User talk:Jigen123

I reverted your FFXIII series change. FFVII is not a series, that's why it has no series page - though I guess it could have one but im not sure what you would name it, it is just a list of the same game. FFXIII is a trilogy. So is the FFVII remake but there is only one game in the remake trilogy released so far.

Also just slapping a cleanup tag on an article is unhelpful, you'll need to at least leave a message on the talk page laying out in detail what needs fixing.

Raw reverts in general aren't helpful. MetalPlateMage (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

As i said in the other thread, you have read my note and actually got the exact opposite message of what i was trying to say. The point is not "VII and VIIR should have subseries pages too". The overuse of subseries only leads to readers being forced to go through more unnecessary pages to finally reach the article they actually want to read. Series lists can be compressed with a single click so there really is no need to "compress" them by creating redundant subseries pages.
Anyway, the cleanup tag was added to FFXIII around the time XIII-2 article received a complete overhaul. The goal is to make the articles for XIII and XIIILR look as clean and free of unnecessary "fluff" as the XIII-2 one.

So you protected the pages instead of working with me... I'll just request account deletion then. Good luck

I don't take decisions like this on my own. I have asked other members of the staff for their opinion and we agreed to do this.
Also, i have explained to you the reasons behind my reverts and why creating so many subseries pages only contributes to adding more clutter to a series page. And i did try to work with you, but you ignored my explanation and proceeded to split the FF series into all these subseries anyway while remaining silent. This tells me that you don't really want to work *with us*, but you only want to see the wiki be organized as you personally see fit.

I wasn't silent at all, i made a comment every few minutes on the series page as i was doing it...

Moreover, if you had that much of a problem with it you could've left a talk message on my page and i wouldn't reverted, but you said nothing then just locked it.

It's all in the past though, my request is in. Good luck.

Hey Jigen123.

Are you happy with my rewritten section?

Or is there more that could be improved or tidied up?

Hi.
This is definitely 100 times better than the wall of text. You took the constructive criticism and improved your edit a lot.
I have further improved grammar and the format a little. Check it out.

Yeah I was a bit too excited with finding a solution, thanks. Yeah looks good I'm happy with that.

In which row it count then ?

We just don't list Auto HDR at all as it is a "generic" solution. It would be like linking Reshade in the AA row for every game, for example. Hope this clarify the situation.

Okay. I don´t write it anymore. Next time I hope you write more explained why you revert (Like the sentence you answer me here.) I dont even know that ReShade has AA Options, because I never used it.

@Scorpion: A tip is that if HDR is set to false, the row will get auto-populated with a note and link to Enable HDR output in unsupported games which among other things details Auto HDR. So the outcome will be that Auto HDR is "covered" on the page anyway.

Why remove my changes immediately without even asking first? I was not even finished yet.

About the reason, thirteenag's fix disables the "Effects" setting in the game as it could not be scaled correctly according to the mod's page, plus it can also cause shadows to break as it's happened to me and other users as reported on the Oni3 patch's github issues page.

The fix created by jackfuste on WSGF is a simple hex-edited .exe fix and does not use any extra files, You get proper 16:9/21:9 on top of that does not contain any of the issues I mentioned above.

The only positive that thirteenag's patch is capable of and is "objectively better" is that the HUD and FMVs are in 4:3, at the cost of disabling Effects setting entirely that is, this same issue is seen in their outdated Silent Hill 4 widescreen patch as well.

I appreciate your concern man but please, ask before you remove stuff from the wiki. Revert the change you made, and add thirteenag's fix alongside it. I'll add the differences between the two later.

Cheers.

You completely removed an universal widescreen fix from the article in favour of resolution-specific solutions. I guess both can be listed (Thirteenag's fix being the "main" one) with their pros and cons explained, but the removal of Thirteenag's fix should have never happened in the first place.

Well both patches come with a catch.

I've added both in a new "Widescreen Resolution" section.

Hi! I started a discussion about the DRM situation over there: https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Topic:Xb9zhv57li8a74s5

Hello, I saw that you changed Darksiders II: Deathinitive Edition to have Steam Input API. Is it full remapping or just the prompts? I'm asking because I might get the game if it's full remapping. Can't find any info about this online, so I hope you don't mind me asking here, even though it's not actually about the edit itself.

