Category talk:Unreleased Content

Pointless
What's the reasoning behind this category? There's no point in creating the episode pages before they are released, since there won't be any info in them. Seems really unnecessary. 16:18, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

This category might be pointless, but the template isn't. It's to ease confusion among users who browse between episodes/chapters/other content so that they don't start adding stuff to something that hasn't been released yet, this has happened before.

Why do we bother to add the next 4 episode pages before they're released anyways? Without them we don't need the template/category either.

Why not? It's a preparation so that we don't have to hurry and do it the day the episode is released. Having them there now only makes it easier for us later, and the template isn't just for episodes.

There is zero information on them. And it's hardly difficult to create an episode page every sunday. They are worthless pages and in some cases will be for the next 4 weeks. Pointless to have them now. What else would you use the category for? The occasional movie and? 16:37, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

I think this whole "Unreleased content" was made for situation like the last movie, rather then the episodes. I also believe some games are still unreleased. In my opinion, we can simply keep the template.

Get rid of both template and category. It is not a problem to create the episodes because nobody would do what Sewil said since they wouldn't have seen the episodes. SeaTerror (talk) 17:26, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

We have always made the articles when the titles are announced. The template and category are fine. 21:26, January 9, 2013 (UTC)

We have the release dates down on the episodes. It should be obvious that it isn't released if the date hasn't happened yet. Only an idiot would think that the episode is out when it isn't. We don't need either of these. 03:42, January 11, 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much what I already said, DP. :P So can we just vote on it and get it over with? SeaTerror (talk) 19:28, January 11, 2013 (UTC)

I don't think only idiots are concerned… Some people may assume that articles are only about released content. The template is informative in this regard. Moreover it has added value, since it reminds users that no rumors or speculation are allowed. The category is not as useful, but well, as long as there are pages about unreleased content, having a category to gather them is not absurd.

The dates are already mentioned. It would be their own fault for not reading. The fact is people wouldn't even add "information" to the articles because they could not have seen the content in question. SeaTerror (talk) 21:24, January 11, 2013 (UTC)

People should already know that we don't allow speculation, and it won't make a difference to an unenlightened user. I still don't see how it would serve any purpose. If you think it could be that much of a problem i can lock them until just before the episode airs. 21:26, January 11, 2013 (UTC)

Well, it wouldn't really solve the problem for movies or games (valid info is added regularly, often by anons, before the actual release). About the template: In the past, I remember regular users adding unsourced claims on movie or game articles, so I think the reminder is not useful only to noobs. Thing is, references are even more fundamental to articles about unreleased material than to other articles, since there are generally many rumors and fakes around. Now my question is, what harm do the template and category do? Of course, we can live without them, but I think the category makes the wiki more tidy and the template makes it more user-friendly—two rather desirable qualities for an online encyclopedia!

We can just remove anything that doesn't have a source, and that hasn't been a major issue as of late. They don't do any harm, but that doesn't mean they are useful. We don't need them, they're just vestigial at this point. 22:05, January 11, 2013 (UTC)

Can we vote on it now? SeaTerror (talk) 08:03, January 14, 2013 (UTC)

Make the poll. 08:07, January 14, 2013 (UTC)

Don't you guys notice that nobody has vandalized the pages? The category and templates help. 02:29, January 18, 2013 (UTC)


 * That's silly. Nobody is going to not vandalize these pages just because the template is there. 15:04, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

Well apparently the template does help Nada. Nobody has vandalized. 18:50, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it helps, just that no one has vandalized. If you want to make that claim, you would have to remove the template for a period of time and if indeed the page was vandalized during that time, then you could claim that the template is useful. Until you do that you have no way of knowing. 19:03, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

Except when the template wasn't there, the pages got constantly vandalized. That is the proof I need. 19:05, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/Episode_581?diff=818544&oldid=817560 SeaTerror (talk) 19:06, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

Cool. 1 guy vs. the 100 from before.

Stop changing the poll time. It stays unless it's discussed. That's how it works. 19:07, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, extend the poll time. It should be a week at least. We can always move this to a forum so you can't exploit the loophole. 19:09, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. It's been on the talk page for around 7 days now. You can't move it to a forum. 19:10, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

There really was no loophole since the 2 week rule was for all polls. SeaTerror (talk) 19:13, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

I guess making exceptions as we go along is allowed then? If it is, no one ever told me. 19:23, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

Last time I checked, a five-day poll is not the way we do things around here. The end date needs to be changed. 21:21, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

No rule about it PX. 22:07, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

You can either extend it here, or I'll move it to the deletion forum, where it will have to be extended. Your choice. 23:04, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

It's only good if it gets extended since it's a tie at the moment.

