Forum:Release date clarification

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Release date clarification
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 21 November 2015 by Liquidhelium.

There are a lot of items that are added to the game config on one day, but not announced (or made available) until another day. There's some confusion about what the listed "release date" should be for these items. A couple examples:

  • Rune kiteshield -- added to the game config on 4 January 2001, not made available ingame until 13 August 2001. Release date is the latter.
  • Strawberry -- added to the game config on 6 June 2005, not made available ingame until 11 July 2005. Release date is the latter (although Palm tree seed is the opposite because seeds and a few other items were actually made available before then).
  • Elder divination body -- added to the game config on 2 November 2015, still not available ingame. Release date is the former. This is the case for a lot of recent Treasure Hunter-type items.
  • Crown of Loyalty (10 year) -- added to the game config on 3 September 2013, still not available ingame. Release date is the former.

When I initially added release dates five years ago (particularly ones from RuneScape Classic), I almost exclusively used the dates of availability (or at least announced availability). Pretty much all Treasure Hunter stuff these days uses the date of release in the game config.

Which do we prefer? We're remarkably inconsistent about it. The date of addition to the item config is unambiguous, but it's a technicality that confuses people. On the other hand, "date of availability" seems like the more natural date to use, but this doesn't have such an ironclad meaning (nobody had a tetsu body until a while after ports was released but it would be silly to have the release date as anything besides 11 December 2012).

ʞooɔ 23:56, November 7, 2015 (UTC)


We should probably set the date to technical availability. For 99% of items, this would be availability. But as with the tetsu and crown of loyalty, it doesn't make sense to use any date other than the respective updates. I think since this is a concurrent issue for many items (namely treasure hunter ones), we should use the "added to game" as the release until their update actually comes out, at which point we use the availability release and update. MolMan 00:00, November 8, 2015 (UTC)

Comment - I'd go for the date it's possible to acquire the item. As a rough rule of thumb, if a template such as {{Nonexistence}} or {{Future}} is appropriate we shouldn't have a release date listed. If someone wants to add the date it appeared in the game source code/GED/etc. it can go in the article text. For TH items I don't think it's worth adding a "appeared in code" line, but for items such as Soul talisman it's very misleading especially if we ever decided to leverage data as it appears in the infobox. cqm 00:25, 8 Nov 2015 (UTC) (UTC)

Question - would it be easier to call it "date created"? I could see items like Rotten Potato which was never released to players being one of the elements in the discussion. --Deltaslug (talk) 03:58, November 8, 2015 (UTC)

Being an oddball, that one would probably use the date it entered the game's data no matter what we decide. Because it is a Jagex moderator item, only Jagex moderators are intended to have it. And because they can spawn any item that exists, they can clearly have obtained the rotten potato from the moment it existed. MolMan 14:58, November 8, 2015 (UTC)

Comment - It would be nice to have consistency with Treasure Hunter items release dates. While the divination outfits are unobtainable, they have also been shown in-game by the MTX team on 5 November, three days after being added to the game. There is also the wieldable cornucopia that has been in-game since August but won't be accessible until later this month.

Other notes include me being silly four years ago with the gavel, even though the date wasn't changed for it. I do like the idea of having it noted in the article on the release date for MTX articles if it is not officially available at the time of article creation or item addition. Ryan PM 04:36, November 9, 2015 (UTC)

Comment - We should go with the current standard: the release date is when the item got added to game code. If this differs from actual release date (mtx, in-game effort needed), then we clarify the info in the article's body. I didn't know we have some inconsistencies in some of our older pages - this should probably be fixed if we're 100% sure as to when those super old items got put in the game config. 5-x Talk 17:12, November 9, 2015 (UTC)

How does this reduce confusion with readers? Items appear in quick chat before they're released in dozens of examples, that doesn't mean they're released for players to obtain. cqm 00:02, 10 Nov 2015 (UTC) (UTC)

Comment - Add a row to the infobox? For cases where the update added it to the game code but not general availability, use the added/addedupdate params, or something. For which things to go where, generally TH/SGS updates should get the param, and things that are gameplay-time-gated (like ports gear) shouldn't. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 00:23, November 10, 2015 (UTC)

Too much params already. Maybe after we start working on a revamp of it. MolMan 00:25, November 10, 2015 (UTC)

