Category talk:Unreleased Content

Due to conflicts, this category talk and the associated poll results are locked and suspended until the poll rules are sorted out.   02:56, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Unlocked, please feel free to continue. 15:09, September 29, 2013 (UTC)

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)

I politely talked to her about the advantages and disadvantages. Once again, you had no business asking her why she would vote for a certain option, and it's obvious you were trying to just change her mind. 01:22, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Gal, don't ever use my name, and the situation I was in without my permission again on a forum or talk page. The point is that I don't care. Multiple people were included in this situation, but I never cared because people were being incredibly annoying in multiple PMs. I really couldn't give a damn what is decided, but some people don't seem to understand that I'm not just some waterboy. -- 01:23, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

You told the main chat. It's fair game. 01:24, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

I've had it with this. Whether I used it in main chat or not, it need not matter, because I've said multiple times I don't care about this situation. Continue to argue to your heart's content, I will not be involved in any more of this situation nor do I want my name used again. 01:27, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

I didn't even tell her to change her vote. That was her own decision, I didn't ask her upfront about the vote, she felt sorry, but I told it was ok and that I wasn't mad. I later asked her if she could join the chat more often like she used to because I miss her. That was our entire conversation, because my chat was laggy and I closed the chat. 01:28, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

I never asked her, actually. Calua told me. 01:31, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

And yet a conversation about "how you're doing" turns into a poll discussion. Nothing disregards the fact that your intentions were to ask her about the poll, which is something discouraged.

DP: You still asked other people to vote in your favor though. Admit your mistakes! 01:33, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget what you said in main chat: "Besty PM Image stuff" Then he voted right after that. Nice one there. SeaTerror (talk) 01:43, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Already admitted to doing what I did, but DP and Calu continue to make theirs seem harmless, which is hypocritical. 01:47, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Why don't we just scratch the poll and restart it, because according to everyone here, half the users were convinced one way or another. 01:54, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

No PX. Because then the SAME thing happens again. 01:55, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Well according to you, this poll is rigged anyways. Not to mention that little affair with the length of the poll and whatnot. Now that everyone has been accused three times over, I'm a little more inclined to believe that the practice will slack off. Anyways, why does it matter? People want their option to win, and they can say whatever they want about it to other people. It's up to those who vote what they vote for. For all those who were apparently annoyed beyond belief, stick up for yourself. We can't control what people say. 02:03, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

What we need is to discuss poll rules Forum:Poll Rules. Without these, nothing can be enforced correctly and crap like this happens. 02:05, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/One_Piece_Encyclopedia:Forum_Rules#Forum_Poll_Rules Here's the poll voting rules anyway. SeaTerror (talk) 02:05, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

For forums. 02:06, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

You're the only one who actually thinks it only applies to forums. You only claim that to fit your own agenda. SeaTerror (talk) 02:08, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Except everybody considers it just to be for forums. It's in the FORUM RULES for christs sake. 02:08, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Just yourself isn't everybody. SeaTerror (talk) 02:10, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

You're making assumptions. You and DP seem to be the only ones who misunderstand the forum rules (but DP actually adknowledges that it's not applied to talk pages now). 02:11, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Obviously pages have different namespaces. If it says it is for forums it is for forums and not talk pages. What's the problem?

Has anyone noticed that we used to follow that rule until Galaxy joined the wiki? 02:17, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

That voting rule is for everything and applies to everything on this wiki. Two weeks is the rule for any vote. Now I can add that you two are the only ones since it isn't only Galaxy who claims it only applies to forums now. SeaTerror (talk) 02:19, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Still being stupid ST. Calu, my polls are always 2 weeks, if they're on a forum. This one was on a talk page, so it wasn't needed. Once again, go to Forum:Poll Rules if you want to discuss how a poll should be on every page. 02:20, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to keep my responses limited to this specific issue, for things about poll rules, keep it in the new forum, so that that discussion can thrive, and this one stays on topic.

First of all, people in this forum have admitted to foul play. So I think merely extending the poll is just extending a corrupt vote. We should just throw these results away, and start again.

Also, while the rules about length are debatably more for forums, this set of rules should clearly apply to the issue of voter tampering here. People have admitted to, or been proven to have tampered with the voters here, and consequences should be given to those that could not deal with this in an honest way. Chat bans, full wiki bans or something else should be discussed elsewhere as a result of this. This is not our finest moment, and over something so trivial too... 02:24, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

So you admitted to trying to exploit a loophole you made up by trying to claim that only applies to forums when it applies to all votes. SeaTerror (talk) 02:24, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Like I said before JSD, restarting the poll leads to the same corruption from before. People will just annoy each other over and over. The only way to resolve this is to prevent that kind of stuff on the other forum. SeaTerror, once again, it only applies to forum polls. 02:26, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Can you guys discuss this somewhere else, in an actual forum maybe? This talk page is NOT made for complaining about poll results of the talk page, or debating on the rules and such. Move this discussion somewhere else, please. 02:26, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, first of all. If you guys/girls can't decide whether or not to delete this category on this one poll alone, then why even have the poll in the first place? If we can't put up with a marginal win on the votes, then polls are useless. Can't we just take the results based on the votes and call it a day? And ST, you have no right to just extend the polls without an admin's permission. 02:26, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Only in yours and Sewil's minds does it only apply to the forums, Galaxy. Also Yata I wasn't the one who extended it. It was DP. SeaTerror (talk) 02:29, January 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/Category_talk:Unreleased_content?diff=821777&oldid=821776, that you did several times. Also, stop making assumptions.

