use the site anyway" and "[blank] was broken, a complete overhaul needed too occur" (like whatever they were using currently couldn't have been fixed and modified, ever or at all) it rather completely derails the discussion at hand.

Even a post like this is detracting from the OP's point, I believe.

That kind of attitude honestly is what creates fractured communities. You've got one party more interested in wanting to be the "reasonable one" because they figure nothing can be done, but they do it in a way where there is no respect for the others who decide to voice their disagreement about something, "politely" or "angrily", whether or not they're heard or change happens. It looks and feels like tone policing and that irks me to end.

There are people who to have "gotten used to" the changes, and there are people who simply don't. To avoid becoming any more long winded, the complete decline of a complaint once changes disliked occur doesn't equal, "I accept this" / "I got used to this", let alone means that their complaints were fruitless to begin with. That's what those comments seem to equate that to.

In closing, most of the wikis I run (save one: The Pacific Rim Wiki) aren't huge conversation pots so much as they attract spammers. I figure the same will happen when Discussions replace the forums, but on a much larger, annoying and frequent scale. That's my concern. I guess the best I can do is ignore it and block the spammers. I'll probably end up using my blog space to make admin announcements from thereon out.

C.Syde65 wrote: Not sure if this will be of any relevance to you, but there is some Java Script that allows both talk pages and comments to be enabled on a wiki.

Hmmm, I think I might've known that? For my Sailor Moon Dub Wiki, when one of the admins activated the article comments without having a conversation with me, I basically took a cue from another wiki and created a Talk page link in one of the infobox templates that would automatically create the " Talk: " subpage.