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.

Poll
'''This poll will decide if we should keep this category and/or the template. You must have 300 edits to vote and have been here for 3 months. The poll will last for 5 days, or to be exact, at 23:00 (UTC), 1/19/13.'''


 * 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)
 * 1)  00:40, 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)
 * 15:33, January 18, 2013 (UTC)
 * 15:47, January 18, 2013 (UTC)