Consider noting that unofficial community forks exist in the retirement notice #27

The retirement notice explains that the project ended because the Goodreads-backed metadata pipeline became unmaintainable. That's clear and reasonable, but it leaves people arriving at the site with no indication of what their options are — and the main repository is archived, so they can't ask there either.

Since the announcement, the community has produced working metadata solutions, most notably rreading-glasses, which serves the original API surface, and several maintained forks that bundle a metadata service directly.

Would you consider a short, neutral line in the retirement notice acknowledging that community-maintained options exist? Something like:

Readarr is no longer maintained by the Servarr team. Community forks and third-party metadata services exist and are not affiliated with or supported by this project.

The value is mostly in setting expectations: people currently land here, find a dead end, and go looking anyway. A sentence pointing out that anything they find is unofficial and unsupported is probably better for you than the alternative, where users assume a fork is an official continuation.

Entirely your call, and no offence taken if the answer is no — I understand not wanting to appear to endorse anything you don't control.

Disclosure: I maintain one of those forks, so I have an interest here. I've deliberately not linked it above; the suggestion is about the general statement, not about promoting any particular project.