Somewhere, someone's got to give here. I say that we scratch these results and wait to hold the new vote until AFTER the poll rules are decided upon. This way, there will be no complaining over the bad qualities of the voting process. Until then, the template and category stay. 02:29, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Except it obviously applies to other people's minds too. You kept edit warring to extend it after DP stopped. 02:30, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

We can't get the same corruption if people who corrupted the first poll (like Gal and others) are banned like they should be. At the very least if we poll again, anyone who was involved in the corruption for the first poll should not be allowed to vote on the second poll. 02:32, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not making any assumptions. It is a fact that the voting rules are what they are. You can change the voting rules on the new forum if you want to. Also you two were the only ones who undid the extension. Nobody else did. 02:34, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

None of these actions consistute a ban JSD. You're being overdramatic. 02:34, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

You all know what? Just stop the argument on this poll first, our priority is to sort out the poll rules. After that, then we can get back to here. 02:45, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, Yata. 02:47, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

That sounds VERY agreeable to me, Yata. I suggest locking this page until that time. 02:50, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Poll
The poll is over. It ended at 23:00 on January 19, 2013. The template and category remain.


 * 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)

Let's Try This Again
It's been awhile since we looked at this, but the issue still needs to be dealt with. Do we keep the Category and/or Template for Unreleased Content?

Personally, I say both should be kept. The category is good because it's nice to have information on all things that are coming out, and to be able to get a list of those things in one place. It may seem useless for things like upcoming episodes, but with things like upcoming videogames, movies, specials, etc. it's much more useful. The template is also useful, because these things are typically vandalized by idiots.

As for where we go from here, I hope my reasons I mentioned above can help re-start a conversation on this and we can avoid a poll if there's a clear majority. However, if we can't decide still, the format of the old poll is probably fine now. And anyone who corrupted the last one shouldn't be allowed to vote this time. 15:34, September 29, 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think that just template is enough but if we decide to keep the category, we should rename it to "Unreleased Content" since we capitalize all the categories. 15:37, September 29, 2013 (UTC)

The category is useful because it allows you to see all the unreleased things in one place, and then check on useful info, like release dates, etc. 15:41, September 29, 2013 (UTC)

Well, you have a point but I don't think that many people are interested in that stuff. I don't really care though as long as the template stays. 15:44, September 29, 2013 (UTC)

Kill at least the category, preferably both. My views on this issue remain as I detailed them in the earlier discussion. 15:48, September 29, 2013 (UTC)

I still think we can kill both. If we have even an approximate release date, people will realize "oh, that date hasn't happened yet, this must not be available." It's simple deduction. 15:51, September 29, 2013 (UTC)

Not everyone pays attention to the release dates, the template at least should stay. 15:56, September 29, 2013 (UTC)

That's all well and good if you're looking at one article, DP, but not so if you're interested in looking at multiple articles. All categories are kind of obvious if you're looking at one article. For example, I don't need to see that Edward Newgate is categorized as male to know that he's a dude. That is a simple deduction as well, and shows that categories don't exist for that purpose. Instead things like Category:Male exist more for browsing through to find other characters that are male, not to inform you about the article you're already on. Look at this from a wider perspective, and it's no different from other categories we already have. 16:00, September 29, 2013 (UTC)

But in this category every article is of different kind so i don't understand why a reader would be interested, 16:07, September 29, 2013 (UTC)

Delete them both. SeaTerror (talk) 07:02, October 2, 2013 (UTC)

Why, ST? 09:20, October 2, 2013 (UTC)

Instead of discussing this from the beginning, shall we make a real poll and get this over with. The past options will do. 15:50, October 2, 2013 (UTC)

Keep category and template. But yes lets at least have a proper poll now. 17:30, October 2, 2013 (UTC)

No. It has to be discussed again. There's too large of a gap. SeaTerror (talk) 18:37, October 2, 2013 (UTC)

What gap? Nothing has changed. 06:02, October 3, 2013 (UTC)

Mind explaining what you mean ST? 16:20, October 3, 2013 (UTC)

Pretty obvious what I meant. January to October is far too large of a gap to just do a poll. SeaTerror (talk) 18:25, October 3, 2013 (UTC)

Nothing changed. 15:42, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

And why would it be too large a gap? 16:10, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

These sections are for discussing, not just polling. It's been so long since the last poll, we are NOT going to just poll it without a discussion. Jeez Staw, have you never heard of the term "debate"?

