Topic on User talk:Mrtnptrs

After discussion here and on Discord: ok, links to UE4 glossary page fixes can sometimes stay when "false" values doesn't already produce a note pointing to the UE4 glossary page. However, adding fixes clearly already covered as a whole on the UE4 glossary page literally as a 1:1 copy is still not liked and will still be in the future removed when noticed.

I followed a link claiming the Atomic Heart page had a fix for mouse acceleration, but no such fix was on the page. You had removed it, with the following reasoning:

"Again, mouse acceleration fix already included on the UE4 glossary page linked below the video table.... + FOV fix already linked to in the video table. Thus removing both fixes. Additionally, please read the editing guidelines as they are not really conform those... :) Feel free to ask us any questions on the talk page or our Discord :)"

Removing what I'm sure many would consider an "Essential Improvement" because it can be found half-way down a different page, only linked in a footnote at the bottom of the unrelated "Video" section, while the page's only mention of mouse acceleration simply notes, "Forced on by default, with no way in-game to disable it.", is so ludicrous that I made an account just to complain about it. Before entirely removing any mention of a fix from a game's page, please consider whether a visitor to the site will have any chance of learning about and locating that fix.

Those mentions should be removed as stated already: those fixes are already included on the UE4 glossary page linked to under the Video table. This has been agreed upon and discussed many times in our Discord. Please go there to dispute this decision if you disagree.

I don't disagree that the instructions for generic fixes shouldn't be duplicated on each game page. If the instructions had been replaced with a link to the appropriate section of the UE4 glossary page, or a link added in the Input section, there would be no duplication and no harm done. But entirely removing any mention of the fix, on the basis that it can be found on a separate page with no apparent relation to the issue, unnecessarily obscures the existence of that fix. I couldn't find the policy you seem to be referencing in the editing guide, but I'm sure it's intended to improve the consistency of fixes without making them harder to find.

To be frank, the way you're treating this feels almost malicious, as if you're twisting the rules to remove information just because you can. I hope that's not the case.

(And to be clear, I'm aware that this particular fix turned out to be a placebo, making this specific case moot, but I'm still concerned that important fixes for other games could be similarly "hidden" where visitors won't find them)

"To be frank, the way you're treating this feels almost malicious, as if you're twisting the rules to remove information just because you can. I hope that's not the case." Please see our Discord group discussion. Not trying to be malicious, vicious or anything, was just trying to follow the PCGW way of working as done so far. See our Discord for the discussion about this and more detailed explanation :)

Discussion was btw done at one point at 3 places at the same time, hence I kept my answer here a bit short, sorry if that made me sound blunt or anything :)

After discussion here and on Discord: ok, links to UE4 glossary page fixes can sometimes stay when "false" values doesn't already produce a note pointing to the UE4 glossary page. However, adding fixes clearly already covered as a whole on the UE4 glossary page literally as a 1:1 copy is still not liked and will still be in the future removed when noticed.