Confusing ![badge-legacy-recommended][] added to rules list table

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

In JoshuaKGoldberg/eslint-plugin-package-json#993, every recommended rule in the generated rules list table is adding a ![badge-legacy-recommended][] next to its ✅ emoji. I have no idea why:

- | Name                                             | Description                                      | 💼                              | 🔧 | 💡 | ❌  |
- | :------------------------------------------------| :----------------------------------------------- | :------------------------------ | :- | :- | :- |
- | [no-empty-fields](docs/rules/no-empty-fields.md) | Reports on unnecessary empty arrays and objects. | ✅ ![badge-legacy-recommended][] |    | 💡 |    |

Sorry I don't have a more isolated reproduction, I'm a bit swamped at the moment 😅. But you can reproduce that PR with:

gh repo clone https://github.com/JoshuaKGoldberg/eslint-plugin-package-json
cd eslint-plugin-package-json
gh pr checkout 993
pnpm i
pnpm build:docs

Edit: I think it's that the package exports a legacy-recommended config that doesn't have a default emoji. But this is a confusing experience as an end-user.

Proposal: can there be either some indication of why the invalid markdown is being added? Maybe a console warning?

[bmish]

Currently, markdown badges will be used when a config doesn't have an emoji specified (many common configs have default emojis specified). Note that you still have to define the image used for the badge elsewhere in your markdown file for it to render properly. More info: https://github.com/bmish/eslint-doc-generator?tab=readme-ov-file#badges

I have an issue to fix this confusing behavior so that any badge usage would be explicit and not used by default, since we recommend using emojis instead badges:

• Deprecate and remove support for badges defined in READMEs #499

[JoshuaKGoldberg]

Cool that makes sense, thanks! Is the resolution that this should just be closed out? Alternately, if it's a long time until breaking changes can land, I wouldn't mind sending the PR to add a warning just to have the code deleted eventually.