Board Thread:Technical Updates/@comment-24006128-20200423160701/@comment-9605025-20200427195208

reply to #47 I agree that sometimes wikis get created for stupid reasons (like all those tiny abondoned Thomas the Tank Engine wikis). The idea of having a vetting process is something they used to have, got rid of, and are now reinstating with UCP. That said, if Gamepedia's process is as you described, then Fandom will still be more liberal with wiki creation.

I don't think this is a bad thing. With Gamepedia, the brand is focused on video games. Video games have game companies behind them so it makes sense to have official partnerships, staff initiated wikis, etc. However, Fandom is not just about video games. The intent is that you can create a wiki about your favorite YouTuber, book series, anime, comic, school subject (there is a mathematics wiki), location, etc. I trust you can see how using Gamepedia's current system for video-game focused wikis does not really fit well for some other topics.

While I sympathise with your experience, extrapolating that to all of Fandom is a gross error. The equivalent would be if I made an edit to the Gamepedia Minecraft Wiki, had it reverted, and then complained that Gamepedia as an entire platform is tyranical. As with any large platform, there will be good admins and bad admins. I can almost guarentee you there are some Gamepedia admins that do the same; you just don't deal with them. Likewise, there are plenty of good admins on Fandom. In fact, I think some of them are a little too forgiving. - reply to #48 Again, are these Gamepedia pages an actual standard feature? Because I checked some Gamepedia wikis and not all wikis have them. Also, I still don't see how they are different from a normal project-namesapce page. If this is just a convention rather than an actual feature, then Fnadom isn't lacking anything. It is up to each wiki how to use its pages.

As for the talk pages, those are "hidden" because most wikis use article comments instead. - reply to #50 Your argument against Forums/comments only makes sense if you assume users are coming from Gampedia or Wikipedia to Fandom. If someone is coming from Fandom to Gamepedia, they would think that talk pages are weird. It is just a matter of what people have gotten used to. So I stand by my initial reply on this subject.

As for the confusion about where to start a discusstion, that is because Fandom is in the process of changing over features. Once migration is complete, there won't be anymore Forums, just Discussions.

Could you provide some specific examples of what you consider "in your face" tools that Fandom lacks? When it comes to editing pages, I don't think anything is obsurdly hidden. - reply to #52 To summarize Tupka217's reply, no. There is no way to "change back" to the previous editor. UCP wikis have this new editor (see the announcement) and that is it.