Difference between revisions of "Forum:ConsistencyScape: Release dates in infoboxes"

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
m (+)
m
 
Line 59: Line 59:
   
 
'''Support Aescopalus's idea''' - {{Signatures/Salix of Prifddinas}} 02:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 
'''Support Aescopalus's idea''' - {{Signatures/Salix of Prifddinas}} 02:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  +
  +
'''Comment''' - I think it's a mistake to have availability date as a separate infobox parameter in any circumstance. This can be solved either through prose, or more clever use of update history templates. No need to use confusingly similar parameters when a full sentence explanation is more effective.
  +
  +
On the overall proposal, I am having a hard time supporting this –?I don't think config date is a more natural choice (especially to readers) than a date of obtainability, which is rarely actually ambiguous. {{Signatures/Cook Me Plox}} 09:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:50, 20 November 2020

Forums: Yew Grove > ConsistencyScape: Release dates in infoboxes
Previous discussion: Forum:Release date clarification

This week the achievement Steam Release was released with the update on Monday, but wasn't available until today (Wednesday). So far all achievements have always gotten the release date as release date, but due to items that come from Treasure Hunter getting the availability date as release date instead of the release date, there are editors who treat this achievement the same way.

The counter argument being that if this achievement wasn't hidden until obtained then you would be able to see it. Similarly, you cannot obtain Following in the footsteps yet, but since it's visible and not hidden until obtained, it is listed with the actual release date.

So my suggestion is to treat everything consistently:

  1. Change the release date of (Treasure Hunter) items to the date they were actually released and leave achievements on their actual release date as well. Including all other infoboxes as well.
  2. Change the release date of items to the date they became available excluding stuff like Jmod-only items like the rotten potato. Including all other infoboxes as well.
  3. Do nothing. Keep the status quo of InconsistencyScape.

Regardless of the chosen option, all infobox templates should reflect the result of this discussion.

Discussion[edit source]

Support #1 - As initiator of the discussion. And yes, I've changed my opinion of this subject since it was last discussed 5 years ago. :P Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 09:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Support 1 - Always wondered why this wasn't streamlined. Talk-to Kelsey 17:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Support 1 - As discussed on discord, would be fine adding a param for date available or something similar. Not sure how we'd mesh that with time locked things though. Seers headband 2 chathead.png Elessar2 (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Strong oppose 1 - unless there is the addition of a parameter for available/obtainable date. There can be a considerable difference in the date of something being "released" in the cache and it being available in game (if ever). This is something that I think is confusing for most players who just want to know if they can get the item. I do like the idea of the second parameter though - for clarity and those players who are aware of the game cache and who might find that information helpful. It would also work nicely for things in Category:Pages using information from game APIs or cache. Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 20:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The addition of the available date would be included with option #1 btw. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 14:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment - I haven't changed my opinion since the last time we discussed this. Release date of an item is when it is added to the game, and by that we mean the game code. The ten year loyalty crown was released in 2013, not in 2021. With regard to Treasure Hunter rewards, you will clarify (in the body of the article) which promotion the item comes from anyway. When you do this you would also want to provide the dates of said promotion, which states the timeframe in which the item can be actually obtained. This information is sufficient and does not need to be included in the infobox. 5-x Talk 16:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Support 1 + Comment - I think I support the idea of adding in the combination of the release date (= game code) and availability date (like Prifddinas). However, I think that this needs further discussion, as the suggestion does not discuss what is meant with availability. Personally, I think that availability is the moment at which players were able to get their hands on an item. This means that the item should not only be obtainable in some way, but also be able to be obtained by a player (after aquiring the right skill levels + quests). However, it might be much harder to get these dates accurately. Zorak plorak - Talk Hiscores 07:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose adding availability date to infoboxes - I think this only works in very niche areas. Prif is a great example because it was in the game for so long but never accessible, but something like the achievement isn't because it's just a time-gated achievement. The information becomes redundant once the achievement is possible to obtain, and it serves better as trivia.