I don't agree with both the category and template, and would prefer they're both gone. But if I had to choose to keep one of them, I'd choose the category. Anybody who can read don't need the template. The first sentence of the video game/movie pages even say "upcoming". I don't think vandals really care what's already on the page. If they can vandal, they will. 19:45, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

The template is effective against not necessarily vandals, but idiots who wish to add unconfirmed/unsourced junk to pages. Just look at the example I linked in my first post in this section.

And this discussion has gone for a good amount of time. I think we should move towards the poll again. The poll design is simpler if we just have 2 questions ("Delete the template?", "Delete the category?") as opposed to the 4 option one last time. Also, I stand by my statement from before the first discussion was closed: DP and Galaxy should not be allowed to vote this time. 20:05, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

And how are video game idiots different than idiots who add unsourced material to other articles? Idiots are still vandals but to less of a degree sometimes. Unreleased or not, vandals will add any stupid crap they see fit. Neither of these things will make a difference. 20:12, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

The templates have cut down vandalism a lot. It's pretty apparent if you actually check the history pages of unreleased content. 22:53, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed. SeaTerror (talk) 23:10, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

Citation is every episode page since we started using it, and every page before. Please research before asking for citations. It makes work easier, and makes the wiki function better!

Also, I'd like a 100 word or more explanation of how the template is useless, instead of "it's useless because it's useless. I'd like citations, and a little bit of analysis. If you can provide that, maybe I'll change my mind! 23:16, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

The pages only got vandalized like once or twice and not all the time like you have been implying. They were both created for no reason other than just to get more edits. SeaTerror (talk) 23:41, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

A vandal isn't going to see a template asking not to vandalize and say "oh, they asked nicely. I won't do it, then". SeaTerror even gave an example of the page being vandalized when it was first implemented. Vandals aren't going to leave a page alone because a template was there. The template does nothing for vandalism. The only reason there has been less vandalism is because the vandals chose to not vandalize it at this time. How do you think a vandal thinks? 23:53, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

Regardless, the decrease in vandalism is pretty obvious. It gets vandalized way less. How can you speculate and say that they "chose" not to vandalize it? The only "real" vandalism that existed in the past were inexperienced users adding nonsense to those pages... and it happens way less now. Please cite examples of it getting vandalized the same amount. 00:16, October 5, 2013 (UTC)

I have always found that telling them not to vandalise makes them more likely to vandalise because they know it will annoy everyone on the wiki. Anyway it seems there are only two people who want any of this to stay. 08:10, October 5, 2013 (UTC)

They do nothing to cut down vandalism. The evidence of absence is not the absence of evidence. Just because some pages get vandalized more than others does not mean the template is useful, it means that those pages are easier to vandalize and troll on. There is no significant correlation between either the category or the template and how much people piss on a page. Wanna know what other pages get vandalized way less? Semi- and fully protected pages. There are other factors behind why certain pages get vandalized besides a useless template and category. I have noticed no significant change in vandalism on pages from before and after they were given the template. We may be experiencing a decline in vandalism overall, but nothing specifically significant to the pages in question. 09:08, October 5, 2013 (UTC)

That's untrue Rainbow. I count 13 people on the poll above.

@ DP: You aren't looking then I guess. I haven't seen the same level of vandalism on those unreleased pages ever since we got those templates. 11:02, October 5, 2013 (UTC)

That's because it was practically nonexistent in the first place. SeaTerror (talk) 17:53, October 5, 2013 (UTC)

It definitely existed.

I'd love to see reasoning as to how the template is hurting the wiki. Can you provide something like that? 17:57, October 5, 2013 (UTC)

And if we are going to show off our maths then I calculate that it is 9 months since that poll. Meaning it needs to be done again as opinions have changed. By 2 people I meant 2 people who have posted on this particular discussion. 18:54, October 5, 2013 (UTC)

Oh great, now you're pulling the damage card. Just because something isn't hurting the wiki, doesn't mean it's useful or necessary. The appendix isn't useful or necessary, and yet we're all born with one and for the most part it has no effect on the body. And ST is right, the "problem" it's supposed to fix is a minute and manageable one. It's not like unreleased episode and video game pages were overrun with people smearing useless crap all over them before the template was put it in. The template and category are essentially putting a bandage where there isn't a cut. 02:10, October 6, 2013 (UTC)

Another thing about the template is that even if wrong information is put on it (not necessarily vandalism), it'll be added regardless of it being there or not. The game could be out for a month and somebody could find something that's incorrect with it on the internet and add it in. When somebody thinks they know something that's not listed on a page, they'll add it regardless if it's true or false. Even pages about released content can have speculation. 02:26, October 6, 2013 (UTC)