Thread:Ultimantium/@comment-3008558-20190316100732/@comment-3008558-20190316220510

Ultimantium wrote: Yes. But since I came when they had their increased inflexibility, it doesn't seem as harsh for me. (I guess I'm used for the inflexibility from the start). In the early days, pretty much anything with any connection to DC or Marvel comics or characters was considered suitable for inclusion; titles from companies later acquired by one company or the other like Charlton, titles from unrelated companies featuring characters later acquired (like the appearances by Charlton characters in AC Comics), licensed titles, overseas reprints...and since I have a fondness for the obscure, I did a lot of work on those kinds of articles. Then, suddenly, after several years the DC wiki started tightening up, saying only material published by DC themselves was admissable, and huge swathes of material, including a lot of stuff I'd worked on, was arbitrarily deleted. I argued that removing accurate information defeated the point of a database; they dismissed that argument; I stopped contributing. Not long afterwards, the Marvel wiki (where I'd done a lot of work on Marvel UK stuff in particular) started going the same way, and worse, a couple of guys turned up who basically had never heard of Marvel UK and believed nothing not created in the US was "legitimate" Marvel; it led to a bitter argument, or several, and I stopped regularly contributing there, too. These days, my only link to those sites is when I occasionally get a notification that something else I added has been deleted.