Comment - as per Cqm: use the date where it becomes (technically) possible to obtain something/the update where it is released whenever possible; don't list a date prior to this and put information about when an item first appeared in the game code in the article rather than in the infobox. While "first appeared in code" information is interesting for some people, I think the majority of players are going to find the date when an item is first obtainable most relevant. It's also confusing for players who aren't aware that things are added to code in advance of actually being released to use this date, but restricting these dates to being used outside the infobox will help make sure they are being explained properly so people understand what they're based on. Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 10:53, November 10, 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Basically this. The crown of loyalty is not currently obtainable because there's no one with ten years of membership yet, but as soon as someone rolls over to 10 years they can get it right away. The elder divination body is in no way obtainable, so should not have a release date listed yet. Baseline is (technical) obtainability imo. User talk:ThePsionic.png: RS3 Inventory image of User talk:ThePsionic ThePsionic Special:Contributions/ThePsionic.png: RS3 Inventory image of Special:Contributions/ThePsionic 11:00, November 10, 2015 (UTC)

Nay, release dates should exist on any article to which we know is in-game regardless of obtainability. Ryan PM 06:50, November 11, 2015 (UTC)

Comment - as per Cqm, Isobel, and Psi. Add the date when an item becomes available in-game for TH/SGS/etc., and consider the update release date as the date an item like ports items and crowns of loyalty get released but are not obtainable yet because of the aforementioned game time effort of obtaining them. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 11:12, November 10, 2015 (UTC)

Comment - It certainly looks odd to have an items "release date" differ from the date in the update article it's linked to. Unless Jagex is a day late publishing a new update article, I think the dates should match, regardless of when it was added to the game code. Rune kite-13 August; strawberry-11 July; new Div outfit parts-12 Nov; tetsu body-11 Dec; gavel-1 Sep.

I would like to see the release date and update listing on the Soul rune removed. If anywhere, it should be in the opening line or paragraph. Things only for Jagex, such as the rotten potato, should use our best judgement on their release. Items for updates not yet released but in the cache (or hidden away in Quick Chat or Grand Exchange [when zero can possibly be traded]) should not have a release date in the Infobox. Items for updates that already came but technically can't/couldn't be accessed yet (ie. the gavel), should have the date of the update itself. As for the dates that items are added to the game's cache, at best it should appear as a Trivia note. Even so, it's a matter of "Who cares?" once the update itself came out.

In short, I prefer what I believe was Cook's original standard, not the "current standard". For reference, IP83 and I briefly discussed this topic in June. 1 2 and some edit summaries at the time. 01:16, November 11, 2015 (UTC)

I disagree about removing release dates on articles period. Looking at the talk pages from June, I would like to mention that articles created for SGS and TH articles before their official announcement has been through official API's. Ryan PM 06:50, November 11, 2015 (UTC)

Addendum to my previous comment - Here is a bullet list of reasons I think we should retain release dates and potentially keep all the MTX ones that are known through APIs with the game update date:

  • MTX articles should always have a release date regardless of obtainability, even if it won't be out for the remainder of the month.
  • MTX articles should have the update page linked in the first or opening sentence of the article.
  • Examples of items that were added before obtainability:
  1. Elven clan capes: All added 09-22-2014, some unobtainable until 11-10-2014.
  2. Memoriam crystals: All added 09-22-2014, some unobtainable until 11-10-2014.
  3. Infinity ethereal outfit: Added 10-13-2014, appeared in news article on 10-15-2014, actually obtainable on 10-19-2014.
  4. Shadow sword: Added 02-12-2007, it was ingame but wasn't known for several weeks.
  5. Monkey skull: Added 06-12-2004, it wasn't obtainable until 02-22-2010 due to zombie implings.
  6. Gorilla greegree (blue): Added 06-12-2004, it wasn't obtainable until 02-22-2010.

Articles should keep the game added date. If it is locked behind a date like most Treasure Hunter items are, then I would say mention the {{UD}} in the opening of the article. If it's like the Monkey Madness or the Prifddinas items, then mention the date that they became obtainable on in Trivia or somewhere in the body of the page. Taking the side that we shouldn't place release dates in an article based upon the locked content before it, then it would mean that the Gavel, Ports armour, and even the final piece of Achto raids armor needs to be changed because of how time works. Ryan PM 06:50, November 11, 2015 (UTC)

Those American dates confused me for a second, but I agree on all your points except for the TH/SGS/etc. one. MTX items should get the date of obtainability, and not when they were released in the code. However the latter should be mentioned in the article somewhere. But (I'm going to contradict myself now) it would make sense to keep everything consistent to add the date they were released into the code, but mention when they were made available like Monkey Madness and Prifddinas batch 2 items. I think Sculpting chisel (Seren) would be a perfect example for that. It mentions the date it was released in code, the date it was made available, and date it could be actually obtained due to gameplay effort in one trivia. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 08:26, November 11, 2015 (UTC)

Closed - The consensus seems to be that we should use the date when the item is first obtainable. For items with requirements to obtain that take time, such as the elven capes Ryan mentioned, use the date it was announced, or basically when it's technically possible to obtain the item assuming you could instantaneously satisfy the requirements to obtain. Basically, stick with Cook's original standard. --LiquidTalk 22:50, November 21, 2015 (UTC)