You just revert back my corrections in mortal kombat 11 regarding its requirements to HDD with no reason, dont do that!

I reverted your edit on the MK11 article because we only list OFFICIAL system requirements on this site.

There are a lot of game sites in the web (check it yourself) which refer to the OFFICIAL system requirements for MK11 where the size of the game on the hard drive is clearly indicated

R1ddick, Steam doesn't list any HDD requirements, and Microsoft Store lists 152.64 GB as the "approximate size". The store pages are typically where we would expect to find the official requirements.

If you have another source that lists 100 GB and 150 GB as the minimum and recommended HDD specs, please provide it as a reference by using the ref= field in the System requirements template.

Also please note that edit warring is against the PCGW code of conduct.

Let me know if you have any questions about this.

Why is it good practice to NOT mention the publisher when it is self-published? Because if you do that, then at the summary of the company (Rebellion Developments for example on the Sniper Elite 4 page) you see only a very short list of published titles, while it should be huge. We should be proud of companies being able to self-publish right? :) Is there a template rule on PCGamingwiki against mentioning that it is self-published?

Yes, there is a rule against it. Check the Editing guide: https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/PCGamingWiki:Editing_guide/The_infobox
"This row is only required when a game was published by another company than the developer of the game."

Ah, okay, did not know that. Honestly I thus don't share the same opinion on that rule haha; it makes it significantly harder to see from the developer-page on PCGamingwiki which games a developer published. Also, on game pages themselves, you then never know if they actually self-published it or that just no one added the publisher yet to the page. If I would want to start a more global discussion on PCGamingwiki about this to get it changed possibly (or at least have an open discussion about it), how could I best do that? Start a forum-discussion?

Btw, "required" does not necessarily mean that its not allowed in this instance right? Idk, have my doubts. Mostly also because this seems to be quite inconsistent, see: https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Fortnite https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Left_4_Dead_2 https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Frostpunk So, that means that more people seem to have difficulty with this guideline, thus maybe warranting a deeper discussion about it?

It's not inconsistent and there are no users that have difficulty with this guideline (not the ones that take a moment to read the Editing guide, at least). All the examples you mentioned have multiple developers listed (porters or co-developers), and in that case listing a publisher that is the same as one of the developers is needed to know who published the game.

Ah, ok, that indeed explains the "inconsistencies" I saw. Hmmm, but still, if I would want to discuss this further with others to get more opinions about this, would a forum-post be the best way to go?

Btw, want to make sure: not trying to annoy you of course and not annoyed by you reverting some of my comments, just finding this a possible interesting topic for broader discussion haha.

Mrtnptrs1, you're correct that the editing guide currently does not explicitly prohibit adding self-published developers to the publisher field. However, the de facto standard established by our experienced editors has been to omit self-published developers from the publisher field. So for now, I encourage you to follow that convention, simply to keep the wiki consistent.

I do think this part of the editing guide should be rewritten in order to have a single explicit standard. Since you're interested in discussing it, the best way to talk with us is probably to join our Discord server (the #articles channel), although you could also use the PCGW forums.

Baronsmoki, I'll keep that in mind then for now for the sake of consistency. I might have an idea to solve this that merges the best of both worlds, but I'll discuss that later then on the Discord server. Thanks for letting me know.

Ok, discussion held on Discord: for future reference for others; there doesn't seem to be a good solution for this without duplicating data. Thus, don't mention the publisher when it is self-published :)

This is a general warning about ad-hominem attacks: it is not appropriate to namecall on the wiki or on Discord.

• Diffs: https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Gurumin:_A_Monstrous_Adventure&oldid=1254991

Regarding the recent edit, FYI, Touken Ranbu is a Browser game, do you seriously wanted to have a browser game article?

Never mind, there is a sample series page which includes the browser game link.

I usually don't write articles about browser games (never did, actually), but i thought about Naruto Online being listed on the Naruto series page... Not only it is listed, it also has a dedicated page. Even the MS Store version of that game uses some sort of dedicated browser to run.
That's pretty much the reason i decided to list Touken Ranbu. And yeah, it's one of those decisions i'm not super sure about and i'm open to discussion about the possibility to delete the series page.
Have a nice day.