If you did that DP, it would be very childish. 23:26, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know following procedure was childish. It was childish of me not to move it there in the first place, and here we are. Two sentiments would cancel each other out in this case. But, like I said, it's your choice. Extend or move? 23:40, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

Procedure? Find this "written rule" and sure, I'll extend it. But without that, yes it would be childish. 23:42, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

Here's an example of a 5 day poll that happened, and nobody complained when they didn't like the results. . 23:44, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

It was never written because it was assumed that no one would be dumb enough to put a deletion poll on a talk page. And you complained because you were winning when ST said this should be moved or extended. 23:46, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

Then we need to have these rules written if somebody wants to be able to say that they're policy. And no I didn't complain because I was winning, I complained because it wouldn't be fair after 4 days of voting had already passed. SeaTerror is the one whining about losing (pming people in chat about it, etc). It's tied now and I still stand with what I originally said, it shouldn't be extended unless discussed, tied at the end, or a written rule is found. 23:49, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

It's not like the votes already cast would be discounted. They would simply be relocated with the vote extended. And from what I see, people have discussed extending it. 23:53, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

Sewil, you, ST, me. Hardly a discussion. 23:55, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

And obviously they wouldn't go away, but it would still be stupid to extend a poll at the last minute due to not liking the results or whatever (which is exactly why ST didn't bring it up until today.) 23:56, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

A discussion nonetheless, even if it didn't meet your high standards. And I actually meant to say something about it sooner, but didn't for various reasons, none of them having to do with a favored outcome. 23:59, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

What's the issue? Since it's a tie, we have to extend it anyway and as DP said, at this point we should also move it to a forum (it's fine either way, in my opinion). Why everybody is suddenly a lawyer? There are many things the guidelines doesn't cover, extending this poll doesn't brake any guidelines and usually should be alright as long there is a consensus, but since you disagree I presume you won't accept this. But the point stands: there is a tie and neither options won, and we still need to reach a decision, so how do you plan on doing it without extending the poll? I think we are pretty much bound to do it, it's not a guidelines problem... about moving it to a forum, I'm fine either way. Admins should add this poll to the site news though.

The poll hasn't ended yet Levi. 00:01, January 19, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I saw the date and thought it was ended. Then if we will end in a tie we will extend it. So the problem was the length? Well maybe it was a bit short, but it should have been changed sooner then.

Agree with Levi, though I don't care if it's extended after discussion.

Since it is so close on the last day, I feel like we should just extend it, but I guess if we don't extend it, it's not the worst thing in the world (as long as there's one option that wins). Regardless of what happens here, we should decide on something for talk page poll rules (or just agree that forum poll rules apply) since it's very likely that another dust-up like this would happen again if we don't. Also, I thought it was a common courtesy here for people to propose a poll format for others to see before the poll started in case anyone had problems, but that hasn't happened for the last few polls. I'm not sure, but don't think it's an official rule. Perhaps it should be. 05:19, January 19, 2013 (UTC)

If a tie happens, then an extension happens JSD. 05:24, January 19, 2013 (UTC)

@JSD: yep, I was thinking about opening a forum about this. Poll rules need to be strict and flawless, or this kind of things happen. Here it is.

What's with the edit war? 23:00 UTC was 45 minutes ago…

Because ST doesn't accept the fact that the poll is over. 23:49, January 19, 2013 (UTC)

The 21st isn't the 19th. SeaTerror (talk) 23:50, January 19, 2013 (UTC)

You're correct, but what does it have to do with the edit war?

