In regards to Glitches and Trivia it's pretty straight forward, things like the Dragunov ACOG holster time in CoD4 to the G3 Silenced Knife Bug also in, CoD4, they change the gameplay in one aspect and are placed in the main body paragraph
But what about the glitches that don't affect gameplay? Notably, currently in WWII, the freshly-fixed M1A1 Carbine Droplet Reticle unlock glitch where it was unlocked earlier than intended? Glitches pertaining to unlocks, are they placed in trivia or the main body paragraph? And if so, what constitutes as a noteworthy unlock glitch? Does the failure of something unlocking count as a noteworthy glitch (like the Panzerschreck Snow camo bug) or does it only pertain to it still being unlocked, just with an ill-intended criteria (Like the STG44 Reflex Sight bug requiring 4x Scope kills)?
It may also be helpful to update the COD:TRIVIA page in regards to the outcome of this War Room post to help define the lines of "glitch vs non-glitch". Prof. Sugarcube (talk) 23:35, December 7, 2017 (UTC)
We literally have a page for glitches. Just put them there. Things like items unlocking early or not at all should probably go under the multiplayer section though. Conqueror of all Zombies (talk) 23:43, December 7, 2017 (UTC)
- I think there's a case to be made here. From a usability standpoint, I don't think there's any way to stipulate that the glitches page is easy to navigate or interpret, especially for a new user. Personally, if I didn't know anything about wikis and just came here looking for some info on something specific, I think it might be within the scope of my interest to see some relevant glitches at the bottom of a page. Granted, which glitches actually get put on the page would have to be highly scrutinized since editors even now like to drop them in with no substantiation, so a clause in the MoS or something of similar effect could be put in place requiring that glitches on a page need to have proof referenced.
I'm fairly certain the biggest reason we use the glitches page is to avoid the clutter that having them on the other mainspace pages could create, but we're also far less active now than we were when that page first started seeing use. Most if not all edits made by nonregular users get reviewed by someone else. Allowing glitches on their respective pages probably won't result in a palpable statistical increase in readership, but it could be a creature comfort for casual readers. Joe 04:24, December 13, 2017 (UTC)
Have ones that are currently affecting them, Such as the G3 knife glitch (Was that ever fixed?) in their own section but ones that have been patched out go into Glitches. Do have to figure a bit of a scale for it however. Stuff like missing textures might not need to go in, however things like that recoil thing with the Devil's Typewriter should. 20:30, December 20, 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Joe. Glitches is not very intuitive (to be honest, it's also not exactly up to date, and could do with a minor revamp - then again that's something that could be fixed without a discussion but instead by just 'getting around to it') and outside of the realm that most readers probably see. The line between what is a relevant glitch on a subject page and what isn't is not easy to objectively define, but I feel it's a better solution to mostly have glitches related to something like a weapon be on that weapon's page whether or not it's fixed (provided they bear any significance, e.g. the Javelin glitch) instead of lumping everything to a catch-all page. -- laagone (talk) 09:05, May 23, 2018 (UTC)