The title of the article is intentionally provocative. I know this has been discussed many times. And let me be clear from the start. I don't expect or even want Wikia sites to conform to Wikipedia rules. If we can simplify or improve upon their standards we absolutely should. But there is an argument to be made that Wikia sites need to document their standards more clearly, especially when they deviate from "standard" Wiki markup. I have encountered this issue many times over the years and I usually just shrug my shoulders when an admin overrides an edit I did which conformed perfectly to Wiki standards because it didn't fit with the rules established by that particular Wiki, even if that rule I supposedly violated didn't appear anywhere (and by the way, I've been an admin myself and I understand that even admins can make mistakes).

Most recently I have discovered that apparently on this site we are not supposed to use subst to mark unsigned comments on talk pages. Nevermind that this is clearly documented as the correct method of addressing unsigned comments as per Wiki standards. Don't believe me? Check it out here. This is how I have always addressed unsigned comments because that is how it is done on every Wiki I have ever contributed to. Nowhere on this site can I find an article stating differently. I've probably done this with at least half a dozen comments in the last two days. It blows my mind that according to the admins here, this is apparently incorrect. The resulting output (using subst or not) is exactly the same from what I can tell in my sandbox testing. I'm sure the admins have a reason for saying subst is unacceptable in this situation. And I respect that. But it would be great if they would at least document these things in a way which will show up in a simple Google search. Or even a search on this wiki of "Signatures" or "Unsigned Comments." Neither search yields any articles which tell me this method is unacceptable even though I have been told it is.

Bottom line: like many Wikia sites, this one seems to be establishing its own standards far removed from those used by such "minor" Wikis as Wikipedia and doesn't seem to bother with even documenting what these "standards" are. In short, leaving it up to admins to make their own rules as they go along. It doesn't bother me one bit if an edit I make gets over-ridden. But it would be nice to know why. Give us a simple article which details how this Wiki's guidelines differ from those of other major Wiki sites! Is that asking too much? Or should we just keep guessing? By the way, using the example above, that absolutely is the acceptable method of dealing with unsigned comments on several Wikia sites as well as Wikipedia. Just not this one apparently. I will get off my soapbox now.