I think we need to see it less as "when can the player literally use this piece of content/achieve this achievement" and more as "when did Jagex enable it such that players can use this piece of content/go for this achievement?". Let's take your achievement as an example. What if Jagex had allowed players to use D&D reset tokens to further progress with the achievement? Would we make the availability date 6 months instead of 12? Then it just gets confusing. There's a reason we aren't consistent with this stuff: nothing's the same. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 00:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you missed the point. The achievement isn't really the issue as it was released on 12 October and because it was hidden players didn't know it existed. If it wasn't hidden then this thread wouldn't have existed in the first place. It was merely the 'trigger' for this thread. Timegated stuff should not be considered at all for this discussion the second achievement was merely used as an example. The real point is about TH/event items/rewards and very rarely stuff like Prifddinas which tbh are two completely different things. Anyhow, what it comes down to is TH/event items/rewards, should have a release date for when they technically were added and the availibility date for when the related promotion or event goes live. Taking away any argument if the release date should be one or the other by adding the availability date so both will be recorded on the wiki. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 01:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Right now I'm working on 2001 equipment availability, and in some cases I feel that availability deserves to be more than a trivia footnote. Think about the Rune 2h sword, for instance. It's in the game cache in March 2001, purple and all, and there's even a picture of it. Official release? End of July 2001, probably, added to the Smithing table... But it required 98 smithing (+1 boost with dwarven stout), which was only reached by Bluerose at the end of November 2001. What's the release date? March? Because it was in the game cache and available to mods? July? Because players could potentially start to create it? Or November, because that is when they really could? Zorak plorak - Talk Hiscores 21:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment - This thread is surprisingly hard to follow, mainly due to overloading of phrases like "date they were actually released" to mean a specific thing, even though that's the thing that's being discussed here. Can you give concrete examples of multiple changes that would happen as a result of each of Option 1 and Option 2? ?oo? 07:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment - per Cook, there's too much ambiguity currently. See below for a list of what different "release" date options are available, with my proposal at the end.

  1. Game update launch - occurs when the servers are rebooted to launch the update that contains the content. This is usually, but not always, coincides with the cache release date. These are almost always announced with a newspost
    • This is currently the most common date, as we can link it to patch notes
  2. Cache release date - the date that the content was initially added to the cache. These are not typically announced via a newspost. Items that tend to exclusively use this date are typically:
    • Items like Picture (6205) or A jester stick, which are not obtainable but are/were observable in-game without inspection of the cache, either through GE, Quickchat, cutscene, or some other method.
    • Items like Monkey magic, which are not obtainable and are not observable in-game without inspection of the cache, whose release date can only be seen through inspection of the cache.
  3. Availability date. This is the date that players can actually possess or interact with the content listed in
    • One variant is time-gated content, such as the Crown of Loyalty (10 year), Following in the footsteps, or the Ravensworn. These are not typically announced through a newspost. Depending on the content, the time-gating may or may not be able to be circumvented by the player.
    • Another variant is mid-week content, such as the Commemorative Steam valve and golden mattock, where the item was within the cache earlier and released with the game launch update, but players could not access it until the specific date in the same week after the game update. This is probably where most Treasure Hunter content falls as well. These are typically accompanied by a newspost

Proposal

  1. Game update launch should be the recognized "Release" date.
  2. In cases where game update launch is not available, then cache release date should be used.
  3. Availability date can be an optional parameter in the infobox, but only for mid-week content, not for time-gated content.
    • Availability date should never be used in lieu of game update launch date. Time-gated content should be clarified within the article body itself, not in the template.

Smithing.pngAescopalus talkCrafting.png 01:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Support Aescopalus's idea - Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 02:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment - I think it's a mistake to have availability date as a separate infobox parameter in any circumstance. This can be solved either through prose, or more clever use of update history templates. No need to use confusingly similar parameters when a full sentence explanation is more effective.

On the overall proposal, I am having a hard time supporting this – I don't think config date is a more natural choice (especially to readers) than a date of obtainability, which is rarely actually ambiguous. ?oo? 09:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)