Reorganization pending.

What about things that were supposed to be released, but because of some bug or something, they didn't get released like the auction renewal.

That would be under skippd content unless it was specified as a bug by a nexon employee/representative.

The royal diamond leather items and the auction house are both listed as bugs.

Thread for anyone curious

So if we have proof of it being meant to be implemented but through some "bug" is not yet, would we then include it on this page or just the current bugs page? Assuming the answer to the previous question is just current bugs page, what if it specifically says it was supposed to come up in a specific patch (that is listed in the Patches page).

At the top of the page:

“	A patch, sometimes referred as updates, is a typically major addition to the game.	„

If it wasn't mentioned in the patch notes, then it shouldn't be on the page. Including things we didn't get (for whatever reason) could lead to confusion. With bugs, such as being able to place kiosks in another bag, mentioning it on the current bugs page is probably enough, but mentioning it on that specific page probably wouldn't hurt either. However, if it's something like the exclusion of the diamond leather set, then it'd be sufficient to just mark those items as unimplemented on their respective pages.

I have a minor disagreement. On occasion, a change takes place without being mentioned in the patch notes. If a change is observable, should it not be noted? (for example, at some point when the stores were updated to carry elf and giant gear after the introduction of Taillteann, they also removed several items like the Wooden Club)

The thing about those kinds of additions/removals is that since it isn't explicitly stated, one can only make an educated guess as to when it happened (ie. renaming of the Premium Adventurer Newbie Wear) if/when it's noticed. There may also be changes made that aren't part of a major patch, in which case the page would end up becoming messier since you'd then be pointing out specific patch versions.

So you suggest we strictly follow NA's patch notes, assuming they have any, and only paraphrase what they have? That would make most of this page pointless, NA doesn't go into nearly enough detail.

Once again, you're overcomplicating things and completely missing the context of a message. You asked, "So if we have proof of it being meant to be implemented but through some "bug" is not yet, would we then include it on this page or just the current bugs page?"

My post was in response to the skipped content that you were referring to in your question. Is skipped content ever mentioned in the patch notes? Nope, hence the "If it wasn't mentioned in the patch notes, then it shouldn't be on the page."

tl;dr no, that's not even remotely close to what I was suggesting.

The special inventory tab was included in patch notes, and the special inventory was "skipped" content.

@Shroom Fonzerelli - Just because something is hard to make look clean does not mean its an excuse to exclude that information.

I agree, I really want to just rename "Skipped Content" into something more politically correct but it would be wrong to add or remove anything to the section until the admins say something decisive and final.

“	@Shroom Fonzerelli - Just because something is hard to make look clean does not mean its an excuse to exclude that information.	„

Did you even bother reading the rest of his reply? No matter what you call it, you are referring to things that were not implemented when they were supposed to be. Who decides when they should be added, NA or KR? Saying that something was skipped based on KR will cause more incidents [this thread] to surface.

Yinato, you need not repeat yourself. Everyone in every discussion, including me, you, admins, have agreed that calling something "skipped" is incorrect and is player-opinion. However, we all agree that it is "unreleased", that neither means it will be released or will never be released. The question is whether we will include that on this page or its own page, which is a decision left up to admins, not you nor me. So please stop.

When in the name of Mother Mary who gave birth to Jesus Christ did I ever agree to renaming Skipped Content or that it was a "player opinion".

I wanted that thing gone, totally different from renaming it.

Mikaya wanted that thing gone as well and she's pretty much against any sort of Foreign Content. Unreleased is a different story however.

Kad said herself that she can't think of a good replacement for it and she was mostly up for removal on this page.

Yinato was also up with removal.

I said everyone agreed calling it skipped content is incorrect. I never said everyone agreed it should remain anywhere on the wiki or that it should be renamed. All to anything to a similar effect I said it that we all agree that such content is not released. Not that we should call it "unreleased", just that it is unreleased.

If everyone is in agreement, then why do you keep calling it skipped content? The reason why I'm repeating myself is because, although you say we're all in agreement on the matter, your comments say otherwise. And again, while you say that it's up the admins, you still continue to post why it should be on the page.

“	I agree, I really want to just rename "Skipped Content" into something more politically correct but it would be wrong to add or remove anything to the section until the admins say something decisive and final.	„

“	You don't have to tell me what Skipped Content's purpose was. If you look in the page's history, I was the one who added the section. (Yes I now regret using the term "Skipped" rather than something like "Unreleased".)	„

I continue to call it Skipped Content because the admins have yet to give it a new name. I sometimes call it Unreleased Content instead of Skipped Content, but that won't make a difference in discussion.

Yea you're right, I stopped and asked Lexis/the Admins to speak up, but you continue to post about this. That being said, if you reply to this, I probably will won't reply back.

It's fine if you don't answer, because this reply is only to give you advice. Stay consistent with your definitions and your arguments, and you'll avoid getting the above replies in the future.

He means given patch notes we should elaborate only on what was actually presented. For example a patch with a combat revamp. Simply saying combat revamp is not enough detail, so instead we state many skills have faster load times and added cooldowns. In response to mine, if something unnoted changes, it may be too messy to try to include it in a particular major update, so we should avoid that kind of announcement.

Also never call anything skipped content.