Because the poll isn't over until at least a week has passed. SeaTerror (talk) 23:53, January 19, 2013 (UTC)

Not a rule. Stop bringing irrelevant dates into the poll. 23:55, January 19, 2013 (UTC)

Galaxy, you exploited a loophole just to prevent two vestigial things from getting deleted. I also have it on good authority that you annoyed multiple people into voting for what you wanted, and annoyed them at such a time that you sniped the vote. Therefore, I'm extending this poll an additional 48 hours, ending at 23:00 on December 21, during which time the people you annoyed into voting are implored to change or remove their vote as they see fit. 00:17, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Wtf dp. You annoyed people as well, so if you think I'm just going to sit here and let you lie to everybody, then you're wrong. 00:18, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

A quote from Coffee: "DP and ST annoyed the shit out of me, so I voted with them". 00:19, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Nothing like taking something egregiously out of context. I have nothing to hide, and even if you can spin it to make it look like I did, it sure as hell doesn't compare to the scale on which you did it. 00:22, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

The poll has already ended. How can you just extend it when it has been ended? It doesn't matter how we earned our votes, and the fact that you extend it exactly two days is just making it comfortable to make it one week, which isn't a rule.

Yes it does matter Sewil. He made other people vote, that isn't actually more fair, extending it two more will give the chance to the people who wanted to change their votes. Here is proof of Caring admitting that Galaxy made her vote, because she only wanted him to stop annoying her. She later removed her vote, but Galaxy undid it. 00:33, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Inb4 "photoshopped comments. SeaTerror (talk) 00:34, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

And the way you got that message is how? Caring pmed you about it? Nope. You or DP pmed her and said "why'd you vote for that option!"

DP annoyed people too, so don't be a hypocrite. 00:35, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

He undid it because the poll was already over.

If the deadline was set before the vote started, then it cannot be extended unless the result was inconclusive at the end date. 00:37, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

I went to SoF wiki, since she is usually on there. I just said "Can I ask you a question?", she admitted after that, she didn't even know my question. So, no, I didn't say "why'd you vote for that option!", that seems very rude. 00:41, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Your intention was still to ask her about the poll. It's pretty obvious. 00:43, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Does sniping the vote by cajoling people into voting a certain way count as inconclusive? 00:44, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

The date was set that way to try to fit an agenda, Yata. SeaTerror (talk) 00:45, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

You did the same thing DP. As proven multiple times before. 00:47, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Multiple? Since when did your one egregiously out of context example become multiple? Lemme guess, Name Spelling forum vote? One person's word against mine and several others. What else ya got? 00:49, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Coffee's words from last night. You constantly saying "pm kuro. you have a pm!". It was obvious what you were doing. Stop acting innocent and admit your mistakes. "One person's word against mine", just because you're admin, it doesn't make you 100x higher than the rest of us. 00:52, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that. Yes, I was pming with him last night, only mine wasn't working, so i would have to inform the people I was pming on the main chat that I had just typed something. While I'll admit that part of the conversation was about that, I was merely checking to see if you had annoyed him into voting and kindly asked him one time to vote to delete it. It wasn't anywhere near as nefarious as you're trying to make it out to be. 00:58, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns3M1Sj6x4o SeaTerror (talk) 01:00, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

So you still asked him. Doesn't matter how nicely you asked him. Also, the coffee vote, who blatantly told me that you annoyed him 01:02, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Your point is invalid too, because he told me that you annoyed him first to vote. 01:12, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who annoyed who. The point of the matter is 2 people annoyed 1 person. You annoyed to change the vote from what I talked about first. Once again, stop being a hypocrite and admit to your mistakes. 01:14, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Who? 01:16, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

You obviously. You went to the SOF chat to ask her about the vote and to change it. 01:17, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Because you had cajoled her into doing it, and Caring even said so. 01:20, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Poll
The voting has been extended to 23:00 UTC on January 21, 2013.


 * 1. Delete the Category and template
 * 23:05, January 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) SeaTerror (talk) 23:06, January 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * 23:47, January 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * 00:10, January 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * 01:20, January 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * 20:35, January 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1)  00:10, January 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2)  00:40, January 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * 22:23, January 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * 22:23, January 19, 2013 (UTC)


 * 2. Keep just the category.
 * 3. Keep just the template.
 * 3. Keep just the template.
 * 3. Keep just the template.
 * 3. Keep just the template.


 * 4. Keep both the category and template.
 * 23:01, January 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * 23:03, January 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Klobis (talk) 01:55, January 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) (I preferred saving only the template, but otherwise they will both be deleted)
 * 15:33, January 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * 15:47, January 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * 04:18, January 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * 21:26, January 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * 22:36, January 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Caring16:) (talk) 22:39, January 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * 23:55, January 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Caring16:) (talk) 22:39, January 19, 2013 (UTC)
 * 23:55, January 19, 2013 (UTC)