Recently there have been edit wars on several pages relating to discontinued items including challenger halo, RuneScape:Grand Exchange Market Watch/Discontinued, and discontinued rare items. Issues are coming from editors having different understandings of what is meant by discontinued items: whether this means any items which cannot currently be obtained by methods other than reclaiming if items have been obtained and/or trading with other players or whether this means items which cannot currently be obtained and which will not be made reobtainable again in future, as confirmed by Jagex.
It is clear that we need to define what we mean when we state that an item is discontinued so that editors can collaborate effectively in documenting these items. Therefore I propose that:
1. We define a "discontinued item" as an item which is no longer obtainable except through reclaiming, for players who have previously obtained the item, and/or trading with other players and which Jagex has confirmed will not be made obtainable again in the future.
- A referenced source confirming that the item will not be made reobtainable should be added to any item pages where the item is being classified as discontinued, in line with RuneScape:Future_content#Official_sources.
- The hatnote should be added to these pages; the wording of the hatnote should be amended to reflect the above definition of discontinued.
- Discontinued rare items should be updated to reflect this definition and remove any items which do not meet it. I would further suggest renaming the page to simply "discontinued items" as defining what is meant by a "rare" discontinued item further exacerbates the issue by adding another poorly defined/understood term.
- RuneScape:Grand Exchange Market Watch/Discontinued should also be updated in this way.
2. We add new categorisation to catch all items which are no longer obtainable and/or have limited periods where they can be obtained but where is no official confirmation that the item will not become available again in the future (i.e. most items which are in a state where we cannot say for certain whether the item is never going to be made obtainable).
- We create a new template and category - perhaps (unless anyone can think of a better term) in the same vein as to reflect this definition and be added to relevant item pages.
- We add "release history" sections to these pages and attempt to document start and end dates of when items are made available.
- TH items would continue to be documented using Rainbow Halo. and the THRelease template, as on
- It would not be necessary to add sourcing to demonstrate that an item may return in the future in most cases, as this would be assumed to be the default position.
Support - as nominator. I think both interpretations of "discontinued" make sense and are worth documenting separately. Although I don't think that proposed way of defining discontinued is not technically the dictionary correct definition of what discontinued means, I do think that this is what the majority of the player base means when referring to an item being discontinued. I think defining it in this way is going to make sense for the most people, especially if that definition is stated more clearly in relevant articles.13:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Support. However, I would make the "Reoccuring Items" less ambiguous and not give the player the false idea that these items will return. I think there's a difference between items that may return and items that will return. I suggest a footnote in the template that mentions that the items might return in the future. Ricewind (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Permanently discontinued and Not currently obtainable - If there's ambiguity over what a particular term means, I would prefer to stop using it entirely, rather than picking a side about which one is correct. I prefer "Permanently discontinued" over "Discontinued" because it removes any ambiguity over whether the item will be obtainable again, and I prefer "Not currently obtainable" over "Recurring" since the latter (to me at least) implies that it will be available again, perhaps at a regular cadence. ʞooɔ 14:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- People in the community have referred to the rare holiday items specifically as "Discontinued items" for close to two decades now. What do you make of changing an established term by the community, to perhaps reduce confusion on this wiki? Ricewind (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think adding the word "permanently" before "discontinued" is going to cause any problems for anyone - is it even slightly unclear what that means? Meanwhile, it's clear just from looking at our own discussions and categorization that not everyone is on the same page about what "discontinued" (without further modifiers) means. ʞooɔ 14:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Support - I agree with Cook's wording and the initial proposal.14:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Support - +1 on Cook's proposal, worded it better than I ever could.15:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Neutral: I agree on the sentiment that we need clearer definitions on the matter as people have clearly conflicting views on them. However, reading our current documentation carefully seems rather clear to me already: We currently define discontinued items as suggested here, but without requiring Jagex to have announced their stance on it. I don't think it's a good idea to require Jagex's statements on this as it would make many items widely regarded as discontinued items as "recurring items" or whatever you want to call them. For instance, has every tradeable super expensive rare actually been confirmed by Jagex to be discontinued? I'm pretty sure there are some that haven't, and I bet there are conversely some where Jagex has broken their confirmations. Furthermore, defining items to belong in the new non-proper discontinued category seems awkward to me. The current definition is clear and relatively easy to verify: discontinued means that the there are no live sources in the game for the content. For instance, Jagex could promote a Treasure Hunter promotion like "If you get lucky, you could get this super rare tradeable promotional item only available during the promotion!" That's a statement that looks like it should make the item a discontinued item, but it actually contains no information whether it will be reintroduced in the future or not. Content that has such official confirmation about its future is very rare. Perhaps something could be added to the related templates to make it apparent when such confirmations exist? Also, I fully support Cook Me Plox's suggestions above. I don't think the community exactly uses the term "discontinued item" in a consistent way; people seem to mostly talk about "rares", and do so in very inconsistent manner. Thingummywut (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
Comment - I'm happy to go with Cook's naming for the two categories of things and move away from describing anything as just "discontinued". Assuming the rest of my proposal would be applied to whatever names are decided upon.10:02, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, to avoid any confusion, I support the rest of the proposal with the amended names. ʞooɔ 21:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Counter-proposal - Why not add another field in the hatnote that can be used to specify whether the item is confirmed to not return, unknown whether it will return, or that it's simply unavailable at the moment? Swyllikx of Guthix (level: 138) ▸ Choose OptionTalk to Swyllikx of Guthix (level: 138)Follow Swyllikx of Guthix (level: 138)Report Swyllikx of Guthix (level: 138)Contributions Swyllikx of Guthix (level: 138)Walk hereExamine Swyllikx of Guthix (level: 138)Cancel 03:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- Support for this. Do we have any ballpark estimates which items actually have the official confirmations described in the original proposal? I can't really think of anything else than the golden partyhat off the top of my head. Thingummywut (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Support - Support the original proposal with cooks new wording. I'd also suggest perhaps adding a param to(or perhaps default behaviour if no source is given) for things that are discontinued but we have no siteable source for? Or maybe it's not needed because we have sources for all of them. 07:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)