Category talk:Products that contain Rules

Category Title

I am wondering whether the term 'Obsolete Products' is the best fit here. Some of these products contain components that are still quite usable, like maps, miniatures, et cetera. Also within the rule sets themselves some of the changes are fairly minor. Perhaps the term "Superseded" would be better. Also it would be better to make this clear that this applies to the rules with these products, rather than the products themselves. It is important not to conflate products with rule sets. A rulebook and rule set have a very close correspondence, for general products, products and rules can be very much indpendent. So "Superseded Rules" might possibly be a better tag. Perhaps there are other suggestions. But these are some concerns I see. --Dude RB (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2022 (EDT)

I will clarify in that I felt the word "superseded" doesn't mean anything to newer players and sticking with a simple nomenclature the word meaning is really "replaced by". I didn't like calling these sorts of products "replaced" as like you say they are still quite usable. I also didn't like the term "retired" for the same reason. Additionally this change to label past products that are not considered currently used came out a suggestion posed by User:MahiMahi on discord with User:Dmon approving the suggestion. I am only involved with the creation of the template and this category that is filled via it --Deadfire (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2022 (EDT)

Deadfire, perhaps others will chime in. Actually for me the bigger issue is the "Product" moniker. (The adjective choice is a separate second discussion). Some of the products tagged are boxed sets. I surmise they are being tagged because they contain a rulebook. But the tag unfortunately comes across as applying to the full product. Narrowing the category name to either the rulebook or ruleset would be helpful to make the distinction clearer. So "Obsolete/Superseded Rulebook" or "Obsolete/Superseded Ruleset" (with the term Obsolete/Superseded repalced with an adjective) would seem apropo. --Dude RB (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2022 (EDT)

Just to be clear, I have not approved the suggestion, I was agreeing with a statement, not endorsing the project. I stand by my belief that it is not something we should do. --Dmon (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2022 (EDT)

Perhaps "Legacy Ruleset" would be appropriate?--Cache (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2022 (EDT)

Legacy rules is the term I often encounter in when talking about other games so it does seem more appropriate and a lot less harsh. Other than Battledroids and the earlier Mechwarrior RPGs do we actually have any real legacy rulesets or just refinements?--Dmon (talk) 08:58, 30 May 2022 (EDT)

I do prefer Legacy Rulesets to Obsolete Products, and as noted elsewhere, the Red X (or anything red) sends the wrong signal.--Talvin (talk) 10:11, 30 May 2022 (EDT)

Personally, I regard the entire category (its existence, not only its name) as misleading. BattleTech is kinda sorta famous for not having (many) obsolete rules. Few of the rulebooks in this category are actually obsolete or superseded or outdated. Newer rulebooks often add or clarify rules - but that does not devaluate older rulebooks. For example, the first item in this category is the 25 Year Anniversary boxed set of all things. What part of it is outdated/superseded/obsolete please? If I'm not mistaken, every last bit in the rulebook is still 100% accurate and up-to-date. Why are we even tagging this? Sarna isn't selling or advertising this stuff. We're collating information, nothing more. And based on that stance, I feel the category isn't only superfluous, it's outright wrong to have. Frabby (talk) 11:21, 30 May 2022 (EDT)